Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T21:59:36.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Goldilocks problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2003

TUDOR HULUBEI ,
EUGENE C. FREUDER  and
RICHARD J. WALLACE
TUDOR HULUBEI
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA
EUGENE C. FREUDER
Affiliation:
Cork Constraint Computation Centre, Computer Science Department, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
RICHARD J. WALLACE
Affiliation:
Cork Constraint Computation Centre, Computer Science Department, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constraint-based reasoning is often used to represent and find solutions to configuration problems. In the field of constraint satisfaction, the major focus has been on finding solutions to difficult problems. However, many real-life configuration problems, although not extremely complicated, have a huge number of solutions, few of which are acceptable from a practical standpoint. In this paper we present a value ordering heuristic for constraint solving that attempts to guide search toward solutions that are acceptable. More specifically, by considering weights that are assigned to values and sets of values, the heuristic can guide search toward solutions for which the total weight is within an acceptable interval. Experiments with random constraint satisfaction problems demonstrate that, when a problem has numerous solutions, the heuristic makes search extremely efficient even when there are relatively few solutions that fall within the interval of acceptable weights. In these cases, an algorithm that is very effective for finding a feasible solution to a given constraint satisfaction problem (the “maintained arc consistency” algorithm or MAC) does not find a solution in the same weight interval within a reasonable time when it is run without the heuristic.

Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 3 - 11
Copyright
© 2003 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B., & Taylor, W. (1991). Where the really hard problems are. Proc. Twelfth Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 331–337. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Coombs, C. & Avrunin, G. (1977). Single-peaked functions and the theory of preference. Psychological Review 84(2), 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felfernig, G., Friedrich, G., & Jannach, D. (2001). Conceptual modeling for configuration of mass-customizable products. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 15(2), 165–176.Google Scholar
Freuder, E. & Wallace, R. (2002). Suggestion strategies for constraint-based matchmaker agents. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 11(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Harvey, W. & Ginsberg, M. (1995). Limited discrepancy search. Proc. Fourteenth Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 607–613. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Hulubei, T. & Freuder, E. (1999). The Goldilocks problem. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming—CP'99, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, No. 1713 (Jaffar, J., Ed.), pp. 234–245. Berlin: Springer.
Jampel, M., Freuder, E., & Maher, M. (Eds.). (1996). Over-Constrained Systems. Selected Papers From the Workshop on Over-Constrained Systems—CP '95. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, No. 1106. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Mackworth, A. (1977). Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence 8, 99–118.Google Scholar
Mittal, S. & Falkenhainer, B. (1990). Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. Proc. Eighth National Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–32. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Mittal, S. & Frayman, F. (1989). Towards a generic model of configuration tasks. Proc. Eleventh Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1395–1401. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Sabin, D. & Freuder, E. (1994). Contradicting conventional wisdom in constraint satisfaction. Proc. Eleventh Eur. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (Cohn, A., Ed.), pp. 125–129. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Sabin, D. & Weigel, R. (1998). Production configuration frameworks—A survey. IEEE Intelligent Systems 13(4), 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielinga, B. & Schreiber, A. (1997). Configuration design problem solving. IEEE Expert 12(2), 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar