Towards Solving Polynomial-Objective Integer Programming with Hypergraph Neural Networks
Authors: Minshuo Li, Yaoxin Wu, Pavel Troubil, Yingqian Zhang, Wim P. M. Nuijten
Organizations: Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands · Eindhoven Artificial Intelligence Systems Institute, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands · Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, the Netherlands · Delmia R&D, Dassault Systèmes, ’s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands
Complex real-world optimization problems often involve both discrete decisions and nonlinear relationships between variables. Many such problems can be modeled as polynomial-objective integer programs, encompassing cases with quadratic and higher-degree variable interactions. Nonlinearity makes them more challenging than their linear counterparts. In this paper, we propose a hypergraph neural network (HNN) based method to solve polynomial-objective integer programming (POIP). Besides presenting a high-degree-term-aware hypergraph representation to capture both high-degree information and variable-constraint interdependencies, we also propose a hypergraph neural network, which integrates convolution between variables and high-degree terms alongside convolution between variables and constraints, to predict solution values. Finally, a search process initialized from the predicted solutions is performed to further refine the results. Comprehensive experiments across a range of benchmarks demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms both existing learning-based approaches and state-of-the-art solvers, delivering superior solution quality with favorable efficiency. Note that our experiments involve both polynomial objectives and constraints, demonstrating our HNN's versatility for general POIP problems and highlighting its advancement over the existing literature.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The framework of the proposed method. For a POIP instance shown in a), our method first transforms it into a hypergraph shown in b), where orange dashed circles denote hyperedges representing high-degree terms. Their raw features (term coefficients and variable degrees) are illustrated in the orange dashed boxes. This hypergraph is then processed by a hypergraph neural network shown in c) for representation learning and solution prediction, where hϵ , hv(i) , and hc(i) represent hyperedge embeddings, variable embeddings after the i -th update, and constraint embeddings after the i -th update, respectively. Finally, a neighborhood-search based repair-and-refinement process, shown in d), turns the predicted results into a high-quality feasible solution.
Method
Train
Base solver: Gurobi
Base solver: SCIP
1k
2k
5k
10k
Overall
1k
2k
5k
10k
Overall
Exact solver
–
0.38
0.23
29.08
26.69
14.10 ±13.89∗
5.15
6.10
35.73
27.61
18.65 ±13.38∗
Neural QP
Mini
0.35
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.11 ±0.13
0.54
0.11
29.38
17.90
12.99 ±13.21
1k
0.35
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.38
0.11
28.68
19.44
2k
–
0.09
0.05
0.04
–
0.10
29.54
17.41
GNNQP
Mini
0.45
0.09
0.05
0.03
7.22 ±15.00∗
0.54
0.11
29.38
17.90
16.08 ±15.52
Table 1: Comparison on QMKP datasets in terms of mean and standard deviation of gap% . The best results are highlighted in bold and ∗ indicates the overall results are statistically different from the best one. “–” denotes that the corresponding test was omitted, as models were only evaluated on instances with identical or larger scales than the training instances, following the setting in [ 47 ] .
Method
Train
Base solver: Gurobi
Base solver: SCIP
150 × 30
200 × 30
500 × 100
Overall
150 × 30
200 × 30
500 × 100
Overall
Exact Solver
–
51.42
58.20
38.66
48.89 ±11.11∗
66.17
73.11
72.31
69.14 ±4.68∗
Neural QP
50 × 10& 50 × 20
28.03
42.92
23.82
37.04 ±13.95∗
54.63
62.65
71.52
62.09 ±8.09∗
150 × 30& 200 × 30
42.20
62.18
26.47
58.08
67.11
69.90
Ours
50 × 10& 50 × 20
9.95
8.96
2.78
6.59 ±6.39
31.52
21.05
62.62
42.01 ±16.67
150 × 30& 200 × 30
5.23
7.08
2.65
29.97
46.31
62.36
Table 2: Comparison on CFLPTC datasets in terms of mean and standard deviation of gap% . The best results are highlighted in bold and ∗ indicates the overall results are statistically different from the best one.
Instance ID
Gurobi
NeuralQP
GNNQP
TriGNN
Ours
2315
59.75
15.92
13.10
12.54
13.49
2733
1.38
0.28
0.18
0.10
0.38
2957
2.11
2.07
1.88
1.13
0.71
3347
0.52
0.20
9.28
5.93
0.34
3402
2.80
7.10
4.95
4.12
6.64
3584
66.75
15.04
7.75
15.59
15.03
Table 3: Comparison on QPLIB instances by mean value and standard deviation of gap% . The best and second best results are highlighted in bold and italics, respectively. ∗ indicates statistically significant difference to the best result.
Method
Train
Base solver: Gurobi
Base solver: SCIP
1k
2k
5k
10k
Overall
1k
2k
5k
10k
Overall
Exact solver
–
3.21
6.45
5.83
9.88
6.34 ±9.84∗
38.82
42.08
53.12
53.07
46.77 ±6.60∗
Neural QP
Mini
0.47
0.43
0.25
0.22
0.33 ±0.22∗
0.60
0.51
0.37
0.31
0.43 ±0.23∗
1000
0.54
0.42
0.22
0.22
0.62
0.50
0.36
0.32
2000
–
0.39
0.25
0.19
–
0.47
0.34
0.29
GNNQP
Mini
3.53
2.29
3.23
3.36
3.07 ±0.68∗
3.60
2.40
3.29
3.42
3.14 ±0.66∗
Table 4: Results on RandQCP datasets by mean and standard deviation of gap% . The best results are highlighted in bold and ∗ indicates the overall results have statistically significant difference to the best one.
NeuralQP-HD
GNNQP-HD
w/o-VCConv
w/o-HyConv
Ours
1k
0.33
0.36
0.42
0.30
0.31
2k
0.90
2.16
1.92
0.81
0.10
Average
0.61
1.26
1.17
0.56
0.20
Table 5: Comparison of our model and ablation baselines on QMKP instances in terms of gap% . The best result of each testing dataset is highlighted in bold.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Tensor
Feature
Description
V
type
(continuous, binary, integer) as a one-hot encoding
lb
Lower bound value of the variable
up
Upper bound value of the variable
inf_lb
Binary indicator (1 if the lower bound is negative infinity, 0 otherwise)
inf_ub
Binary indicator (1 if the upper bound is positive infinity, 0 otherwise)
avg_obj_coe
Average value of coefficients associated with this variable in the objective function
Appendix
Table 6: Raw Features of High-Degree Term-Aware Hypergraph Representation
Dataset
Number
m
n
Coordinate
Dj
oi
Ci
1
1605
50
10
U(10,200)
U(10,50)
U(300,700)
U(100,500)
2
1119
50
20
U(10,200)
U(30,80)
U(300,700)
U(100,500)
3
984
150
30
U(10,300)
U(10,50)
U(300,700)
U(200,600)
4
200
200
30
U(10,200)
U(10,50)
U(500,1500)
U(500,800)
Appendix
Table 7: Setting for CFLPTC Training Dataset Generation
Method
NeuralQP
Ours
gap%
99.10
71.92
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison on QMKP-1k datasets in terms of prediction performance.
Method
Train
Base solver: Gurobi
150 × 30
200 × 30
500 × 100
Overall
Exact Solver
–
51.42
58.20
38.66
48.89 ±11.11∗
Neural QP
50 × 10& 50 × 20
28.03
42.92
23.82
37.04 ±13.95∗
150 × 30& 200 × 30
42.20
62.18
26.47
Ours –Quad
50 × 10& 50 × 20
32.49
38.40
11.25
29.77 ±25.23∗
150 × 30& 200 × 30
31.45
39.77
11.46
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison on CFLPTC datasets in terms of mean and standard deviation of gap% . The best results are highlighted in bold and ∗ indicates the overall results are statistically different from the best one.
Methods
Base solver
Gurobi
SCIP
Exact solver
5.12
13.61
NeuralQP
0.10
4.95
GNNQP
1.18
5.94
TriGNN
0.12
5.03
Ours
0.08
4.75
Appendix
Table 10: Comparison on QMKP datasets in terms of SGM (shift=1) of gap% . The best results are highlighted in bold.
Method
Train
1k
2k
5k
10k
Overall
Gurobi
–
0.45
0.22
28.82
24.89
13.59
Neural QP
Mini
0.35
0.08
0.04
0.03
0.11
1k
0.36
0.09
0.03
0.04
2k
–
0.09
0.05
0.03
Ours
Mini
0.17
0.10
0.03
0.04
0.09
1k
0.31
0.10
0.05
0.04
Appendix
Table 11: Comparison of our method, NeuralQP and Gurobi under multiple solver random seeds on QMKP datasets in terms of mean gap% . The best results are highlighted in bold.
Combinatorial optimization finds the best feasible choices among discrete alternatives in routing, scheduling, graph problems, and resource allocation.
Bilevel mixed-integer linear optimization problems model hierarchical decision processes in which a leader anticipates the optimal response of a follower. Although expressive, these problems are computationally challenging because lower-level optimality is embedded in the leader's feasible region. Value-function reformulations replace the nested follower optimization with a constraint involving the follower's optimal value, but evaluating this value function exactly can itself be expensive. This paper introduces Graph4BiLO, a graph neural network (GNN) approach for learning bilevel value functions from variable--constraint graph representations. In contrast to fixed-length multilayer perceptron (MLP) representations, the GNN uses shared message-passing parameters and can therefore be applied across multiple problem sizes with a single trained model. The learned ReLU network is encoded exactly as mixed-integer linear constraints and embedded in an approximate single-level formulation. A repair step subsequently re-solves the follower problem for the selected leader decision to recover a bilevel-feasible follower response. We evaluate Graph4BiLO on knapsack interdiction instances with 20--100 items against the exact MibS solver and the learning-based Neur2BiLO method. Graph4BiLO obtains objective values comparable to Neur2BiLO across all tested sizes while avoiding size-specific neural networks. An additional out-of-distribution experiment demonstrates zero-shot transfer from 20-item training instances to previously unseen 40- and 60-item instances. However, embedding message passing at every graph node substantially increases the resulting mixed-integer formulation size and solve time. These results identify a central tradeoff between size-generalizable graph representations and the computational cost of embedding GNNs within optimization models.
Mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) is a foundational framework for combinatorial optimization across science and engineering, but remains hard to solve at scale due to NP-hardness. Recent learning-based methods typically model MILP instances as variable-constraint bipartite graphs and use Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for representation learning, yet their locality limits representation power. We propose an attention-driven neural backbone that adopts an element-centric view of variables and constraints, with dual attention performing parallel intra-type self-attention and inter-type cross-attention. Across three representative tasks at the instance, element, and solving-state levels, our model consistently outperforms conventional GNN-based architectures, highlighting attention-based, element-centric modeling as a powerful foundation for learning-enhanced combinatorial optimization.
Peixin Huang, Yaoxin Wu, Yining Ma +3
Shenzhen Research Institute, Shandong University, China
We introduce an autoregressive differentiable method to solve 0-1 integer programs. We fix an arbitrary order of the binary variables and we train a transformer to predict the next bit while remaining in the feasible set. Our method is first trained on feasible incumbents provided by any solver, thus allowing us to initialize the transformer in the feasible set. Our procedure then implements a Lagrangian penalty to penalize infeasible solutions, and the transformer is further trained to explore the feasible set using Gumbel-softmax activations on the relaxed objective. We have tested our method on non-convex instances of quadratic knapsack problem and demonstrated consistent improvement upon state-of-the-art open-source solvers for dense problems up to 10,000 binary variables. In particular, we empirically demonstrate a phenomenon akin to a tunneling effect where the effective change of variables from binary variable to the continuous weights of the transformer that the method implements enables crossing barriers in the relaxed objective landscape.
Ouns El Harzli, Yudong Cao
BCG X AI Science Institute Boston, USA · Zapata Quantum Boston, USA