Characterizing and Analyzing the Relation Between Bin-Packing Problem and Tabu Search Algorithm

The relation between problem and solution algorithm presents a similar phenomenon in different research problems (optimization, decision, classification, ordering); the algorithm performance is very good in some cases of the problem, and very bad in other. Majority of related works have worked for predicting the most adequate algorithm to solve a new problem instance. However, the relation between problem and algorithm is not understood at all. In this paper a formal characterization of this relation is proposed to facilitate the analysis and understanding of the phenomenon. Case studies for Tabu Search algorithm and One Dimension Bin Packing problem were performed, considering three important sections of algorithm logical structure. Significant variables of problem structure and algorithm searching behavior from past experiments, metrics known by scientific community were considered (Autocorrelation Coefficient and Length) and significant variables of algorithm operative behavior were proposed. The models discovered in the case studies gave guidelines that permits to redesign algorithm logical structure, which outperforms to the original algorithm in an average of 69%. The proposed characterization for the relation problem-algorithm could be a formal procedure for obtaining guidelines that improves the algorithm performance.

[1]  Krzysztof Fleszar,et al.  New heuristics for one-dimensional bin-packing , 2002, Comput. Oper. Res..

[2]  Predrag Janicic,et al.  Instance-Based Selection of Policies for SAT Solvers , 2009, SAT.

[3]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Understanding the empirical hardness of NP-complete problems , 2014, CACM.

[4]  Rosalía Laza,et al.  Automatic parameter tuning for Evolutionary Algorithms using a Bayesian Case-Based Reasoning system , 2014, Appl. Soft Comput..

[5]  Rajesh Vanchipura,et al.  Development and analysis of constructive heuristic algorithms for flow shop scheduling problems with sequence-dependent setup times , 2013 .

[6]  Patrick Beullens,et al.  A semi-automated design of instance-based fuzzy parameter tuning for metaheuristics based on decision tree induction , 2015, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[7]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Sequential Model-Based Optimization for General Algorithm Configuration , 2011, LION.

[8]  Kate Smith-Miles,et al.  Cross-disciplinary perspectives on meta-learning for algorithm selection , 2009, CSUR.

[9]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Algorithm runtime prediction: Methods & evaluation , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Joaquín Pérez Ortega,et al.  A Statistical Approach for Algorithm Selection , 2004, WEA.

[11]  Laura Cruz-Reyes,et al.  Algorithm Selection: From Meta-Learning to Hyper-Heuristics , 2012 .

[12]  Shiu Yin Yuen,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithm portfolio: Choosing suitable algorithm for multiobjective optimization problem , 2014, 2014 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC).

[13]  Jean-Paul Watson,et al.  Linking Search Space Structure, Run-Time Dynamics, and Problem Difficulty: A Step Toward Demystifying Tabu Search , 2004, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[14]  Mark A. Hall,et al.  Correlation-based Feature Selection for Discrete and Numeric Class Machine Learning , 1999, ICML.

[15]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[16]  David H. Wolpert,et al.  No free lunch theorems for optimization , 1997, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[17]  Yücel Saygin,et al.  Self-configuring data mining for ubiquitous computing , 2013, Inf. Sci..

[18]  José Torres-Jiménez,et al.  Improving the Performance of Heuristic Algorithms Based on Exploratory Data Analysis , 2013, Recent Advances on Hybrid Intelligent Systems.

[19]  Howard Cho,et al.  Empirical Learning as a Function of Concept Character , 1990, Machine Learning.

[20]  Kenneth Steiglitz,et al.  Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity , 1981 .

[21]  Jano I. van Hemert,et al.  Understanding TSP Difficulty by Learning from Evolved Instances , 2010, LION.

[22]  Bernd Freisleben,et al.  Fitness landscapes and memetic algorithm design , 1999 .

[23]  Saman K. Halgamuge,et al.  Exploratory Landscape Analysis of Continuous Space Optimization Problems Using Information Content , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[24]  Ernesto Costa,et al.  Multidimensional Knapsack Problem: A Fitness Landscape Analysis , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[25]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Hydra: Automatically Configuring Algorithms for Portfolio-Based Selection , 2010, AAAI.

[26]  Sami Khuri,et al.  Evolutionary Heuristics for the Bin Packing Problem , 1995, ICANNGA.

[27]  Rongchun Zhao,et al.  Optimal Selection of Image Segmentation Algorithms Based on Performance Prediction , 2004, VIP.

[28]  Joaquín Pérez Ortega,et al.  An Application of Causality for Representing and Providing Formal Explanations about the Behavior of the Threshold Accepting Algorithm , 2008, ICAISC.

[29]  Joaquín Pérez Ortega,et al.  Effects in the Algorithm Performance from Problem Structure, Searching Behavior and Temperature: A Causal Study Case for Threshold Accepting and Bin-Packing , 2019, ICCSA.

[30]  Michail G. Lagoudakis,et al.  Learning to Select Branching Rules in the DPLL Procedure for Satisfiability , 2001, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[31]  Fernando Díaz,et al.  Experimental evaluation of an automatic parameter setting system , 2010, Expert Syst. Appl..

[32]  Usama M. Fayyad,et al.  Multi-Interval Discretization of Continuous-Valued Attributes for Classification Learning , 1993, IJCAI.