Enumerating Minimal Unsatisfiable Subsets (MUSes) is a fundamental task in constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). Its major challenge is the exponential growth of the search space, which becomes particularly severe when satisfiability checks are expensive. Recent machine learning approaches reduce this cost for Boolean satisfiability problems but rely on explicit variable-constraint relationships, limiting their application domains. This paper proposes a domain-agnostic method to accelerate MUS enumeration using Hypergraph Neural Networks (HGNNs). The proposed method incrementally builds a hypergraph with constraints as vertices and MUSes enumerated until the current step as hyperedges, and employs an HGNN-based agent trained via reinforcement learning to minimize the number of satisfiability checks required to obtain an MUS. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in accelerating MUS enumeration, showing that our method can enumerate more MUSes within the same satisfiability check budget compared to conventional methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of HyMUSE. HyMUSE is a domain-agnostic method to accelerate MUS/MSS enumeration using Hypergraph Neural Networks (HGNNs). HyMUSE constructs a hypergraph whose vertices are constraints and whose hyperedges are MUSes and MCSes (only MUSes are illustrated in this figure). The HGNN-based agent takes the hypergraph of MUSes/MCSes enumerated until the current step and the subset of constraints to shrink/grow as input, and outputs a tentative MUS/MSS candidate. The candidate is then corrected to a valid MUS/MSS. The agent is trained via reinforcement learning with reward designed to minimize the number of calls to the satisfiability checking oracle required for the correction.
Figure 2: Architecture of Hypergraph Neural Networks. The input is the MUS/MCS hypergraph and the subset of constraints to be shrunk/grown, shown as gray-colored nodes. The feature vectors of vertices are initialized with spectral embeddings based on the hypergraph Laplacian and updated by AllSetTransformer layers. Then, the feature vectors of constraints in the action candidate set are updated separately by two transformer decoders to output the policy and value.
Figure 3Figure 4
Figure 3: Reward Transition during Training. The average reward and the standard deviation are plotted.
Figure 4: Comparison of MARCO with and without the Agent on SATsmall . The x-axis shows the number of MUSes/MSSes found with the agent, and the y-axis shows the number found without the agent within 10,000 checks. Points below the dashed y=x line indicate improvement by the agent. Points on the line are instances where both methods found all MUSes/MSSes.
Figure 5: Relation of Number of MUSes/MSSes and Number of Satisfiability Checks. The number of MUSes/MSSes is plotted against the number of satisfiability checks for both MARCO with and without the agent.
Quartile
1k checks
5k checks
10k checks
1Q
1.80 ± 0.57
2.05 ± 0.55
1.73 ± 0.58
2Q
1.78 ± 0.47
1.90 ± 0.40
1.89 ± 0.33
3Q
1.77 ± 0.36
1.82 ± 0.31
1.86 ± 0.33
4Q
1.57 ± 0.29
1.61 ± 0.31
1.67 ± 0.33
Overall
1.74 ± 0.45
1.85 ± 0.43
1.79 ± 0.42
Table 1: Improvement Ratio of MARCO with the Agent on SATsmall . The improvement ratio is calculated as the number of MUSes/MSSes with the agent divided by that without the agent at each instance and averaged across instances in each quartile group and overall. The quartiles are based on the number of MUSes/MSSes enumerated without the agent.
Dataset
# MUSes/MSSes
Ratio
SATsmall
w/o Agent
119.5 ± 60.3
1.79 ± 0.42
w/ Agent
211.3±99.4
SATlarge
w/o Agent
54.1 ± 15.3
2.46 ± 0.42
w/ Agent
130.6±31.6
GC
w/o Agent
15.1 ± 16.1
2.32 ± 0.96
w/ Agent
31.6±28.4
Table 2: The Number of MUSes/MSSes with and without the Agent and the Improvement Ratio on Different Datasets at 10k Checks. The number of MUSes/MSSes and the improvement ratio are averaged across instances in each dataset and shown with standard deviation.
Method
1k checks
5k checks
10k checks
TOME
0.92 ± 0.14
1.08 ± 0.18
1.11 ± 0.16
ReMUS
1.31 ± 0.29
1.05 ± 0.37
0.75 ± 0.29
Table 3: Improvement Ratio by Integrating the Agent with Different Enumeration Methods on SATsmall . The improvement ratio is calculated as the number of MUSes/MSSes found by each enumeration method with the agent divided by that without the agent at each instance and averaged across instances.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Ncheck
Ncheck′
Ninfer
reff
SATsmall
85 ± 37
44 ± 17
48 ± 24
0.83 ± 0.11
SATlarge
196 ± 51
81 ± 22
127 ± 37
0.90 ± 0.08
GC
996 ± 540
478 ± 312
673 ± 422
0.77 ± 0.27
SMT
136 ± 313
117 ± 428
94 ± 243
0.25 ± 0.71
Appendix
Table 4: Average Number of Checks and Inference Calls for Extracting an MUS/MSS with and without the Agent and the Effective Ratio reff on Different Datasets. The numbers are averaged across instances in each dataset and shown with standard deviation.
Agent
1k checks
5k checks
10k checks
Trained
1.74 ± 0.45
1.85 ± 0.43
1.79 ± 0.42
Untrained
1.02 ± 0.22
0.93 ± 0.15
0.88 ± 0.11
Appendix
Table 5: The Improvement Ratio in the Number of MUSes/MSSes when Integrating Trained and Untrained Agents with MARCO on SATsmall . The numbers are averaged across instances and shown with standard deviation.
Method
MARCO
TOME
ReMUS
w/o Agent
(1.00)
1.52 ± 0.48
3.29±1.54
w/ Agent
1.79 ± 0.42
1.69 ± 0.57
2.16 ± 0.58
Appendix
Table 6: Normalized Number of MUSes/MSSes Enumerated with Different Enumeration Methods on SATsmall . The numbers are normalized by that of MARCO without the agent at each instance and averaged across instances.
Method
MARCO
TOME
ReMUS
w/o Agent
(1.00)
1.51 ± 0.48
3.26±1.48
w/ Agent
1.85 ± 0.44
1.67 ± 0.56
2.19 ± 0.59
Appendix
Table 7: Normalized Number of MUSes/MSSes Enumerated within 10,000 Satisfiability Checks on SATsmall with and without the Agent Trained with ReMUS.
Method
MARCO
TOME
ReMUS
w/o Agent
(1.00)
2.17 ± 0.40
2.00 ± 0.73
w/ Agent
2.50 ± 0.43
2.47 ± 0.47
3.01±0.41
Appendix
Table 8: Normalized Number of MUSes/MSSes Enumerated within 10,000 Satisfiability Checks on SATlarge with and without the Agent Trained with ReMUS.
Figure 6: Comparison of MARCO with and without the Agent on SATlarge .
Figure 7: Comparison of MARCO with and without the Agent on GC .
Figure 8: Comparison of MARCO with and without the Agent on SMT .
Graph neural networks (GNNs) are increasingly applied to hard optimization problems, often claiming superiority over classical heuristics. However, such claims risk being unsolid due to a lack of standard benchmarks on truly hard instances. From a statistical physics perspective, we propose new hard benchmarks based on random problems. We provide these benchmarks, along with performance results from both classical heuristics and GNNs. Our fair comparison shows that classical algorithms still outperform GNNs. We discuss the challenges for neural networks in this domain. Future claims of superiority can be made more robust using our benchmarks, available at https://github.com/ArtLabBocconi/RandCSPBench.
Geri Skenderi, Lorenzo Buffoni, Francesco D'Amico +6
Department of Computing Sciences, Bocconi University, Milan, Italy · Bocconi Institute for Data Science and Analytics (BIDSA) · Department of Physics and Astronomy and INFN, University of Florence +4
We propose Tiny Recursive Models for Combinatorial Optimization (\ours{}), a general neural method for combinatorial optimization that scales both depth (how often we recursively invoke our network) and width (how much we sample in parallel). Both are fundamental for combinatorial optimization: hard instances demand a large amount of compute, while a small network is essential to avoid overfitting and capture the algorithmic essence of optimization. In particular, our method consists of a graph-aware tiny recursive model that iterates on a latent state with adaptive halting and needs only a lightweight problem-specific decoder. Compared with previous heatmap-based general neural solvers, it achieves a better balance between solution quality and inference speed on both the Traveling Salesman Problem~(TSP) and the Maximum Independent Set~(MIS) problem, and remains competitive with hybrid methods that combine neural components with heuristics specific to each problem. With the same backbone architecture for both tasks, \ours{} outperforms every diffusion-based solver on TSP from 500 to 10,000 cities at a lower inference cost, and on the standard Erdős--Rényi-[700-800] MIS benchmark it surpasses all neural solvers except those that only work well on MIS. We then explore self-relabeling for self-supervised training. We periodically replace the current set of training labels with the model's own better solutions, as an alternative training signal. Self-relabeling can, while forgoing supervision from near-optimal solutions, still result in on-par quality.
Foundational optimization embeddings have recently emerged as powerful pre-trained representations for mixed-integer programming (MIP) problems. These embeddings were shown to enable cross-domain transfer and reduce reliance on solver-generated labels. In this work, we investigate whether such representations generalize beyond optimization to decision problems, focusing on Boolean satisfiability (SAT). We adapt the foundational optimization architecture to SAT by mapping CNF formulas into the same bipartite constraint-variable graph representation used for MIPs. This allows direct reuse of the pre-trained embedding model without architectural changes or supervised fine-tuning. Our results show that these embeddings capture structural regularities in SAT instances and support unsupervised tasks such as instance clustering and distribution identification. We demonstrate, for the first time, that foundational optimization embeddings can transfer to constraint satisfaction domains. Our findings is a step toward a unified representational framework for both optimization and decision problems.
Koyena Pal, Serdar Kadioglu
AI Center of Excellence, Fidelity Investments, USA · Khoury College of Computer Sciences, Northeastern University, USA · Department of Computer Science, Brown University, USA