skip to main content
10.1145/3583133.3596319acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Comparing Solution Combination Techniques in Scatter Search for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization

Published:24 July 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization (QUBO) has emerged as a vital unifying model for combinatorial optimization problems, and (meta-)heuristic approaches are commonly used to solve them due to their NP-hard nature. Scatter Search (SS), a population-based metaheuristic framework, is one such method that has shown promising results for QUBO problems. Generating new solutions from more promising ones is a crucial operation in SS. Path Relinking (PR) based SS has been previously used to solve challenging QUBO problems with high-quality solutions. This paper introduces two new variants of the SS algorithm. The first is the (Multi) Uniform Crossover (MUC) based SS while the second is the Univariate Marginal Distribution Algorithm (UMDA) based SS. MUC and UMDA are well-known operators in Genetic Algorithms and Estimation of Distribution Algorithms respectively. When compared to the existing PR based SS, this work shows that more promising results can be achieved when the newly proposed MUC and UMDA-based SS are applied to QUBO formulations of the Quadratic Knapsack Problem (QKP) instances.

References

  1. Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. 2019. Optuna: A Next-Generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Anchorage, AK, USA) (KDD '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2623--2631. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Talal M Alkhamis, Merza Hasan, and Mohamed A Ahmed. 1998. Simulated annealing for the unconstrained quadratic pseudo-Boolean function. European Journal of Operational Research 108, 3 (1998), 641--652.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Mohammad M. Amini, Bahram Alidaee, and Gary A. Kochenberger. 1999. A Scatter Search Approach to Unconstrained Quadratic Binary Programs. McGraw-Hill Ltd., UK, GBR, 317--330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Maliheh Aramon, Gili Rosenberg, Elisabetta Valiante, Toshiyuki Miyazawa, Hirotaka Tamura, and Helmut G. Katzgraber. 2019. Physics-Inspired Optimization for Quadratic Unconstrained Problems Using a Digital Annealer. Frontiers in Physics 7 (2019), 48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Mayowa Ayodele. 2022. Comparing the Digital Annealer with Classical Evolutionary Algorithm. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Shummet Baluja. 1994. Population-Based Incremental Learning: A Method for Integrating Genetic Search Based Function Optimization and Competitive Learning. Technical Report. Carnegie Mellon University, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Vahid Beiranvand, Warren Hare, and Yves Lucet. 2017. Best practices for comparing optimization algorithms. Optimization and Engineering 18, 4 (2017), 815--848.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. James Bergstra, Brent Komer, Chris Eliasmith, Dan Yamins, and David D Cox. 2015. Hyperopt: a python library for model selection and hyperparameter optimization. Computational Science & Discovery 8, 1 (2015), 014008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Alain Billionnet and Éric Soutif. 2004. Using a Mixed Integer Programming Tool for Solving the 0--1 Quadratic Knapsack Problem. INFORMS Journal on Computing 16, 2 (2004), 188--197. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.1030.0029 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Zhiwei Cao, Yichao Zhang, Jihong Guan, and Shuigeng Zhou. 2018. Link prediction based on quantum-inspired ant colony optimization. Scientific reports 8, 1 (2018), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Barry A Cipra. 1987. An introduction to the Ising model. The American Mathematical Monthly 94, 10 (1987), 937--959.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Wu Deng, Hailong Liu, Junjie Xu, Huimin Zhao, and Yingjie Song. 2020. An improved quantum-inspired differential evolution algorithm for deep belief network. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 69, 10 (2020), 7319--7327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Iain Dunning, Swati Gupta, and John Silberholz. 2018. What works best when? A systematic evaluation of heuristics for Max-Cut and QUBO. INFORMS Journal on Computing 30, 3 (2018), 608--624.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Katharina Eggensperger, Marius Lindauer, and Frank Hutter. 2019. Pitfalls and best practices in algorithm configuration. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 64 (2019), 861--893.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Noriyuki Fujimoto and Kouki Nanai. 2021. Solving QUBO with GPU Parallel MOPSO. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (Lille, France) (GECCO '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1788--1794. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Fred Glover and Jin-Kao Hao. 2010. Efficient evaluations for solving large 0--1 unconstrained quadratic optimisation problems. International Journal of Metaheuristics 1, 1 (2010), 3--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Fred Glover, Gary A Kochenberger, and Bahram Alidaee. 1998. Adaptive memory tabu search for binary quadratic programs. Management Science 44, 3 (1998), 336--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Huseyin Hakli and Zeynep Ortacay. 2019. An improved scatter search algorithm for the uncapacitated facility location problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019), 855--867. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Nakayama Hiroshi, Koyama Junpei, Yoneoka Noboru, and Miyazawa Toshiyuki. 2021. Third Generation Digital Annealer Technology. https://www.fujitsu.com/jp/documents/digitalannealer/researcharticles/DA_WP_EN_20210922.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Changwu Huang, Yuanxiang Li, and Xin Yao. 2019. A survey of automatic parameter tuning methods for metaheuristics. IEEE transactions on evolutionary computation 24, 2 (2019), 201--216.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mark W Johnson, Mohammad HS Amin, Suzanne Gildert, Trevor Lanting, Firas Hamze, Neil Dickson, Richard Harris, Andrew J Berkley, Jan Johansson, Paul Bunyk, et al. 2011. Quantum annealing with manufactured spins. Nature 473, 7346 (2011), 194--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Patrick Koch, Oleg Golovidov, Steven Gardner, Brett Wujek, Joshua Griffin, and Yan Xu. 2018. Autotune: A Derivative-Free Optimization Framework for Hyperparameter Tuning. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (London, United Kingdom) (KDD '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 443--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Gary Kochenberger, Jin-Kao Hao, Fred Glover, Mark Lewis, Zhipeng Lü, Haibo Wang, and Yang Wang. 2014. The unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem: a survey. Journal of combinatorial optimization 28, 1 (2014), 58--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Pedro Larranaga and Jose Lozano. 2002. Estimation of Distribution Algorithms: A New Tool for Evolutionary Computation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Manuel López-Ibáñez, Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste, Leslie Pérez Cáceres, Mauro Birattari, and Thomas Stützle. 2016. The irace package: Iterated racing for automatic algorithm configuration. Operations Research Perspectives 3 (2016), 43--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Andrew Lucas. 2014. Ising formulations of many NP problems. Frontiers in Physics 2 (2014), Article 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Satoshi Matsubara, Motomu Takatsu, Toshiyuki Miyazawa, Takayuki Shibasaki, Yasuhiro Watanabe, Kazuya Takemoto, and Hirotaka Tamura. 2020. Digital Annealer for High-Speed Solving of Combinatorial optimization Problems and Its Applications. In 2020 25th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC). IEEE, Beijing, China, 667--672. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Peter Merz and Kengo Katayama. 2004. Memetic algorithms for the unconstrained binary quadratic programming problem. BioSystems 78, 1--3 (2004), 99--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Eduardo Moreno, Daniel Espinoza, and Marcos Goycoolea. 2010. Large-scale multi-period precedence constrained knapsack problem: a mining application. Electronic notes in discrete mathematics 36 (2010), 407--414.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. H. Mühlenbein and G. Paaß. 1996. From recombination of genes to the estimation of distributions I. Binary parameters. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1141 (1996), 178--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Gita Naseri and Mattheos AG Koffas. 2020. Application of combinatorial optimization strategies in synthetic biology. Nature communications 11, 1 (2020), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Gintaras Palubeckis. 2004. Multistart Tabu Search Strategies for the Unconstrained Binary Quadratic Optimization Problem. Annals of Operations Research 131 (2004), 259--282.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Matthieu Parizy, Norihiro Kakuko, and Nozomu Togawa. 2023. Fast Hyperparameter Tuning for Ising Machines. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE). 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Matthieu Parizy and Nozomu Togawa. 2021. Analysis and Acceleration of the Quadratic Knapsack Problem on an Ising Machine. IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences advpub (2021), 2020KEP0007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. C. Patvardhan, Sulabh Bansal, and A. Srivastav. 2015. Solving the 0--1 Quadratic Knapsack Problem with a competitive Quantum Inspired Evolutionary Algorithm. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 285 (2015), 86--99. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Justin Pauckert, Matthieu Parizy, and Ayodele Mayowa. 2022. Strategic Solution Combination in Scatter Search for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization. In Proceedings of The 14th International Conference on Evolutionary Computation Theory and Applications (ECTA). SCITEPRESS, 133--142. https://www.scitepress.org/Papers/2022/115476/115476.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Stjepan Picek, Marin Golub, and Domagoj Jakobovic. 2011. Evaluation of Crossover Operator Performance in Genetic Algorithms with Binary Representation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing: Bio-Inspired Computing and Applications (Zhengzhou, China) (ICIC'11). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 223--230. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Mauricio GC Resende, Celso C Ribeiro, Fred Glover, and Rafael Martí. 2010. Scatter search and path-relinking: Fundamentals, advances, and applications. In Handbook of metaheuristics. Springer, Boston, MA, 87--107.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Michele Samorani, Yang Wang, Zhipeng Lv, and Fred Glover. 2019. Clustering-driven evolutionary algorithms: an application of path relinking to the quadratic unconstrained binary optimization problem. Journal of Heuristics 25, 4 (2019), 629--642.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Vicente P Soloviev, Concha Bielza, and Pedro Larranaga. 2021. Quantum-Inspired Estimation Of Distribution Algorithm To Solve The Travelling Salesman Problem. In 2021 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC). IEEE, Kraków, Poland, 416--425.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Kenneth Sorensen, Marc Sevaux, and Fred Glover. 2017. A History of Metaheuristics. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Jirayu Supasil, Poramet Pathumsoot, and Sujin Suwanna. 2021. Simulation of implementable quantum-assisted genetic algorithm. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1719. IOP Publishing, Trang, Thailand, Article 012102.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Paolo Toth and Daniele Vigo (Eds.). 2001. The Vehicle Routing Problem. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Anant J Umbarkar and Pranali D Sheth. 2015. Crossover operators in genetic algorithms: a review. ICTACT journal on soft computing 6 (2015), Article 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang Wang, Zhipeng Lü, Fred Glover, and Jin-Kao Hao. 2012. Path relinking for unconstrained binary quadratic programming. European Journal of Operational Research 223 (12 2012), 595--604. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Ryota Yasudo, Koji Nakano, Yasuaki Ito, Masaru Tatekawa, Ryota Katsuki, Takashi Yazane, and Yoko Inaba. 2020. Adaptive Bulk Search: Solving Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization Problems on Multiple GPUs. In 49th International Conference on Parallel Processing - ICPP (Edmonton, AB, Canada) (ICPP '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 62, 11 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Kouki Yonaga, Masamichi J. Miyama, and Masayuki Ohzeki. 2020. Solving Inequality-Constrained Binary Optimization Problems on Quantum Annealer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Farah Ayiesya Zainuddin, Md Fahmi Abd Samad, and Durian Tunggal. 2020. A review of crossover methods and problem representation of genetic algorithm in recent engineering applications. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology 29, 6s (2020), 759--769.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Oylum Şeker, Neda Tanoumand, and Merve Bodur. 2020. Digital Annealer for quadratic unconstrained binary optimization: a comparative performance analysis. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Comparing Solution Combination Techniques in Scatter Search for Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization

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
    GECCO '23 Companion: Proceedings of the Companion Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
    July 2023
    2519 pages
    ISBN:9798400701207
    DOI:10.1145/3583133

    Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 24 July 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

    Upcoming Conference

    GECCO '24
    Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
    July 14 - 18, 2024
    Melbourne , VIC , Australia
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)71
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader