Learning and using hyper-heuristics for variable and value ordering in constraint satisfaction problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the use of hyper-heuristics for variable and value ordering in binary Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP). Specifically, we describe the use of a symbolic cognitive architecture, augmented with constraint based reasoning as the hyper-heuristic machine learning framework. The underlying design motivation of our approach is to do more with less. Specifically, the approach seeks to minimize the number of low level heuristics encoded yet dramatically expand the expressiveness of the hyper-heuristic by encoding the constituent measures of each heuristic, thereby providing more opportunities to achieve improved solutions. Further, the use of a symbolic cognitive architecture allows us to encode hierarchical preferences which extend the effectiveness of the hyper-heuristic across problem types. Empirical experiments are conducted to generate and test hyper-heuristics for two benchmark CSP problem types: Map Coloring; and, Job Shop Scheduling. Results suggest that the hyper-heuristic approach provides a dramatically higher level of representational granularity allowing superior intra-problem and inter-problem solutions to be secured over traditional combinations of variable and value ordering heuristics.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".