Finding the Right Hybrid Algorithm – A Combinatorial Meta-Problem

  • Mark Wallace
  • Joachim Schimpf


Benchmark comparisons tend to overlook the most important challenge in solving combinatorial problems: how to design an appropriate algorithm. For example, an early version of Localizer incurred a factor 3 performance penalty when benchmarked against a ‘C’ implementation of GSAT, but we would recommend implementing a new local search algorithm in Localizer rather than ‘C’ every time. The ECLiPSe CLP language supports the experimental process of seeking the right hybrid algorithm for the problem at hand. It offers high-level modelling and control features, extensibility and a wide range of constraint solvers which can cooperate in the solving of a problem. We recently sought a new hybrid algorithm for a very unpromising class (SAT problems), and using ECLiPSe we were able to develop an algorithm which showed good performance on some very hard instances. We describe the process of exploring the space of hybrid algorithms for the problem class, and indicate the features of ECLiPSe that enabled us to find previously undiscovered algorithms. How to benchmark the solving of this “meta-problem” remains a topic of future research. We conclude by pointing out the advantages of an extensible platform, such as ECLiPSe, for developing sophisticated hybrid algorithms for large scale industrial combinatorial optimisation problems.

clp constraints combinatorial 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N. Beldiceanu and E. Contjean, Introducing global constraints in CHIP, Math. Comput. Modelling 12 (1994) 97-123.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Y. Caseau, F. Laburthe and G. Silverstein, A Meta-heuristic factory for vehicle routing problems, in: Proc. CP '99, Washington, DC (1999).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Y. Caseau and F. Laburthe, SALSA: A Language for Search Algorithms, in: Proc. CP '98, Pisa (1998) pp. 310-324.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Chu Min Li and Anbulagan, Look-ahead versus look-back for satisfiability problems, in: Proc. CP '97, Linz (1997).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. El Sakkout and M. Wallace, Probe backtrack search for minimal perturbation in dynamic scheduling, Constraints 5(4) (2000).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    H. El Sakkout, M. Wallace and E. Richards, An instance of adaptive propagation, in: Proc. CP '96, Boston (1996).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Michel and P. Van Hentenryck, LOCALIZER: A modelling language for local search, in: Proc. CP '97, Linz (1997).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. Minton, Automatically configuring constraint satisfaction problems: A case study, Constraints 1 (1996) 7-44.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    S. Minton, M. Johnstone, A. Philips and P. Laird, Minimizing conflicts: A heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems, Artif. Intell. 58 (1992) 161-206.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    E.T. Richards and E.B. Richards, Nonsystematic search and learning: An empirical study, in: Proc. CP '98, Pisa (1998).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Rodosek and M. Wallace, A generic model and hybrid algorithm for hoist scheduling problems, in: Proc. CP '98, Pisa (1998).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    J. Schimpf, K. Shen and M. Wallace, Tutorial on search in ECLiPSe, Manuals and other documentation (1999), Scholar
  13. [13]
    B. Selman and H. Kautz, An empirical study of greedy local search for satisfiability testing, in: AAAI-93 (1993) pp. 46-51.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. van Gelder and Y. Tsuji, Instances from circuit fault analysis, Scholar
  15. [15]
    P. Van Hentenryck, The OPL Optimization Programming Language (MIT Press, 1999).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Wallace
    • 1
  • Joachim Schimpf
    • 1
  1. 1.IC-Parc, Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations