Advertisement

Bounding the optimum of constraint optimization problems

  • Simon de Givry
  • Gérard Verfaillie
  • Thomas Schiex
Session 6
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1330)

Abstract

Solving constraint optimization problems is computationally so expensive that it is often impossible to provide a guaranteed optimal solution, either when the problem is too large, or when time is bounded. In these cases, local search algorithms usually provide good solutions. However, and even if an optimality proof is unreachable, it is often desirable to have some guarantee on the quality of the solution found, in order to decide if it is worthwile to spend more time on the problem.

This paper is dedicated to the production of intervals, that bound as precisely as possible the optimum of Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems (VCSP). Such intervals provide an upper bound on the distance of the best available solution to the optimum i.e., on the quality of the optimization performed. Experimental results on random VCSPs and real problems are given.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. Aarts and J. Lenstra, editors. Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bessière and J.C. Régin. MAC and Combined Heuristics: Two Reasons to Forsake FC (and CBJ?). In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-96, LNCS 1118), pages 61–75, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Bistarelli, U. Montanari, and F. Rossi. Constraint Solving over Semirings. In Proc. of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 624–630, Montréal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CELAR. Radio Link Frequency Assignment Problem Benchmark. URL ftp://ftp.cs.unh.edu/pub/csp/archive/code/benchmarks, 1994. See also http://wwwbia.inra.frlT/schiex or http://www.cert.fr/francais/deri/verfaillie/oc.html.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P Dago and G. Verfaillie. Nogood Recording for Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In Proc. of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI-96), pages 132–139, Toulouse, France, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Dechter. Enhancement Schemes for Constraint Processing: Backjumping, Learning and Cutset Decomposition. Artificial Intelligence, 41(3):273–312,1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Freuder. Synthesizing Constraint Expressions. Communications of the ACM, 21:958–966, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Freuder and R. Wallace. Partial Constraint Satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 58:21–70, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Korf. Depth-First Iterative Deepening: An Optimal Admissible Tree Search. Artificial Intelligence, 27:97–109,1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Larrosa and P. Meseguer. Expoiting the Use of DAC in MAX-CSP. In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-96, LNCS 1118), pages 308–322, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Larrosa and P Meseguer. Phase Transition in MAX-CSP. In Proc. of the 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96), pages 190–194, Budapest, Hungary, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Mackworth. Consistency in Networks of Relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8(1):99–118, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G.L. Nemhauser and L.A. Wolsey. Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley & Sons,1988.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Pearl. HEURISTICS, Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Sabin and E. Freuder. Contradicting Conventional Wisdom in Constraint Satisfaction. In Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-94), pages 125–129, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Schiex, H. Fargier, and G. Verfaillie. Valued Constraint Satisfaction Problems: Hard and Easy Problems. In Proc. of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 631–637, Montrèal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Schiex and G. Verfaillie. Nogood Recording for Static and Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems. International Journal ofArtificial Intelligence Tools, 3(2):187–207, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Shrag and D. Miranker. Abstraction and the CSP Phase Transition Boundary. In Proc. of the 4th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, pages 138–141, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    G. Verfaillie, M. Lemaître, and T. Schiex. Russian Doll Search for Solving Constraint Optimization Problems. In Proc. of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), pages 181–187, Portland, OR, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Wallace. Directed Arc Consistency Preprocessing. In Proc. of the ECAI-94 Workshop on Constraint Processing (LNCS 923), pages 121–137. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Wallace. Analysis of Heuristic Methods for Partial Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-96, LNCS 1118), pages 482–496, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Wilson and A. Boming. Hierarchical Constraint Logic Programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 16(3):277–318, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon de Givry
    • 1
  • Gérard Verfaillie
    • 1
  • Thomas Schiex
    • 2
  1. 1.ONERA-CERTToulouse Cedex 4France
  2. 2.INRA, Chemin de Borde RougeCastanet Tolosan CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations