Terminating Decision Algorithms Optimally

Incomplete decision algorithms can often solve larger problem instances than complete ones. The drawback is that one does not know whether the algorithm will finish soon, later, or never. This paper presents a general decision-theoretic method for optimally terminating such algorithms. The stopping policy is computed based on a prior probability of the answer, a payoff model describing the value that different probability estimates would provide at different times, and the algorithm's run-time distribution. We present a linear-time algorithm for determining the optimal stopping policy given a finite cap on the number of algorithm steps. To increase accuracy, the initial satisfiability probability and the run-time distribution are conditioned on features of the instance. The expectation of the result at each future time step is computed using Bayesian updating. We then extend the framework to settings where no exogenous cap is given on the number of algorithm steps. The method also provides a normative basis for algorithm selection. Finally, our method can be used to terminate and/or select complete algorithms optimally as well.

[1]  Victor Lesser,et al.  Utility-Based Termination of Anytime Algorithms , 1994 .

[2]  Bart Selman,et al.  Boosting Combinatorial Search Through Randomization , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[3]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Reasoning, Metareasoning, and Mathematical Truth: Studies of Theorem Proving under Limited Resources , 1995, UAI.

[4]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Information Value Theory , 1966, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[5]  Bart Selman,et al.  Planning as Satisfiability , 1992, ECAI.

[6]  David Zuckerman,et al.  Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms , 1993, [1993] The 2nd Israel Symposium on Theory and Computing Systems.

[7]  Jeremy Frank,et al.  When Gravity Fails: Local Search Topology , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[8]  James E. Matheson,et al.  The Economic Value of Analysis and Computation , 1968, IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern..

[9]  Irina Rish,et al.  Summarizing CSP Hardness with Continuous Probability Distributions , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[10]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Evaluating Las Vegas Algorithms: Pitfalls and Remedies , 1998, UAI.

[11]  James M. Crawford,et al.  Experimental Results on the Crossover Point inSatis ability , 1993 .

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

[13]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Towards an Understanding of Hill-Climbing Procedures for SAT , 1993, AAAI.

[14]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Monitoring and control of anytime algorithms: A dynamic programming approach , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[15]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Reasoning about beliefs and actions under computational resource constraints , 1987, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[16]  Mark S. Boddy,et al.  Deliberation Scheduling for Problem Solving in Time-Constrained Environments , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Peter C. Cheeseman,et al.  Where the Really Hard Problems Are , 1991, IJCAI.

[18]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Decision analysis: introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. 1968. , 1969, M.D.Computing.

[19]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Hard and Easy Distributions of SAT Problems , 1992, AAAI.

[20]  Paul Morris,et al.  The Breakout Method for Escaping from Local Minima , 1993, AAAI.

[21]  Shlomo Zilberstein,et al.  Optimal Composition of Real-Time Systems , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[22]  David Maxwell Chickering,et al.  A Bayesian Approach to Tackling Hard Computational Problems (Preliminary Report) , 2001, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[23]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Bargaining with limited computation: Deliberation equilibrium , 2001, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Bart Selman,et al.  Domain-Independent Extensions to GSAT : Solving Large StructuredSatis ability , 1993 .

[25]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  A Second Order Parameter for 3SAT , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.