Taming a non-convex landscape with dynamical long-range order: memcomputing Ising benchmarks

Recent work on quantum annealing has emphasized the role of collective behavior in solving optimization problems. By enabling transitions of clusters of variables, such solvers are able to navigate their state space and locate solutions more efficiently despite having only local connections between elements. However, collective behavior is not exclusive to quantum annealers, and classical solvers that display collective dynamics should also possess an advantage in navigating a non-convex landscape. Here, we give evidence that a benchmark derived from quantum annealing studies is solvable in polynomial time using digital memcomputing machines, which utilize a collection of dynamical components with memory to represent the structure of the underlying optimization problem. To illustrate the role of memory and clarify the structure of these solvers we propose a simple model of these machines that demonstrates the emergence of long-range order. This model, when applied to finding the ground state of the Ising frustrated-loop benchmarks, undergoes a transient phase of avalanches which can span the entire lattice and demonstrates a connection between long-range behavior and their probability of success. These results establish the advantages of computational approaches based on collective dynamics of continuous dynamical systems

The Configurable SAT Solver Challenge (CSSC)

It is well known that different solution strategies work well for different types of instances of hard combinatorial problems. As a consequence, most solvers for the propositional satisfiability problem (SAT) expose parameters that allow them to be customized to a particular family of instances. In the international SAT competition series, these parameters are ignored: solvers are run using a single default parameter setting (supplied by the authors) for all benchmark instances in a given track. While this competition format rewards solvers with robust default settings, it does not reflect the situation faced by a practitioner who only cares about performance on one particular application and can invest some time into tuning solver parameters for this application. The new Configurable SAT Solver Competition (CSSC) compares solvers in this latter setting, scoring each solver by the performance it achieved after a fully automated configuration step. This article describes the CSSC in more detail, and reports the results obtained in its two instantiations so far, CSSC 2013 and 2014

An Enhanced Features Extractor for a Portfolio of Constraint Solvers

Recent research has shown that a single arbitrarily efficient solver can be significantly outperformed by a portfolio of possibly slower on-average solvers. The solver selection is usually done by means of (un)supervised learning techniques which exploit features extracted from the problem specification. In this paper we present an useful and flexible framework that is able to extract an extensive set of features from a Constraint (Satisfaction/Optimization) Problem defined in possibly different modeling languages: MiniZinc, FlatZinc or XCSP. We also report some empirical results showing that the performances that can be obtained using these features are effective and competitive with state of the art CSP portfolio techniques

A Multicore Tool for Constraint Solving

*** To appear in IJCAI 2015 proceedings *** In Constraint Programming (CP), a portfolio solver uses a variety of different solvers for solving a given Constraint Satisfaction / Optimization Problem. In this paper we introduce sunny-cp2: the first parallel CP portfolio solver that enables a dynamic, cooperative, and simultaneous execution of its solvers in a multicore setting. It incorporates state-of-the-art solvers, providing also a usable and configurable framework. Empirical results are very promising. sunny-cp2 can even outperform the performance of the oracle solver which always selects the best solver of the portfolio for a given problem

ASlib: A Benchmark Library for Algorithm Selection

The task of algorithm selection involves choosing an algorithm from a set of algorithms on a per-instance basis in order to exploit the varying performance of algorithms over a set of instances. The algorithm selection problem is attracting increasing attention from researchers and practitioners in AI. Years of fruitful applications in a number of domains have resulted in a large amount of data, but the community lacks a standard format or repository for this data. This situation makes it difficult to share and compare different approaches effectively, as is done in other, more established fields. It also unnecessarily hinders new researchers who want to work in this area. To address this problem, we introduce a standardized format for representing algorithm selection scenarios and a repository that contains a growing number of data sets from the literature. Our format has been designed to be able to express a wide variety of different scenarios. Demonstrating the breadth and power of our platform, we describe a set of example experiments that build and evaluate algorithm selection models through a common interface. The results display the potential of algorithm selection to achieve significant performance improvements across a broad range of problems and algorithms.Comment: Accepted to be published in Artificial Intelligence Journa

Portfolio-based Planning: State of the Art, Common Practice and Open Challenges

In recent years the field of automated planning has significantly advanced and several powerful domain-independent planners have been developed. However, none of these systems clearly outperforms all the others in every known benchmark domain. This observation motivated the idea of configuring and exploiting a portfolio of planners to perform better than any individual planner: some recent planning systems based on this idea achieved significantly good results in experimental analysis and International Planning Competitions. Such results let us suppose that future challenges of the Automated Planning community will converge on designing different approaches for combining existing planning algorithms. This paper reviews existing techniques and provides an exhaustive guide to portfolio-based planning. In addition, the paper outlines open issues of existing approaches and highlights possible future evolution of these techniques