Utilitarian algorithm configuration identifies a parameter setting for a given algorithm that maximizes a user's utility. Utility functions offer a theoretically well-grounded approach to optimizing decision-making under uncertainty and are flexible enough to capture a user's preferences over algorithm runtimes (e.g., they can describe a sharp cutoff after which a solution is no longer required, a per-hour cost for compute, or diminishing returns from algorithms that take longer to run). COUP is a recently-introduced utilitarian algorithm configuration procedure which was designed mainly to offer strong theoretical guarantees about the quality of the configuration it returns, with less attention paid to its practical performance. This paper closes that gap, bringing theoretically-grounded, utilitarian algorithm configuration to the point where it is competitive with widely used, heuristic configuration procedures that offer no performance guarantees. We present a series of improvements to COUP that improve its empirical performance without degrading its theoretical guarantees and demonstrate their benefit experimentally. Using a case study, we also illustrate ways of exploring the robustness of a given solution to the algorithm selection problem to variations in the utility function.

Utilitarian algorithm configuration is a general-purpose technique for automatically searching the parameter space of a given algorithm to optimize its performance, as measured by a given utility function, on a given set of inputs. Recently introduced utilitarian configuration procedures offer optimality guarantees about the returned parameterization while provably adapting to the hardness of the underlying problem. However, the applicability of these approaches is severely limited by the fact that they only search a finite, relatively small set of parameters. They cannot effectively search the configuration space of algorithms with continuous or uncountable parameters. In this paper we introduce a new procedure, which we dub COUP (Continuous, Optimistic Utilitarian Procrastination). COUP is designed to search infinite parameter spaces efficiently to find good configurations quickly. Furthermore, COUP maintains the theoretical benefits of previous utilitarian configuration procedures when applied to finite parameter spaces but is significantly faster, both provably and experimentally.

When trying to solve a computational problem, we are often faced with a choice between algorithms that are guaranteed to return the right answer but differ in their runtime distributions (e.g., SAT solvers, sorting algorithms). This paper aims to lay theoretical foundations for such choices by formalizing preferences over runtime distributions. It might seem that we should simply prefer the algorithm that minimizes expected runtime. However, such preferences would be driven by exactly how slow our algorithm is on bad inputs, whereas in practice we are typically willing to cut off occasional, sufficiently long runs before they finish. We propose a principled alternative, taking a utility-theoretic approach to characterize the scoring functions that describe preferences over algorithms. These functions depend on the way our value for solving our problem decreases with time and on the distribution from which captimes are drawn. We describe examples of realistic utility functions and show how to leverage a maximum-entropy approach for modeling underspecified captime distributions. Finally, we show how to efficiently estimate an algorithm’s expected utility from runtime samples.

We present the first nontrivial procedure for configuring heuristic algorithms to maximize the utility provided to their end users while also offering theoretical guarantees about performance. Existing procedures seek configurations that minimize expected runtime. However, very recent theoretical work argues that expected runtime minimization fails to capture algorithm designers' preferences. Here we show that the utilitarian objective also confers significant algorithmic benefits. Intuitively, this is because mean runtime is dominated by extremely long runs even when they are incredibly rare; indeed, even when an algorithm never gives rise to such long runs, configuration procedures that provably minimize mean runtime must perform a huge number of experiments to demonstrate this fact. In contrast, utility is bounded and monotonically decreasing in runtime, allowing for meaningful empirical bounds on a configuration's performance. This paper builds on this idea to describe effective and theoretically sound configuration procedures. We prove upper bounds on the runtime of these procedures that are similar to theoretical lower bounds, while also demonstrating their performance empirically.

Algorithm configuration procedures optimize parameters of a given algorithm to perform well over a distribution of inputs. Recent theoretical work focused on the case of selecting between a small number of alternatives. In practice, parameter spaces are often very large or infinite, and so successful heuristic procedures discard parameters ``impatiently'', based on very few observations. Inspired by this idea, we introduce ImpatientCapsAndRuns, which quickly discards less promising configurations, significantly speeding up the search procedure compared to previous algorithms with theoretical guarantees, while still achieving optimal runtime up to logarithmic factors under mild assumptions. Experimental results demonstrate a practical improvement.

Algorithm configuration methods optimize the performance of a parameterized heuristic algorithm on a given distribution of problem instances. Recent work introduced an algorithm configuration procedure (Structured Procrastination'') that provably achieves near optimal performance with high probability and with nearly minimal runtime in the worst case. It also offers an anytime property: it keeps tightening its optimality guarantees the longer it is run. Unfortunately, Structured Procrastination is not adaptive to characteristics of the parameterized algorithm: it treats every input like the worst case. Follow-up work (LeapsAndBounds'') achieves adaptivity but trades away the anytime property. This paper introduces a new algorithm, ``Structured Procrastination with Confidence'', that preserves the near-optimality and anytime properties of Structured Procrastination while adding adaptivity. In particular, the new algorithm will perform dramatically faster in settings where many algorithm configurations perform poorly. We show empirically both that such settings arise frequently in practice and that the anytime property is useful for finding good configurations quickly.

We use deep learning to model interactions across two or more sets of objects, such as user{–}movie ratings or protein{–}drug bindings. The canonical representation of such interactions is a matrix (or tensor) with an exchangeability property: the encoding’s meaning is not changed by permuting rows or columns. We argue that models should hence be Permutation Equivariant (PE): constrained to make the same predictions across such permutations. We present a parameter-sharing scheme and prove that it is maximally expressive under the PE constraint. This scheme yields three benefits. First, we demonstrate performance competitive with the state of the art on multiple matrix completion benchmarks. Second, our models require a number of parameters independent of the numbers of objects and thus scale well to large datasets. Third, models can be queried about new objects that were not available at training time, but for which interactions have since been observed. We observed surprisingly good generalization performance on this matrix extrapolation task, both within domains (e.g., new users and new movies drawn from the same distribution used for training) and even across domains (e.g., predicting music ratings after training on movie ratings).