Advertisement

Tuning the Performance of the MMAS Heuristic

  • Enda Ridge
  • Daniel Kudenko
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4638)

Abstract

This paper presents an in-depth Design of Experiments (DOE) methodology for the performance analysis of a stochastic heuristic. The heuristic under investigation is Max-Min Ant System (MMAS) for the Travelling Salesperson Problem (TSP). Specifically, the Response Surface Methodology is used to model and tune MMAS performance with regard to 10 tuning parameters, 2 problem characteristics and 2 performance metrics—solution quality and solution time. The accuracy of these predictions is methodically verified in a separate series of confirmation experiments. The two conflicting responses are simultaneously optimised using desirability functions. Recommendations on optimal parameter settings are made. The optimal parameters are methodically verified. The large number of degrees-of-freedom in the MMAS design are overcome with a Minimum Run Resolution V design. Publicly available algorithm and problem generator implementations are used throughout. The paper should therefore serve as an illustrative case study of the principled engineering of a stochastic heuristic.

Keywords

Response Surface Methodology Tuning Parameter Desirability Function Local Search Procedure High Order Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dorigo, M., Stützle, T.: Ant Colony Optimization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Czitrom, V.: One-Factor-at-a-Time versus Designed Experiments. The American Statistician 53(2), 126–131 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stützle, T., Hoos, H.H.: Max-Min Ant System. Future Generation Computer Systems 16(8), 889–914 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C.: Response Surface Methodology. Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments. John Wiley and Sons Inc., Chichester (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oehlert, G., Whitcomb, P.: Small, Efficient, Equireplicated Resolution V Fractions of 2K designs and their Application to Central Composite Designs. In: Proceedings of 46th Fall Technical Conference. American Statistical Association (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, D.S.: A Theoretician’s Guide to the Experimental Analysis of Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Fifth and Sixth DIMACS Implementation Challenges (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zlochin, M., Dorigo, M.: Model based search for combinatorial optimization: a comparative study. In: Guervós, J.J.M., Adamidis, P.A., Beyer, H.-G., Fernández-Villacañas, J.-L., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) Parallel Problem Solving from Nature - PPSN VII. LNCS, vol. 2439, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Applegate, D., Bixby, R., Chvatal, V., Cook, W.: Implementing the Dantzig-Fulkerson-Johnson algorithm for large traveling salesman problems. Mathematical Programming Series B 97(1-2), 91–153 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson, D.S., McGeoch, L.A.: Experimental analysis of heuristics for the STSP. In: The Traveling Salesman Problem and Its Variations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B., Taylor, W.M.: Where the Really Hard Problems Are. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 331–337. Morgan Kaufman, USA (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ridge, E., Kudenko, D.: An Analysis of Problem Difficulty for a Class of Optimisation Heuristics. In: Proceedings of EvoCOP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4446, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ostle, B.: Statistics in Research, 2nd edn. Iowa State University Press (1963)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ridge, E., Kudenko, D.: Analyzing Heuristic Performance with Response Surface Models: Prediction, Optimization and Robustness. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Design and Analysis of Experiments, 6th edn. Wiley, Chichester (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Derringer, G., Suich, R.: Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response Variables. Journal of Quality Technology 12(4), 214–219 (1980)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T.: Numerical Recipes in Pascal: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adenso-Dıaz, B., Laguna, M.: Fine-Tuning of Algorithms Using Fractional Experimental Designs and Local Search. Operations Research 54(1), 99–114 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coy, S., Golden, B., Runger, G., Wasil, E.: Using Experimental Design to Find Effective Parameter Settings for Heuristics. Journal of Heuristics 7(1), 77–97 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Park, M.W., Kim, Y.D.: A systematic procedure for setting parameters in simulated annealing algorithms. Computers and Operations Research 25(3) (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons, R., Johnson, M.: A Case Study in Experimental Design Applied to Genetic Algorithms with Applications to DNA Sequence Assembly. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences 17(3), 369–396 (1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Birattari, M.: The Problem of Tuning Metaheuristics. Phd, Université Libre de Bruxelles (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gaertner, D., Clark, K.L.: On Optimal Parameters for Ant Colony Optimization Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 83–89. CSREA Press (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ridge, E., Kudenko, D.: Sequential Experiment Designs for Screening and Tuning Parameters of Stochastic Heuristics. In: Workshop on Empirical Methods for the Analysis of Algorithms, Reykjavik, Iceland. pp. 27–34 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enda Ridge
    • 1
  • Daniel Kudenko
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, The University of YorkEngland

Personalised recommendations