Trying again to fail-first

For constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs), Haralick and Elliott [1] introduced the Fail-First Principle and defined in it terms of minimizing branch depth. By devising a range of variable ordering heuristics, each in turn trying harder to fail first, Smith and Grant [2] showed that adherence to this strategy does not guarantee reduction in search effort. The present work builds on Smith and Grant. It benefits from the development of a new framework for characterizing heuristic performance that defines two policies, one concerned with enhancing the likelihood of correctly extending a partial solution, the other with minimizing the effort to prove insolubility. The Fail-First Principle can be restated as calling for adherence to the second, fail-first policy, while discounting the other, promise policy. Our work corrects some deficiencies in the work of Smith and Grant, and goes on to confirm their finding that the Fail-First Principle, as originally defined, is insufficient. We then show that adherence to the fail-first policy must be measured in terms of size of insoluble subtrees, not branch depth. We also show that for soluble problems, both policies must be considered in evaluating heuristic performance. Hence, even in its proper form the Fail-First Principle is insufficient. We also show that the “FF” series of heuristics devised by Smith and Grant is a powerful tool for evaluating heuristic performance, including the subtle relations between heuristic features and adherence to a policy

Allocation in Practice

How do we allocate scarcere sources? How do we fairly allocate costs? These are two pressing challenges facing society today. I discuss two recent projects at NICTA concerning resource and cost allocation. In the first, we have been working with FoodBank Local, a social startup working in collaboration with food bank charities around the world to optimise the logistics of collecting and distributing donated food. Before we can distribute this food, we must decide how to allocate it to different charities and food kitchens. This gives rise to a fair division problem with several new dimensions, rarely considered in the literature. In the second, we have been looking at cost allocation within the distribution network of a large multinational company. This also has several new dimensions rarely considered in the literature.Comment: To appear in Proc. of 37th edition of the German Conference on Artificial Intelligence (KI 2014), Springer LNC

A Multilevel Genetic Algorithm for the Maximum Satisfaction Problem

Genetic algorithms (GA) which belongs to the class of evolutionary algorithms are regarded as highly successful algorithms when applied to a broad range of discrete as well continuous optimization problems. This chapter introduces a hybrid approach combining genetic algorithm with the multilevel paradigm for solving the maximum constraint satisfaction problem (Max-CSP). The multilevel paradigm refers to the process of dividing large and complex problems into smaller ones, which are hopefully much easier to solve, and then work backward toward the solution of the original problem, using the solution reached from a child level as a starting solution for the parent level. The promising performances achieved by the proposed approach are demonstrated by comparisons made to solve conventional random benchmark problems

Evolving binary constraint satisfaction problem instances that are difficult to solve

We present a study on the difficulty of solving binary constraint satisfaction problems where an evolutionary algorithm is used to explore the space of problem instances. By directly altering the structure of problem instances and by evaluating the effort it takes to solve them using a complete algorithm we show that the evolutionary algorithm is able to detect problem instances that are harder to solve than those produced with conventional methods. Results from the search of the evolutionary algorithm confirm conjectures about where the most difficult to solve problem instances can be found with respect to the tightness