skip to main content
10.1145/2739480.2754648acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Deep Parameter Optimisation

Authors Info & Claims
Published:11 July 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

We introduce a mutation-based approach to automatically discover and expose `deep' (previously unavailable) parameters that affect a program's runtime costs. These discovered parameters, together with existing (`shallow') parameters, form a search space that we tune using search-based optimisation in a bi-objective formulation that optimises both time and memory consumption. We implemented our approach and evaluated it on four real-world programs. The results show that we can improve execution time by 12\% or achieve a 21\% memory consumption reduction in the best cases. In three subjects, our deep parameter tuning results in a significant improvement over the baseline of shallow parameter tuning, demonstrating the potential value of our deep parameter extraction approach.

References

  1. A. Arcuri and G. Fraser. On parameter tuning in search based software engineering. In Search Based Software Engineering. 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. E. D. Berger and B. G. Zorn. Diehard: Probabilistic memory safety for unsafe languages. In Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI '06, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. E. D. Berger, B. G. Zorn, and K. S. McKinley. Reconsidering custom memory allocation. In Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, OOPSLA '02, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. N. Brake, J. R. Cordy, E. Dan Y, M. Litoiu, and V. Popes U. Automating discovery of software tuning parameters. In Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-managing Systems, SEAMS '08, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. M. Colmenar, J. L. Risco-Mart n, D. Atienza, and J. I. Hidalgo. Multi-objective optimization of dynamic memory managers using grammatical evolution. In Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO '11, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. C. T apu s, I.-H. Chung, and J. K. Hollingsworth. Active harmony: Towards automated performance tuning. In Conference on Supercomputing, Supercomputing '02, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions on, 6(2), 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. Do, S. Elbaum, and G. Rothermel. Supporting controlled experimentation with testing techniques: An infrastructure and its potential impact. Empirical Software Engineering, 10(4), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Fonseca and P. Fleming. On the performance assessment and comparison of stochastic multiobjective optimizers. In PPSN. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Harman. The current state and future of search based software engineering. In 2007 Future of Software Engineering, FOSE '07, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Harman, Y. Jia, and W. Langdon. Babel pidgin: Sbse can grow and graft entirely new functionality into a real world system. In Search-Based Software Engineering, volume 8636 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 247--252. Springer International Publishing, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. M. Harman, Y. Jia, and W. B. Langdon. Strong higher order mutation-based test data generation. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE '11, pages 212--222, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Harman, Y. Jia, W. B. Langdon, J. Petke, I. H. Moghadam, S. Yoo, and F. Wu. Genetic improvement for adaptive software engineering (keynote). In Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Harman, Y. Jia, and Y. Zhang. Achievements, open problems and challenges for search based software testing (keynote). In 8th IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST 2014), Graz, Austria, April 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. H. Hoffmann, S. Sidiroglou, M. Carbin, S. Misailovic, A. Agarwal, and M. Rinard. Dynamic knobs for responsive power-aware computing. In Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. F. Hutter, D. Babic, H. H. Hoos, and A. Hu. Boosting verification by automatic tuning of decision procedures. In Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design, 2007. FMCAD '07, Nov 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, K. Leyton-Brown, and T. Stützle. ParamILS: an automatic algorithm configuration framework. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 36(1), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Y. Jia and M. Harman. MILU: A Customizable, Runtime-Optimized Higher Order Mutation Testing Tool for the Full C Language. In Proceedings of the TAIC PART'08, pages 94--98, Windsor, UK, 29--31 August 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Y. Jia and M. Harman. An analysis and survey of the development of mutation testing. Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 37(5), 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Katagiri, K. Kise, H. Honda, and T. Yuba. Fiber: A generalized framework for auto-tuning software. In High Performance Computing. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. W. B. Langdon, M. Modat, J. Petke, and M. Harman. Improving 3d medical image registration cuda software with genetic programming. In Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO '14, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. D. Lea and W. Gloger. A memory allocator, 2000. http://g.oswego.edu/dl/html/malloc.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Papadakis, Y. Jia, M. Harman, and Y. L. Traon. Trivial Compiler Equivalence: A Large Scale Empirical Study of a Simple Fast and Effective Equivalent Mutant Detection Technique. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering, 15. To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Petke, M. Harman, W. Langdon, and W. Weimer. Using genetic improvement and code transplants to specialise a c++ program to a problem class. In Genetic Programming. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. J. L. Risco-Mart n, D. Atienza, J. M. Colmenar, and O. Garnica. A parallel evolutionary algorithm to optimize dynamic memory managers in embedded systems. Parallel Computing, 36(10 - 11), 2010. Parallel Architectures and Bioinspired Algorithms. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. L. Risco-Mart n, D. Atienza, R. Gonzalo, and J. I. Hidalgo. Optimization of dynamic memory managers for embedded systems using grammatical evolution. In Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO '09, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. J. L. Risco-Mart n, J. M. Colmenar, J. I. Hidalgo, J. Lanchares, and J. D az. A methodology to automatically optimize dynamic memory managers applying grammatical evolution. Journal of Systems and Software, 91(0), 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. E. Schulte, Z. Fry, E. Fast, W. Weimer, and S. Forrest. Software mutational robustness. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 15(3), 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. R. Vuduc, J. W. Demmel, and J. Bilmes. Statistical models for automatic performance tuning. In International Conference on Computational Science (ICCS), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. R. C. Whaley and J. J. Dongarra. Automatically tuned linear algebra software. In Conference on Supercomputing, Supercomputing '98, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. X. Yao, M. Harman, and Y. Jia. A study of equivalent and stubborn mutation operators using human analysis of equivalence. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2014, pages 919--930, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. E. Zitzler and L. Thiele. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4), Nov 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. B. Zorn and D. Grunwald. Empirical measurements of six allocation-intensive C programs. SIGPLAN Not., 27(12), Dec. 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Deep Parameter Optimisation

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          GECCO '15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation
          July 2015
          1496 pages
          ISBN:9781450334723
          DOI:10.1145/2739480

          Copyright © 2015 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 11 July 2015

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          GECCO '15 Paper Acceptance Rate182of505submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

          Upcoming Conference

          GECCO '24
          Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
          July 14 - 18, 2024
          Melbourne , VIC , Australia

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader