A General Framework Based on Machine Learning for Algorithm Selection in Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Source abstract
Abstract
Many of the works conducted on algorithm selection strategies—methods that choose a suitable solving method for a particular problem—start from scratch since only a few investigations on reusable components of such methods are found in the literature. Additionally, researchers might unintentionally omit some implementation details when documenting the algorithm selection strategy. This makes it difficult for others to reproduce the behavior obtained by such an approach. To address these problems, we propose to rely on existing techniques from the Machine Learning realm to speed-up the generation of algorithm selection strategies while improving the modularity and reproducibility of the research. The proposed solution model is implemented on a domain-independent Machine Learning module that executes the core mechanism of the algorithm selection task. The algorithm selection strategies produced in this work are implemented and tested rapidly compared against the time it would take to build a similar approach from scratch. We produce four novel algorithm selectors based on Machine Learning for constraint satisfaction problems to verify our approach. Our data suggest that these algorithms outperform the best performing algorithm on a set of test instances. For example, the algorithm selectors Multiclass Neural Network (MNN) and Multiclass Logistic Regression (MLR), powered by a neural network and linear regression, respectively, reduced the search cost (in terms of consistency checks) of the best performing heuristic (KAPPA), on average, by 49% for the instances considered for this work.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization · Scheduling and Timetabling Solutions · Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Engineering and Sciences, Monterrey 64849, Mexico
Funding
CONACyT
References (59)
Show source-provided references
1. No free lunch theorems for optimization10.1109/4235.585893 ↗
2. The Algorithm Selection Problem10.1016/S0065-2458(08)60520-3 ↗
3. Epstein, S.L., Freuder, E.C., Wallace, R., Morozov, A., and Samuels, B. (2002, January 9–13). The Adaptive Constraint Engine. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP ’02), Ithaca, NY, USA.10.1007/3-540-46135-3_35 ↗
4. AutoFolio: An Automatically Configured Algorithm Selector
5. Loreggia, A., Malitsky, Y., Samulowitz, H., and Saraswat, V. (2016, January 12–17). Deep Learning for Algorithm Portfolios. Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’16), Phoenix, AZ, USA.10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10170 ↗
6. Sakallah, K.A., and Simon, L. (2011). Non-Model-Based Algorithm Portfolios for SAT. Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing—SAT 2011, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-21581-0 ↗
7. O’Mahony, E., Hebrard, E., Holland, A., Nugent, C., and O’Sullivan, B. (2008, January 7–8). Using Case-based Reasoning in an Algorithm Portfolio for Constraint Solving. Proceedings of the 19th Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, Dublin, Ireland.
8. Enhancing Selection Hyper-Heuristics via Feature Transformations10.1109/MCI.2018.2807018 ↗
9. Hyper-heuristic Evolution of Dispatching Rules: A Comparison of Rule Representations10.1162/EVCO_a_00131 ↗
10. Recent Advances in Selection Hyper-heuristics10.1016/j.ejor.2019.07.073 ↗
11. Garza-Santisteban, F., Sanchez-Pamanes, R., Puente-Rodriguez, L.A., Amaya, I., Ortiz-Bayliss, J.C., Conant-Pablos, S., and Terashima-Marin, H. (2019, January 10–13). A Simulated Annealing Hyper-heuristic for Job Shop Scheduling Problems. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Wellington, New Zealand.10.1109/CEC.2019.8790296 ↗
12. Analysis of selection hyper-heuristics for population-based meta-heuristics in real-valued dynamic optimization10.1016/j.swevo.2018.03.012 ↗
13. Malitsky, Y., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., and Sellmann, M. (2013, January 3–9). Algorithm Portfolios Based on Cost-sensitive Hierarchical Clustering. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13), Beijing, China.
14. Malitsky, Y. (2014). Evolving Instance-Specific Algorithm Configuration. Instance-Specific Algorithm Configuration, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-11230-5 ↗
15. ASlib: A benchmark library for algorithm selection10.1016/j.artint.2016.04.003 ↗
16. Hao, J.K., and Middendorf, M. (2012). HyFlex: A Benchmark Framework for Cross-Domain Heuristic Search. Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimization, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-29124-1 ↗
17. SATzilla: Portfolio-based algorithm selection for SAT10.1613/jair.2490 ↗
18. Genetic algorithms and machine learning10.1023/A:1022602019183 ↗
19. Optimization by Simulated Annealing Optimization by Simulated Annealing10.1126/science.220.4598.671 ↗
20. Bessiere, C., De Raedt, L., Kotthoff, L., Nijssen, S., O’Sullivan, B., and Pedreschi, D. (2016). Algorithm Selection for Combinatorial Search Problems: A Survey. Data Mining and Constraint Programming: Foundations of a Cross-Disciplinary Approach, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-50137-6 ↗
21. The algorithm selection competitions 2015 and 201710.1016/j.artint.2018.10.004 ↗
22. Amaya, I., Ortiz-Bayliss, J.C., Conant-Pablos, S., and Terashima-Marin, H. (2019, January 10–13). Hyper-heuristics Reversed: Learning to Combine Solvers by Evolving Instances. Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Wellington, New Zealand.10.1109/CEC.2019.8789928 ↗
23. Ant Colony Hyper-heuristics for Travelling Salesman Problem10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.333 ↗
24. Competitive travelling salesmen problem: A hyper-heuristic approach10.1057/jors.2012.37 ↗
25. Sabar, N.R., Zhang, X.J., and Song, A. (2015, January 25–28). A math-hyper-heuristic approach for large-scale vehicle routing problems with time windows. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Sendai, Japan.10.1109/CEC.2015.7256977 ↗
26. Amaya, I., Ortiz-Bayliss, J.C., Gutierrez-Rodriguez, A.E., Terashima-Marin, H., and Coello, C.A.C. (2017, January 5–8). Improving hyper-heuristic performance through feature transformation. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Donostia, Spain.10.1109/CEC.2017.7969623 ↗
27. Berlier, J., and McCollum, J. (2010, January 18–21). A constraint satisfaction algorithm for microcontroller selection and pin assignment. Proceedings of the IEEE SoutheastCon 2010 (SoutheastCon), Concord, NC, USA.10.1109/SECON.2010.5453854 ↗
28. Structural synthesis of complex electrotechnical equipment on the basis of the constraint satisfaction method10.3103/S1068371215060024 ↗
29. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on meta-learning for algorithm selection
30. Measuring instance difficulty for combinatorial optimization problems10.1016/j.cor.2011.07.006 ↗
31. Selecting meta-heuristics for solving vehicle routing problems with time windows via meta-learning10.1016/j.eswa.2018.10.036 ↗
32. Makkar, S., Devi, G.N.R., and Solanki, V.K. (2019, January 9–11). Applications of Machine Learning Techniques in Supply Chain Optimization. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Communication Technologies, Hyderabad, India.
33. Haykin, S. (2007). Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
34. Wright, R.E. (1995). Logistic regression. Reading & Understanding Multivariate Statistics, American Psychological Association.
35. Ho, T.K. (1995, January 14–16). Random decision forests. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis And Recognition, Montreal, QC, Canada.
36. Shotton, J., Sharp, T., Kohli, P., Nowozin, S., Winn, J., and Criminisi, A. (2013, January 5–10). Decision jungles: Compact and rich models for classification. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Lake Tahoe, NV, USA.
37. Hyper-heuristics: A survey of the state of the art10.1057/jors.2013.71 ↗
38. Pillay, N., and Qu, R. (2018). Hyper-Heuristics: Theory and Applications, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-96514-7 ↗
39. Learning vector quantization for variable ordering in constraint satisfaction problems10.1016/j.patrec.2012.09.009 ↗
40. Combine and conquer: An evolutionary hyper-heuristic approach for solving constraint satisfaction problems10.1007/s10462-016-9466-x ↗
41. Esparcia-Alcázar, A.I. (2013, January 3–5). An Ant-Based Selection Hyper-heuristic for Dynamic Environments. Proceedings of the Applications of Evolutionary Computation: 16th European Conference, EvoApplications 2013, Vienna, Austria.10.1007/978-3-642-37192-9 ↗
42. Bischl, B., Mersmann, O., Trautmann, H., and Preuß, M. (2012, January 7–11). Algorithm Selection Based on Exploratory Landscape Analysis and Cost-sensitive Learning. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO ’12, Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.1145/2330163.2330209 ↗
43. Understanding the structure of bin packing problems through principal component analysis10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.04.041 ↗
44. Local Search with Constraint Propagation and Conflict-Based Heuristics10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00221-7 ↗
45. Tsang, E.P.K., Borrett, J.E., Kwan, A.C.M., and Sq, C.C. (1995). An Attempt to Map the Performance of a Range of Algorithm and Heuristic Combinations. Proceedings of Adaptation in Artificial and Biological Systems (AISB’95), IOS Press.
46. Random Subsets Support Learning a Mixture of Heuristics10.1142/S0218213008004023 ↗
47. Bittle, S.A., and Fox, M.S. (2009). Learning and using hyper-heuristics for variable and value ordering in constraint satisfaction problems. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers, ACM.10.1145/1570256.1570304 ↗
48. Crawford, B., Soto, R., Castro, C., and Monfroy, E. (2011, January 10–14). A hyperheuristic approach for dynamic enumeration strategy selection in constraint satisfaction. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Interplay Between Natural and Artificial Computation: New Challenges on Bioinspired Applications—Volume Part II (IWINAC’11), Mallorca, Spain.10.1007/978-3-642-21326-7_32 ↗
49. Soto, R., Crawford, B., Monfroy, E., and Bustos, V. (2012). Using Autonomous Search for Generating Good Enumeration Strategy Blends in Constraint Programming. Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2012, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference, Salvador de Bahia, Brazil, 18–21 June 2012, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-31137-6_46 ↗
50. Experimental Matching of Instances to Heuristics for Constraint Satisfaction Problems
51. Gent, I., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Smith, B., and Walsh, T. (1996, January 19–22). An empirical study of dynamic variable ordering heuristics for the constraint satisfaction problem. Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’96), Cambridge, MA, USA.10.1007/3-540-61551-2_74 ↗
52. Boussemart, F., Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., and Sais, L. (2004, January 23–27). Boosting Systematic Search by Weighting Constraints. Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’04), Valencia, Spain.
53. Minimizing Conflicts: A Heuristic repair Method for CSP and Scheduling Problems10.1016/0004-3702(92)90007-K ↗
54. Bacchus, F. (2000, January 7–11). Extending Forward Checking. Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP’00), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.10.1007/3-540-45349-0_5 ↗
55. Rossi, F., Petrie, C., and Dhar, V. (1990, January 6–10). On the Equivalence of Constraint Satisfaction Problems. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stockholm, Sweden.
56. Wallace, M. (2004). Impact-Based Search Strategies for Constraint Programming. Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming—CP 2004, Springer.10.1007/b100482 ↗
57. Beldiceanu, N., Jussien, N., and Pinson, É. (2012). Activity-Based Search for Black-Box Constraint Programming Solvers. Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Contraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimzation Problems, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-29828-8 ↗
58. Ganchev, I., Garcia, N.M., Dobre, C., Mavromoustakis, C.X., and Goleva, R. (2019). Combining Machine Learning and Metaheuristics Algorithms for Classification Method PROAFTN. Enhanced Living Environments: Algorithms, Architectures, Platforms, and Systems, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-10752-9 ↗
59. Talbi, E. (2019, January 23–26). Machine Learning for Metaheuristics—State of the Art and Perspectives. Proceedings of the 2019 11th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), Phuket, Thailand.10.1109/KST.2019.8687812 ↗