论文标题
深度学习在树中搜索组合优化有什么问题
What's Wrong with Deep Learning in Tree Search for Combinatorial Optimization
论文作者
论文摘要
组合优化是许多现实世界问题的核心。尤其是自图形神经网络(GNN)的兴起以来,深度学习社区一直在开发解决方案,从而通过学习特定问题的解决方案结构来推导解决NP问题的解决方案。但是,重现这些出版物的结果被证明很困难。我们做出三项贡献。首先,我们为NP-HARD最大独立设置问题提供了一个开源基准套件,包括其加权和未加权变体。该套件为各种最先进的传统和基于机器学习的求解器提供了统一的界面。其次,使用我们的基准套件,我们对Li等人的流行树木搜索算法进行了深入的分析。 [Neurips 2018],在大小合成和现实世界图上测试各种配置。通过重新实现其算法,重点关注代码质量和可扩展性,我们表明,在树搜索中使用的图形卷积网络不会学习解决方案结构的有意义表示,实际上可以用随机值代替。取而代之的是,树搜索依赖于算法技术(例如Graph kernelization)来找到良好的解决方案。因此,原始出版物的结果不可再现。第三,我们扩展了分析以将树搜索实现与其他求解器进行比较,这表明经典算法求解器通常更快,同时提供相似质量的解决方案。此外,我们分析了基于强化学习的最新求解器,并观察到对于该求解器,GNN负责竞争性解决方案质量。
Combinatorial optimization lies at the core of many real-world problems. Especially since the rise of graph neural networks (GNNs), the deep learning community has been developing solvers that derive solutions to NP-hard problems by learning the problem-specific solution structure. However, reproducing the results of these publications proves to be difficult. We make three contributions. First, we present an open-source benchmark suite for the NP-hard Maximum Independent Set problem, in both its weighted and unweighted variants. The suite offers a unified interface to various state-of-the-art traditional and machine learning-based solvers. Second, using our benchmark suite, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the popular guided tree search algorithm by Li et al. [NeurIPS 2018], testing various configurations on small and large synthetic and real-world graphs. By re-implementing their algorithm with a focus on code quality and extensibility, we show that the graph convolution network used in the tree search does not learn a meaningful representation of the solution structure, and can in fact be replaced by random values. Instead, the tree search relies on algorithmic techniques like graph kernelization to find good solutions. Thus, the results from the original publication are not reproducible. Third, we extend the analysis to compare the tree search implementations to other solvers, showing that the classical algorithmic solvers often are faster, while providing solutions of similar quality. Additionally, we analyze a recent solver based on reinforcement learning and observe that for this solver, the GNN is responsible for the competitive solution quality.