Coevolutionary genetic algorithm for variable ordering in CSPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) is a framework used for modeling and solving constrained problems. Tree-search algorithms like backtracking try to construct a solution to a CSP by selecting the variables of the problem one after another. The order in which these algorithm select the variables potentially have significant impact on the search performance. Various heuristics have been proposed for choosing good variable ordering. Many powerful variable ordering heuristics weigh the constraints first and then utilize the weights for selecting good order of the variables. Constraint weighting are basically employed to identify global bottlenecks in a CSP. In this paper, we propose a new approach for learning weights for the constraints using competitive coevolutionary Genetic Algorithm (GA). Weights learned by the coevolutionary GA later help to make better choices for the first few variables in a search. In the competitive coevolutionary GA, constraints and candidate solutions for a CSP evolve together through an inverse fitness interaction process. We have conducted experiments on several random, quasi-random and patterned instances to measure the efficiency of the proposed approach. The results and analysis show that the proposed approach is good at learning weights to distinguish the hard constraints for quasi-random instances and forced satisfiable random instances generated with the Model RB. For other type of instances, RNDI (RaNDom Information gathering) still seems to be the best approach as our experiments show.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".