Computer-Aided Algorithm Design: Automated Tuning, Configuration, Selection, and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this talk, I will introduce computer-aided algorithm design and discuss its main ingredients: design patterns, which provide ways of structuring potentially large spaces of candidate algorithms, and meta-algorithmic optimisation procedures, which are used for finding good designs within these spaces. After explaining how this algorithm design approach differs from and complements related approaches in program synthesis, genetic programming and so-called hyperheuristics, I will illustrate its success using examples from our own work in SAT-based software verification (Hutter et al. 2007), timetabling (Chiarandini, Fawcett, and Hoos 2008) and mixed integer programming (Hutter, Hoos, and Leyton-Brown 2010). Furthermore, I will argue why this approach can be expected to be particularly useful and effective for building better solvers for rich and diverse classes of combinatorial problems, such as planning and scheduling. Finally, I will outline out how programming by optimisation — a design paradigm that emphasises the automated construction of performance-optimised algorithm by means of searching large spaces of alternative designs — has the potential to transform the design of high-performance algorithm from a craft that is based primarily on experience and intuition into a principled and highly effective engineering effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".