Piece of Pie Search: Confidently Exploiting Heuristics
Article No.: 8, Pages 1 - 8
Abstract
Search is not a direct path to a solution. While searching for a solution to a problem, heuristics consult us to avoid paths with dead ends, but they are not infallible. Many popular search methodologies "disobey" them during critical points of the search. In this work, we found an efficient stochastic methods framework that smoothly combines randomness with normal heuristics. We consider a factor of disobedience to the heuristics and we fine-tune it each time, according to our estimation of heuristic-reliability. We prove mathematically that while the disobedience factor falls, the stochastic methods approximate deterministic methods. Our algebraic evidence is supported by empirical evaluations on real life problems, such as course scheduling and frequency assignment. In this context, we exploit our proposed heuristic-reliability semantics in order to produce a piece of pie search (PoPS) method that can outperform other known constructive search processes in hard optimization problems.
References
[1]
P. Barahona, L. Krippahl, and O. Perriquet. Bioinformatics: A challenge to constraint programming. In P. Van Hentenryck and M. Milano, editors, Hybrid Optimization, volume 45, pages 463--487. Springer, New York, 2011.
[2]
R. Barták. Incomplete depth-first search techniques: A short survey. In CPDC 2004: 6th Workshop on Constraint Programming for Decision and Control, pages 7--14, 2004.
[3]
R. Barták and H. Rudová. Limited assignments: A new cutoff strategy for incomplete depth-first search. In H. Haddad, L. M. Liebrock, A. Omicini, and R. L. Wainwright, editors, SAC 2005: Symposium on Applied Computing, Santa Fe, New Mexico, pages 388--392, New York, 2005. ACM.
[4]
J. L. Bresina. Heuristic-biased stochastic sampling. In W. J. Clancey and D. S. Weld, editors, AAAI 1996: 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Portland, Oregon, volume 1, pages 271--278, Menlo Park, 1996. AAAI Press.
[5]
B. Cabon, S. de Givry, L. Lobjois, T. Schiex, and J. P. Warners. Radio link frequency assignment. Constraints, 4(1):79--89, 1999.
[6]
V. A. Cicirello and S. F. Smith. Enhancing stochastic search performance by value-biased randomization of heuristics. Journal of Heuristics, 11(1):5--34, 2005.
[7]
ECLiPSe constraint logic progr. http://eclipseclp.org, 2012.
[8]
L. Fortnow. The status of the P versus NP problem. Communications of the ACM, 52(9):78--86, 2009.
[9]
E. C. Freuder and B. O'Sullivan. Grand challenges for constraint programming. Constraints, 19(2):150--162, 2014.
[10]
I. P. Gent and T. Walsh. CSPlib: A benchmark library for constraints. In J. Jaffar, editor, CP 1999: 5th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Alexandria, Virginia, volume 1713 of LNCS, pages 480--481, Heidelberg, 1999. Springer. http://CSPLib.org.
[11]
M. L. Ginsberg and W. D. Harvey. Iterative broadening. Artificial Intelligence, 55(2--3):367--383, 1992.
[12]
C. P. Gomes, B. Selman, N. Crato, and H. Kautz. Heavy-tailed phenomena in satisfiability and constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24(1--2):67--100, 2000.
[13]
Ilog Solver. http://ilog.com/products/cp, 2012.
[14]
B. Jafari and M. Mouhoub. Heuristic techniques for variable and value ordering in CSPs. In GECCO 2011: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Dublin, pages 457--464, New York, 2011. ACM.
[15]
B. McCollum, A. Schaerf, B. Paechter, P. McMullan, R. Lewis, A. J. Parkes, L. Di Gaspero, R. Qu, and E. K. Burke. Setting the research agenda in automated timetabling: The second international timetabling competition. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 22(1):120--130, 2010.
[16]
M. L. Pinedo. Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. Springer, New York, 4th edition, 2012.
[17]
N. Pothitos. Naxos. http://di.uoa.gr/~pothitos/naxos, 2013.
[18]
N. Pothitos, P. Stamatopoulos, and K. Zervoudakis. Course scheduling in an adjustable constraint propagation schema. In ICTAI 2012: 24th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, volume 1, pages 335--343. IEEE, 2012.
[19]
P. Prosser and C. Unsworth. Limited discrepancy search revisited. J. Experim. Algor., 16:1.6:1--1.6:18, 2011.
[20]
D. Sharma, V. Singh, and C. Sharma. GA-based scheduling of FMS using roulette wheel selection process. In SocProS 2011: International Conference on Soft Computing for Problem Solving, volume 131, pages 931--940. Springer, 2012.
[21]
E. Tsang. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Books on Demand, Norderstedt, 2014.
[22]
T. Walsh. Depth-bounded discrepancy search. In M. E. Pollack, editor, IJCAI 1997: 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan, volume 2, pages 1388--1393, San Francisco, 1997. Morgan Kaufmann.
[23]
Y. Xu, D. Stern, and H. Samulowitz. Learning adaptation to solve constraint problems. In LION 3: 3rd International Conference on Learning and Intelligent Optimization, 2009.
- Piece of Pie Search: Confidently Exploiting Heuristics
Recommendations
Stochastic Hyper-Heuristic for the Winner Determination Problem in combinatorial auctions
MEDES '14: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystemsIn this paper, we propose a stochastic hyper-heuristic (SHH) for combining heuristics for solving the winner determination problem (WDP) in combinatorial auctions. The hyper-heuristics vary for the choice of the underlying heuristics. The choice ...
Combinatorial Optimization through Statistical Instance-Based Learning
ICTAI '01: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial IntelligenceDifferent successful heuristic approaches have been proposed for solving combinatorial optimization problems. Commonly, each of them is specialized to serve a different purpose or address specific difficulties. However, most combinatorial problems that ...
Nogood Recording with Tabu Search for CSP (Application to FAP)
AMS '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Third Asia International Conference on Modelling & SimulationIn order to increase the effectiveness and the adaptability of methods, the Constraints Programming has gradually evolved to hybrid algorithms which combine exact and approximated methods in order to get the advantages of each of them. In this paper we ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2016
249 pages
ISBN:9781450337342
DOI:10.1145/2903220
Copyright © 2016 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 ACM 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]
In-Cooperation
- EETN: Hellenic Artificial Intelligence Society
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 18 May 2016
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
SETN '16
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 89Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)2
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 19 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in