MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2227333382 · doi:10.1609/socs.v1i1.18180

Computing Equivalent Transformations for Combinatorial Optimization by Branch-and-Bound Search

2010· article· en· W2227333382 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Hsu, Sheila A. McIlraith

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial Search · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaximum satisfiability problemSolverBranch and boundPruningBounding overwatchMathematical optimizationTransformation (genetics)Computer scienceContext (archaeology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Local search (optimization)Boolean satisfiability problemMathematicsAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceBoolean function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Branch-and-Bound search is a basic algorithm for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Here we introduce a new lower-bounding methodology that can be incorporated into any branch-and-bound solver, and demonstraint its use on the MaxSAT constraint optimization problem. The approach is to adapt a “minimum-height equivalent transformation” framework that was first developed in the context of computer vision. We present efficient algorithms to realize this framework within the MaxSAT domain, and demonstrate their feasibility by implementing them within the state-of-the-art maxsatz solver. We evaluate the solver on test sets from the 2009 MaxSAT competition; we observe a basic performance tradeoff whereby the (quadratic) time cost of computing the transformations may or may not be worthwhile in exchange for better bounds and more frequent pruning. For specific test sets, the trade-off does result in significant improvement in both prunings and overall run-time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Combinatorial SearchSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207