Learning Sensitivity of RCPSP by Analyzing the Search Process
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
Solving the problem is an important part of optimization. An equally important part is the analysis of the solution where several questions can arise. For a scheduling problem, is it possible to obtain a better solution by increasing the capacity of a resource? What happens to the objective value if we start a specific task earlier? Answering such questions is important to provide explanations and increase the acceptability of a solution. A lot of research has been done on sensitivity analysis, but few techniques can be applied to constraint programming. We present a new method for sensitivity analysis applied to constraint programming. It collects information, during the search, about the propagation of the CUMULATIVE constraint, the filtering of the variables, and the solution returned by the solver. Using machine learning algorithms, we predict if increasing/decreasing the capacity of the cumulative resource allows a better solution. We also predict the impact on the objective value of forcing a task to finish earlier. We experimentally validate our method with the RCPSP problem.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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