PORTFOLIOS WITH DEADLINES FOR BACKTRACKING SEARCH
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
Backtracking search is often the method of choice for solving constraint satisfaction and propositional satisfiability problems. Previous studies have shown that portfolios of backtracking algorithms — a selection of one or more algorithms plus a schedule for executing the algorithms — can dramatically improve performance on some instances. In this paper, we consider a setting that often arises in practice where the instances to be solved arise over time, the instances all belong to some class of problem instances, and a limit or deadline is placed on the computational resources that can be consumed in solving any instance. For such a scenario, we present a simple scheme for learning a good portfolio of backtracking algorithms from a small sample of instances. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach through an extensive empirical evaluation using two testbeds: real-world instruction scheduling problems and the widely used quasigroup completion 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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