Curriculum learning for multilevel budgeted combinatorial problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning heuristics for combinatorial optimization problems through graph neural networks have recently shown promising results on some classic NP-hard problems. These are single-level optimization problems with only one player. Multilevel combinatorial optimization problems are their generalization, encompassing situations with multiple players taking decisions sequentially. By framing them in a multi-agent reinforcement learning setting, we devise a value-based method to learn to solve multilevel budgeted combinatorial problems involving two players in a zero-sum game over a graph. Our framework is based on a simple curriculum: if an agent knows how to estimate the value of instances with budgets up to $B$, then solving instances with budget $B+1$ can be done in polynomial time regardless of the direction of the optimization by checking the value of every possible afterstate. Thus, in a bottom-up approach, we generate datasets of heuristically solved instances with increasingly larger budgets to train our agent. We report results close to optimality on graphs up to $100$ nodes and a $185 \times$ speedup on average compared to the quickest exact solver known for the Multilevel Critical Node problem, a max-min-max trilevel problem that has been shown to be at least $Σ_2^p$-hard.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".