ICHEA for Discrete Constraint Satisfaction Problems

  • Anurag Sharma
  • Dharmendra Sharma
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7691)

Abstract

Constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) is a subset of optimization problem where at least one solution is sought that satisfies all the given constraints. Presently, evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have become standard optimization techniques for solving unconstrained optimization problems where the problem is formalized for discrete or continuous domains. However, traditional EAs are considered ‘blind’ to constraint as they do not extract and exploit information from the constraints. A variation of EA – intelligent constraint handling for EA (ICHEA) proposed earlier models constraints to guide the evolutionary search to get improved and efficient solutions for continuous CSPs. As many real world CSPs have constraints defined in the form of discrete functions, this paper serves as an extension to ICHEA that reports its applicability for solving discrete CSPs. The experiment has been carried on a classic discrete CSP – the N-Queens problem. The experimental results show that extracting information from constraints and exploiting it in the evolutionary search makes the search more efficient. This provision is a problem independent formulation in ICHEA.

Keywords

Constraints constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) optimization problem evolutionary algorithm (EA) intelligent constraint handling evolutionary algorithm (ICHEA) N-Queens problem 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bandyopadhyay, S., Pal, S.K.: Pixel classification using variable string genetic algorithms with chromosome differentiation. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 39(2), 303–308 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coello, C.A.C.: A Comprehensive Survey of Evolutionary-Based Multiobjective Optimization Techniques. Knowledge and Information Systems 1, 269–308 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coello Coello, C.A.: Theoretical and numerical constraint-handling techniques used with evolutionary algorithms: a survey of the state of the art. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 191(11-12), 1245–1287 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Craenen, B.G.W., et al.: Comparing evolutionary algorithms on binary constraint satisfaction problems. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 7(5), 424–444 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craenen, B.G.W.: Solving constraint satisfaction problems with evolutionary algorithms. Phd Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb, K., et al.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2), 182–197 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deb, K.: Kanpur Genetic Algorithms Laboratory, http://www.iitk.ac.in/kangal/codes.shtml
  8. 8.
    Eastridge, R., Schmidt, C.: Solving n-queens with a genetic algorithm and its usefulness in a computational intelligence course. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 23(4), 223–230 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiben, A.E., et al.: Solving Binary Constraint Satisfaction Problems Using Evolutionary Algorithms with an Adaptive Fitness Function. In: Eiben, A.E., Bäck, T., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1498, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fonseca, C.M., Fleming, P.J.: Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and Generalization. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 416–423. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu, X., et al.: Swarm intelligence for permutation optimization: a case study of n-queens problem. In: Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE Swarm Intelligence Symposium, SIS 2003, pp. 243–246 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kramer, O.: A Review of Constraint-Handling Techniques for Evolution Strategies. In: Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing 2010, pp. 1–11 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Letavec, R.: The Queens Problem - Delta. ITE 2(3), 101–103 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu, H., et al.: Hybridizing particle swarm optimization with differential evolution for constrained numerical and engineering optimization. Appl. Soft Comput., 629–640 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martinjak, I., Golub, M.: Comparison of Heuristic Algorithms for the N-Queen Problem. In: 29th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, ITI 2007, pp. 759–764 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mezura-montes, E., Coello, C.A.C.: A Survey of Constraint-Handling Techniques Based on Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization, Departamento de Computación, Evolutionary Computation Group at CINVESTAV (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michalewicz, Z., Schoenauer, M.: Evolutionary algorithms for constrained parameter optimization problems. Evolutionary Computation 4(1), 1–32 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paredis, J.: Co-evolutionary Constraint Satisfaction. In: Davidor, Y., Männer, R., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1994. LNCS, vol. 866, pp. 46–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rahnamayan, S., Dieras, P.: Efficiency competition on N-queen problem: DE vs. CMA-ES. In: Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, CCECE 2008, pp. 000033–000036. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schaffer, J.D.: Multiple Objective Optimization with Vector Evaluated Genetic Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pp. 93–100. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc. (1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shang, Y., Fromherz, M.P.J.: Experimental complexity analysis of continuous constraint satisfaction problems. Information Sciences 153, 1–36 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sharma, A.: A new optimizing algorithm using reincarnation concept. In: 2010 11th IEEE International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics (CINTI), pp. 281–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharma, A., Omlin, C.W.: Performance Comparison of Particle Swarm Optimization with Traditional Clustering Algorithms used in Self-Organizing Map. International Journal of Computational Intelligence 5(1), 1–12 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharma, A., Sharma, D.: ICHEA – A Constraint Guided Search for Improving Evolutionary Algorithms. In: Huang, T., Zeng, Z., Li, C., Leung, C.S. (eds.) ICONIP 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7663, pp. 269–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Srinivas, N., Deb, K.: Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolutionary Computation 2, 221–248 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Van Veldhuizen, D.A., Lamont, G.B.: Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Analyzing the State-of-the-Art. Evolutionary Computation 8, 125–147 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    De Weck, O., Kim, I.Y.: Variable Chromosome Length Genetic Algorithm for Structural Topology Design Optimization. Strain. In: AIAA 2004, pp. 1–12 (April 2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anurag Sharma
    • 1
  • Dharmendra Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of CanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations