Statistical Regimes and Runtime Prediction

The last decade has seen a growing interest in solver portfolios, automated solver configuration, and runtime prediction methods. At their core, these methods rely on a deterministic, consistent behaviour from the underlying algorithms and solvers. However, modern state-of-the-art solvers have elements of stochasticity built in such as ran-domised variable and value selection, tie-breaking, and randomised restarting. Such features can elicit dramatic variations in the overall performance between repeated runs of the solver, often by several orders of magnitude. Despite the success of the aforementioned fields, such performance variations in the underlying solvers have largely been ignored. Supported by a large-scale empirical study employing many years of industrial SAT Competition instances including repeated runs, we present statistical and empirical evidence that such a performance variation phenomenon necessitates a change in the evaluation of portfolio, runtime prediction, and automated configuration methods. In addition, we demonstrate that this phenomenon can have a significant impact on empirical solver competitions. Specifically, we show that the top three solvers from the 2014 SAT Competition could have been ranked in any permutation. These findings demonstrate the need for more statistically well-founded regimes in empirical evaluations.

[1]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[2]  Bart Selman,et al.  Heavy-Tailed Phenomena in Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[3]  Carlos Ansótegui,et al.  A Gender-Based Genetic Algorithm for the Automatic Configuration of Algorithms , 2009, CP.

[4]  Jendrik Seipp,et al.  Automatic Configuration of Sequential Planning Portfolios , 2015, AAAI.

[5]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  An Extensible SAT-solver , 2003, SAT.

[6]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Handbook of satisfiability , 2009 .

[7]  Cesare Tinelli,et al.  Handbook of Satisfiability , 2021, Handbook of Satisfiability.

[8]  Blai Bonet,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA , 2015, AAAI.

[9]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Improved Features for Runtime Prediction of Domain-Independent Planners , 2014, ICAPS.

[10]  Andy J. Keane,et al.  Learning and Intelligent Optimization, 4th International Conference, LION 4, Venice, Italy, January 18-22, 2010. Selected Papers , 2010, LION.

[11]  Yuri Malitsky,et al.  Instance-specific algorithm configuration , 2014, Constraints.

[12]  Ashish Sabharwal,et al.  Exploiting Runtime Variation in Complete Solvers , 2009, Handbook of Satisfiability.

[13]  Bart Selman,et al.  Algorithm portfolios , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[14]  Barry O'Sullivan,et al.  Proteus: A Hierarchical Portfolio of Solvers and Transformations , 2013, CPAIOR.

[15]  Eoin O'Mahony,et al.  Using Case-based Reasoning in an Algorithm Portfolio for Constraint Solving ? , 2008 .

[16]  Mladen Nikolic,et al.  Statistical Methodology for Comparison of SAT Solvers , 2010, EMSQMS@IJCAR.

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

[18]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Learning the Empirical Hardness of Optimization Problems: The Case of Combinatorial Auctions , 2002, CP.

[19]  Laurent Simon,et al.  The Essentials of the SAT 2003 Competition , 2003, SAT.

[20]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  SATzilla: Portfolio-based Algorithm Selection for SAT , 2008, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[21]  Yuri Malitsky,et al.  ISAC - Instance-Specific Algorithm Configuration , 2010, ECAI.

[22]  Armin Biere Yet another Local Search Solver and Lingeling and Friends Entering the SAT Competition 2014 , 2014 .

[23]  Armando Tacchella,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[24]  Allen Van Gelder Careful Ranking of Multiple Solvers with Timeouts and Ties , 2011, SAT.

[25]  Yuri Malitsky,et al.  MaxSAT by Improved Instance-Specific Algorithm Configuration , 2014, AAAI.

[26]  Stephan Merz,et al.  Journal of Automated Reasoning Special Issue: Formal Modeling and Verification of Critical Systems , 2008 .

[27]  Barry O'Sullivan,et al.  ReACT: Real-Time Algorithm Configuration through Tournaments , 2014, SOCS.

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

[29]  Lars Kotthoff,et al.  Algorithm Selection for Combinatorial Search Problems: A Survey , 2012, AI Mag..