Statistical Regimes Across Constrainedness Regions Carla P. Gomes, Cesar Fernandez Bart Selman, and Christian Bessiere Cornell University Universitat de.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Non-Binary Constraint Satisfaction Toby Walsh Cork Constraint Computation Center.
Advertisements

University of Toronto Mechanical & Industrial Engineering An Introduction to Constraint Programming J. Christopher Beck Dept. of Mechanical & Industrial.
1 Backdoor Sets in SAT Instances Ryan Williams Carnegie Mellon University Joint work in IJCAI03 with: Carla Gomes and Bart Selman Cornell University.
1 Restart search techniques for Employee Timetabling Problems Amnon Meisels And Eliezer Kaplansky Ben-Gurion University.
Dynamic Restarts Optimal Randomized Restart Policies with Observation Henry Kautz, Eric Horvitz, Yongshao Ruan, Carla Gomes and Bart Selman.
Connections in Networks: Hardness of Feasibility vs. Optimality Jon Conrad, Carla P. Gomes, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, Ashish Sabharwal, Jordan Suter Cornell.
1 Refining the Basic Constraint Propagation Algorithm Christian Bessière and Jean-Charles Régin Presented by Sricharan Modali.
Foundations of Constraint Processing, Spring 2008 Evaluation to BT SearchApril 16, Foundations of Constraint Processing CSCE421/821, Spring 2008:
Constraint Systems Laboratory Oct 21, 2004Guddeti: MS thesis defense1 An Improved Restart Strategy for Randomized Backtrack Search Venkata P. Guddeti Constraint.
CP Formal Models of Heavy-Tailed Behavior in Combinatorial Search Hubie Chen, Carla P. Gomes, and Bart Selman
08/1 Foundations of AI 8. Satisfiability and Model Construction Davis-Putnam, Phase Transitions, GSAT Wolfram Burgard and Bernhard Nebel.
Heavy-Tailed Behavior and Search Algorithms for SAT Tang Yi Based on [1][2][3]
Constraint Satisfaction CSE 473 University of Washington.
CPSC 322, Lecture 12Slide 1 CSPs: Search and Arc Consistency Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 12 (Textbook Chpt ) January, 29, 2010.
Impact of Structure on Complexity Carla Gomes Bart Selman Cornell University Intelligent Information Systems.
Foundations of Constraint Processing Evaluation to BT Search 1 Foundations of Constraint Processing CSCE421/821, Spring
Solvable problem Deviation from best known solution [%] Percentage of test runs ERA RDGR RGR LS Over-constrained.
Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Master Class on Experimental Study of Algorithms Scientific Use of Experimentation Carla P. Gomes Cornell University CPAIOR Bologna, Italy 2010.
AAAI00 Austin, Texas Generating Satisfiable Problem Instances Dimitris Achlioptas Microsoft Carla P. Gomes Cornell University Henry Kautz University of.
1 Backdoors To Typical Case Complexity Ryan Williams Carnegie Mellon University Joint work with: Carla Gomes and Bart Selman Cornell University.
Carla P. Gomes CS4700 CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Carla P. Gomes Module: Randomization in Complete Tree Search.
Structure and Phase Transition Phenomena in the VTC Problem C. P. Gomes, H. Kautz, B. Selman R. Bejar, and I. Vetsikas IISI Cornell University University.
Carla P. Gomes CS4700 CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Carla P. Gomes Module: Instance Hardness and Phase Transitions.
CP-AI-OR-02 Gomes & Shmoys 1 The Promise of LP to Boost CSP Techniques for Combinatorial Problems Carla P. Gomes David Shmoys
1 CS 4700: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence Carla P. Gomes Module: Satisfiability (Reading R&N: Chapter 7)
General search strategies: Look-ahead Chapter 5 Chapter 5.
MAC and Combined Heuristics: Two Reasons to Forsake FC (and CBJ?) on Hard Problems Christian Bessière and Jean-Charles Régin Presented by Suddhindra Shukla.
1 Understanding Problem Hardness: Recent Developments and Directions Bart Selman Cornell University.
Carla P. Gomes School on Optimization CPAIOR02 Exploiting Structure and Randomization in Combinatorial Search Carla P. Gomes
Lukas Kroc, Ashish Sabharwal, Bart Selman Cornell University, USA SAT 2010 Conference Edinburgh, July 2010 An Empirical Study of Optimal Noise and Runtime.
Controlling Computational Cost: Structure and Phase Transition Carla Gomes, Scott Kirkpatrick, Bart Selman, Ramon Bejar, Bhaskar Krishnamachari Intelligent.
Foundations of Constraint Processing, Fall 2004 November 18, 2004More on BT search1 Foundations of Constraint Processing CSCE421/821, Fall 2004:
1 Combinatorial Problems in Cooperative Control: Complexity and Scalability Carla Gomes and Bart Selman Cornell University Muri Meeting March 2002.
1 Message Passing and Local Heuristics as Decimation Strategies for Satisfiability Lukas Kroc, Ashish Sabharwal, Bart Selman (presented by Sebastian Brand)
Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Learning to Search Henry Kautz University of Washington joint work with Dimitri Achlioptas, Carla Gomes, Eric Horvitz, Don Patterson, Yongshao Ruan, Bart.
Distributions of Randomized Backtrack Search Key Properties: I Erratic behavior of mean II Distributions have “heavy tails”.
Structure and Phase Transition Phenomena in the VTC Problem C. P. Gomes, H. Kautz, B. Selman R. Bejar, and I. Vetsikas IISI Cornell University University.
Constrainedness Including slides from Toby Walsh.
CP Summer School Modelling for Constraint Programming Barbara Smith 2. Implied Constraints, Optimization, Dominance Rules.
Heavy-Tailed Phenomena in Satisfiability and Constraint Satisfaction Problems by Carla P. Gomes, Bart Selman, Nuno Crato and henry Kautz Presented by Yunho.
Quality of LP-based Approximations for Highly Combinatorial Problems Lucian Leahu and Carla Gomes Computer Science Department Cornell University.
SAT 2009 Ashish Sabharwal Backdoors in the Context of Learning (short paper) Bistra Dilkina, Carla P. Gomes, Ashish Sabharwal Cornell University SAT-09.
Accelerating Random Walks Wei Wei and Bart Selman.
1 Combinatorial Problems in Cooperative Control: Complexity and Scalability Carla P. Gomes and Bart Selman Cornell University Muri Meeting June 2002.
Balance and Filtering in Structured Satisfiability Problems Henry Kautz University of Washington joint work with Yongshao Ruan (UW), Dimitris Achlioptas.
1. 2 Outline of Ch 4 Best-first search Greedy best-first search A * search Heuristics Functions Local search algorithms Hill-climbing search Simulated.
Eliminating non- binary constraints Toby Walsh Cork Constraint Computation Center.
Lecture 5: Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Constraint Satisfaction CSE 473 University of Washington.
Lecture 8 Randomized Search Algorithms Part I: Backtrack Search CSE 573 Artificial Intelligence I Henry Kautz Fall 2001.
ERA on an over-constrained problem A Constraint-Based System for Hiring & Managing Graduate Teaching Assistants Ryan Lim, Praveen Venkata Guddeti, and.
Where are the hard problems?. Remember Graph Colouring? Remember 3Col?
Formal Complexity Analysis of RoboFlag Drill & Communication and Computation in Distributed Negotiation Algorithms in Distributed Negotiation Algorithms.
1 P NP P^#P PSPACE NP-complete: SAT, propositional reasoning, scheduling, graph coloring, puzzles, … PSPACE-complete: QBF, planning, chess (bounded), …
Where are the hard problems?
CSPs: Search and Arc Consistency Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 12
Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 13
CSPs: Search and Arc Consistency Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 12
Constraint Satisfaction
Empirical Comparison of Preprocessing and Lookahead Techniques for Binary Constraint Satisfaction Problems Zheying Jane Yang & Berthe Y. Choueiry Constraint.
CSPs: Search and Arc Consistency Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 12
Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 13
Evaluation of (Deterministic) BT Search Algorithms
Constraints and Search
Chapter 5: General search strategies: Look-ahead
Evaluation of (Deterministic) BT Search Algorithms
Evaluation of (Deterministic) BT Search Algorithms
Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Presentation transcript:

Statistical Regimes Across Constrainedness Regions Carla P. Gomes, Cesar Fernandez Bart Selman, and Christian Bessiere Cornell University Universitat de Lleida LIRMM-CNRS CP 2004 Toronto

Motivation Bring together recent results on: Typical Case Analysis Randomized Complete Search Methods Heavy-Tailed Phenomena Random CSP Models

Typical Case Analysis: Beyond NP-Completeness Constrainedness Computational Cost (Mean) % of solvable instances Phase Transition Phenomenon: Discriminating “easy” vs. “hard” instances Hogg et al 96

Exceptional Hard Instances Seem to defy the “easy-hard” pattern: –such instances occur in the under-constrained area; –they are considerably harder than other similar instances and even harder than instances from the critically constrained area. Gent and Walsh 94 Hogg and Williams 94 Smith and Grant 97

Are Exceptionally Hard Instances Truly Hard? Different algorithms encounter different exceptionally hard instances. ``Hardness'' of exceptionally hard instances  not necessarily hardness of the instances, but rather a the combination of the instance with the details of the search method; Gent and Walsh 94 Hogg and Williams 94 Selman and Kirkpatrick 96 Smith and Grant 97

Randomized Backtrack Search What if we introduce a tiny element of randomness into the search heuristic – e.g., by breaking ties randomly --- and run this (still complete) randomized search procedure on the same instance over and over again? Study of runtime distributions of a randomized backtrack search on the same instance : Way of isolating the variance caused solely by the algorithm Gomes et al CP 97

Time:> >20007 Easy instance – 15 % preassigned cells Gomes, et al 97 Extreme Variance in Runtime of Randomized Backtrack Search

Heavy-tailed distributions Exponential decay for standard distributions, e.g. Normal, Logonormal, exponential: Heavy-Tailed Power Law Decay e.g. Pareto-Levy: Normal  (Frost et al 97; Gomes et al 97,Hoos 1999,Walsh 99,)

Heavy-tailed Dist. Visualization of Heavy-tailed Phenomenon (Log-Log Plot of Tail o Distribution) Normal (2, ) Normal (2,1) 1-F(x) Unsolved fraction Runtime (Number of backtracks) (log scale) O,1%> % 2 Median=2

Formal Results Abstract Search Tree Models with provably heavy-tailed behavior (Chen, Gomes, Selman 2001) Generalization and Assignment of Semantics to the Abstract Search Tree Models (Williams, Gomes, Selman 2003) Provably Polytime Restart Strategies (Williams, Gomes, Selman 2003)

What about concrete CSP models? (so far no good characterization of runtime distributions of concrete CSP models)

Research Questions: 1.Can we provide a characterization of heavy-tailed behavior: when it occurs and it does not occur? 2.Can we identify different tail regimes across different constrainedness regions? 3.Can we get further insights into the tail regime by analyzing the concrete search trees produced by the backtrack search method? Concrete CSP Models Complete Randomized Backtrack Search

Outline of the Rest of the Talk Random Binary CSP Models Encodings of CSP Models Randomized Backtrack Search Algorithms Search Trees Statistical Tail Regimes Across Cosntrainedness Regions –Empirical Results –Theoretical Model Conclusions

Binary Constraint Networks A finite binary constraint network P = (X, D,C) –a set of n variables X = {x 1, x 2, …, x n } –For each variable, set of finite domains D = { D(x 1 ), D(x 2 ), …, D(x n )} –A set C of binary constraints between pairs of variables; a constraint C ij, on the ordered set of variables (x i, x j ) is a subset of the Cartesian product D(x i ) x D(x j ) that specifies the allowed combinations of values for the variables x i and x j. –Solution to the constraint network instantiation of the variables such that all constraints are satisfied.

Random Binary CSP Models Model B N – number of variables; D – size of the domains; c – number of constrained pairs of variables; p1 – proportion of binary constraints included in network ; c = p 1 N ( N-1)/ 2; t – tightness of constraints; p 2 - proportion of forbidden tuples; t = p 2 D 2 Model E N – number of variables; D – size of the domains: p – proportion of forbidden pairs (out of D 2 N ( N-1)/ 2) (Achlioptas et al 2000) (Gent et al 1996) N – from 15 to 50; (Xu and Li 2000)

Encodings Direct CSP Binary Encoding Satisfiability Encoding (direct encoding) Walsh 2000

Backtrack Search Algorithms Look-ahead performed:: –no look-ahead (simple backtracking BT); –removal of values directly inconsistent with the last instantiation performed (forward-checking FC); –arc consistency and propagation (maintaining arc consistency, MAC). Different heuristics for variable selection (the next variable to instantiate): –Random (random); –variables pre-ordered by decreasing degree in the constraint graph (deg); –smallest domain first, ties broken by decreasing degree (dom+deg) Different heuristics for variable value selection: –Random –Lexicographic For the SAT encodings we used the simplified Davis-Putnam-Logemann- Loveland procedure: Variable/Value static and random

Inconsistent Subtrees Bessiere at al 2004

Distributions Runtime distributions of the backtrack search algorithms; Distribution of the depth of the inconsistency trees found during the search; All runs were performed without censorship.

Main Results 1 - Runtime distributions 2 – Inconsistent Sub-tree Depth Distributions Dramatically different statistical regimes across the constrainedness regions of CSP models;

Runtime distributions

Distribution of Depth of Inconsistent Subtrees

Applet

Depth of Inconsistent Search Tree vs. Runtime Distributions

Other Models and More Sophisticated Consistency Techniques BTMAC Heavy-tailed and non-heavy-tailed regions. As the “sophistication” of the algorithm increases the heavy-tailed region extends to the right, getting closer to the phase transition Model B

SAT encoding: DPLL

Theoretical Model

Depth of Inconsistent Search Tree vs. Runtime Distributions Theoretical Model X – search cost (runtime); ISTD – depth of an inconsistent sub-tree; P istd [IST = N]– probability of finding an inconsistent sub-tree of depth N during search; P[X>x | N] – probability of the search cost being larger x, given an inconsistent tree of depth N

Depth of Inconsistent Search Tree vs. Runtime Distributions: Theoretical Model See paper for proof details

Regressions for B1, B2, K Regression for B1 and B2Regression for k

Validation: Theoretical Model vs. Runtime Data α= 0.26  using the model;α= 0.27  using runtime data;

Summary of Results 1 As constrainedness increases change from heavy-tailed to a non-heavy-tailed regime Both models (B and E), CSP and SAT encodings, for the different backtrack search strategies:

Summary of Results 2 Threshold from the heavy-tailed to non-heavy- tailed regime –Dependent on the particular search procedure; –As the efficiency of the search method increases, the extension of the heavy-tailed region increases: the heavy-tailed threshold gets closer to the phase transition.

Summary of Results 3 Distribution of the depth of inconsistent search sub-trees Exponentially distributed inconsistent sub-tree depth (ISTD) combined with exponential growth of the search space as the tree depth increases implies heavy-tailed runtime distributions. As the ISTD distributions move away from the exponential distribution, the runtime distributions become non-heavy- tailed.

Research Challenges How to exploit these results in terms of the design of more efficient search procedures? –Randomization and restart strategies; –Search heuristics: –Look ahead and look back strategies; Very exciting and promising research area !

Demos and papers:

Motivation Great strides in designing more efficient complete backtrack search methods for solving constraint satisfaction problems: –strong search heuristics; –Look-ahead and look-back techniques; –Randomization and restarts.

Motivation The study of problem structure --- insights in terms of the interplay between structure, search algorithms, and more generally, typical case complexity: –Phase transition phenomena –Exceptionally hard instances –Randomized Backtrack Search –Heavy-tailed phenomena in combinatorial search