skip to main content
10.1145/3205651.3208233acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Parameterization of state-of-the-art performance indicators: a robustness study based on inexact TSP solvers

Published:06 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Performance comparisons of optimization algorithms are heavily influenced by the underlying indicator(s). In this paper we investigate commonly used performance indicators for single-objective stochastic solvers, such as the Penalized Average Runtime (e.g., PAR10) or the Expected Running Time (ERT), based on exemplary benchmark performances of state-of-the-art inexact TSP solvers. Thereby, we introduce a methodology for analyzing the effects of (usually heuristically set) indicator parametrizations - such as the penalty factor and the method used for aggregating across multiple runs - w.r.t. the robustness of the considered optimization algorithms.

References

  1. Bernd Bischl, Pascal Kerschke, Lars Kotthoff, Marius Lindauer, Yuri Malitsky, Alexandre Fréchette, Holger H. Hoos, Frank Hutter, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Kevin Tierney, and Joaquin Vanschoren. 2016. ASlib: A Benchmark Library for Algorithm Selection. Artificial Intelligence Journal (AIJ) 237 (2016), 41 -- 58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370216300388 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jakob Bossek and Heike Trautmann. 2018. Multi-Objective Performance Measurement: Alternatives to PAR10 and Expected Running Time. In Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization (LION). Publication status: Accepted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jérémie Dubois-Lacoste, Holger H. Hoos, and Thomas Stützle. 2015. On the Empirical Scaling Behaviour of State-of-the-art Local Search Algorithms for the Euclidean TSP. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO). ACM, 377 -- 384. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Ágoston E. Eiben and James E. Smith. 2015. Introduction to Evolutionary Computing. Springer Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Nikolaus Hansen, Anne Auger, Steffen Finck, and Raymond Ros. 2009. Real-Parameter Black-Box Optimization Benchmarking 2009: Experimental Setup. Technical Report RR-6828. INRIA. https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00362649v3/documentGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Keld Helsgaun. 2009. General k-opt Submoves for the Lin-Kernighan TSP Heuristic. Mathematical Programming Computation 1, 2--3 (2009), 119 -- 163.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Richard M. Karp. 1972. Reducibility among Combinatorial Problems. Springer, Boston, MA, USA, 85 -- 103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Pascal Kerschke, Lars Kotthoff, Jakob Bossek, Holger H. Hoos, and Heike Trautmann. 2017. Leveraging TSP Solver Complementarity through Machine Learning. Evolutionary Computation Journal (ECJ) (2017), 1 -- 24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Lars Kotthoff, Pascal Kerschke, Holger H. Hoos, and Heike Trautmann. 2015. Improving the State of the Art in Inexact TSP Solving Using Per-Instance Algorithm Selection. In Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization. Springer, 202 -- 217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Tars Kotthoff. 2014. Algorithm Selection for Combinatorial Search Problems: A Survey. AI Magazine 35, 3 (2014), 48 -- 60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yuichi Nagata and Shigenobu Kobayashi. 2013. A Powerful Genetic Algorithm Using Edge Assembly Crossover for the Traveling Salesman Problem. INFORMS Journal on Computing 25, 2 (2013), 346 -- 363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. John Rischard Rice. 1976. The Algorithm Selection Problem. Advances in Computers 15 (1976), 65 -- 118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Danilo Sanches, L. Darrell Whitley, and Renato Tinós. 2017. Building a Better Heuristic for the Traveling Salesman Problem: Combining Edge Assembly Crossover and Partition Crossover. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO). ACM, 329 -- 336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. David Hilton Wolpert and William G. Macready. 1997. No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation (TEVC) 1, 1 (1997), 67 -- 82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Xiao-Feng Xie and Jiming Liu. 2009. Multiagent Optimization System for Solving the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, PartB: Cybernetics 39, 2 (2009), 489 -- 502. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4717264/ Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Parameterization of state-of-the-art performance indicators: a robustness study based on inexact TSP solvers

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        GECCO '18: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion
        July 2018
        1968 pages
        ISBN:9781450357647
        DOI:10.1145/3205651

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 July 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader