skip to main content
10.1145/3205455.3205585acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Algorithm selection on generalized quadratic assignment problem landscapes

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Algorithm selection is useful in decision situations where among many alternative algorithm instances one has to be chosen. This is often the case in heuristic optimization and is detailed by the well-known no-free-lunch (NFL) theorem. A consequence of the NFL is that a heuristic algorithm may only gain a performance improvement in a subset of the problems. With the present study we aim to identify correlations between observed differences in performance and problem characteristics obtained from statistical analysis of the problem instance and from fitness landscape analysis (FLA). Finally we evaluate the performance of a recommendation algorithm that uses this information to make an informed choice for a certain algorithm instance.

References

  1. Michael Affenzeller, Stephan Winkler, Stefan Wagner, and Andreas Beham. 2009. Genetic Algorithms and Genetic Programming - Modern Concepts and Practical Applications. CRC Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Eric Angel and Vassilis Zissimopoulos. 1998. Autocorrelation coefficient for the graph bipartitioning problem. Theoretical Computer Science 191,1--2 (1998), 229--243. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Auger and N. Hansen. 2005. Performance evaluation of an advanced local search evolutionary algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Vol. 2. 1777--1784.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Thomas Bartz-Beielstein. 2006. Experimental Research in Evolutionary Computation: The New Experimentalism. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Thomas Bartz-Beielstein, Christian WG Lasarczyk, and Mike Preuß. 2005. Sequential parameter optimization. In Evolutionary Computation, 2005. The 2005 IEEE Congress on, Vol. 1. IEEE, 773--780.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Mosab Bazargani and Fernando G. Lobo. 2017. Parameter-less Late Acceptance Hill-climbing. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 219--226. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Andreas Beham, Michael Affenzeller, and Stefan Wagner. 2017. Instance-based Algorithm Selection on Quadratic Assignment Problem Landscapes. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion (GECCO '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1471--1478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andreas Beham, Stefan Wagner, and Michael Affenzeller. 2016. Optimization Knowledge Center: A Decision Support System for Heuristic Optimization. In Companion Publication of the 2016 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO'16 Companion. ACM, 1331--1338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Thierry Benoist, Bertrand Estellon, Frédéric Gardi, Romain Megel, and Karim Nouioua. 2011. Localsolver 1.x: a black-box local-search solver for 0--1 programming. 40R: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research 9, 3 (2011), 299--316.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Rainer E. Burkard, Stefan E. Karisch, and Franz Rendl. 1997. QAPLIB - A Quadratic Assignment Problem Library. Journal of Global Optimization 10, 4 (June 1997), 391--403. http://www.opt.math.tu-graz.ac.at/qaplib/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Edmund K. Burke and Yuri Bykov. 2017. The late acceptance Hill-Climbing heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research 258, 1 (2017), 70 -- 78.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Francisco Chicano, Gabriel Luque, and Enrique Alba. 2012. Autocorrelation measures for the quadratic assignment problem. Applied Mathematics Letters 25, 4 (2012), 698--705.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jean-François Cordeau, Manlio Gaudioso, Gilbert Laporte, and Luigi Moccia. 2006. A memetic heuristic for the generalized quadratic assignment problem. INFORMS Journal on Computing 18, 4 (2006), 433--443. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Alan M Frieze and Joseph Yadegar. 1983. On the Quadratic Assignment Problem. Discrete applied mathematics 5, 1 (1983), 89--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. H. H. Hoos and T. Stützte. 1998. Evaluating Las Vegas Algorithms - Pitfalls and Remedies. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-98). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 238--245. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Gregory S. Hornby. 2006. ALPS: The Age-layered Population Structure for Reducing the Problem of Premature Convergence. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 815--822. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Frank Flutter, Holger H Hoos, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Thomas Stützle. 2009. ParamILS: an automatic algorithm configuration framework. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 36, 1 (2009), 267--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kalervo Järvelin and JaanaKekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of IR techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 20, 4 (2002), 422--446. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. L Kaufman and Fernand Broeckx. 1978. An Algorithm for the Quadratic Assignment Problem using Bender's Decomposition. European Journal of Operational Research 2, 3 (1978), 207--211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Lars Kotthoff. 2014. Algorithm selection for combinatorial search problems: A survey. AI Magazine 35, 3 (2014), 48--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Kevin Leyton-Brown, Eugene Nudelman, Galen Andrew, Jim McFadden, and Yoav Shoham. 2003. A portfolio approach to algorithm selection. In IJCAI, Vol. 3. 1542--1543. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Manuel López-Ibáñez, Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste, Thomas Stützle, and Mauro Birattari. 2011. The irace package, Iterated Race for Automatic Algorithm Configuration. Technical Report TR/IRIDIA/2011-004. IRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/IridiaTrSeries/IridiaTr2011-004.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Helena R Lourenço, Olivier C Martin, and Thomas Stutzle. 2003. Iterated local search. International series in operations research and management science (2003), 321--354.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Geraldo R Mateus, Mauricio GC Resende, and Ricardo MA Silva. 2011. GRASP with path-relinking for the generalized quadratic assignment problem. Journal of Heuristics 17, 5 (2011), 527--565. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Olaf Mersmann, Bernd Bischl, Heike Trautmann, Mike Preuss, Claus Weihs, and Günter Rudolph. 2011. Exploratory Landscape Analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 829--836. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Peter Merz and Bernd Freisleben. 2000. Fitness landscape analysis and memetic algorithms for the quadratic assignment problem. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on 4, 4 (2000), 337--352. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. G. Ochoa, S. Verel, F. Daolio, and M. Tomassini. 2014. Local Optima Networks: A New Model of Combinatorial Fitness Landscapes. In Recent Advances in the Theory and Application of Fitness Landscapes. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Artur Alves Pessoa, Peter M. Hahn, Monique Guignard, and Yi-Rong Zhu. 2010. Algorithms for the generalized quadratic assignment problem combining Lagrangean decomposition and the Reformulation-Linearization Technique. European Journal of Operational Research 206, 1 (2010), 54--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Erik Pitzer and Michael Affenzeller. 2012. A comprehensive survey on fitness landscape analysis. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Engineering Systems. Springer, 161--191.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. John R. Rice. 1976. The Algorithm Selection Problem. Advances in Computers 15 (1976), 65--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. David M Tate and Alice E Smith. 1995. A genetic approach to the quadratic assignment problem. Computers & Operations Research 22, 1 (1995), 73--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Vesselin K Vassilev, Terence C Fogarty, and Julian F Miller. 2000. Information Characteristics and the Structure of Landscapes. Evolutionary Computation 8, 1 (2000), 31--60. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. H. Wang and M. Song. 2011. Ckmeans.1d.dp: optimal k-means clustering in one dimension by dynamic programming. The R Journal 3, 2 (2011), 29--33.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Darrell Whitley, Andrew M Sutton, and Adele E Howe. 2008. Understanding elementary landscapes. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, 585--592. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. David H. Wolpert and William G. Macready. 1997. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1, 1 (1997), 67--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lin Xu, Frank Hutter, Holger H Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2008. SATzilla: portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT. Journal of artificial intelligence research 32 (2008), 565--606. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Algorithm selection on generalized quadratic assignment problem landscapes

          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 '18: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
            July 2018
            1578 pages
            ISBN:9781450356183
            DOI:10.1145/3205455

            Copyright © 2018 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: 2 July 2018

            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

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader