Learning to decompose
Benders decomposition, column generation, branch-and-cut and related methods appear on 240 recent papers, almost all in the operations research journals, and the topic is fading, with 42 papers in the last quarter against about 64 per quarter before. Only 16 of them use learning. Can learned cut selection, column pricing and branching make these methods faster on real problems?
What prompted this#
Since October 2025, 240 papers carry a Benders, column-generation, branch-and-price, branch-and-cut, cutting-plane or Lagrangian-relaxation keyword (218 in operations research journals, 22 in AI): "Benders decomposition" on 65, "column generation" on 46, "branch-and-cut" on 35, "logic-based Benders decomposition" on 30, "branch-and-price" on 28. Forty-two were published in July–September 2026 against about 64 per quarter earlier. Only 16 of the 240 also carry a machine-learning, reinforcement-learning, neural or data-driven keyword.
Questions#
- Does a model trained to select Benders cuts or price columns on past instances of a firm's problem cut solution times on new instances by more than careful engineering of the classical method?
- How much training data does it need, and does it break when the problem's data distribution shifts?
- Which parts of the pipeline (branching, cut selection, primal heuristics, column pricing) give the largest gains per unit of engineering?
Data that could help#
Standard instance libraries (MIPLIB, routing and scheduling benchmarks) and firms' instance histories for a repeated planning problem.
Next step#
Train a cut-selection model on one firm's repeated network design instances and compare solution times with a tuned classical Benders implementation on held-out instances.