In these processes, an evaluator estimates an individual's value to an institution.

They iteratively modify and resolve linear programs to conduct a depth-first search from any node in the search tree. Existing divers rely on generic decision rules that fail to exploit structural commonality between similar problem instances that often arise in practice.

We consider a factored CMDP environment described previously.

Primal heuristics are important for solving mixed integer linear programs, because they find feasible solutions that facilitate branch and bound search. A prominent group of primal heuristics are diving heuristics. They iteratively modify and resolve linear programs to conduct a depth-first search from any node in the search tree. Existing divers rely on generic decision rules that fail to exploit structural commonality between similar problem instances that often arise in practice. Therefore, we propose L2Dive to learn specific diving heuristics with graph neural networks: We train generative models to predict variable assignments and leverage the duality of linear programs to make diving decisions based on the model's predictions. L2Dive is fully integrated into the open-source solver SCIP. We find that L2Dive outperforms standard divers to find better feasible solutions on a range of combinatorial optimization problems. For real-world applications from server load balancing and neural network verification, L2Dive improves the primal-dual integral by up to 7% (35%) on average over a tuned (default) solver baseline and reduces average solving time by 20% (29%).

Since the 1990s, considerable empirical work has been carried out to train statistical models, such as neural networks (NNs), as learned heuristics for combinatorial optimization (CO) problems. When successful, such an approach eliminates the need for experts to design heuristics per problem type. Due to their structure, many hard CO problems are amenable to treatment through reinforcement learning (RL). Indeed, we find a wealth of literature training NNs using value-based, policy gradient, or actor-critic approaches, with promising results, both in terms of empirical optimality gaps and inference runtimes. Nevertheless, there has been a paucity of theoretical work undergirding the use of RL for CO problems. To this end, we introduce a unified framework to model CO problems through Markov decision processes (MDPs) and solve them using RL techniques. We provide easy-to-test assumptions under which CO problems can be formulated as equivalent undiscounted MDPs that provide optimal solutions to the original CO problems. Moreover, we establish conditions under which value-based RL techniques converge to approximate solutions of the CO problem with a guarantee on the associated optimality gap. Our convergence analysis provides: (1) a sufficient rate of increase in batch size and projected gradient descent steps at each RL iteration; (2) the resulting optimality gap in terms of problem parameters and targeted RL accuracy; and (3) the importance of a choice of state-space embedding. Together, our analysis illuminates the success (and limitations) of the celebrated deep Q-learning algorithm in this problem context.

Partial Maximum Satisfiability (PMS) and Weighted Partial Maximum Satisfiability (WPMS) generalize Maximum Satisfiability (MaxSAT), with broad real-world applications. Recent advances in Stochastic Local Search (SLS) algorithms for solving (W)PMS have mainly focused on designing clause weighting schemes. However, existing methods often fail to adequately distinguish between PMS and WPMS, typically employing uniform update strategies for clause weights and overlooking critical structural differences between the two problem types. In this work, we present a novel clause weighting scheme that, for the first time, updates the clause weights of PMS and WPMS instances according to distinct conditions. This scheme also introduces a new initialization method, which better accommodates the unique characteristics of both instance types. Furthermore, we propose a decimation method that prioritizes satisfying unit and hard clauses, effectively complementing our proposed clause weighting scheme. Building on these methods, we develop a new SLS solver for (W)PMS named DeepDist. Experimental results on benchmarks from the anytime tracks of recent MaxSAT Evaluations show that DeepDist outperforms state-of-the-art SLS solvers. Notably, a hybrid solver combining DeepDist with TT-Open-WBO-Inc surpasses the performance of the MaxSAT Evaluation 2024 winners, SPB-MaxSAT-c-Band and SPB-MaxSAT-c-FPS, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach. The code is available at https://github.com/jmhmaxsat/DeepDist

We study Sparse Multiple Kernel Learning (SMKL), which is the problem of selecting a sparse convex combination of prespecified kernels for support vector binary classification. Unlike prevailing l1 regularized approaches that approximate a sparsifying penalty, we formulate the problem by imposing an explicit cardinality constraint on the kernel weights and add an l2 penalty for robustness. We solve the resulting non-convex minimax problem via an alternating best response algorithm with two subproblems: the alpha subproblem is a standard kernel SVM dual solved via LIBSVM, while the beta subproblem admits an efficient solution via the Greedy Selector and Simplex Projector algorithm. We reformulate SMKL as a mixed integer semidefinite optimization problem and derive a hierarchy of semidefinite convex relaxations which can be used to certify near-optimality of the solutions returned by our best response algorithm and also to warm start it. On ten UCI benchmarks, our method with random initialization outperforms state-of-the-art MKL approaches in out-of-sample prediction accuracy on average by 3.34 percentage points (relative to the best performing benchmark) while selecting a small number of candidate kernels in comparable runtime. With warm starting, our method outperforms the best performing benchmark's out-of-sample prediction accuracy on average by 4.05 percentage points. Our convex relaxations provide a certificate that in several cases, the solution returned by our best response algorithm is the globally optimal solution.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in reasoning tasks requiring a single correct answer, but they perform poorly in multi-solution tasks that require generating comprehensive and diverse answers. We attribute this limitation to \textbf{reasoning overconfidence}: a tendency to express undue certainty in an incomplete solution set. To examine the effect, we introduce \textit{MuSoBench}, a benchmark of multi-solution problems. Experiments show that the conventional short chain-of-thought (Short-CoT) prompting paradigm exhibits pronounced overconfidence, whereas the emerging long chain-of-thought (Long-CoT) approach mitigates it through iterative exploration and self-reflection. We further characterise observable behaviours and influential factors. To probe the underlying cause, we propose the \textbf{cognitive-rigidity hypothesis}, which posits that overconfidence arises when the reasoning process prematurely converges on a narrow set of thought paths. An attention-entropy analysis offers preliminary support for this view. These findings provide tools for assessing the completeness of LLM reasoning and highlight the need to move evaluation beyond single-answer accuracy toward comprehensive exploration.