4.7 Article

Empirical hardness of finding optimal Bayesian network structures: algorithm selection and runtime prediction

期刊

MACHINE LEARNING
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 247-283

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10994-017-5680-2

关键词

Bayesian networks; Structure learning; Algorithm selection; Hyperparameter optimization; Empirical hardness; Algorithm portfolio; Runtime prediction

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [125637, 251170, 255675, 276412, 284591]
  2. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Project D2I)
  3. Research Funds of the University of Helsinki
  4. Academy of Finland (AKA) [255675, 125637, 255675, 125637] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various algorithms have been proposed for finding a Bayesian network structure that is guaranteed to maximize a given scoring function. Implementations of state-of-the-art algorithms, solvers, for this Bayesian network structure learning problem rely on adaptive search strategies, such as branch-and-bound and integer linear programming techniques. Thus, the time requirements of the solvers are not well characterized by simple functions of the instance size. Furthermore, no single solver dominates the others in speed. Given a problem instance, it is thus a priori unclear which solver will perform best and how fast it will solve the instance. We show that for a given solver the hardness of a problem instance can be efficiently predicted based on a collection of non-trivial features which go beyond the basic parameters of instance size. Specifically, we train and test statistical models on empirical data, based on the largest evaluation of state-of-the-art exact solvers to date. We demonstrate that we can predict the runtimes to a reasonable degree of accuracy. These predictions enable effective selection of solvers that perform well in terms of runtimes on a particular instance. Thus, this work contributes a highly efficient portfolio solver that makes use of several individual solvers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据