SAT Modulo Monotonic Theories

We define the concept of a monotonic theory and show how to build efficient SMT (SAT Modulo Theory) solvers, including effective theory propagation and clause learning, for such theories. We present examples showing that monotonic theories arise from many common problems, e.g., graph properties such as reachability, shortest paths, connected components, minimum spanning tree, and max-flow/min-cut, and then demonstrate our framework by building SMT solvers for each of these theories. We apply these solvers to procedural content generation problems, demonstrating major speed-ups over state-of-the-art approaches based on SAT or Answer Set Programming, and easily solving several instances that were previously impractical to solve

Auto-WEKA: Combined Selection and Hyperparameter Optimization of Classification Algorithms

Many different machine learning algorithms exist; taking into account each algorithm's hyperparameters, there is a staggeringly large number of possible alternatives overall. We consider the problem of simultaneously selecting a learning algorithm and setting its hyperparameters, going beyond previous work that addresses these issues in isolation. We show that this problem can be addressed by a fully automated approach, leveraging recent innovations in Bayesian optimization. Specifically, we consider a wide range of feature selection techniques (combining 3 search and 8 evaluator methods) and all classification approaches implemented in WEKA, spanning 2 ensemble methods, 10 meta-methods, 27 base classifiers, and hyperparameter settings for each classifier. On each of 21 popular datasets from the UCI repository, the KDD Cup 09, variants of the MNIST dataset and CIFAR-10, we show classification performance often much better than using standard selection/hyperparameter optimization methods. We hope that our approach will help non-expert users to more effectively identify machine learning algorithms and hyperparameter settings appropriate to their applications, and hence to achieve improved performance.Comment: 9 pages, 3 figure

Efficient Benchmarking of Algorithm Configuration Procedures via Model-Based Surrogates

The optimization of algorithm (hyper-)parameters is crucial for achieving peak performance across a wide range of domains, ranging from deep neural networks to solvers for hard combinatorial problems. The resulting algorithm configuration (AC) problem has attracted much attention from the machine learning community. However, the proper evaluation of new AC procedures is hindered by two key hurdles. First, AC benchmarks are hard to set up. Second and even more significantly, they are computationally expensive: a single run of an AC procedure involves many costly runs of the target algorithm whose performance is to be optimized in a given AC benchmark scenario. One common workaround is to optimize cheap-to-evaluate artificial benchmark functions (e.g., Branin) instead of actual algorithms; however, these have different properties than realistic AC problems. Here, we propose an alternative benchmarking approach that is similarly cheap to evaluate but much closer to the original AC problem: replacing expensive benchmarks by surrogate benchmarks constructed from AC benchmarks. These surrogate benchmarks approximate the response surface corresponding to true target algorithm performance using a regression model, and the original and surrogate benchmark share the same (hyper-)parameter space. In our experiments, we construct and evaluate surrogate benchmarks for hyperparameter optimization as well as for AC problems that involve performance optimization of solvers for hard combinatorial problems, drawing training data from the runs of existing AC procedures. We show that our surrogate benchmarks capture overall important characteristics of the AC scenarios, such as high- and low-performing regions, from which they were derived, while being much easier to use and orders of magnitude cheaper to evaluate

Statistical Comparison of Algorithm Performance Through Instance Selection

Empirical performance evaluations, in competitions and scientific publications, play a major role in improving the state of the art in solving many automated reasoning problems, including SAT, CSP and Bayesian network structure learning (BNSL). To empirically demonstrate the merit of a new solver usually requires extensive experiments, with computational costs of CPU years. This not only makes it difficult for researchers with limited access to computational resources to test their ideas and publish their work, but also consumes large amounts of energy. We propose an approach for comparing the performance of two algorithms: by performing runs on carefully chosen instances, we obtain a probabilistic statement on which algorithm performs best, trading off between the computational cost of running algorithms and the confidence in the result. We describe a set of methods for this purpose and evaluate their efficacy on diverse datasets from SAT, CSP and BNSL. On all these datasets, most of our approaches were able to choose the correct algorithm with about 95% accuracy, while using less than a third of the CPU time required for a full comparison; the best methods reach this level of accuracy within less than 15% of the CPU time for a full comparison