Recent work in portfolios of problem solvers has shown their ability to outperform single-algorithm approaches in some tasks (e.g.

Simultaneously utilizing several complementary solvers is a simple yet effective strategy for solving computationally hard problems. However, manually building such solver portfolios typically requires considerable domain knowledge and plenty of human effort. As an alternative, automatic construction of parallel portfolios (ACPP) aims at automatically building effective parallel portfolios based on a given problem instance set and a given rich design space. One promising way to solve the ACPP problem is to explicitly group the instances into different subsets and promote a component solver to handle each of them.This paper investigates solving ACPP from this perspective, and especially studies how to obtain a good instance grouping.The experimental results showed that the parallel portfolios constructed by the proposed method could achieve consistently superior performances to the ones constructed by the state-of-the-art ACPP methods,and could even rival sophisticated hand-designed parallel solvers.

Recent work in portfolios of problem solvers has shown their ability to outperform single-algorithm approaches in some tasks (e.g. SAT or Automated Planning). However, not much work has been devoted to a better understanding of the relationship between the order of the component solvers and the performance of the resulting portfolio over time. We propose to sort the component solvers in a sequential portfolio, such that the resulting ordered portfolio maximizes the probability of providing the largest performance at any point in time. We empirically show that our greedy approach efficiently obtains near-optimal performance over time. Also, it generalizes much better than an optimal approach which has been observed to suffer from overfitting.

It has been widely observed that there is no single "dominant" SAT solver; instead, different solvers perform best on different instances. Rather than following the traditional approach of choosing the best solver for a given class of instances, we advocate making this decision online on a per-instance basis. Building on previous work, we describe SATzilla, an automated approach for constructing per-instance algorithm portfolios for SAT that use so-called empirical hardness models to choose among their constituent solvers. This approach takes as input a distribution of problem instances and a set of component solvers, and constructs a portfolio optimizing a given objective function (such as mean runtime, percent of instances solved, or score in a competition). The excellent performance of SATzilla was independently verified in the 2007 SAT Competition, where our SATzilla07 solvers won three gold, one silver and one bronze medal. In this article, we go well beyond SATzilla07 by making the portfolio construction scalable and completely automated, and improving it by integrating local search solvers as candidate solvers, by predicting performance score instead of runtime, and by using hierarchical hardness models that take into account different types of SAT instances. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these new techniques in extensive experimental results on data sets including instances from the most recent SAT competition.