Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
Volume 2018 (2018), Article ID 6103726, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6103726
Research Article

Exploring the Impact of Early Decisions in Variable Ordering for Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Tecnológico de Monterrey, Escuela de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501 Sur, Col. Tecnológico, 64849 Monterrey, NL, Mexico

Correspondence should be addressed to José Carlos Ortiz-Bayliss; xm.mseti@ssilyabocj

Received 30 June 2017; Revised 30 November 2017; Accepted 23 January 2018; Published 22 February 2018

Academic Editor: Paolo Gastaldo

Copyright © 2018 José Carlos Ortiz-Bayliss et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 1979. View at MathSciNet
  2. J. A. Berlier and J. M. McCollum, “A constraint satisfaction algorithm for microcontroller selection and pin assignment,” in Proceedings of the IEEE SoutheastCon, pp. 348–351, IEEE, Concord, NC, USA, March 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. S. V. Bochkarev, M. V. Ovsyannikov, A. B. Petrochenkov, and S. A. Bukhanov, “Structural synthesis of complex electrotechnical equipment on the basis of the constraint satisfaction method,” Russian Electrical Engineering, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 362–366, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. C. Brailsford, C. N. Potts, and B. M. Smith, “Constraint satisfaction problems: algorithms and applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 557–581, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. P. Hell and J. Nesetril, “Colouring, constraint satisfaction, and complexity,” Computer Science Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 143–163, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C. P. Williams and T. Hogg, “Using deep structure to locate hard problems,” in Proceedings of the In Proceedings of AAAI92, pp. 472–477, 1992.
  7. R. Dechter, “Constraint networks,” in In Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 276–286, Wiley, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  8. P. W. Purdom, “Backtracking and random constraint satisfaction,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 20, no. 1-4, pp. 393–410, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  9. S. Christensen and F. Oppacher, “What can we learn from no free lunch? a first attempt to characterize the concept of a searchable function,” in In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO01, pp. 1219–1226, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001.
  10. D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready, “No free lunch theorems for optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 67–82, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. L. Xu, F. Hutter, H. H. Hoos, and K. Leyton-Brown, “SATzilla: Portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 32, pp. 565–606, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. E. OΓMahony, H. Emmanuel, A. Holland, C. Nugent, and B. OΓSullivan, “Using case-based reasoning in an algorithm portfolio for constraint solving,” in Proceedings of the In Irish conference on artificial intelligence and cognitive science, pp. 210–216, 2008.
  13. Y. Malitsky and M. Sellmann, “Instance-Specific Algorithm Configuration as a Method for Non-Model-Based Portfolio Generation,” in Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Contraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimzation Problems, vol. 7298 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 244–259, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. R. Soto, B. Crawford, R. Olivares, S. Niklander, and E. Olguín, “Autonomous search in constraint satisfaction via black hole: A performance evaluation using different choice functions,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Preface, vol. 9712, pp. 56–65, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. R. Soto, B. Crawford, R. Olivares et al., “Using autonomous search for solving constraint satisfaction problems via new modern approaches,” Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, vol. 30, pp. 64–77, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. A. E. Gutiérrez-Rodriguez, J. C. Ortiz-Bayliss, A. Rosales-Perez et al., “Applying automatic heuristic-filtering to improve hyper-heuristic performance,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2017, pp. 2638–2644, Spain, June 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. I. Amaya, J. C. Ortiz-Bayliss, A. E. Gutierrez-Rodriguez, H. Terashima-Marin, and C. A. C. Coello, “Improving hyper-heuristic performance through feature transformation,” in Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2017, pp. 2614–2621, Spain, June 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. C. Ortiz-Bayliss, H. Terashima-Marín, and Conant-Pablos. S. E., “Learning vector quantization for variable ordering in constraint satisfaction problems,” Pattern Recogn. Lett, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 423–432, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  19. S. Ali, M. Z. Iqbal, M. Khalid, and A. Arcuri, “Improving the performance of OCL constraint solving with novel heuristics for logical operations: a search-based approach,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 2459–2502, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. A. Sosa-Ascencio, G. Ochoa, H. Terashima-Marin, and S. E. Conant-Pablos, “Grammar-based generation of variable-selection heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems,” Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 119–144, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. E. C. Teppan and G. Friedrich, “Declarative heuristics in constraint satisfaction,” in Proceedings of the 25th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2013, pp. 996–1003, USA, November 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. M. Robert, L. HaralickGordon, and Elliott., “Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems,” in In Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, vol. Volume 1, pp. 356–364, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 1979.
  23. R. Dechter and I. Meiri, “Experimental evaluation of preprocessing algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 211–241, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. C. Bessière and J.-C. Régin, “MAC and combined heuristics: Two reasons to forsake FC (and CBJ?) on hard problems,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Preface, vol. 1118, pp. 61–75, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. P. Ian, G. Patrick Prosser, and T. Walsh, “The constrainedness of search,” in Proceedings of the In Proceedings of AAAI96, pp. 246–252, 1999.
  26. F. Boussemart, F. Hemery, C. Lecoutre, and L. Sais, “Boosting systematic search by weighting constraints,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 110, pp. 146–150, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. C. Lecoutre, F. Boussemart, and F. Hemery, “Backjump-based techniques versus conflict-directed heuristics,” in Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI '04), pp. 549–557, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, November 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. F. Boussemart, F. Hemery, and L. Christophe, “Revision ordering heuristics for the constraint satisfaction problem,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Constraint Propagation and Implementation (CPAI04), pp. 9–43, 2004.
  29. P. W. Purdom Jr., “Search rearrangement backtracking and polynomial average time,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 21, no. 1-2, pp. 117–133, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. S. A. Bittle and M. S. Fox, “Learning and using hyper-heuristics for variable and value ordering in constraint satisfaction problems,” in Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers, p. 2209, Montreal, Canada, July 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. A. Arbelaez, Y. Hamadi, and M. Sebag, “Online heuristic selection in constraint programming,” in Proceedings of the 2009 2nd International Symposium on Combinatorial Search, SoCS 2009, July 2009. View at Scopus
  32. I. P. Gent, E. MacIntyre, P. Prosser, B. M. Smith, and T. Walsh, “An empirical study of dynamic variable ordering heuristics for the constraint satisfaction problem,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics): Preface, vol. 1118, pp. 179–193, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. J. C. Beck, P. Prosser, and R. J. Wallace, “Variable Ordering Heuristics Show Promise,” in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2004, vol. 3258 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 711–715, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. P. A. Geelen, “Dual viewpoint heuristics for binary constraint satisfaction problems,” in Proceedings of the In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 92, pp. 31–35, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 1992.
  35. S. Minton, M. D. Johnston, A. B. Philips, and P. Laird, “Minimizing conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 58, no. 1-3, pp. 161–205, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  36. P. Prosser, “Binary constraint satisfaction problems: Some are harder than others,” in In Proceedings of the European Conference in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 95–99, 1994.
  37. V. P. Guddeti, “A Dynamic Restart Strategy for Randomized BT Search,” in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2004, vol. 3258 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 796–796, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  38. K. A. Smith-Miles, R. J. James, J. W. Giffin, and Y. Tu, “A knowledge discovery approach to understanding relationships between scheduling problem structure and heuristic performance,” in Learning and Intelligent Optimization, T. Stützle, Ed., vol. 5851 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 89–103, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. K. Xu and W. Li, “Many hard examples in exact phase transitions,” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 355, no. 3, pp. 291–302, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  40. K. Xu, F. Boussemart, F. Hemery, and C. Lecoutre, “Random constraint satisfaction: easy generation of hard (satisfiable) instances,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, no. 8-9, pp. 514–534, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  41. P. Cheeseman, B. Kanefsky, and W. M. Taylor, “Where the really hard problems are,” in Proceedings of the In Proceedings of International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI91, pp. 331–337, 1991.
  42. B. M. Smith, “Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 81, no. 1-2, pp. 155–181, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet
  43. F. Ronald, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar, “Comparing top k lists,” in In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, SODA 03, pp. 28–36, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003.
  44. P. Refalo, “Impact-Based Search Strategies for Constraint Programming,” in Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2004, vol. 3258 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 557–571, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  45. D. Furcy and S. Koenig, “Limited discrepancy beam search,” in Proceedings of the In Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI05, pp. 125–131, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005.
  46. W. Karoui, M. Huguet, P. Lopez, and W. Naanaa, “YIELDS: A Yet Improved Limited Discrepancy Search for CSPs,” in Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, vol. 4510 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 99–111, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  47. P. Prosser and C. Unsworth, “Limited discrepancy search revisited,” ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics, vol. 16, Article ID 2019581, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. R. Williams, P. Carla, and B. Selman, “Backdoors to typical case complexity,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI03, pp. 1173–1178, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003.