MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293252417 · doi:10.1109/cjece.2015.2496338

Improving Tabu Search Performance by Means of Automatic Parameter Tuning

2016· article· en· W2293252417 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabu searchHeuristicMathematical optimizationA priori and a posterioriConvergence (economics)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceValue (mathematics)AlgorithmReliability (semiconductor)Genetic algorithmMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A common problem when performing (meta)heuristic techniques over complex combinatorial optimization problems is parameter tuning. Finding the right parameter values can lead to significant improvements in terms of the best solution objective value found by the heuristic, heuristic reliability, and heuristic convergence, among others. Unfortunately, this is usually a tedious and complicated task if done manually. Furthermore, parameter values usually depend on the problem that is going to be solved. In this paper, we propose a framework that is based on the genetic programming (GP) technique to fine tune a key parameter of the well-known tabu search (TS) algorithm. Several experiments are performed over a set of small instances of the well-known capacitated facility location problem. The results have shown that adjusting the probability of acceptance of the best neighbor ρ in the TS algorithm using GP leads to an average value of the obtained solution that is closer to the optimal solution than the average value obtained by the simple TS algorithm with an a priori selected value for ρ. More importantly, standard deviation of the algorithm is greatly improved by our approach, which makes it much more reliable if time limitations are present. Finally, we confirm that the value of the parameter ρ largely depends on the problem that is attempted to solve.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it