Refined bounds for algorithm configuration: The knife-edge of dual class approximability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Automating algorithm configuration is growing increasingly necessary as algorithms come with more and more tunable parameters. It is common to tune parameters using machine learning, optimizing performance metrics such as runtime and solution quality. The training set consists of problem instances from the specific domain at hand. We investigate a fundamental question about these techniques: how large should the training set be to ensure that a parameter's average empirical performance over the training set is close to its expected, future performance? We answer this question for algorithm configuration problems that exhibit a widely-applicable structure: the algorithm's performance as a function of its parameters can be approximated by a "simple" function. We show that if this approximation holds under the L-infinity norm, we can provide strong sample complexity bounds. On the flip side, if the approximation holds only under the L-p norm for p smaller than infinity, it is not possible to provide meaningful sample complexity bounds in the worst case. We empirically evaluate our bounds in the context of integer programming, one of the most powerful tools in computer science. Via experiments, we obtain sample complexity bounds that are up to 700 times smaller than the previously best-known bounds.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 21 Jun 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 6; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 2.
12 papers.
- 2021Sample Complexity of Tree Search Configuration: Cutting Planes and Beyondcited by 33
- 2022A Survey of Methods for Automated Algorithm Configurationcited by 29
- 2022Generalization Bounds for Data-Driven Numerical Linear Algebracited by 24
- 2022Structural Analysis of Branch-and-Cut and the Learnability of Gomory Mixed Integer Cutscited by 19
- 2021Data driven semi-supervised learningcited by 14
- 2024Algorithm Configuration for Structured Pfaffian Settingscited by 10
- 2022Sample Complexity of Learning Heuristic Functions for Greedy-Best-First and A* Searchcited by 6
- 2022AC-Band: A Combinatorial Bandit-Based Approach to Algorithm Configurationcited by 6
- 2022Improved Generalization Bound and Learning of Sparsity Patterns for Data-Driven Low-Rank Approximationcited by 5
- 2023Efficiently Learning the Graph for Semi-supervised Learningcited by 5
- 2026Learning Decision-Sufficient Representations for Linear Optimizationcited by 1
- 2026Generalization Guarantees on Data-Driven Tuning of Gradient Descent with Langevin Updatescited by 1
- 2026Generalization Guarantees on Data-Driven Tuning of Gradient Descent with Langevin Updates13 Apr 2026
- 2026Learning Decision-Sufficient Representations for Linear Optimization19 Mar 2026
- 2024Algorithm Configuration for Structured Pfaffian Settings6 Sep 2024
- 2023Efficiently Learning the Graph for Semi-supervised Learning12 Jun 2023
- 2022AC-Band: A Combinatorial Bandit-Based Approach to Algorithm Configuration1 Dec 2022
- 2022Improved Generalization Bound and Learning of Sparsity Patterns for Data-Driven Low-Rank Approximation17 Sep 2022
- 2022Generalization Bounds for Data-Driven Numerical Linear Algebra16 Jun 2022
- 2022Sample Complexity of Learning Heuristic Functions for Greedy-Best-First and A* Search20 May 2022
- 2022Structural Analysis of Branch-and-Cut and the Learnability of Gomory Mixed Integer Cuts15 Apr 2022
- 2022A Survey of Methods for Automated Algorithm Configuration3 Feb 2022
- 2021Sample Complexity of Tree Search Configuration: Cutting Planes and Beyond8 Jun 2021
- 2021Data driven semi-supervised learning18 Mar 2021