Artificial Intelligence

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Artificial Intelligence:

Artificial Intelligence Ian Gent ipg@cs.st-and.ac.uk Constraint Programming 3: The Party

Artificial Intelligence:

Artificial Intelligence Part I : Formulation Part II: Progressive piss up at a yacht club Constraint Programming 3

Constraint Satisfaction Problems :

3 Constraint Satisfaction Problems CSP = Constraint Satisfaction Problems A CSP consists of: a set of variables , X for each variable x i in X, a domain D i D i is a finite set of possible values a set of constraints restricting tuples of values if only pairs of values, it’s a binary CSP A solution is an assignment of a value in D i to each variable x i such that every constraint satisfied

Donald + Gerald = Robert:

4 Donald + Gerald = Robert We can write one long constraint for the sum: 100000*D + 10000*O + 1000*N + 100*A+ 10*L + D + 100000*G + 10000*E + 1000*R + 100*A+ 10*L + D = 100000*R + 10000*O + 1000*B + 100*E+ 10*R + T But what about the difference between variables? Could write D =/= O, D=/=N, … B =/= T Or express it as a single constraint on all variables AllDifferent (D,O,N,A,L,G,E,R,B,T) These two constraints express the problem precisely both involve all the 10 variables in the problem

Formulation of CSP’s:

5 Formulation of CSP’s All-different is an example of the importance of formulation all-different(x,y,z) much better than x y, yz, zx even though logically equivalent In general, it’s hard to find the best formulation Remember DONALD + GERALD = ROBERT The formulation I gave had just 2 constraints all-different and a complicated arithmetic constraint All-different fine, but neither FC nor MAC can do much with the arithmetic constraint

Cryptarithmetic Revisited:

6 Cryptarithmetic Revisited FC cannot propagate until only one variable left in constraint AC cannot propagate until only two variables left When coded in ILOG Solver, search backtracks 8018 times How can we formulate the problem better? Hint: we’d like to consider the sum in each column separately

This shouldn’t work ?!? :

7 This shouldn’t work ?!? We’ve made the problem bigger , so how can it help? Before, there were 9 3 10 7 possibilities now there are 2 5 = 32 times as many! The constraints now involve fewer variables constraint propagation can happen sooner variables can be set sooner (reduced to one value) domain wipe out & backtracking occurs earlier In ILOG Solver, this encoding needs only 212 down from 8,018 if that doesn’t impress you, call it minutes (or hours)

DONALD + GERALD = ROBERT:

8 DONALD + GERALD = ROBERT One solution is to add more variables to the problem Variables C1, C2, C3, C4, C5 Ci represents carry from previous column i D Ci = {0,1} Now we can express more constraints D + D = 10*C1 + T C1 + L + L = 10*C2 + R C2 + A + A = 10*C3 + E C3 + N + R = 10*C4 + B C4 + O + E = 10*C5 + O C5 + D + G = R

The importance of heuristics:

9 The importance of heuristics Remember “minimum remaining value” heuristic check out Constraints lecture 1 if not Variable ordering heuristic choose variable to expand next with m.r.v. I.e. smallest number of values left in current domain very important in practical solution of CSPs In DONALD + GERALD using ILOG Solver carry variables take 8,018 fails to 212 m.r.v. reduces it to 14 (multiply it by 1,000,000 if it doesn’t seem important)

Exercises from Constraints 3:

10 Exercises from Constraints 3 Solve DONALD + GERALD = ROBERT Try to simulate what constraints program would do use carry variables and m.r.v. heuristic What does the progressive party problem tell us? Consider issues such as: relative success and failure of CP/ILP number of variables necessary complication of formulation/heuristics

Progressive Piss up at a yacht club:

11 Progressive Piss up at a yacht club “The Progressive Party Problem: Integer Linear Programming and Constraint Programming Compared” Barbara M Smith, Sally Brailsford, Peter Hubbard, Paul Williams 39 boats at a yachting rally each boat with a known crew size & capacity to entertain a certain number of guests designated host crews stay put, other crews circulate guest crews progress every half hour 3 hours = 6 visits

What’s a progressive party?:

12 What’s a progressive party? Constraints no guest crew may visit the same host boat twice no two guest crews may meet twice crews cannot be split up (neither host nor guest) no boat’s capacity can be exceeded want to minimise the number of host boats and find a way of organising the party with this number In the particular problem, we definitely need 13 boats the largest 12 boats are too small Integer L.P. techniques found solution with 14 boats but not 13 boats using 189 cpu hours in 1994/5

Formulation & Heuristics critical:

13 Formulation & Heuristics critical Smith designated the 13 host boats those with the largest spare capacity This means that failure to find solution not definitive might be a solution with different choice of boats largest 13 boats might be better irrespective of spare capacity large boat with large crew may be best staying put as host Now we know h boats 1-13, g boats 1=26, times 1-6 Primary variables will be h gt , domain D = { 1 … 13 } variable gives location of guest crew g at time t

Secondary variables:

14 Secondary variables Like carry’s in Donald + Gerald, useful for search domains will be {0,1} also helpful for formulation v ght = 1  h gt = h I.e. v ght = 1 iff guest crew g visits host h at time t m gft = 1  h gt = h ft I.e. m gft = 1 iff guest crews g and f meet at time t

Constraints for a party:

15 Constraints for a party Automatically have that crews do not split we have to allocate location of whole crew at once Need to link up primary and secondary variables using constraints summarised on previous slide e.g. v ght = 1  h gt = h Other constraints now expressible First one does not need secondary vars: Crews do not visit same boat twice AllDifferent(h g1 ,h g2 , …, h g6 ) one for all g = 1, 2, … 26

More constraints for a party:

16 More constraints for a party Use variables about crews meeting: Two guest crews do not meet twice (or more) m gf1 + m gf2 + … + m gf6 < 2 one for all pairs f, g Use variables about visits by guest crews assume that S h is spare capacity of host boat h and that C g is size of crew of guest boat g c 1 v 1ht + c 2 v 2ht + … + c 26 v 26ht  S h one for all pairs h, t Some “symmetry” constraints I won’t detail e.g. to distinguish guest boats with same size crew

Heuristics:

17 Heuristics Both variable and value ordering heuristics used Variable ordering heuristic had 5 levels … Only considered primary variables h gt Consider time periods in order (e.g. h 71 before h 32 ) use minimum remaining value within that so that guest crews with fewest possible hosts allocated first break ties by picking variables in most constraints if still tied, pick biggest guest crew Value ordering was much simpler try host crews (values) in descending order of spare capacity

We have ourselves a party:

18 We have ourselves a party Constraint programming (ILOG Solver) won! This managed to schedule the party in 27 mins 1994/5 cpu times In general, Constraints not always better than ILP In this case, constraints were very tight Where constraints looser, often ILP better

And Finally … :

19 And Finally … The real party was scheduled by hand since the CP solution was not done until months later BUT the real party used more host boats than it needed to and ILOG Solver found a solution for a 7 th half hour So with constraint programming … They could have had a longer party!!

authorStream Live Help