Skip to main content

An Empirical Study of Per-instance Algorithm Scheduling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION 2016)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 10079))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Algorithm selection is a prominent approach to improve a system’s performance by selecting a well-performing algorithm from a portfolio for an instance at hand. One extension of the traditional algorithm selection problem is to not only select one single algorithm but a schedule of algorithms to increase robustness. Some approaches exist for solving this problem of selecting schedules on a per-instance basis (e.g., the Sunny and 3S systems), but to date, a fair and thorough comparison of these is missing. In this work, we implement Sunny’s approach and dynamic schedules inspired by 3S in the flexible algorithm selection framework flexfolio to use the same code base for a fair comparison. Based on the algorithm selection library (ASlib), we perform the first thorough empirical study on the strengths and weaknesses of per-instance algorithm schedules. We observe that on some domains it is crucial to use a training phase to limit the maximal size of schedules and to select the optimal neighborhood size of k-nearest-neighbor. By modifying our implemented variants of the Sunny and 3S approaches in this way, we achieve strong performance on many ASlib benchmarks and establish new state-of-the-art performance on 3 scenarios.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://baldur.iti.kit.edu/SAT-Challenge-2012/.

  2. 2.

    Optimizing a schedule is NP-hard; thus the size of the input set, defined by k, must be kept small to make the process applicable during runtime.

  3. 3.

    The source code and all benchmark data are available at http://www.ml4aad.org/algorithm-selection/flexfolio/.

  4. 4.

    PAR10 is the penalized average running time where timeouts are counted as 10 times the running time cutoff.

  5. 5.

    www.aslib.net.

References

  1. Amadini, R., Gabbrielli, M., Mauro, J.: SUNNY: a lazy portfolio approach for constraint solving. TPLP 14(4–5), 509–524 (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bischl, B., Kerschke, P., Kotthoff, L., Lindauer, M., Malitsky, Y., Frechétte, A., Hoos, H., Hutter, F., Leyton-Brown, K., Tierney, K., Vanschoren, J.: ASlib: a benchmark library for algorithm selection. AIJ 237, 41–58 (2016)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Hoos, H., Kaminski, R., Lindauer, M., Schaub, T.: aspeed: Solver scheduling via answer set programming. TPLP 15, 117–142 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hoos, H., Lindauer, M., Schaub, T.: claspfolio 2: Advances in algorithm selection for answer set programming. TPLP 14, 569–585 (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Huberman, B., Lukose, R., Hogg, T.: An economic approach to hard computational problems. Science 275, 51–54 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kadioglu, S., Malitsky, Y., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Sellmann, M.: Algorithm selection and scheduling. In: Lee, J. (ed.) CP 2011. LNCS, vol. 6876, pp. 454–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23786-7_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Kotthoff, L.: Algorithm selection for combinatorial search problems: a survey. AI Mag. 35, 48–60 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lindauer, M., Hoos, H., Hutter, F., Schaub, T.: Autofolio: an automatically configured algorithm selector. JAIR 53, 745–778 (2015)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Malitsky, Y., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Sellmann, M.: Boosting sequential solver portfolios: knowledge sharing and accuracy prediction. In: Nicosia, G., Pardalos, P. (eds.) LION 2013. LNCS, vol. 7997, pp. 153–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-44973-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Rice, J.: The algorithm selection problem. Adv. Comput. 15, 65–118 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xu, L., Hutter, F., Hoos, H., Leyton-Brown, K.: SATzilla: portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. JAIR 32, 565–606 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marius Lindauer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lindauer, M., Bergdoll, RD., Hutter, F. (2016). An Empirical Study of Per-instance Algorithm Scheduling. In: Festa, P., Sellmann, M., Vanschoren, J. (eds) Learning and Intelligent Optimization. LION 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10079. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50349-3_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50349-3_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50348-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50349-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics