Using data-mining techniques to improve combinatorial optimization algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we show how data-mining can be used to cluster algorithmic generated data and use that data to improve algorithms that solve combinatorial optimization problems for a real-world application—the field-programmable gate array placement problem. Our methodology is a means for other algorithm engineers to improve their own algorithms for specific real-world problems that are hard to improve. In our case, the placement algorithms are difficult to improve, and to find better heuristics we analyze the results of placement solutions to find clustered information which can then be used to improve the algorithms. Specifically, we show a technique for gathering cluster information about placement, we create a new simulated annealing algorithm and a new genetic algorithm that can deal with a mixed granularity of placement objects on a virtual field-programmable gate array, and we show that these algorithms either execute faster or improve the overall quality of solution compared to their basic algorithm without this clustering data and improved heuristics. For our improved simulated annealing placer we improve the algorithms run-time by 17% across a range of benchmarks, and our genetic algorithm improves placement metrics—-critical path by 10% and channel-width by 4%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".