4.7 Article

Success rates analysis of three hybrid algorithms on SAT instances

Journal

SWARM AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
Volume 34, Issue -, Pages 119-129

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.swevo.2017.02.001

Keywords

Success rate; Markov chain; Heuristic algorithms; Hybrid algorithm; Time complexity; Satisfiability

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61472143, 61562071]
  2. Scientific Research Special Plan of Guangzhou Science and Technology Programme [201607010045]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province [20151BAB207020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, combining different individual heuristics to construct hybrid algorithms seems to be a promising way for designing more powerful algorithms. We are interested in when a certain termination criterion is met, whether the success (referring to finding a globally optimal solution) rate of a hybrid algorithm can be better than that of the individual algorithms on which the hybrid algorithm is based or not. In this paper, we concentrate on rigorously analyzing the success rate of hybrid algorithms. This makes a step into theoretical understanding of hybrid algorithms, which lags far behind empirical investigations. We derive the formulas for calculating the success rates of three hybrid algorithms by making use of a Markov chain. These three hybrid algorithms are based on different ways of combining two individual heuristics. As an application of these formulas, we then investigate the relationships between the success rate curves of RandomWalk, Local (1+1) EA (evolutionary algorithm) and that of three hybrid algorithms based on different ways of combining the two heuristics for solving two satisfiability (SAT) problem instances. The computational success rate curves are validated by experimental ones. Meanwhile, we discuss the relationship between success rate and time complexity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available