Abstract
Metaheuristics are general methods that guide application of concrete heuristic(s) to problems that are too hard to solve using exact algorithms. However, even though a growing body of literature has been devoted to their statistical evaluation, the approaches proposed so far are able to assess only coupled effects of metaheuristics and heuristics. They do not reveal us anything about how efficient the examined metaheuristic is at guiding its subordinate heuristic(s), nor do they provide us information about how much the heuristic component of the combined algorithm contributes to the overall performance. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective methodology of doing so by deriving a naive, placebo metaheuristic from the one being studied and comparing the distributions of chosen performance metrics for the two methods. We propose three measures of difference between the two distributions. Those measures, which we call BER values (benefit, equivalence, risk) are based on a preselected threshold of practical significance which represents the minimal difference between two performance scores required for them to be considered practically different. We illustrate usefulness of our methodology on the example of Simulated Annealing, Boolean Satisfiability Problem, and the Flip heuristic.
Abstract (translated by Google)
URL
http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.00103