ReACTR: Realtime Algorithm Configuration through Tournament Rankings

It is now readily accepted that automated algorithm configuration is a necessity for ensuring optimized performance of solvers on a particular problem domain. Even the best developers who have carefully designed their solver are not always able to manually find the best parameter settings for it. Yet, the opportunity for improving performance has been repeatedly demonstrated by configuration tools like ParamILS, SMAC, and GGA. However, all these techniques currently assume a static environment, where demonstrative instances are procured beforehand, potentially unlimited time is provided to adequately search the parameter space, and the solver would never need to be retrained. This is not always the case in practice. The ReACT system, proposed in 2014, demonstrated that a solver could be configured during runtime as new instances arrive in a steady stream. This paper further develops that approach and shows how a ranking scheme, like TrueSkill, can further improve the configurator's performance, making it able to quickly find good parameterizations without adding any overhead on the time needed to solve any new instance, and then continuously improve as new instances are evaluated. The enhancements to ReACT that we present enable us to even outperform existing static configurators like SMAC in a non-dynamic setting.

[1]  Barry O'Sullivan,et al.  Evolving Instance Specific Algorithm Configuration , 2021, SOCS.

[2]  Tom Minka,et al.  TrueSkillTM: A Bayesian Skill Rating System , 2006, NIPS.

[3]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Towards a universal test suite for combinatorial auction algorithms , 2000, EC '00.

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

[5]  A. J. Linenthal,et al.  Past and present. , 1987, The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha-Honor Medical Society. Alpha Omega Alpha.

[6]  Thomas Hofmann,et al.  TrueSkill™: A Bayesian Skill Rating System , 2007 .

[7]  Yuri Malitsky,et al.  Instance-Specific Algorithm Configuration as a Method for Non-Model-Based Portfolio Generation , 2012, CPAIOR.

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

[9]  A. Elo The rating of chessplayers, past and present , 1978 .

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

[11]  Yuri Malitsky,et al.  Algorithm Portfolios Based on Cost-Sensitive Hierarchical Clustering , 2013, IJCAI.

[12]  Ofer Strichman,et al.  Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing – SAT 2010 , 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[13]  Maurizio Gabbrielli,et al.  SUNNY: a Lazy Portfolio Approach for Constraint Solving , 2014, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[14]  Doug Tygar,et al.  Proceedings of the 2nd ACM conference on Electronic commerce , 2000 .

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

[16]  Armin Biere,et al.  Automated Testing and Debugging of SAT and QBF Solvers , 2010, SAT.