Making Choices using Structure at the Instance Level within a Case Based Reasoning Framework Cormac Gebruers*, Alessio Guerri †, Brahim Hnich* & Michela.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Primal-Dual Approach to Online Optimization Problems.
Advertisements

G5BAIM Artificial Intelligence Methods
Artificial Intelligence Presentation
Problems and Their Classes
Evaluating Heuristics for the Fixed-Predecessor Subproblem of Pm | prec, p j = 1 | C max.
Computing Kemeny and Slater Rankings Vincent Conitzer (Joint work with Andrew Davenport and Jayant Kalagnanam at IBM Research.)
Algorithms + L. Grewe.
Meta-Level Control in Multi-Agent Systems Anita Raja and Victor Lesser Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA
Online Scheduling with Known Arrival Times Nicholas G Hall (Ohio State University) Marc E Posner (Ohio State University) Chris N Potts (University of Southampton)
Lecture 10: Integer Programming & Branch-and-Bound
Crew Scheduling Housos Efthymios, Professor Computer Systems Laboratory (CSL) Electrical & Computer Engineering University of Patras.
Cs333/cutler Greedy1 Introduction to Greedy Algorithms The greedy technique Problems explored –The coin changing problem –Activity selection.
A Quality Focused Crawler for Health Information Tim Tang.
Improving Market-Based Task Allocation with Optimal Seed Schedules IAS-11, Ottawa. September 1, 2010 G. Ayorkor Korsah 1 Balajee Kannan 1, Imran Fanaswala.
System design-related Optimization problems Michela Milano Joint work DEIS Università di Bologna Dip. Ingegneria Università di Ferrara STI Università di.
Computational Methods for Management and Economics Carla Gomes
Case Based Reasoning Melanie Hanson Engr 315. What is Case-Based Reasoning? Storing information from previous experiences Using previously gained knowledge.
Solving the Protein Threading Problem in Parallel Nocola Yanev, Rumen Andonov Indrajit Bhattacharya CMSC 838T Presentation.
2-Layer Crossing Minimisation Johan van Rooij. Overview Problem definitions NP-Hardness proof Heuristics & Performance Practical Computation One layer:
Integer Programming Difference from linear programming –Variables x i must take on integral values, not real values Lots of interesting problems can be.
Branch and Bound Algorithm for Solving Integer Linear Programming
Carmine Cerrone, Raffaele Cerulli, Bruce Golden GO IX Sirmione, Italy July
* Problem solving: active efforts to discover what must be done to achieve a goal that is not readily attainable.
Metaheuristics The idea: search the solution space directly. No math models, only a set of algorithmic steps, iterative method. Find a feasible solution.
LÊ QU Ố C HUY ID: QLU OUTLINE  What is data mining ?  Major issues in data mining 2.
Towards Ad-hoc Situation Determination Graham Thomson, Paddy Nixon and Sotirios Terzis.
Operations Research Models
Copyright R. Weber Machine Learning, Data Mining ISYS370 Dr. R. Weber.
Column Generation Approach for Operating Rooms Planning Mehdi LAMIRI, Xiaolan XIE and ZHANG Shuguang Industrial Engineering and Computer Sciences Division.
An efficient distributed protocol for collective decision- making in combinatorial domains CMSS Feb , 2012 Minyi Li Intelligent Agent Technology.
CHALLENGING SCHEDULING PROBLEM IN THE FIELD OF SYSTEM DESIGN Alessio Guerri Michele Lombardi * Michela Milano DEIS, University of Bologna.
Introduction to Job Shop Scheduling Problem Qianjun Xu Oct. 30, 2001.
Stochastic Models for Operating Rooms Planning Mehdi LAMIRI, Xiaolan XIE, Alexandre DOLGUI and Frédéric GRIMAUD Centre Génie Industriel et Informatique.
The Complexity of Optimization Problems. Summary -Complexity of algorithms and problems -Complexity classes: P and NP -Reducibility -Karp reducibility.
CP Summer School Modelling for Constraint Programming Barbara Smith 2. Implied Constraints, Optimization, Dominance Rules.
Decision Diagrams for Sequencing and Scheduling Andre Augusto Cire Joint work with David Bergman, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and John Hooker Tepper School of.
1 Short Term Scheduling. 2  Planning horizon is short  Multiple unique jobs (tasks) with varying processing times and due dates  Multiple unique jobs.
Energy-Efficient Sensor Network Design Subject to Complete Coverage and Discrimination Constraints Frank Y. S. Lin, P. L. Chiu IM, NTU SECON 2005 Presenter:
Indirect Supervision Protocols for Learning in Natural Language Processing II. Learning by Inventing Binary Labels This work is supported by DARPA funding.
1 Lagrangean Relaxation --- Bounding through penalty adjustment.
15.053Tuesday, April 9 Branch and Bound Handouts: Lecture Notes.
GAME PLAYING 1. There were two reasons that games appeared to be a good domain in which to explore machine intelligence: 1.They provide a structured task.
1 Inventory Control with Time-Varying Demand. 2  Week 1Introduction to Production Planning and Inventory Control  Week 2Inventory Control – Deterministic.
Lagrangean Relaxation
A Brief Maximum Entropy Tutorial Presenter: Davidson Date: 2009/02/04 Original Author: Adam Berger, 1996/07/05
Tommy Messelis * Stefaan Haspeslagh Burak Bilgin Patrick De Causmaecker Greet Vanden Berghe *
Constraint Programming for the Diameter Constrained Minimum Spanning Tree Problem Thiago F. Noronha Celso C. Ribeiro Andréa C. Santos.
Protein Structure Prediction: Threading and Rosetta BMI/CS 576 Colin Dewey Fall 2008.
Approximation Algorithms based on linear programming.
A greedy algorithm is an algorithm that follows the problem solving heuristic of making the locally optimal choice at each stage with the hope of finding.
Honors Track: Competitive Programming & Problem Solving Seminar Topics Kevin Verbeek.
Investigate Plan Design Create Evaluate (Test it to objective evaluation at each stage of the design cycle) state – describe - explain the problem some.
Biointelligence Lab School of Computer Sci. & Eng. Seoul National University Artificial Intelligence Chapter 8 Uninformed Search.
Scheduling with Constraint Programming
Water Resources Development and Management Optimization (Integer and Mixed Integer Programming) CVEN 5393 Mar 28, 2011.
Debugging Constraint Models with Metamodels and Metaknowledge
3.3. Case-Based Reasoning (CBR)
Algorithm Design Methods
Basic Project Scheduling
The CPLEX Library: Mixed Integer Programming
Basic Project Scheduling
Server Allocation for Multiplayer Cloud Gaming
Analysis & Design of Algorithms (CSCE 321)
Greedy Algorithms.
Algorithm Design Methods
Major Design Strategies
Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for Integer Program
Major Design Strategies
Algorithm Design Methods
Dr. Arslan Ornek MATHEMATICAL MODELS
Presentation transcript:

Making Choices using Structure at the Instance Level within a Case Based Reasoning Framework Cormac Gebruers*, Alessio Guerri †, Brahim Hnich* & Michela Milano † * Cork Constraint Computation Centre, University College Cork. † DEIS, University of Bologna.

Overview Motivation Objectives Case Study: The Bid Evaluation Problem Case Based Reasoning CBR Indications Further Work

Motivation Sometimes its easy to choose between a CP or an IP algorithm. In many domains, the choice is not so simple. Choice is problem instance dependent. How do we decide? Using Structure at the Instance Level?

Objectives A methodology to predict whether to use a CP or IP algorithm for problem instances; Algorithm portfolio selection. Methodology must be –low knowledge from the end users perspective We would also like –Cheap to compute –Keep most effort off-line

Case Study The Bid Evaluation Problem Choice whether to use CP or IP is not clear. Two sub-problems –‘IP’ subproblem: Winner Determination Problem –‘CP’ subproblem: Temporal Feasability

Winner Determination Problem Winner Determination Problem (WDP): –From a set of bids, choose a subset that covers a set of required tasks, subject to lowest cost or maximum revenue. –e.g. Oil/Gas Field Construction… Oil company tender for a set of construction jobs & accept optimal lowest cost set of bids that covers all construction jobs. WDP is np-hard. IP represents the technology of Choice to solve it.

Temporal Feasibility Time windows and temporal constraints introduced into the WDP → BEP Interactions within problem makes CP/IP Choice unclear Extending our previous example… –Oil company tender for a set of construction jobs & accept optimal lowest cost set of bids that satisfy delivery date and construction sequencing constraints.

Algorithms for BEP IP based Algorithm: –IP Model –Complete Branch and Bound based on Linear Relaxation (LR) of the problem without temporal constraints. CP based Algorithm: –CP Model –Limited Discrepancy Search –Fail First variable selection heuristic. –The value selection heuristic chooses the minimum price-for-task value next. Hybrid CP/IP Algorithm (HCP): –based largely on a CP model & CP algorithm. –Value Ordering Heuristic decided using IP

Case Based Reasoning We explore how well CBR can decide between IP algorithm and HCP algorithm for the BEP. If 2 instances are ‘similar’ then the same algorithm should apply to both. CBR makes a prediction by comparing a new instance to a store of examples for which the correct choice is known.

CBR System

Similarity Two decisions: –Choice of problem representation R –Choice of similarity measure f sim In the proceedings, the similarity measure given is inaccurate. The correct formula takes the following form:

A Key Challenge Find a cheap problem representation R, and a cheap similarity measure f sim that predicts whether to use CP, IP or CP/IP based algorithms.

Indications

Performance of several quite different approaches suggests that Structure at the Instance Level exists and can be exploited All approaches significantly outperform both “Use-Best” and “Weighted Random” Using quite basic problem representations and cheap similarity measures, we achieve acceptable prediction levels

Future Work In-depth analysis of data obtained. Further domains, richer algorithmic decisions Consider dynamic algorithm choice during execution. CBR; intelligent candidate feature and similarity measure identification