Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Mixed-integer programming solvers expose hundreds or even thousands of parameters whose best setting varies per instance, yet per-instance search is prohibitively expensive. We frame this as configuration for heterogeneous Big Data optimization workloads and propose a nominate-then-adjudicate pipeline built around two design choices. First, a fixed portfolio is sampled once and reused across instances, removing per-instance configuration search at inference; on the evaluated families, the resulting shortlist retains substantial oracle headroom, making selection within it the empirical focus. Second, the fixed 20-feature representation can map structurally different instances to the same vector, preventing a feature-only selector from distinguishing them even when they prefer different configurations. The foundation model receives no task-specific weight updates, and selection is one-pass: one model call and no solver calls at inference. The study represents structural Variety through distinct formulation families and decision Value through solver-performance outcomes; the one-call, zero-solve protocol specifies the decision interface and leaves end-to-end latency unmeasured. Among comparisons exceeding a 20% practical-difference threshold, the complete adjudicator records 538 wins and 185 losses against the top nominee, while its win rate against the default rises from 84.9% to 90.2%. Against per-instance configuration baselines under a matched one-pass protocol it leads the cluster-level methods and the best-performing evaluated per-instance baseline, ISAC+.