Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Bayesian network based solution scheme for the constrained Stochastic On-line Equi-Partitioning Problem

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A number of intriguing decision scenarios revolve around partitioning a collection of objects to optimize some application specific objective function. This problem is generally referred to as the Object Partitioning Problem (OPP) and is known to be NP-hard. We here consider a particularly challenging version of OPP, namely, the Stochastic On-line Equi-Partitioning Problem (SO-EPP). In SO-EPP, the target partitioning is unknown and has to be inferred purely from observing an on-line sequence of object pairs. The paired objects belong to the same partition with probability p and to different partitions with probability 1 − p, with p also being unknown. As an additional complication, the partitions are required to be of equal cardinality. Previously, only heuristic sub-optimal solution strategies have been proposed for SO- EPP. In this paper, we propose the first Bayesian solution strategy. In brief, the scheme that we propose, BN-EPP, is founded on a Bayesian network representation of SO-EPP problems. Based on probabilistic reasoning, we are not only able to infer the underlying object partitioning with superior accuracy. We are also able to simultaneously infer p, allowing us to accelerate learning as object pairs arrive. Furthermore, our scheme is the first to support a wide range of constraints on the partitioning (Constrained SO-EPP). Being Bayesian, BN-EPP provides superior performance compared to existing solution schemes. We additionally introduce Walk-BN-EPP, a novel WalkSAT inspired algorithm for solving large scale BN-EPP problems. Finally, we provide a BN-EPP based solution to the problem of order picking, a representative real-life application of BN-EPP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that the arrival of objects in pairs can easily be generalized to arrival of objects in sets, which in turn are transformed into pairwise combinations of the objects contained in each set. See Section 5.4 for an example of this.

  2. These are based on real-world point-of-sale transaction data from a grocery outlet [3].

  3. Also known as Most Probable Explanation (MPE).

References

  1. de Koster R, Le-Duc T, Roodbergen KJ (2007) Design and control of warehouse order picking: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 182(2):481–501. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221706006473

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Tompkins JA (2010) Facilities planning. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hahsler M, Hornik K, Reutterer T (2006) Implications of probabilistic data modeling for mining association rules. In: From data and information analysis to knowledge engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 598–605

  4. Gale W, Das S, Yu C T (1990) Improvements to an algorithm for equipartitioning. IEEE Trans Comput 39(5):706–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Oommen B, Ma D (1988) Deterministic learning automata solutions to the equipartitioning problem. IEEE Trans Comput 37(1):2–13

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu R, Wunsch D et al (2005) Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 16(3):645–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berkhin P (2006) A survey of clustering data mining techniques in Grouping multidimensional data. Springer, Berlin, pp 25–71

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Shirvani A, Oommen B J (2017) On enhancing the object migration automaton using the pursuit paradigm. J Comput Sci 24:329–342

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Hammer M, Chan A (1976) Index selection in a self-adaptive data base management system. In: Proceedings of the 1976 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. ACM, pp 1–8

  10. Yu C T, Siu M K, Lam K, Tai F (1981) Adaptive clustering schemes: general framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE COMPSAC conference. IEEE, pp 81–89

  11. Ciu D, Ma Y (1986) Object partitioning by using learning automata. Ph.D. dissertation, Carleton University

  12. Mamaghani A S, Meybodi MR (2009) Clustering of software systems using new hybrid algorithms. In: Ninth IEEE international conference on computer and information technology, 2009. CIT’09, vol 1. IEEE, pp 20–25

  13. Oommen B J, Valiveti R S, Zgierski J R (1991) An adaptive learning solution to the keyboard optimization problem. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 21(6):1608–1618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Daskalakis C, Karp R M, Mossel E, Riesenfeld S J, Verbin E (2011) Sorting and selection in posets. SIAM J Comput 40(3):597–622

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Andreev K, Racke H (2006) Balanced graph partitioning. Theory Comput Syst 39(6):929–939

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Burkard R E (2013) Quadratic assignment problems. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Galinier P, Boujbel Z, Fernandes M C (2011) An efficient memetic algorithm for the graph partitioning problem. Ann Oper Res 191(1):1–22

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim J, Hwang I, Kim Y-H, Moon B-R (2011) Genetic approaches for graph partitioning: a survey. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM, pp 473–480

  19. Gupta U, Ranganathan N (2010) A game theoretic approach for simultaneous compaction and equipartitioning of spatial data sets. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 22(4):465–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Meila M, Shi J (2001) Learning segmentation by random walks. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 873–879

  21. Yu S X, Shi J (2003) Multiclass spectral clustering. In: Proceedings of the ninth IEEE international conference on computer vision - volume 2, ser. ICCV ’03. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=946247.946658. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, p 313

  22. Agache M, Oommen B J (2002) Generalized pursuit learning schemes: new families of continuous and discretized learning automata. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part B (Cybern) 32(6):738–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Oommen B J, Agache M (2001) Continuous and discretized pursuit learning schemes: various algorithms and their comparison. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part B (Cybern) 31(3):277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Koller D, Friedman N (2009) Probabilistic graphical models: principles and techniques. MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Yuan C, Lu T-C, Druzdzel M J (2004) Annealed map. In: Proceedings of the 20th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. AUAI Press, pp 628–635

  26. Thompson W R (1933) On the likelihood that one unknown probability exceeds another in view of the evidence of two samples. Biometrika 25(3/4):285–294

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Bubeck S, Cesa-Bianchi N (2012) Regret analysis of stochastic and nonstochastic multi-armed bandit problems. Mach Learn 5(1):1–122

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Granmo O-C (2010) Solving two-armed bernoulli bandit problems using a Bayesian learning automaton. Int J Intell Comput Cybern 3(2):207–234

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Chapelle O, Li L (2011) An empirical evaluation of thompson sampling. In: Shawe-Taylor J, Zemel R S, Bartlett P L, Pereira F, Weinberger K Q (eds) Advances in neural information processing systems, vol 24. Curran Associates Inc., pp 2249–2257

  30. Agrawal S, Goyal N (2012) Analysis of thompson sampling for the multi-armed bandit problem. In: Conference on learning theory, COLT

  31. Agrawal S, Goyal N (2013) Further optimal regret bounds for thompson sampling. In: Proceedings of the sixteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics, pp 99–107

  32. Agrawal S, Goyal N (2013) Thompson sampling for contextual bandits with linear payoffs. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on machine learning (ICML-13), pp 127–135

  33. Glimsdal S, Granmo O-C (2013) Gaussian process based optimistic knapsack sampling with applications to stochastic resource allocation. In: Proceedings of the 24th midwest artificial intelligence and cognitive science conference 2013. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp 43–50

  34. Granmo O-C, Glimsdal S (2013) Accelerated bayesian learning for decentralized two-armed bandit based decision making with applications to the goore game. Appl Intell 38(4):479–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiao L, Zhang X, Oommen B J, Granmo O-C (2016) Optimizing channel selection for cognitive radio networks using a distributed bayesian learning automata-based approach. Appl Intell 44(2):307–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tolpin D, Wood F (2015) Maximum a posteriori estimation by search in probabilistic programs. In: Eighth annual symposium on combinatorial search

  37. Selman B, Kautz HA, Cohen B, Noise strategies for improving local search (1994). In: AAAI, vol 94, pp 337–343

  38. Larrañaga P, Karshenas H, Bielza C, Santana R (2013) A review on evolutionary algorithms in bayesian network learning and inference tasks. Inf Sci 233:109–125

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Soh T, Banbara M, Tamura N (2017) Proposal and evaluation of hybrid encoding of csp to sat integrating order and log encodings. Int J Artif Intell Tools 26(1):1760005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kennedy J (2011) Particle swarm optimization in encyclopedia of machine learning. Springer, Berlin, pp 760–766

    Google Scholar 

  41. Holland J H (1992) Genetic algorithms. Sci Am 267(1):66–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stutzle T (2006) Ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput Intell Mag 1(4):28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR), University of Agder, Postbox 422, 4604, Kristiansand, Norway

    Sondre Glimsdal & Ole-Christoffer Granmo

Authors
  1. Sondre Glimsdal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ole-Christoffer Granmo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sondre Glimsdal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glimsdal, S., Granmo, OC. A Bayesian network based solution scheme for the constrained Stochastic On-line Equi-Partitioning Problem. Appl Intell 48, 3735–3747 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1172-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-018-1172-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation