MAX-SAT problem using evolutionary algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MAX-SAT is a classic NP-hard optimization problem. Many real problems can be easily represented in, or reduced to MAX-SAT, and thus it has many applications. Finding optimum solutions of NP-hard optimization problems using limited computational resources seems infeasible in general. In particular, all known exact algorithms for MAX-SAT require worst-case exponential time, so evolutionary algorithms can be useful for finding good quality solutions in moderate time. We present the results of an experimental comparison of the performance of a number of recently proposed evolutionary algorithms for MAX-SAT. The algorithms include the Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm, Quantum Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm (QEA), Immune Quantum Evolutionary Algorithm (IQEA), Estimation of Distribution Algorithm (EDA), and randomized Monte Carlo (MC). Our experiments demonstrate that the ABC algorithm has better performance than the others. For problems with Boolean domain, such as MAX-SAT, the ABC algorithm requires specification of a suitable similarity measure. We experimentally evaluate the performance of the ABC algorithm with five different similarity measures to indicate the better choice for MAX-SAT problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".