Relaxation Search: A Simple Way of Managing Optional Clauses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of problems involve managing a set of optional clauses. For example, the soft clauses in a MAXSAT formula are optional—they can be falsified for a cost. Similarly, when computing a Minimum Correction Set for an unsatisfiable formula, all clauses are optional—some can be falsified in order to satisfy the remaining. In both of these cases the task is to find a subset of the optional clauses that achieves some criteria, and whose removal leaves a satisfiable formula. Relaxation search is a simple method of using a standard SAT solver to solve this task. Relaxation search is easy to implement, sometimes requiring only a simple modification of the variable selection heuristic in the SAT solver; it offers considerable flexibility and control over the order in which subsets of optional clauses are examined; and it automatically exploits clause learning to exchange information between the two phases of finding a suitable subset of optional clauses and checking if their removal yields satisfiability. We demonstrate how relaxation search can be used to solve MAXSAT and to compute Minimum Correction Sets. In both cases relaxation search is able to achieve state-of-the-art performance and solve some instances other solvers are not able to solve.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".