Skip to main content

Problem dependent optimization (PDO)

Abstract

A metaheuristic is generally a procedure designed to find a good solution to a difficult optimization problem. Known optimization search metaheuristics heavily rely on parameters, which are usually introduced so that the metaheuristic follows some supposedly related to the optimization problem natural process (simulated annealing, swarm optimization, genetic algorithms). Adjusting the parameters so that the metaheuristic performs successfully in the problem at hand could be quite tricky and time consuming task which often requires intimate knowledge of the problem and a lot of experimenting to achieve the needed level of performance. In this article I present a metaheuristic with parameters depending only on the problem at hand, which virtually eliminates the preliminary work on adjusting the parameters. Moreover, the parameters are frequently updated during the process, based on the increasing amount of information about the solution space collected during the run. The metaheuristic has been successfully applied in several different searches for discrete objects such as designs, packings, coverings and partitions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abel J, Assaf A, Bennett F, Bluskov I, Greig M (2006) Pair covering designs with block size 5. Discret Math 307:1776–1791

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Abel J, Assaf A, Bluskov I, Greig M, Shalabi N (2010) New results on GDDs, covering, packing and directable designs with block size 5 with higher index. J Comb Des 18:337–368

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Abel J, Bluskov I, de Heer J, Greig M (2007) Pair covering and other designs with block size 6. J Comb Des 15:511–533

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Abel J, Bluskov I, Greig M (2001) Balanced incomplete block designs with block size 8. J Comb Des 9:233–268

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Abel J, Bluskov I, Greig M (2002) Balanced incomplete block designs with block size 9 and \(\lambda = 2,4\) and 8. Codes, Des Cryptogr 26:33–59

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Abel J, Bluskov I, Greig M (2004a) Balanced incomplete block designs with block size 9: Part II. Discret Math 279:5–32

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Abel J, Bluskov I, Greig M (2004b) Balanced incomplete block designs with block size 9: Part III. Australas J Comb 30:57–73

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Bertolo R, Bluskov I, Hammalainen H (2004) Upper bounds on the general covering number \(C(v, k, t, m)\). J Comb Des 12:362–380

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bluskov I (in press) Some new upper bounds on the size of constant weight codes

  10. Bluskov I (2007) On the covering numbers \(C_2(v, k, t)\). J Comb Math Comb Comput 63:17–32

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Bluskov I, Greig M (2006) Pair covering designs with block size 5 with higher index—the case of \(v\) even. J Comb Math Comb Comput 58:211–222

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Bluskov I, Heinrich K (2001) Super-simple designs with \(v\le 32\). J Stat Plan Inference 95:121–131

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Bluskov I, Magliveras S (2001) On the number of mutually disjoint cyclic designs and large sets of designs. J Stat Plan Inference 95:133–142

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks go to Jan De Heer for reading this material and successfully testing the metaheuristic and for his valuable input in the process.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iliya Bluskov.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 942 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bluskov, I. Problem dependent optimization (PDO). J Comb Optim 31, 1335–1344 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-014-9826-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Discrete
  • Optimization
  • Metaheuristic
  • Self-improving