Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Taming Treewidth DP with Modulators: A General Booster for Graph Heuristics

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Treewidth dynamic programming can serve as a general performance booster for graph optimization heuristics.

desk verdict A useful booster idea with broad experiments, but the printed Algorithm 1 doesn't do what the main guarantee claims; fix the pseudocode and ship the appendix/code before trusting the results. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04446 v1 pith:TK3APU4N submitted 2026-08-05 cs.DS

Jialiang Li , Aneta Neumann , Frank Neumann , Hung Nguyen , Mingyu Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DS
keywords treewidthmodulatordynamicprogrammingadvicestringmaximumindependentsetminimumvertexcovermaxcutgraphneuralnetworks
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

This paper argues that treewidth dynamic programming (TDP), normally impractical once treewidth grows beyond a small constant, can be repurposed as a general booster for existing graph optimization heuristics. The recipe is to find a small vertex set called a treewidth modulator whose deletion leaves the graph with small treewidth, let the base heuristic fix the decisions on those vertices, and let TDP solve everything else exactly. Because TDP completes any advice optimally, the enhanced algorithm is guaranteed never to produce a worse solution than the base algorithm. On Maximum Independent Set, Minimum Vertex Cover, and Max Cut, the paper reports that evolutionary, greedy, and graph-neural-network heuristics all improve, and that enhanced greedy sometimes matches or beats a commercial solver.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an $\eta$-treewidth modulator: a vertex set $M_\eta$ whose removal leaves a graph of treewidth at most $\eta$. The framework takes a tree decomposition, finds a small modulator by solving a mixed-integer program over the existing bags, uses the base algorithm's output on $M_\eta$ as the advice, and then runs treewidth dynamic programming over the low-treewidth remainder, enforcing boundary consistency on the modulator boundary. The paper proves that the modulator-finding variant on a given tree decomposition is NP-complete, yet reports that it solves in about one second on average in the experiments, and that the advice-conditioned DP is correct.

What would settle it

Run TDPA on a family of graphs whose true minimum treewidth modulator is provably large, for example expanders with treewidth linear in $n$, and compare against the base heuristic; if solution quality does not improve in that regime, the booster's usefulness is limited to graphs that already admit small modulators.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that TDP with advice (TDPA) turns treewidth dynamic programming from a standalone solver for tiny-treewidth graphs into a general enhancer: for any existing algorithm $A$, run $A$ on a treewidth modulator, treat its output on those vertices as an advice string, and run a modified TDP that is optimal conditional on that string. The resulting solution is never worse than $A$'s, because any completion $A$ could reach is also available to the DP, and in practice it is frequently much better. Empirically the paper finds that TDPA improves (1+1)EA, epsilon-greedy heuristics, and GNN-based solvers across three NP-hard optimization problems, and that TDP-enhanced greedy is competitive with, and sometimes better than, the commercial solver used as reference.

Load-bearing premise

The framework works if the target graphs admit a small treewidth modulator that the MIP heuristic can find quickly, if the remaining treewidth stays small enough for TDP to be fast, and if the base algorithm's advice on the modulator is informative; the paper itself notes its modulator can be far from the optimal one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any existing heuristic $A$ can be wrapped so that the result is never worse in solution quality than $A$, at the price of building a tree decomposition and modulator once.
  • TDP ceases to be limited to graphs of tiny treewidth: the relevant quantities become the modulator size and the remaining treewidth, not the original treewidth.
  • Heuristic tuning becomes less brittle; exploration rates that hurt standalone greedy no longer degrade quality much once TDP completes the advice.
  • For GNN-based solvers, the modulator-stability signal gives an early-stopping rule: once labels on the modulator freeze, further training mostly reshuffles decisions that TDP can already optimize exactly.
  • On several harder instances, TDP-enhanced greedy matches or exceeds the commercial solver reference, sometimes in less wall-clock time, despite a pure-Python implementation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit is that a heuristic's practical value might be assessed by the quality of its decisions on the modulator alone, since TDP repairs the rest optimally.
  • The same advice-conditioning pattern should transfer to other width parameters such as pathwidth or branchwidth, and to constraint-satisfaction settings where a small backdoor set exists.
  • The TM-stability plateau suggests a direct training intervention: once stability is detected, bias GNN gradient updates toward the modulator vertices instead of continuing to train on vertices that TDP can fix exactly.
  • The majority-vote version of the greedy advice can be viewed as a small ensemble over repeated runs, leaving open how much of the reported benefit comes from voting rather than from the single best run.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TDPA, a framework that uses a treewidth modulator M to turn a heuristic algorithm A's partial decisions on M into an 'advice' string, and then runs a treewidth dynamic program that computes the optimal solution conditioned on that advice. The authors introduce a practical variant of the treewidth modulator problem, solve it with a MIP, and report experiments on Maximum Independent Set, Minimum Vertex Cover, and Max Cut, enhancing (1+1)EA, greedy heuristics, and GNN-based heuristics. The central claims are that TDPA is broadly applicable, that the enhanced version of A never performs worse than A itself, and that TDPA substantially improves solution quality, sometimes beating GUROBI. The main text defers proofs, MIP details, and further experiments to an appendix that is not present in the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If the formal guarantee is made correct and the missing proofs are supplied, the core idea is valuable: turning treewidth DP into a general post-processing booster rather than a standalone solver is a practically motivated and broadly applicable contribution. The paper's strength is its breadth, covering three optimization models and three very different heuristic paradigms, and its conceptual point that fixing modulator decisions can make large-treewidth instances tractable for TDP. The direct-advice version has a clean conditional-optimality property that, when correctly implemented, would justify the 'never worse' claim for that variant. However, as written, the central algorithm does not provably implement the conditioning, the formal proof is deferred, and the guarantee is overclaimed for the majority-vote and search-based variants described in Section 3.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Algorithm 1 (lines 5-7)] The pseudocode does not implement advice conditioning. If the advice is a subset s⊆M of selected vertices, line 5 only restricts x to X_t\s, so vertices in M\s remain free to be selected by the DP; the 0-entries of the advice are not enforced. Line 7 then adds the entire set s to every bag state, including vertices that do not appear in X_t, which violates the bag-local invariant of a tree decomposition and makes the state space ill-defined. As a result, the described routine may output solutions that disagree with the advice on M\s, and the claim in Section 1 that the TDP-enhanced version of A never performs worse than A is not supported by the algorithm as printed. The Correctness paragraph discusses boundary implications via ∂M but does not show how they are encoded in lines 5-9; a corrected pseudocode (for example, restricting each bag state to agree with a full assignment on M∩X_t) and a formal proof are needed.
  2. [Section 3, 'Correctness' and deferred appendix] The core correctness proof is missing from the manuscript. Section 3's Correctness paragraph is a sketch, and Proposition 1, Theorem 2, the MIP formulation, the min-degree heuristic, and the full proof of the advice-integrated DP are all marked (⋆) and deferred to an appendix that is not present in the submitted text. Since the 'never worse' guarantee and the interpretation of Tables 1-2 as optimal completions of the advice rest on this proof, the submission is not self-contained. The appendix must be included, or the proof must be stated in the main text, before the empirical claims can be fully evaluated.
  3. [Section 3, 'ϵ-greedy with Voting Subroutine' and Section 4] The never-worse guarantee is only valid when the advice is the restriction of a single run of A; it does not automatically hold for the majority-vote advice of Algorithm 3, which may not correspond to any feasible solution of A and can be worse than the best individual run. Moreover, Section 4 does not state whether Table 2 reports WTA or Maj results, so the reader cannot tell which variant produced the reported improvements. The same caveat applies to the (1+1)EA subroutine, where the final advice is found by search rather than taken directly from the baseline's output. The paper should explicitly restrict the formal guarantee to the direct-advice setting and report the voting rule used in each experiment.
  4. [Section 4, Table 2] The headline claim that TDP-enhanced greedy heuristics 'clearly outperform' GUROBI is not supported by the reported statistics. Table 2 gives only aggregate averages over 100 instances; no standard deviations, per-instance wins, or significance tests are provided, and the differences are in some cases a few tenths of a percent (e.g., MIS on ER: -0.20% vs 0.00% for GUROBI-600s). The comparison is also asymmetric in time, which is a strength, but the negative gaps should be accompanied by confidence intervals or paired differences. Please report the full distribution or the number of instances where TDPA is better, equal, and worse.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'To demonstrate the general applicability of our proposed framework. We experimented...' is a sentence fragment; it should be joined with the following clause.
  2. [Section 4, GNN paragraph] The definition of TM-stability uses Lp and Lc before defining them: the text says 'defined at checkpoint t as |Lp∩Lc|/|M|, where Lt is the predicted label set onM.' This should say L_t and clarify the relationship between Lp, Lc, and L_t.
  3. [Algorithm 1] The tables C and D are not initialized or described; the merge and upload formulas in lines 8-9 are not self-contained and should reference the standard TDP definitions or specify the domains of C and D.
  4. [Section 3, Correctness paragraph] For MVC, the implication 'excluding v∈∂M forces all neighbors v∈N(v) to be included' should specify that this applies to neighbors outside M as well, and the analogous implications for MIS should be stated for all neighbors, not only those in the current bag.
  5. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided; given the empirical nature of the paper and the many deferred implementation details, including a public repository or an appendix with the exact MIP formulation and solver settings would improve reproducibility.
  6. [Notation, Section 3] The paper switches between describing advice as a subset s⊆M and as a bitvector x∈{0,1}^|M|; the conversion between these two representations should be stated explicitly to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central conditional-optimality claim is definitional, not fitted, and the empirical improvements are direct measurements with modest reproducibility caveats.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The central claim that the TDP-enhanced version of an algorithm A never performs worse than A follows from the definition of conditional optimization: if the modified treewidth DP computes the optimal completion conditional on the advice string supplied by A, then that completion is at least as good as any completion that A itself could produce with the same modulator decisions. This is a mathematical implication of the stated semantics, not a fitted result or a renamed input. The accuracy improvements in Tables 1-2 are direct empirical comparisons between measured solution values and wall-clock times; there is no fitted theoretical curve being used to generate these numbers. The modulator is computed independently by a min-degree tree decomposition plus a MIP, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that the modulator may be far from optimal, which shows that the modulator construction is not being tuned to manufacture the reported results. The 'never worse' statement is tautological only under the precondition that Algorithm 1 actually enforces the advice in both directions, including the zeros; the skeptical observation that line 7 adds the entire selected set s to every bag, and that vertices in M\s remain available, is a correctness and implementation concern, not a circularity concern. Similarly, the deferred proofs and appendix material are missing-support issues, not evidence that a result is assumed as its own conclusion. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the treewidth, Courcelle, and modulator-hardness results are standard external results, and no uniqueness theorem from the present authors is invoked to force a choice. The framework's empirical value could fail if modulators are too large or advice is poor, and the paper itself states this as a future-work limitation, but that is an empirical risk assessment, not a circular derivation. Overall, the paper is self-contained in the sense that its reported improvements are measurements, and its formal guarantee is a definitional property with an implementation precondition that is not assessed here. Circularity score is therefore 0.

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

The paper rests on standard parameterized-complexity results (Courcelle's theorem, tree decomposition validity), the practical quality of the min-degree treewidth heuristic, and the empirical premise that small modulators with informative advice exist for the tested graphs. The main new axioms are domain assumptions about heuristic quality rather than mathematical postulates.

free parameters (4)
  • target treewidth tau = 5, 7, 9
    Chosen to trade off modulator size against TDP state space; larger tau gives smaller modulators (Figure 1).
  • greedy exploration rate epsilon = 0, 0.01, 0.05 for MIS/MVC; 0, 1000, 5000 refinement budget for MC
    Tuned per problem; the paper reports results are not very sensitive to it.
  • number of greedy trials R
    Used in Algorithm 3 but its value is not specified in the main text; affects advice quality and runtime.
  • GNN training hyperparameters
    Architecture and training details deferred to appendix; not reproducible from main text.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Courcelle's theorem states that MSO-definable problems are linear-time solvable on bounded-treewidth graphs.
    Used in Section 2 to justify that TDP is the appropriate exact method on the reduced graph.
  • domain assumption Min-degree heuristic produces near-optimal tree decompositions in practice.
    Section 4, Decompositions and Modulators, relies on this from Bannach et al. 2017 and Maniu et al. 2019 to construct the tree decomposition used for the modulator.
  • domain assumption A heuristic's assignment on the modulator is informative enough to yield good completions.
    This is the key empirical premise tested in Section 4; it is not proven and fails if the modulator is large or the heuristic is poor.
  • domain assumption The MIP formulation exactly solves the modulator-on-given-tree-decomposition problem.
    Section 4 states the modulator M is computed via a MIP formulation deferred to the appendix; exactness is not shown in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Taming Treewidth DP with Modulators: A General Booster for Graph Heuristics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TK3APU4N

@misc{pith2026260804446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Taming Treewidth DP with Modulators: A General Booster for Graph Heuristics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TK3APU4N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04446}
}
abstract

Treewidth is a fundamental graph invariant that quantifies how tree-like a given graph is. It is extensively used with dynamic programming to design fixed-parameter tractable algorithms for many NP-hard graph combinatorial optimization problems. However, despite broad theoretical applicability, treewidth dynamic programming (TDP) does not scale in practice beyond graphs with very small treewidth. Rather than applying TDP as a standalone technique, in this paper, we demonstrate that TDP can serve as a broadly applicable enhancer for a wide range of graph combinatorial optimization algorithms. Our framework leverages the concept of treewidth modulators, which refer to vertex sets whose removal significantly reduces the treewidth. We further propose an empirically efficient procedure for generating such treewidth modulators. To enhance an algorithm $\textit{A}$, we use $\textit{A}$ to heuristically make decisions on the modulators vertices, after which the remaining decisions outside the treewidth modulators become scalable for TDP. To demonstrate the general applicability of our proposed framework. We experimented with three classic graph combinatorial optimization models: Maximum Independent Set, Minimum Vertex Cover, and Max Cut. We apply TDP to enhance algorithms across diverse paradigms, including evolutionary search, greedy heuristics, and graph-neural-network-based heuristics. For all combinations of optimization models and base algorithms, TDP significantly improves performance over the original methods. In many settings, TDP-enhanced greedy heuristics are competitive with, and sometimes clearly outperform, state-of-the-art commercial solvers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04446 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Colored vertical lines mark the average first hitting time — the first moment the best solution appears for each curve. The indicates the GUROBI solutions. For presentation, once the curves converge to a single value, we omit the rest steps because they are not informative. The instance name and TW are shown above TM in each legend group. More results (⋆) are deferred to the appendix. steadily, with TM9 most often l… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GNN training for ER. Each unit on x-axis is 50 gradient descend steps. Results for MIS and BA (⋆) are similar. and we propose a MIP formula that enables fast computation in practice. We then prove that the resulting advice-integrated DP remains correct. Empirically, TDPA consistently improves solution quality over the underlying methods and stays compet￾itive with GUROBI in first-hitting time. We further showed that… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Learning what to defer for maximum independent sets

    [Ahnet al., 2020 ] Sungsoo Ahn, Younggyo Seo, and Jinwoo Shin. Learning what to defer for maximum independent sets. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 134–144. PMLR,

    work page 2020

  2. [5]

    Bodlaender, ´Edouard Bon- net, Lars Jaffke, Du ˇsan Knop, Paloma T

    [Bodlaenderet al., 2023 ] Hans L. Bodlaender, ´Edouard Bon- net, Lars Jaffke, Du ˇsan Knop, Paloma T. Lima, Martin Milaniˇc, Sebastian Ordyniak, Sukanya Pandey, and Ondˇrej Such´y. Treewidth is np-complete on cubic graphs (and related results),

    work page 2023

  3. [8]

    The monadic second- order logic of graphs

    [Courcelle, 1990] Bruno Courcelle. The monadic second- order logic of graphs. i. recognizable sets of finite graphs. Inf. Comput., 85:12–75,

    work page 1990

  4. [11]

    [Downeyet al., 2013 ] Rodney G Downey, Michael R Fel- lows, et al.Fundamentals of parameterized complexity, volume

    work page 2013

  5. [17]

    [Jansenet al., 2021 ] Bart M. P. Jansen, Jari J. H. de Kroon, and Michał Włodarczyk. Vertex deletion parameterized by elimination distance and even less.Proceedings of the 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing,

    work page 2021

  6. [19]

    Parameterized approxima- tion schemes using graph widths

    [Lampis, 2013] Michael Lampis. Parameterized approxima- tion schemes using graph widths. InInternational Collo- quium on Automata, Languages and Programming,

    work page 2013

  7. [20]

    Lewis and Mihalis Yannakakis

    [Lewis and Yannakakis, 1980] John M. Lewis and Mihalis Yannakakis. The node-deletion problem for hereditary properties is np-complete.J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 20:219– 230,

    work page 1980

  8. [22]

    Tree diet: reducing the treewidth to unlock fpt algorithms in rna bioinformatics.Algorithms for Molecular Biology : AMB, 17,

    [Marchandet al., 2021 ] Bertrand Marchand, Yannick Ponty, and Laurent Bulteau. Tree diet: reducing the treewidth to unlock fpt algorithms in rna bioinformatics.Algorithms for Molecular Biology : AMB, 17,

    work page 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [23]

    Benchmark for opti- mization software.http://plato

    [Mittelmann, 2002] Hans D Mittelmann. Benchmark for opti- mization software.http://plato. asu. edu/bench. html,

    2002

  2. [26]

    [Robertson and Seymour, 1984] Neil Robertson and Paul D. Seymour. Graph minors. iii. planar tree-width.J. Comb. Theory B, 36:49–64,

    1984

  3. [27]

    [Schuetzet al., 2021 ] Martin J. A. Schuetz, John Kyle Brubaker, and Helmut G. Katzgraber. Combinatorial op- timization with physics-inspired graph neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4:367 – 377,

    2021

  4. [28]

    Di- fusco: Graph-based diffusion solvers for combinatorial optimization.ArXiv, abs/2302.08224,

    [Sun and Yang, 2023] Zhiqing Sun and Yiming Yang. Di- fusco: Graph-based diffusion solvers for combinatorial optimization.ArXiv, abs/2302.08224,

    2023 arXiv

  5. [29]

    Guha, and Hanjun Dai

    [Sunet al., 2022 ] Haoran Sun, Etash K. Guha, and Hanjun Dai. Annealed training for combinatorial optimization on graphs,

    2022

  6. [30]

    Backdoors to typical case complexity

    [Williamset al., 2003 ] Ryan Williams, Carla Pedro Gomes, and Bart Selman. Backdoors to typical case complexity. InInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,

    2003

  7. [1980]

    An experimental study of the treewidth of real-world graph data (extended version)

    [Maniuet al., 2019 ] Silviu Maniu, Pierre Senellart, and Suraj Jog. An experimental study of the treewidth of real-world graph data (extended version). InInternational Conference on Database Theory,

    2019

  8. [1984]

    Fomin, Daniel Lokshtanov, Neeldhara Misra, M

    [Fominet al., 2015 ] F. Fomin, Daniel Lokshtanov, Neeldhara Misra, M. S. Ramanujan, and Saket Saurabh. Solving d-sat via backdoors to small treewidth. InACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms,

    2015

  9. [1988]

    Inability of a graph neu- ral network heuristic to outperform greedy algorithms in solving combinatorial optimization problems.Nature Ma- chine Intelligence, 5:24–25,

    [Boettcher, 2022] Stefan Boettcher. Inability of a graph neu- ral network heuristic to outperform greedy algorithms in solving combinatorial optimization problems.Nature Ma- chine Intelligence, 5:24–25,

    2022

  10. [1990]

    On the hardness of losing width.Theory of Computing Systems, 54:73–82,

    [Cyganet al., 2011 ] Marek Cygan, Daniel Lokshtanov, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michal Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. On the hardness of losing width.Theory of Computing Systems, 54:73–82,

    2011

  11. [2002]

    Mixed integer linear programming benchmark (serial codes),

    [Mittelmann, 2010] Hans Mittelmann. Mixed integer linear programming benchmark (serial codes),

    2010

  12. [2003]

    Inapproximability of treewidth and related problems.J

    [Wuet al., 2014 ] Ledell Yu Wu, Per Austrin, Toniann Pitassi, and David Liu. Inapproximability of treewidth and related problems.J. Artif. Intell. Res., 49:569–600, 2014

    2014

  13. [2010]

    Latest benchmarks of optimization software

    [Mittelmann, 2017] Hans D Mittelmann. Latest benchmarks of optimization software. InINFORMS Annual Meeting. Houston, TX,

    2017

  14. [2011]

    Fomin, Lukasz Kowa- lik, Daniel Lokshtanov, D ´aniel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michal Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh

    [Cyganet al., 2020 ] Marek Cygan, F. Fomin, Lukasz Kowa- lik, Daniel Lokshtanov, D ´aniel Marx, Marcin Pilipczuk, Michal Pilipczuk, and Saket Saurabh. Parameterized algo- rithms. InBeyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms,

    2020

  15. [2013]

    Erdos and Alfr´ed R´enyi

    [Erdos and R´enyi, 1984] Paul L. Erdos and Alfr´ed R´enyi. On the evolution of random graphs.Transactions of the Ameri- can Mathematical Society, 286:257–257,

    1984

  16. [2015]

    Glover, Gary A

    [Gloveret al., 2019 ] Fred W. Glover, Gary A. Kochenberger, and Yu Du. Quantum bridge analytics i: a tutorial on formulating and using qubo models.4OR, 17:335 – 371,

    2019

  17. [2017]

    Thilikos

    [Basteet al., 2020 ] Julien Baste, Ignasi Sau, and Dimitrios M. Thilikos. Hitting minors on bounded treewidth graphs. i. general upper bounds.SIAM J. Discret. Math., 34:1623– 1648,

    2020

  18. [2019]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    [Gurobi Optimization, LLC, 2024] Gurobi Optimization, LLC. Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    2024

  19. [2020]

    [Angelini and Ricci-Tersenghi, 2022] Maria Chiara Angelini and Federico Ricci-Tersenghi. Modern graph neural net- works do worse than classical greedy algorithms in solving combinatorial optimization problems like maximum inde- pendent set.Nature Machine Intelligence, 5:29–31,

    2022

  20. [2021]

    Erdos goes neural: an unsupervised learning frame- work for combinatorial optimization on graphs.ArXiv, abs/2006.10643,

    [Karalias and Loukas, 2020] Nikolaos Karalias and Andreas Loukas. Erdos goes neural: an unsupervised learning frame- work for combinatorial optimization on graphs.ArXiv, abs/2006.10643,

    2020 arXiv

  21. [2022]

    Jdrasil: A modular library for computing tree decompositions

    [Bannachet al., 2017 ] Max Bannach, Sebastian Berndt, and Thorsten Ehlers. Jdrasil: A modular library for computing tree decompositions. InThe Sea,

    2017

  22. [2023]

    Bodlaender

    [Bodlaender, 1988] Hans L. Bodlaender. Dynamic program- ming on graphs with bounded treewidth. InInternational Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming,

    1988

  23. [2024]

    Benchmarks for current linear and mixed integer optimization solvers.Acta Univer- sitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63:1923–1928,

    [Jablonsk´y, 2015] Josef Jablonsk´y. Benchmarks for current linear and mixed integer optimization solvers.Acta Univer- sitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 63:1923–1928,

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.