The exponentiated subgradient algorithm for heuristic Boolean programming
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boolean linear programs (BLPs) are ubiquitous in AI. Satisfiability testing, planning with resource constraints, and winner determination in combinatorial auctions are all examples of this type of problem. Although increasingly well-informed by work in OR, current AI research has tended to focus on specialized algorithms for each type of BLP task and has only loosely patterned new algorithms on effective methods from other tasks. In this paper we introduce a single general-purpose local search procedure that can be simultaneously applied to the entire range of BLP problems, without modification. Although one might suspect that a general-purpose algorithm might not perform as well as specialized algorithms, we find that this is not the case here. Our experiments show that our generic algorithm simultaneously achieves performance comparable with the state of the art in satisfiability search and winner determination in combinatorial auctions--- two very different BLP problems. Our algorithm is simple, and combines an old idea from OR with recent ideas from AI. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it