60,159 research outputs found

    DynABT: dynamic asynchronous backtracking for dynamic DisCSPs.

    Get PDF
    Constraint Satisfaction has been widely used to model static combinatorial problems. However, many AI problems are dynamic and take place in a distributed environment, i.e. the problems are distributed over a number of agents and change over time. Dynamic Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems (DDisCSP) [1] are an emerging field for the resolution problems that are dynamic and distributed in nature. In this paper, we propose DynABT, a new Asynchronous algorithm for DDisCSPs which combines solution and reasoning reuse i.e. it handles problem changes by modifying the existing solution while re-using knowledge gained from solving the original (unchanged) problem. The benefits obtained from this approach are two-fold: (i) new solutions are obtained at a lesser cost and; (ii) resulting solutions are stable i.e. close to previous solutions. DynABT has been empirically evaluated on problems of varying difficulty and several degrees of changes has been found to be competitive for the problem classes tested

    Finding robust solutions for constraint satisfaction problems with discrete and ordered domains by coverings

    Full text link
    Constraint programming is a paradigm wherein relations between variables are stated in the form of constraints. Many real life problems come from uncertain and dynamic environments, where the initial constraints and domains may change during its execution. Thus, the solution found for the problem may become invalid. The search forrobustsolutions for constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) has become an important issue in the ¿eld of constraint programming. In some cases, there exists knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. In other cases, this information is unknown or hard to obtain. In this paper, we consider CSPs with discrete and ordered domains where changes only involve restrictions or expansions of domains or constraints. To this end, we model CSPs as weighted CSPs (WCSPs) by assigning weights to each valid tuple of the problem constraints and domains. The weight of each valid tuple is based on its distance from the borders of the space of valid tuples in the corresponding constraint/domain. This distance is estimated by a new concept introduced in this paper: coverings. Thus, the best solution for the modeled WCSP can be considered as a most robust solution for the original CSP according to these assumptionsThis work has been partially supported by the research projects TIN2010-20976-C02-01 (Min. de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain) and P19/08 (Min. de Fomento, Spain-FEDER), and the fellowship program FPU.Climent Aunés, LI.; Wallace, RJ.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Barber Sanchís, F. (2013). Finding robust solutions for constraint satisfaction problems with discrete and ordered domains by coverings. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-013-9420-0S126Climent L, Salido M, Barber F (2011) Reformulating dynamic linear constraint satisfaction problems as weighted csps for searching robust solutions. In: Ninth symposium of abstraction, reformulation, and approximation (SARA-11), pp 34–41Dechter R, Dechter A (1988) Belief maintenance in dynamic constraint networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th national conference on, artificial intelligence (AAAI-88), pp 37–42Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J (1991) Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intell 49(1):61–95Fargier H, Lang J (1993) Uncertainty in constraint satisfaction problems: a probabilistic approach. In: Proceedings of the symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty (EC-SQARU-93), pp 97–104Fargier H, Lang J, Schiex T (1996) Mixed constraint satisfaction: a framework for decision problems under incomplete knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 13th national conference on, artificial intelligence, pp 175–180Fowler D, Brown K (2000) Branching constraint satisfaction problems for solutions robust under likely changes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP-2000), pp 500–504Goles E, Martínez S (1990) Neural and automata networks: dynamical behavior and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtHays W (1973) Statistics for the social sciences, vol 410, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkHebrard E (2006) Robust solutions for constraint satisfaction and optimisation under uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of New South WalesHerrmann H, Schneider C, Moreira A, Andrade Jr J, Havlin S (2011) Onion-like network topology enhances robustness against malicious attacks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 2011(1):P01,027Larrosa J, Schiex T (2004) Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artif Intell 159:1–26Larrosa J, Meseguer P, Schiex T (1999) Maintaining reversible DAC for Max-CSP. J Artif Intell 107(1):149–163Mackworth A (1977) On reading sketch maps. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’77, pp 598–606Sam J (1995) Constraint consistency techniques for continuous domains. These de doctorat, École polytechnique fédérale de LausanneSchiex T, Fargier H, Verfaillie G (1995) Valued constraint satisfaction problems: hard and easy problems. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on, artificial intelligence (IJCAI-95), pp 631–637Taillard E (1993) Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. Eur J Oper Res 64(2):278–285Verfaillie G, Jussien N (2005) Constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments: a survey. Constraints 10(3):253–281Wallace R, Freuder E (1998) Stable solutions for dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP-98), pp 447–461Wallace RJ, Grimes D (2010) Problem-structure versus solution-based methods for solving dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI-10), IEEEWalsh T (2002) Stochastic constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on, artificial intelligence (ECAI-02), pp 111–115William F (2006) Topology and its applications. Wiley, New YorkWiner B (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkYorke-Smith N, Gervet C (2009) Certainty closure: reliable constraint reasoning with incomplete or erroneous data. J ACM Trans Comput Log (TOCL) 10(1):

    Robustness, stability, recoverability, and reliability in constraint satisfaction problems

    Full text link
    The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-014-0778-3Many real-world problems in Artificial Intelligence (AI) as well as in other areas of computer science and engineering can be efficiently modeled and solved using constraint programming techniques. In many real-world scenarios the problem is partially known, imprecise and dynamic such that some effects of actions are undesired and/or several un-foreseen incidences or changes can occur. Whereas expressivity, efficiency and optimality have been the typical goals in the area, there are several issues regarding robustness that have a clear relevance in dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP). However, there is still no clear and common definition of robustness-related concepts in CSPs. In this paper, we propose two clearly differentiated definitions for robustness and stability in CSP solutions. We also introduce the concepts of recoverability and reliability, which arise in temporal CSPs. All these definitions are based on related well-known concepts, which are addressed in engineering and other related areas.This work has been partially supported by the research project TIN2013-46511-C2-1 (MINECO, Spain). We would also thank the reviewers for their efforts and helpful comments.Barber Sanchís, F.; Salido Gregorio, MA. (2015). Robustness, stability, recoverability, and reliability in constraint satisfaction problems. Knowledge and Information Systems. 44(3):719-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-014-0778-3S719734443Abril M, Barber F, Ingolotti L, Salido MA, Tormos P, Lova A (2008) An assessment of railway capacity. Transp Res Part E 44(5):774–806Barber F (2000) Reasoning on intervals and point-based disjunctive metric constraints in temporal contexts. J Artif Intell Res 12:35–86Bartak R, Salido MA (2011) Constraint satisfaction for planning and scheduling problems. Constraints 16(3):223–227Bertsimas D, Sim M (2004) The price of robustness. Oper Res 52(1):35–53Climent L, Wallace R, Salido M, Barber F (2013) Modeling robustness in CSPS as weighted CSPS. In: Integration of AI and OR techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems CPAIOR 2013, pp 44–60Climent L, Wallace R, Salido M, Barber F (2014) Robustness and stability in constraint programming under dynamism and uncertainty. J Artif Intell Res 49(1):49–78Dechter R (1991) Temporal constraint network. Artif Intell 49:61–295Hazewinkel M (2002) Encyclopaedia of mathematics. Springer, New YorkHebrard E (2007) Robust solutions for constraint satisfaction and optimisation under uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of New South WalesHebrard E, Hnich B, Walsh T (2004) Super solutions in constraint programming. In: Integration of AI and OR techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems (CPAIOR-04), pp 157–172Jen E (2003) Stable or robust? What’s the difference? Complexity 8(3):12–18Kitano H (2007) Towards a theory of biological robustness. Mol Syst Biol 3(137)Liebchen C, Lbbecke M, Mhring R, Stiller S (2009) The concept of recoverable robustness, linear programming recovery, and railway applications. In: LNCS, vol 5868Papapetrou P, Kollios G, Sclaroff S, Gunopulos D (2009) Mining frequent arrangements of temporal intervals. Knowl Inf Syst 21:133–171Rizk A, Batt G, Fages F, Solima S (2009) A general computational method for robustness analysis with applications to synthetic gene networks. Bioinformatics 25(12):168–179Rossi F, van Beek P, Walsh T (2006) Handbook of constraint programming. Elsevier, New YorkRoy B (2010) Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: a multi-faceted issue. Eur J Oper Res 200:629–638Szathmary E (2006) A robust approach. Nature 439:19–20Verfaillie G, Schiex T (1994) Solution reuse in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-94), pp 307–312Wallace R, Grimes D, Freuder E (2009) Solving dynamic constraint satisfaction problems by identifying stable features. In: Proceedings of international joint conferences on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-09), pp 621–627Wang D, Tse Q, Zhou Y (2011) A decentralized search engine for dynamic web communities. Knowl Inf Syst 26(1):105–125Wiggins S (1990) Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos. Springer, New YorkZhou Y, Croft W (2008) Measuring ranked list robustness for query performance prediction. Knowl Inf Syst 16:155–17

    Robustness and Stability in Constraint Programming under Dynamism and Uncertainty

    Full text link
    [EN] Many real life problems that can be solved by constraint programming, come from uncertain and dynamic environments. Because of the dynamism, the original problem may change over time, and thus the solution found for the original problem may become invalid. For this reason, dealing with such problems has become an important issue in the fields of constraint programming. In some cases, there is extant knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. In other cases, this information is fragmentary or unknown. In this paper, we extend the concept of robustness and stability for Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) with ordered domains, where only limited assumptions need to be made as to possible changes. We present a search algorithm that searches for both robust and stable solutions for CSPs of this nature. It is well-known that meeting both criteria simultaneously is a desirable objective for constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments. We also present compelling evidence that our search algorithm outperforms other general-purpose algorithms for dynamic CSPs using random instances and benchmarks derived from real life problems.This work has been partially supported by the research project TIN2010-20976-C02-01 and FPU program fellowship (Min. de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain). We wish to thank Dr. Christophe Lecoutre and Dr. Diarmuid Grimes for their assistance.Climent Aunés, LI.; Wallace, R.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Barber Sanchís, F. (2014). Robustness and Stability in Constraint Programming under Dynamism and Uncertainty. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 49(1):49-78. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4126S497849

    Robustness and stability in Constraint Programming under dynamism and uncertainty

    Get PDF
    Many real life problems that can be solved by constraint programming, come from uncertain and dynamic environments. Because of the dynamism, the original problem may change over time, and thus the solution found for the original problem may become invalid. For this reason, dealing with such problems has become an important issue in the fields of constraint programming. In some cases, there exist extant knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. In other cases, this information is fragmentary or unknown. In this paper, we extend the concept of robustness and stability for Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) with ordered domains, where only limited assumptions need to be made as to possible changes. We present a search algorithm that searches for both robust and stable solutions for CSPs of this nature. It is well-known that meeting both criteria simultaneously is a desirable objective for constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments. We also present compelling evidence that our search algorithm outperforms other general-purpose algorithms for dynamic CSPs using random instances and benchmarks derived from real life problems

    Biased landscapes for random Constraint Satisfaction Problems

    Full text link
    The typical complexity of Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) can be investigated by means of random ensembles of instances. The latter exhibit many threshold phenomena besides their satisfiability phase transition, in particular a clustering or dynamic phase transition (related to the tree reconstruction problem) at which their typical solutions shatter into disconnected components. In this paper we study the evolution of this phenomenon under a bias that breaks the uniformity among solutions of one CSP instance, concentrating on the bicoloring of k-uniform random hypergraphs. We show that for small k the clustering transition can be delayed in this way to higher density of constraints, and that this strategy has a positive impact on the performances of Simulated Annealing algorithms. We characterize the modest gain that can be expected in the large k limit from the simple implementation of the biasing idea studied here. This paper contains also a contribution of a more methodological nature, made of a review and extension of the methods to determine numerically the discontinuous dynamic transition threshold.Comment: 32 pages, 16 figure

    A Landscape Analysis of Constraint Satisfaction Problems

    Full text link
    We discuss an analysis of Constraint Satisfaction problems, such as Sphere Packing, K-SAT and Graph Coloring, in terms of an effective energy landscape. Several intriguing geometrical properties of the solution space become in this light familiar in terms of the well-studied ones of rugged (glassy) energy landscapes. A `benchmark' algorithm naturally suggested by this construction finds solutions in polynomial time up to a point beyond the `clustering' and in some cases even the `thermodynamic' transitions. This point has a simple geometric meaning and can be in principle determined with standard Statistical Mechanical methods, thus pushing the analytic bound up to which problems are guaranteed to be easy. We illustrate this for the graph three and four-coloring problem. For Packing problems the present discussion allows to better characterize the `J-point', proposed as a systematic definition of Random Close Packing, and to place it in the context of other theories of glasses.Comment: 17 pages, 69 citations, 12 figure

    Robustness and stability in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems

    Full text link
    Constraint programming is a paradigm wherein relations between variables are stated in the form of constraints. It is well-known that many real life problems can be modeled as Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs). Much effort has been spent to increase the efficiency of algorithms for solving CSPs. However, many of these techniques assume that the set of variables, domains and constraints involved in the CSP are known and fixed when the problem is modeled. This is a strong limitation because many problems come from uncertain and dynamic environments, where both the original problem may evolve because of the environment, the user or other agents. In such situations, a solution that holds for the original problem can become invalid after changes. There are two main approaches for dealing with these situations: reactive and proactive approaches. Using reactive approaches entails re-solving the CSP after each solution loss, which is a time consuming. That is a clear disadvantage, especially when we deal with short-term changes, where solution loss is frequent. In addition, in many applications, such as on-line planning and scheduling, the delivery time of a new solution may be too long for actions to be taken on time, so a solution loss can produce several negative effects in the modeled problem. For a task assignment production system with several machines, it could cause the shutdown of the production system, the breakage of machines, the loss of the material/object in production, etc. In a transport timetabling problem, the solution loss, due to some disruption at a point, may produce a delay that propagates through the entire schedule. In addition, all the negative effects stated above will probably entail an economic loss. In this thesis we develop several proactive approaches. Proactive approaches use knowledge about possible future changes in order to avoid or minimize their effects. These approaches are applied before the changes occur. Thus, our approaches search for robust solutions, which have a high probability to remain valid after changes. Furthermore, some of our approaches also consider that the solutions can be easily adapted when they did not resist the changes in the original problem. Thus, these approaches search for stable solutions, which have an alternative solution that is similar to the previous one and therefore can be used in case of a value breakage. In this context, sometimes there exists knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. However in many cases, this information is unknown or hard to obtain. For this reason, for the majority of our approaches (specifically 3 of the 4 developed approaches), the only assumptions made about changes are those inherent in the structure of problems with ordered domains. Given this framework and therefore the existence of a significant order over domain values, it is reasonable to assume that the original bounds of the solution space may undergo restrictive or relaxed modifications. Note that the possibility of solution loss only exists when changes over the original bounds of the solution space are restrictive. Therefore, the main objective for searching robust solutions in this framework is to find solutions located as far away as possible from the bounds of the solution space. In order to meet this criterion, we propose several approaches that can be divided in enumeration-based techniques and a search algorithm.Climent Aunés, LI. (2013). Robustness and stability in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/34785TESI
    corecore