Towards a Generic Representation of Combinatorial Problems for Learning-Based Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in using learning-based approaches for solving combinatorial problems, either in an end-to-end manner or in conjunction with traditional optimization algorithms. In both scenarios, the challenge lies in encoding the targeted combinatorial problems into a structure compatible with the learning algorithm. Many existing works have proposed problem-specific representations, often in the form of a graph, to leverage the advantages of \textit{graph neural networks}. However, these approaches lack generality, as the representation cannot be easily transferred from one combinatorial problem to another one. While some attempts have been made to bridge this gap, they still offer a partial generality only. In response to this challenge, this paper advocates for progress toward a fully generic representation of combinatorial problems for learning-based approaches. The approach we propose involves constructing a graph by breaking down any constraint of a combinatorial problem into an abstract syntax tree and expressing relationships (e.g., a variable involved in a constraint) through the edges. Furthermore, we introduce a graph neural network architecture capable of efficiently learning from this representation. The tool provided operates on combinatorial problems expressed in the XCSP3 format, handling all the constraints available in the 2023 mini-track competition. Experimental results on four combinatorial problems demonstrate that our architecture achieves performance comparable to dedicated architectures while maintaining generality. Our code and trained models are publicly available at \url{https://github.com/corail-research/learning-generic-csp}.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".