<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd">
  <responseDate>2026-07-23T20:02:51Z</responseDate>
  <request identifier="20723" metadataPrefix="oai_dc" verb="GetRecord">https://drops.dagstuhl.de/oai</request>
  <GetRecord>
    <record>
      <header>
        <identifier>oai:drops-oai.dagstuhl.de:20723</identifier>
        <datestamp>2024-08-29T08:52:53Z</datestamp>
        <setSpec>ddc:004</setSpec>
        <setSpec>open_access</setSpec>
      </header>
      <metadata>
        <oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
          <dc:title>Frugal Algorithm Selection (Short Paper)</dc:title>
          <dc:creator>Kuş, Erdem</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Akgün, Özgür</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Dang, Nguyen</dc:creator>
          <dc:creator>Miguel, Ian</dc:creator>
          <dc:subject>Algorithm Selection</dc:subject>
          <dc:subject>Active Learning</dc:subject>
          <dc:description>When solving decision and optimisation problems, many competing algorithms (model and solver choices) have complementary strengths. Typically, there is no single algorithm that works well for all instances of a problem. Automated algorithm selection has been shown to work very well for choosing a suitable algorithm for a given instance. However, the cost of training can be prohibitively large due to running candidate algorithms on a representative set of training instances. In this work, we explore reducing this cost by choosing a subset of the training instances on which to train. We approach this problem in three ways: using active learning to decide based on prediction uncertainty, augmenting the algorithm predictors with a timeout predictor, and collecting training data using a progressively increasing timeout. We evaluate combinations of these approaches on six datasets from ASLib and present the reduction in labelling cost achieved by each option.</dc:description>
          <dc:publisher>Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik</dc:publisher>
          <dc:contributor>Erdem Kuş and Özgür Akgün and Nguyen Dang and Ian Miguel</dc:contributor>
          <dc:date>2024</dc:date>
          <dc:relation>Is Part Of LIPIcs, Volume 307, 30th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2024)</dc:relation>
          <dc:type>InProceedings</dc:type>
          <dc:type>Text</dc:type>
          <dc:type>doc-type:ResearchArticle</dc:type>
          <dc:type>publishedVersion</dc:type>
          <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
          <dc:identifier>doi:10.4230/LIPIcs.CP.2024.38</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-207239</dc:identifier>
          <dc:identifier>https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.CP.2024.38</dc:identifier>
          <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
          <dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</dc:rights>
        </oai_dc:dc>
      </metadata>
    </record>
  </GetRecord>
</OAI-PMH>
