REVIEW 1 cited by
Teaching Networks to Solve Optimization Problems
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Leveraging machine learning to facilitate the optimization process is an emerging field that holds the promise to bypass the fundamental computational bottleneck caused by classic iterative solvers in critical applications requiring near-real-time optimization. The majority of existing approaches focus on learning data-driven optimizers that lead to fewer iterations in solving an optimization. In this paper, we take a different approach and propose to replace the iterative solvers altogether with a trainable parametric set function, that outputs the optimal arguments/parameters of an optimization problem in a single feed forward. We denote our method as Learning to Optimize the Optimization Process (LOOP). We show the feasibility of learning such parametric (set) functions to solve various classic optimization problems including linear/nonlinear regression, principal component analysis, transport-based coreset, and quadratic programming in supply management applications. In addition, we propose two alternative approaches for learning such parametric functions, with and without a solver in the LOOP. Finally, through various numerical experiments, we show that the trained solvers could be orders of magnitude faster than the classic iterative solvers while providing near optimal solutions.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Learning to Optimize Joint Chance-constrained Power Dispatch Problems
A machine learning proxy with a set aggregator and a feasible-projection module predicts solutions to a joint chance-constrained VPP dispatch problem in about 3 milliseconds, but at a roughly 10% higher objective cost...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.