Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

SPL-LNS: Sampling-Enhanced Large Neighborhood Search for Solving Integer Linear Programs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Sampling locally-informed proposals beats greedy selection in neural large neighborhood search for ILPs.

desk verdict A plausible recipe for improving learned LNS, but the supplied text is too corrupted to verify the empirical claims and the compute-budget question is open. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16171 v1 pith:RZSMZQ5L submitted 2025-08-22 cs.LG

Shengyu Feng , Zhiqing Sun , Yiming Yang This is my paper
classification cs.LG MSC 90C1090C5968T20
keywords largeneighborhoodsearchintegerlinearprogrammingneuralcombinatorialoptimizationsamplinghindsightrelabelingstochasticprocessself-generateddataproposalpolicy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper targets Integer Linear Programs (ILPs), where Large Neighborhood Search (LNS) iteratively destroys a current feasible solution and solves a subproblem over the destroyed part to find a better one. Prior neural LNS solvers learn to greedily predict the single best next solution, which the paper argues traps them in local optima and wastes data. SPL-LNS instead samples a batch of locally-informed proposals from a learned policy, evaluates each one, and keeps the best, framing LNS as a stochastic process. To train the sampler without expert solutions, it uses hindsight relabeling on self-generated rollouts. The paper reports that SPL-LNS outperforms previous neural LNS solvers on ILP families of various sizes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the learned 'locally-informed proposal' distribution: a generative policy that, given the current feasible solution and the ILP instance, proposes several candidate repaired solutions by solving a local subproblem. The argument is carried by (1) the stochastic-process formulation of LNS, which makes the proposal distribution an explicit object to learn; (2) the sampling step that draws multiple proposals per iteration instead of committing to the greedy argmax; and (3) hindsight relabeling, which uses the best solution found during a rollout as the target for the proposals that led to it, enabling training entirely on self-generated rollouts.

What would settle it

Hold training data and compute budget fixed; on a held-out ILP family from a different generator, compare SPL-LNS with sampling against a version that replaces sampling with the greedy argmax of the same learned policy. If the greedy version matches or beats the sampled version in final objective, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a neural LNS policy trained to sample diverse, locally-informed neighborhood proposals—rather than to output a single greedy repair—combined with a hindsight-relabeling training loop on self-generated data, yields better final objective values than prior neural LNS solvers. The paper formalizes LNS as a stochastic process whose transition is the proposal-and-repair step, and treats the proposal distribution as learnable. SPL-LNS draws multiple proposals conditioned on the current solution, solves each corresponding subproblem, and accepts the best feasible solution found; the hindsight relabeler turns observed improvements into supervised training targets, allowing

Load-bearing premise

The learned proposal policy, trained only by hindsight relabeling on its own rollouts, assigns sufficiently high probability to improving proposals on unseen ILP families and instance sizes, so that sampling from it reliably escapes local optima.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under a fixed iteration budget, sampling multiple proposals rather than committing to the greedy prediction reduces the chance of converging to a poor local optimum, so the final objective improves.
  • Hindsight relabeling provides a training signal from the solver's own rollouts, removing the need for expert demonstrations or an optimal solver to generate labels.
  • The stochastic-process view of LNS could support quantitative analysis of sample efficiency and be reused by other search heuristics.
  • Because the reported gains span ILP families and instance sizes, the approach suggests a general-purpose learned LNS component rather than a per-instance tuned heuristic.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to vary the number of samples per iteration; the paper's logic predicts diminishing returns as the batch grows, which would separate the benefit of sampling from the benefit of extra compute.
  • The hindsight-relabeling mechanism resembles goal relabeling in goal-conditioned reinforcement learning, so the same training scheme may transfer to mixed-integer nonlinear programs or constraint satisfaction problems where LNS is applied.
  • The learned proposal distribution could be combined with portfolio selection over destroy operators or with a classical LNS destroy-repair heuristic as a fallback, potentially improving robustness on out-of-distribution instances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SPL-LNS, a sampling-enhanced large neighborhood search method for integer linear programs. It frames LNS as a stochastic process, replaces the greedy proposal step with sampling over locally-informed proposals, and trains the proposal policy with a hindsight relabeling objective on self-generated data. The abstract claims that SPL-LNS substantially surpasses prior neural LNS solvers on ILPs of different sizes. In the supplied text, the abstract and a few fragments are readable, but the full body is heavily corrupted: equations, tables, experimental details, and related-work descriptions are largely unreadable. The available fragments mention 'computational budget' and 'fair comparison', but no quantitative results or baseline details are legible.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, SPL-LNS would make a useful contribution to neural ILP solving: the stochastic-process formulation gives a principled way to think about local optima, and the hindsight relabeling training scheme is a practical way to learn from self-generated rollouts. However, the empirical claim is the load-bearing part of the paper, and the supplied manuscript provides no readable experimental evidence. The sampling mechanism could simply be buying improvements with additional inference compute, and the self-training scheme needs a concrete demonstration that it is the source of the gain rather than a circular fit to the solver's own reachable solutions. Without a readable experimental section with compute-controlled comparisons and ablations, the significance of the contribution cannot be assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (experimental section)] The central claim, 'SPL-LNS substantially surpasses prior neural LNS solvers,' is unsupported in the supplied text. The abstract gives no quantitative numbers, and the experimental section is corrupted/unreadable, so baselines, instance families, problem sizes, objective values, standard deviations, and computational settings are not verifiable. Because this is an empirical paper, the absence of a readable results section is a load-bearing issue, not a presentation nit.
  2. [Sampling mechanism and computational budget] SPL-LNS differs from greedy baseline solvers by sampling multiple locally-informed proposals per iteration. If the comparison does not match computational effort across methods—e.g., if baselines receive one proposal per step while SPL-LNS evaluates many, or if wall-clock time is not controlled—then the reported gains could be due to extra inference compute rather than to the learned proposal policy or hindsight relabeling. The readable fragments mention 'computational budget' and 'fair comparison,' but no details are legible. The authors should report compute-matched comparisons (same wall-clock time, same number of solver calls, or same total inference passes) explicitly.
  3. [Hindsight relabeling training (Section 3)] Training with hindsight relabeling on self-generated data introduces a partial circularity: the proposal policy is fitted to solutions that its own rollouts can reach, so the policy's apparent competence may not imply an ability to find improving moves on new instances. This is not by itself disqualifying, but the paper needs to show that the learned sampler improves over a greedy policy under equal rollout/compute budgets and that the benefit generalizes to held-out instance families. I specifically request an ablation that compares SPL-LNS against (a) a greedy proposal with equal compute, (b) sampling with a random or uniform proposal, and (c) a policy trained on expert or externally generated trajectories. Without such an ablation, the contribution of the hindsight relabeling and sampling design is not isolated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should report at least one quantitative result (e.g., average improvement over the strongest baseline and the instance sizes considered). Phrases like 'substantially surpasses' are not falsifiable without numbers.
  2. [Full text / formatting] The supplied full text is severely corrupted: most equations, references, and experimental tables are unreadable. The authors must provide a clean, correctly encoded manuscript before the paper can be reviewed or published.
  3. [Notation and stochastic-process formulation] The stochastic-process formulation is barely legible in the supplied text. Definitions of the proposal distribution, the sampling budget, and the acceptance of sampled solutions should be stated clearly and precisely.
  4. [Related work] The references to prior neural LNS solvers are garbled. Please ensure they are properly cited and that the differences from specifically named baselines are discussed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the training loop is self-referential but the claim is anchored to external objective values.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that SPL-LNS outperforms prior neural LNS solvers on ILP objective values. The method trains a proposal policy with hindsight relabeling on self-generated rollouts, which is a standard reinforcement-learning technique. This does not make the evaluation circular: the objective values are computed by the ILP objective function, and the test instances are distinct from the training data. The 'locally-informed proposals' are produced by a learned policy, but the improvement over greedy is measured empirically rather than being an identity. No equation or passage in the available (partially garbled) manuscript defines the predicted quantity as the fitted input, and no load-bearing self-citation is quoted. The plausible concern that sampling many proposals may consume more compute than greedy baselines is an experimental-control issue, not a circularity. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's ingredients live at abstract level: a learned proposal distribution, a sampling budget, neighborhood sizes, relabeling ratios, and the network's capacity are all tunable quantities whose values are not accessible. The main axiomatic weight is on the self-training loop, that a policy trained with hindsight relabeling on its own rollouts remains a competent proposal generator on held-out instances. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • number of samples per LNS iteration (sampling budget)
    The 'sampling-enhanced' proposal step requires choosing how many proposals to draw per iteration; this trades compute against local-optima escape probability and is not stated in the abstract.
  • neighborhood destruction size
    Standard LNS hyperparameter controlling how many variables are freed for repair each iteration; affects the difficulty of the proposal task.
  • hindsight relabeling ratio and replay mix
    How much of the training batch comes from hindsight-relabeled self-generated trajectories, plus the ratio of accepted versus rejected moves retained.
  • network architecture and optimizer hyperparameters
    The learned proposal distribution depends on the neural architecture, learning rate, and training epochs; values not accessible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LNS is adequately modeled as a stochastic process whose transition distribution is the learned proposal policy, and sampling from that distribution explores improving solutions.
    Motivates the sampling mechanism in the abstract; the formal derivation is not readable in the supplied text.
  • domain assumption ILP objective values are externally verifiable, so comparing SPL-LNS against baselines on true objective values is a valid external yardstick.
    Underpins the empirical claim; standard for combinatorial optimization.
  • domain assumption Prior neural LNS baselines are reimplemented and compared under fair computational budgets.
    The claim 'substantially surpasses' is only meaningful if baselines are strong and budgets matched; fragments of the full text mention fair comparison and computational budget.
  • standard math A neural network can learn proposal distributions correlated with locally optimal repairs from self-generated trajectories.
    Standard function-approximation assumption for learned LNS policies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SPL-LNS: Sampling-Enhanced Large Neighborhood Search for Solving Integer Linear Programs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZSMZQ5L

@misc{pith2026250816171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SPL-LNS: Sampling-Enhanced Large Neighborhood Search for Solving Integer Linear Programs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZSMZQ5L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16171}
}
read the original abstract

Large Neighborhood Search (LNS) is a common heuristic in combinatorial optimization that iteratively searches over a large neighborhood of the current solution for a better one. Recently, neural network-based LNS solvers have achieved great success in solving Integer Linear Programs (ILPs) by learning to greedily predict the locally optimal solution for the next neighborhood proposal. However, this greedy approach raises two key concerns: (1) to what extent this greedy proposal suffers from local optima, and (2) how can we effectively improve its sample efficiency in the long run. To address these questions, this paper first formulates LNS as a stochastic process, and then introduces SPL-LNS, a sampling-enhanced neural LNS solver that leverages locally-informed proposals to escape local optima. We also develop a novel hindsight relabeling method to efficiently train SPL-LNS on self-generated data. Experimental results demonstrate that SPL-LNS substantially surpasses prior neural LNS solvers for various ILP problems of different sizes.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Achterberg, T. 2009. SCIP: solving constraint integer programs. Mathematical Programming Computation, 1: 1--41

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Addanki, R.; Nair, V.; and Alizadeh, M. 2020. Neural Large Neighborhood Search. In Learning Meets Combinatorial Algorithms at NeurIPS2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    K.; Ergun, \"O .; Orlin, J

    Ahuja, R. K.; Ergun, \"O .; Orlin, J. B.; and Punnen, A. P. 2002. A survey of very large-scale neighborhood search techniques. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 123(1-3): 75--102

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Berthold, T. 2006. Primal heuristics for mixed integer programs. Ph.D. thesis, Zuse Institute Berlin (ZIB)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    K.; and Bengal, W

    Bhattacharya, A.; Ghatak, S.; Ghosh, S.; Das, R. K.; and Bengal, W. 2014. Simulated Annealing Approach onto VLSI Circuit Partitioning

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Brody, S.; Alon, U.; and Yahav, E. 2022. How Attentive are Graph Attention Networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    L.; and Ke, Y.-L

    Chen, Y. L.; and Ke, Y.-L. 2004. Multi-objective VAr planning for large-scale power systems using projection-based two-layer simulated annealing algorithms

    2004

  2. [10]

    B.; Gleixner, A

    Chmiela, A.; Khalil, E. B.; Gleixner, A. M.; Lodi, A.; and Pokutta, S. 2021. Learning to Schedule Heuristics in Branch-and-Bound. In Neural Information Processing Systems

    2021

  3. [11]

    Chopra, S.; and Meindl, P. 2001. Strategy, planning, and operation. Supply Chain Management, 15(5): 71--85

    2001

  4. [12]

    Cplex, I. I. 2009. V12. 1: User’s Manual for CPLEX. International Business Machines Corporation, 46(53): 157

    2009

  5. [13]

    T.; Jiang, H.; Krishnamoorthy, M.; and Sier, D

    Ernst, A. T.; Jiang, H.; Krishnamoorthy, M.; and Sier, D. 2004. Staff scheduling and rostering: A review of applications, methods and models. European journal of operational research, 153(1): 3--27

    2004

  6. [14]

    O.; Klasky, S.; Korchuganova, T.; Nilsson, P.; Outschoorn, V

    Feng, S.; Kim, J.; Yang, Y.; Boudreau, J.; Chowdhury, T.; Hoisie, A.; Khan, R.; Kilic, O. O.; Klasky, S.; Korchuganova, T.; Nilsson, P.; Outschoorn, V. I. M.; Park, D. K.; Podhorszki, N.; Ren, Y.; Suter, F.; Vatsavai, S. S.; Yang, W.; Yoo, S.; Maeno, T.; and Klimentov, A. 2025...

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Feng, S.; and Yang, Y. 2025. Regularized Langevin Dynamics for Combinatorial Optimization. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

    2025

  8. [16]

    Fischetti, M.; and Lodi, A. 2003. Local branching. Mathematical Programming, 98: 23--47

    2003

  9. [17]

    M.; Khalil, E.; Lichocki, P.; Lodi, A.; Lubin, M.; Maddison, C

    Gasse, M.; Cappart, Q.; Charfreitag, J.; Charlin, L.; Chételat, D.; Chmiela, A.; Dumouchelle, J.; Gleixner, A.; Kazachkov, A. M.; Khalil, E.; Lichocki, P.; Lodi, A.; Lubin, M.; Maddison, C. J.; Morris, C.; Papageorgiou, D. J.; Parjadis, A.; Pokutta, S.; Prouvost, A.; Scavuzzo,...

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gasse, M.; Chételat, D.; Ferroni, N.; Charlin, L.; and Lodi, A. 2019. Exact Combinatorial Optimization with Graph Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32

    2019

  11. [19]

    Gurobi Optimization, L. 2021. Gurobi optimizer reference manual

    2021

  12. [20]

    Gusfield, D. 1997. Algorithms on stings, trees, and sequences: Computer science and computational biology. Acm Sigact News, 28(4): 41--60

    1997

  13. [21]

    Han, Q.; Yang, L.; Chen, Q.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, D.; Wang, A.; Sun, R.; and Luo, X. 2023. A GNN -Guided Predict-and-Search Framework for Mixed-Integer Linear Programming. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  14. [22]

    Hastings, W. K. 1970. Monte Carlo Sampling Methods Using Markov Chains and Their Applications. Biometrika, 57: 97--109

    1970

  15. [23]

    Hendel, G.; Miltenberger, M.; and Witzig, J. 2019. Adaptive Algorithmic Behavior for Solving Mixed Integer Programs Using Bandit Algorithms. In Fortz, B.; and Labb \'e , M., eds., Operations Research Proceedings 2018, 513--519. Cham: Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Hottung, A.; and Tierney, K. 2019. Neural Large Neighborhood Search for the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem. ArXiv, abs/1911.09539

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Huang, T.; Ferber, A.; Tian, Y.; Dilkina, B.; and Steiner, B. 2023 a . Local Branching Relaxation Heuristics for Integer Linear Programs. In International Conference on Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research, 96--113. Springer

    2023

  18. [26]

    Huang, T.; Ferber, A.; Tian, Y.; Dilkina, B.; and Steiner, B. 2023 b . Searching Large Neighborhoods for Integer Linear Programs with Contrastive Learning. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR

    2023

  19. [27]

    IBA, Y. 2001. EXTENDED ENSEMBLE MONTE CARLO. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 12(05): 623–656

    2001

  20. [28]

    B.; Dilkina, B.; Nemhauser, G

    Khalil, E. B.; Dilkina, B.; Nemhauser, G. L.; Ahmed, S.; and Shao, Y. 2017. Learning to Run Heuristics in Tree Search. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17 , 659--666

    2017

  21. [29]

    D.; and Vecchi, M

    Kirkpatrick, S.; Gelatt, C. D.; and Vecchi, M. P. 1983. Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science, 220(4598): 671--680

    1983

  22. [30]

    H.; and Doig, A

    Land, A. H.; and Doig, A. G. 2010. An automatic method for solving discrete programming problems. Springer

    2010

  23. [31]

    Li, Y.; Guo, J.; Wang, R.; and Yan, J. 2023. From Distribution Learning in Training to Gradient Search in Testing for Combinatorial Optimization. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  24. [32]

    Mashayekh, S.; Stadler, M.; Cardoso, G.; and Heleno, M. 2017. A mixed integer linear programming approach for optimal DER portfolio, sizing, and placement in multi-energy microgrids. Applied Energy, 187

    2017

  25. [33]

    C.; Rosenbluth, A

    Metropolis, N. C.; Rosenbluth, A. W.; Rosenbluth, M. N.; and Teller, A. H. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. Journal of Chemical Physics, 21: 1087--1092

    1953

  26. [34]

    Mladenović, N.; and Hansen, P. 1997. Variable neighborhood search. Computers & Operations Research, 24(11): 1097--1100

    1997

  27. [35]

    Nair, V.; Bartunov, S.; Gimeno, F.; von Glehn, I.; Lichocki, P.; Lobov, I.; O'Donoghue, B.; Sonnerat, N.; Tjandraatmadja, C.; Wang, P.; Addanki, R.; Hapuarachchi, T.; Keck, T.; Keeling, J.; Kohli, P.; Ktena, I.; Li, Y.; Vinyals, O.; and Zwols, Y. 2020. Solving Mixed Integer Pr...

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Neal, R. M. 1996. Sampling from multimodal distributions using tempered transitions. Statistics and Computing, 6: 353--366

    1996

  29. [37]

    H.; and Steiglitz, K

    Papadimitriou, C. H.; and Steiglitz, K. 1998. Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity. Courier Corporation

    1998

  30. [38]

    B.; and Krause, A

    Paulus, M. B.; and Krause, A. 2023. Learning To Dive In Branch And Bound. arXiv:2301.09943

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    U.; and Kurt, M

    Seçkiner, S. U.; and Kurt, M. 2007. A simulated annealing approach to the solution of job rotation scheduling problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 188(1): 31--45

    2007

  32. [40]

    Song, J.; lanka, r.; Yue, Y.; and Dilkina, B. 2020. A General Large Neighborhood Search Framework for Solving Integer Linear Programs. In Larochelle, H.; Ranzato, M.; Hadsell, R.; Balcan, M.; and Lin, H., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, 2001...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Sonnerat, N.; Wang, P.; Ktena, I.; Bartunov, S.; and Nair, V. 2021. Learning a Large Neighborhood Search Algorithm for Mixed Integer Programs. ArXiv, abs/2107.10201

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sun, H.; Goshvadi, K.; Nova, A.; Schuurmans, D.; and Dai, H. 2023. Revisiting Sampling for Combinatorial Optimization. In Krause, A.; Brunskill, E.; Cho, K.; Engelhardt, B.; Sabato, S.; and Scarlett, J., eds., Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learnin...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Sun, Z.; and Yang, Y. 2023. DIFUSCO : Graph-based Diffusion Solvers for Combinatorial Optimization. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  36. [44]

    Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Safaei, N.; Kah, M.; and Rabbani, M. 2007. A New Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem with Split Service for Minimizing Fleet Cost by Simulated Annealing. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 344(5): 406--425. Modeling, Simulation and Applied Optimization Part II

    2007

  37. [45]

    D.; PERCUS, A.; and CAFLISCH, R

    WANG, C.; HYMAN, J. D.; PERCUS, A.; and CAFLISCH, R. 2009. PARALLEL TEMPERING FOR THE TRAVELING SALESMAN PROBLEM. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 20(04): 539--556

    2009

  38. [46]

    Welling, M.; and Teh, Y. W. 2011. Bayesian learning via stochastic gradient langevin dynamics. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'11, 681–688. Madison, WI, USA: Omnipress. ISBN 9781450306195

    2011

  39. [47]

    Wu, Y.; Song, W.; Cao, Z.; and Zhang, J. 2021. Learning Large Neighborhood Search Policy for Integer Programming. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2021

  40. [48]

    Yoon, T. 2022. Confidence Threshold Neural Diving. arXiv:2202.07506

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zanella, G. 2017. Informed Proposals for Local MCMC in Discrete Spaces. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115: 852 -- 865

    2017

  42. [50]

    P.; et al

    Zheng, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, H.; Zhuang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Huang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhuo, D.; Xing, E. P.; et al. 2022. Alpa: Automating inter-and \ Intra-Operator \ parallelism for distributed deep learning. In 16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.