The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Algorithm runtime prediction: Methods & evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Perhaps surprisingly, it is possible to predict how long an algorithm will take to run on a previously unseen input, using machine learning techniques to build a model of the algorithm's runtime as a function of problem-specific instance features. Such models have important applications to algorithm analysis, portfolio-based algorithm selection, and the automatic configuration of parameterized algorithms. Over the past decade, a wide variety of techniques have been studied for building such models. Here, we describe extensions and improvements of existing models, new families of models, and -- perhaps most importantly -- a much more thorough treatment of algorithm parameters as model inputs. We also comprehensively describe new and existing features for predicting algorithm runtime for propositional satisfiability (SAT), travelling salesperson (TSP) and mixed integer programming (MIP) problems. We evaluate these innovations through the largest empirical analysis of its kind, comparing to a wide range of runtime modelling techniques from the literature. Our experiments consider 11 algorithms and 35 instance distributions; they also span a very wide range of SAT, MIP, and TSP instances, with the least structured having been generated uniformly at random and the most structured having emerged from real industrial applications. Overall, we demonstrate that our new models yield substantially better runtime predictions than previous approaches in terms of their generalization to new problem instances, to new algorithms from a parameterized space, and to both simultaneously.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
Classification and Regression Trees.
Gordon, A. D., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530946 · Cited by 23,522
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
Classification and Regression Trees.
Ryzin, J. V., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288003 · Cited by 20,825
(2021) · A First Course in Statistical Programming with R · doi:10.1017/9781108993456.011 · Cited by 13,724
Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning
Rasmussen, C. E., & Williams, C. K. I. (2005) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/3206.001.0001 · Cited by 11,705
Classification and regression trees
Praagman, J. (1985) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(85)90321-2 · Cited by 10,053
(2006) · Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-40065-5 · Cited by 9,008
Cited by
Automated Algorithm Selection: Survey and Perspectives
Kerschke, P., Hoos, H. H., Neumann, F., & Trautmann, H. (2019) · Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1162/evco_a_00242 · Cited by 435
Self-citationVanschoren, J. (2019) · The Springer Series on Challenges in Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-05318-5_2 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Hutter, F., Xu, L., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K.
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-01
- Volume
- 206
- Pages
- 79-111
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2964281761
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 98
- FWCI
- 33.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Algorithm runtime prediction: Methods & evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.artint.2013.10.003
- The paper
- Hutter, F., Xu, L., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2014). Algorithm runtime prediction: Methods & evaluation. Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2013.10.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.