Learning MAX-SAT Models from Examples Using Genetic Algorithms and Knowledge Compilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many real-world problems can be effectively solved by means of combinatorial optimization. However, appropriate models to give to a solver are not always available, and sometimes must be learned from historical data. Although some research has been done in this area, the task of learning (weighted partial) MAX-SAT models has not received much attention thus far, even though such models can be used in many real-world applications. Furthermore, most existing work is limited to learning models from non-contextual data, where instances are labeled as solutions and non-solutions, but without any specification of the contexts in which those labels apply. A recent approach named hassle-sls has addressed these limitations: it can jointly learn hard constraints and weighted soft constraints from labeled contextual examples. However, it is hindered by long runtimes, as evaluating even a single candidate MAX-SAT model requires solving as many models as there are contexts in the training data, which quickly becomes highly expensive when the size of the model increases. In this work, we address these runtime issues. To this end, we make two contributions. First, we propose a faster model evaluation procedure that makes use of knowledge compilation. Second, we propose a genetic algorithm named hassle-gen that decreases the number of evaluations needed to find good models. We experimentally show that both contributions improve on the state of the art by speeding up learning, which in turn allows higher-quality MAX-SAT models to be found within a given learning time budget.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".