skip to main content
10.1145/1281700.1281712acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesexpcsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

High-contrast algorithm behavior: observation, hypothesis, and experimental design

Published:13 June 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

After extensive experiments with two algorithms, CPLEX and our implementation of all-integer dual simplex, we observed extreme differences between the two on a set of design automation benchmarks. In many cases one of the two would find an optimal solution within seconds while the other timed out at one hour.

We conjecture that this contrast is accounted for by the extent to which the constraint matrix can be made block diagonal via row/column permutations. The actual structure of the matrix without the permutations is not important.

We used crossing minimization to discover the right permutations that make the underlying structure, whether block diagonal or random, visible. Our conjecture leads to a testable hypothesis for a limited domain.

The hypothesis is based on earlier observations reported in an earlier version of this paper and subsequent exploratory experiments. We present a sample of the results validating the hypothesis and make additional observations outside its scope.

As far as we are aware the approach taken here is unique and, we hope, will inspire other research of its kind.

References

  1. C. Aykanat, A. Pinar, and Ü. V. Çatalyürek. Permuting sparse rectangular matrices into block-diagonal form. SIAM J. Sci. Comput., 25:1860--1879, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. R. Borndörfer, C. E. Ferreira, and A. Martin. Decomposing matrices into blocks. SIAM J. Optimization, 9:236--269, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. F. Brglez, X. Y. Li, and M. F. M. Stallmann. On SAT instance classes and a method for reliable performance experiments with SAT solvers. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., 43(1):1--34, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. J. Brusko. Solving personnel tour scheduling problems using the dual all-integer cutting plane. IIE Transactions, 30:835--844, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Giovanni De Micheli. Synthesis and Optimatization of Digital Circuits. McGraw-Hill, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. D. R. Fulkerson and G. L. Nemhauser. Two computationally difficult set covering problems that arise in computing the 1-width of incidence matrices of Steiner triple systems. Mathematical Programming Study, 2:72--81, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Crossing number is NP-complete. SIAM J. Algebraic and Discrete Methods, pages 312--316, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Robert S. Garfinkel and George L. Nemhauser. Integer Programming. John Wiley and Sons, 1972.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Samuel I. Gass. Linear Programming: Methods and Applications. McGraw-Hill, 1958. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. E. Gomory. Outline of an algorithm for integer solution to linear programs. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 64:275, 1958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. R. E. Gomory. An algorithm for the mixed integer problem. RM-2537. Santa Monica California: Rand Corporation, 1960.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gary Hachtel and Fabio Somenzi. Logic Synthesis and Verification Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. ILOG. CPLEX Homepage, 2004. Information on CPLEX is available at http://www.ilog.com/products/cplex/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. S. Khanna, M. Sudan, L. Trevisan, and D. P. Williamson. The approximability of constraint satisfaction problems. SIAM J. Computing, 30:1863--1920, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, and D. B. Shmoys, editors. The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Guided Tour of Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. X. Y. Li, M. F. Stallmann, and F. Brglez. Effective Bounding Techniques For Solving Unate and Binate Covering Problems. In Proceedings of the 42nd Design Automation Conference, June 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Xiao Yu Li. Optimization Algorithms for the Minimum-Cost Satisfiability Problem. PhD thesis, Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N. C., August 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. V. M. Manquinho and J. Marques-Silva. On using cutting planes in pseudo-boolean optimization. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 2:209--219, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. V. M. Manquinho and J. P. Marques-Silva. Search pruning techniques in SAT-based branch-and-bound algorithms for the binate covering problem. IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, 21, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. M. Salkin and R. D. Koncal. Set covering by an all integer algorithm: Computional experience. JACM, 20:189--193, 1973. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. M. Stallmann, F. Brglez, and D. Ghosh. Heuristics, Experimental Subjects, and Treatment Evaluation in Bigraph Crossing Minimization. Journal on Experimental Algorithmics, 6(8), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. M. F. Stallmann and F. Brglez. High-contrast algorithm behavior: Observation, conjecture, and experimental design. Technical Report TR-2007-14, Computer Science Department, NCSU, 2007. Available at http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/research/tech/reports.php.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert J. Vanderbei. Linear Programming: Foundations and Extensions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2nd edition, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. S. Yang. Logic synthesis and optimization benchmarks user guide. Technical Report 1991-IWLS-UG-Saeyang, MCNC, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. High-contrast algorithm behavior: observation, hypothesis, and experimental design

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              ExpCS '07: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on Experimental computer science
              June 2007
              218 pages
              ISBN:9781595937513
              DOI:10.1145/1281700

              Copyright © 2007 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 13 June 2007

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader