Taylor Lundy

Chris Cameron, Jason Hartford, Taylor Lundy et al.

We introduce Monte Carlo Forest Search (MCFS), a class of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms for learning policies in {tree MDPs}, for which policy execution involves traversing an exponential-sized tree. Examples of such problems include proving unsatisfiability of a SAT formula; counting the number of solutions of a satisfiable SAT formula; and finding the optimal solution to a mixed-integer program. MCFS algorithms can be seen as extensions of Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to cases where, rather than finding a good path (solution) within a tree, the problem is to find a small tree within a forest of candidate trees. We instantiate and evaluate our ideas in an algorithm that we dub Knuth Synthesis, an MCFS algorithm that learns DPLL branching policies for solving the Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problem, with the objective of achieving good average-case performance on a given distribution of unsatisfiable problem instances. Knuth Synthesis is the first RL approach to avoid the prohibitive costs of policy evaluations in an exponentially-sized tree, leveraging two key ideas: first, we estimate tree size by randomly sampling paths and measuring their lengths, drawing on an unbiased approximation due to Knuth (1975); second, we query a strong solver at a user-defined depth rather than learning a policy across the whole tree, to focus our policy search on early decisions that offer the greatest potential for reducing tree size. We matched or exceeded the performance of a strong baseline on three well-known SAT distributions, facing problems that were two orders of magnitude more challenging than those addressed in previous RL studies.

Chris Cameron, Jason Hartford, Taylor Lundy et al.

Formulating real-world optimization problems often begins with making predictions from historical data (e.g., an optimizer that aims to recommend fast routes relies upon travel-time predictions). Typically, learning the prediction model used to generate the optimization problem and solving that problem are performed in two separate stages. Recent work has showed how such prediction models can be learned end-to-end by differentiating through the optimization task. Such methods often yield empirical improvements, which are typically attributed to end-to-end making better error tradeoffs than the standard loss function used in a two-stage solution. We refine this explanation and more precisely characterize when end-to-end can improve performance. When prediction targets are stochastic, a two-stage solution must make an a priori choice about which statistics of the target distribution to model-we consider expectations over prediction targets-while an end-to-end solution can make this choice adaptively. We show that the performance gap between a two-stage and end-to-end approach is closely related to the price of correlation concept in stochastic optimization and show the implications of some existing POC results for the predict-then-optimize problem. We then consider a novel and particularly practical setting, where multiple prediction targets are combined to obtain each of the objective function's coefficients. We give explicit constructions where (1) two-stage performs unboundedly worse than end-to-end; and (2) two-stage is optimal. We use simulations to experimentally quantify performance gaps and identify a wide range of real-world applications from the literature whose objective functions rely on multiple prediction targets, suggesting that end-to-end learning could yield significant improvements.