Generalized benchmark generation for dynamic combinatorial problems
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
Several general purpose benchmark generators are now available in the literature. They are convenient tools in dynamic continuous optimization as they can produce test instances with controllable features. Yet, a parallel work in dynamic discrete optimization still lacks.In constructing benchmarks for dynamic combinatorial problems, two issues should be addressed: first, test cases that can effectively test an algorithm ability to adapt can be difficult to create; second, it might be necessary to optimize several instances of an NP-hard problem. Hence, this paper proposes a method for generating benchmarks with known solutions without the need to re-optimize. Consequently, the method does not suffer the usual limitations on the problem size or the sequence length.The paper also proposes a general framework for the generation of test problems. It aims to unify existing approaches and to form a basis for designing newer benchmarks. Such a framework can be more appreciated knowing that combinatorial problems tend to assume very distinct structures, and hence, relevant benchmarks are basically too specific to be of interest to the general reader.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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