Principles for the Design of Large Neighborhood Search

Article

Abstract

Large neighborhood search (LNS) is a combination of constraint programming (CP) and local search (LS) that has proved to be a very effective tool for solving complex optimization problems. However, the practice of applying LNS to real world problems remains an art which requires a great deal of expertise. In this paper, we show how adaptive techniques can be used to create algorithms that adjust their behavior to suit the problem instance being solved. We present three design principles towards this goal: cost-based neighborhood heuristics, growing neighborhood sizes, and the application of learning algorithms to combine portfolios of neighborhood heuristics. Our results show that the application of these principles gives strong performance on a challenging set of job shop scheduling problems. More importantly, we are able to achieve robust solving performance across problem sets and time limits.

Keywords

Constraint programming Large neighborhood search Optimization Machine learning  Scheduling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, J., Balas, E., Zawack, D.: The shifting bottleneck procedure for job shop scheduling. Manage. Sci. 34, 391–401 (1988)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Applegate, D., Cook, W.: A computational study of the job-shop scheduling problem. ORSA J. Comput. 3, 149–156 (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., Nuijten, W.: Constraint-based optimization and approximation for job-shop scheduling. In: Proceedings of the AAAI-SIGMAN Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, IJCAI-95 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck, J.C., Fox, M.S.: Dynamic problem structure analysis as a basis for constraint-directed scheduling heuristics. Artif. Intell. 117(1), 31–81 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birrattari, M., Sttzle, T., Paquete, L., Varrentrapp, K.: A racing algorithm for configuring metaheuristics. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. pp. 11–18 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carchrae, T., Beck, J.: Applying machine learning to low-knowledge control of optimization algorithms. Comput. Intell. 21(4), 372–387 (2005)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caseau, Y., Laburthe, F., Pape, C.L., Rottembourg, B.: Combining local and global search in a constraint programming environment. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 16(1), 41–68 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A., Smith, S.: Iterative flattening: a scalable method for solving multi-capacity scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 742–747. AAAI/MIT, Menlo Park (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chabrier, A., Danna, E., Le Pape, C., Perron, L.: Solving a network design problem. Ann. Oper. Res. 130, 217–239 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Danna, E., Perron, L.: Structured vs. unstructured large neighborhood search: a case study on job-shop scheduling problems with earliness and tardiness costs. In: Ninth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 817–821 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dechter, R., Meiri, I., Pearl, J.: Temporal constraint networks. Artif. Intell. 49, 61–95 (1991)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, New York (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Godard, D., Laborie, P., Nuijten, W.: Randomized large neighborhood search for cumulative scheduling. In: Proceedings of Fifteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, pp. 81–89 (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Kautz, H.: Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), pp. 431–437 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hutter, F., Hamadi, Y., Leyton-Brown, K., Hoos, H.H.: Performance prediction and automated tuning of randomized and parametric algorithms. In: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’06), pp. 213–228 (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laborie, P.: Algorithms for propagating resource constraints in AI planning and scheduling: Existing approaches and new results. Artif. Intell. 143, 151–188 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luby, M., Sinclair, A., Zuckerman, D.: Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Inf. Process. Lett. 47, 173–180 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mautor, T., Michelon, P.: Mimausa: an application of referent domain optimization. Technical report, Laboratoire dInformatique dAvignon (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Michel, L., Van Hentenryck, P.: Iterative relaxations for iterative flattening in cumulative scheduling. In: Proceedings of Fourteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, pp. 200–208 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mladenovic, N., Hansen, P.: Variable neighborhood search. Comput. Oper. Res. 24, 1097–1100 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nuijten, W., Le Pape, C.: Constraint-based job shop scheduling with ILOG scheduler. J. Heuristics 3, 271–286 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nuijten, W.P.M.: Time and resource constrained scheduling: a constraint satisfaction approach. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, Eindhoven University of Technology (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Palpant, M., Artigues, C., Michelon, P.: LSSPER: solving the resource-constrained project scheduling problem with large neighbourhood search. Ann. Oper. Res. 131(1–4), 237–257 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perron, L., Shaw, P.: Combining forces to solve the car sequencing problem. In: Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, pp. 225–239 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perron, L., Shaw, P., Furnon, V.: Propagation guided large neighborhood search. In: Proceedings of Tenth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 468–481 (2004)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shaw, P.: Using constraint programming and local search methods to solve vehicle routing problems. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 1520, 417 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taillard, E.: Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 64, 278–285 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taillard, E.: Best lower and upper bounds known, from OR-Lib. Website (2005). http://mistic.heig-vd.ch/taillard/problemes.dir/ordonnancement.dir/jobshop.dir/best_lb_up.txt
  29. 29.
    Wu, H., van Beek, P.: Restart strategies: analysis and simulation. In: Ninth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, p. 1001 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Actenum CorporationVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical & Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations