Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byHolly Sidle Modified over 3 years ago

1
Hydra-MIP: Automated Algorithm Configuration and Selection for Mixed Integer Programming Lin Xu, Frank Hutter, Holger H. Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown Department of Computer Science University of British Columbia

2
2 Solving MIP more effectively Portfolio-based algorithm selection (SATzilla) [Xu et al., 2007;2008;2009] Where are the solvers? Parameter settings of a single solver (e.g. CPLEX) How to find good settings? Automated algorithm configuration tool [Hutter et al., 2007;2009] How to find good candidates for algorithm selection? Algorithm configuration with dynamic performance metric [Xu et al., 2010] Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

3
Some particularly related work: [Gratch & Dejong, 1992]; [Balaprakash, Birattari & Stuetzle, 2007]; [Hutter, Babic, Hoos & Hu, 2007]; [Hutter, Hoos, Stuetzle & Leyton-Brown, 2009] Some particularly related work: [Rice, 1976]; [Leyton-Brown, Nudelman & Shoham, 2003; 2009]; [Guerri & Milano, 2004]; [Nudelman, Leyton-Brown, Shoham & Hoos, 2004] 3 Hydra Portfolio-based algorithm selection: Automated algorithm configuration: Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

4
Outline Improve algorithm selection – SATzilla – Drawback of SATzilla – New SATzilla with cost sensitive classification – Results Reduce the construction cost – Hydra – The cost – Make full use of configuration – Results Conclusion Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP 4

5
5 Given: – training set of instances – performance metric – candidate solvers – portfolio builder (incl. instance features) Training: – collect performance data – portfolio builder learns predictive models At Runtime: – predict performance – select solver Metric Portfolio Builder Training Set Novel Instance Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selector Candidate Solvers Selected Solver SATzilla: Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selection [Xu, Hutter, Hoos, Leyton-Brown, 2007; 2008] Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP 5

6
6 Drawback of SATzilla Algorithm selection in SATzilla based on regression: – Predict each solver performance independently – Select best predicted solver – Classification based on regression Goal of regression: Accurately predict each solvers performance Algorithm selection: Pick solvers on a per-instance basis in order to minimize some overall performance metric Better regression Better algorithm selection Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP Algorithm Selector

7
7 Cost sensitive classification for SATzilla Loss function: the performance difference – Punish misclassifications in direct proportion to their impact on portfolio performance – No need for predicting runtime Implementation: Binary cost sensitive classifier: decision forest (DF) – Build DF for each pair of candidate solvers – one vote for the better solver – Most votes -> Best solver Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

8
8 SATzilla DF performance DataSetModelAverage TimeSolved PercentageTime speedup RAND LR17799.1% HAND LR54992.9% INDU LR54592.1% LR: linear regression as used in previous SATzilla; DF: cost sensitive decision forest Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

9
SATzilla DF performance DataSetModelAverage TimeSolved PercentageTime speedup RAND LR17799.1% 1.08× DF16499.3% HAND LR54992.9% 1.16× DF47594.4% INDU LR54592.1% 1.12× DF48794.4% LR: linear regression as used in previous SATzilla; DF: cost sensitive decision forest 9 Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

10
10 MIPzilla DF performance DataSetModelAverage TimeSolved Percentage Time speedup LR39.4100% LR102.6100% ISAC (new) LR2.36100% MIX LR5699.6% Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

11
11 MIPzilla DF performance DataSetModelAverage TimeSolved Percentage Time speedup LR39.4100% 1.00× DF39.3100% LR102.6100% 1.04× DF98.8100% ISAC (new) LR2.36100% 1.18× DF2.00100% MIX LR5699.6% 1.05× DF4899.6% Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

12
12 Hydra Procedure: Iteration 1 Algorithm Configurator Metric Training Set Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selector Candidate Solver Set Candidate Solver Parameterized Algorithm Portfolio Builder Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

13
13 Hydra Procedure: Iteration 2 Algorithm Configurator Metric Training Set Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selector Candidate Solver Set Candidate Solver Parameterized Algorithm Portfolio Builder Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

14
14 Hydra Procedure: Iteration 3 Algorithm Configurator Metric Training Set Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selector Candidate Solver Set Candidate Solver Parameterized Algorithm Portfolio Builder Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

15
15 Output: Hydra Procedure: After Termination Portfolio-Based Algorithm Selector Novel Instance Selected Solver Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

16
16 We are wasting configuration results! Algorithm Configurator Metric Training Set Candidate Solver Parameterized Algorithm Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

17
17 Make full use of configurations Algorithm Configurator Metric Training Set Parameterized Algorithm Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP k Candidate Solvers

18
18 Make full use of configurations Advantage: – Add k solvers instead of 1 in each iteration (good for algorithm selection) – No need for validation step in configuration (SAVE time) Disadvantage: – Need to collect runtime data for more solvers (COST time) In our experiment, we found SAVE = COST (k=4) Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

19
19 Experimental Setup: Hydras Inputs Portfolio Builder: MIPzilla LR (SATzilla for MIP) [Xu et al., 2008] MIPzilla DF (MIPzilla using cost sensitive DF) Parameterized Solver: CPLEX12.1 Algorithm Configurator: FocusedILS 2.4.3 [Hutter, Hoos, Leyton-Brown, 2009] Performance Metric: Penalized average runtime (PAR) Instance Sets: 4 heterogeneous sets by combining homogeneous subsets [Hutter et al., 2010];[Kadioglu et al., 2010]; [Ahmadizadeh et al., 2010] Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

20
20 Three versions of Hydra for MIP Hydra LR,1 : Original Hydra for MIP [Xu et al., 2010] Hydra DF,1 : Hydra for MIP with Improvement I Hydra DF,4 : Hydra for MIP with Improvement I and II Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

21
MIP-Hydra performance on MIX Hydra DF,* performs better than Hydra LR,1 Hydra DF,4 performs similar to Hydra DF,1, but converge faster Performance close to Oracle and MIPzilla DF 21 Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

22
22 Conclusion Cost sensitive classification based SATzilla outperforms original SATzilla New Hydra-MIP outperforms CPLEX default, algorithm configuration alone, and original Hydra on four heterogeneous MIP sets Technical contributions: – Cost sensitive classification results better algorithm selection for SAT and MIP – Using multiple configurations speeds up the convergence of Hydra Xu, Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown: Hydra-MIP

Similar presentations

Presentation is loading. Please wait....

OK

Addition 1’s to 20.

Addition 1’s to 20.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on health insurance in india Ppt on road accidents in india Ppt on swami vivekananda speech Ppt on national democratic alliance Run ppt on ipad Ppt on producers consumers and decomposers poem Download ppt on indus valley civilization art Ppt on bluetooth hacking Pdf to ppt online converter online Ppt on social networking sites project