Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:43:02.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solving constraint satisfaction problems using ATeams

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

Sreenivasa Rao Gorti ,
Salal Humair ,
Ram D. Sriram ,
Sarosh Talukdar  and
Sesh Murthy
Sreenivasa Rao Gorti
Affiliation:
Spectragraphics Corporation, San Diego, CA 92122, U.S.A.
Salal Humair
Affiliation:
Intelligent Engineering Systems Laboratory, 1-253, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
Ram D. Sriram
Affiliation:
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division, National Institute of Science and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, U.S.A.
Sarosh Talukdar
Affiliation:
Department of Electrical Engineering, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.
Sesh Murthy
Affiliation:
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents an approach to solving constraint satisfaction problems using Asynchronous Teams of autonomous agents (ATeams). The focus for the constraint satisfaction problem is derived from an effort to support spatial layout generation in a conceptual design framework. The constraint specification allows a high-level representation and manipulation of qualitative geometric information. We present a computational technique based on ATeams to instantiate solutions to the constraint satisfaction problem. The technique uses a search for a solution in numerical space. This permits us to handle both qualitative relationships and numerical constraints in a unified framework. We show that simple knowledge, about human spatial reasoning and about the nature of arithmetic operators can be hierarchically encapsulated and exploited efficiently in the search. An example illustrates the generality of the approach for conceptual design. We also present empirical studies that contrast the efficiency of ATeams with a search based on genetic algorithms. Based on these preliminary results, we argue that the ATeams approach elegantly handles arbitrary sets of constraints, is computationally efficient, and hence merits further investigation.

Keywords

Constraint SatisfactionAsynchronous TeamsConceptual DesignGenetic Algorithm
Type
Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Ackley, D.H. (1987). A Connectionist Machine for Genetic Hillclimbing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, J.F. (1983). Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM 26 (11), 832–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, S.A., & de Pennington, A. (1993). Constraint definition system: a computer-algebra based approach to solving geometric-constraint problems. CAD Journal, 25(11), 741–750.Google Scholar
Fromont, B., & Sriram, R.D. (1992). Constraint satisfaction as a planning process. AI in Design, ’92, (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 97–117. Kluwer Academic Press, Norwell, MA.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Grefenstette, J.J. (1990). A User’s Guide to GENESIS: Version 5.0.Google Scholar
Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Leondes, C.T., & Freidman, G.J. (1969). Constraint theory, part 1, fundamentals. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC-5(1), 48–56.Google Scholar
Light, R.A. (1980). Symbolic dimensioning in computer aided design. M.S. thesis, MIT, 1980.Google Scholar
Light, R.A., & Gossard, D.C. (1983). Variational geometry: A new method for modifying part geometry for finite element analysis. Computers and Structures 17(5), 903–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittal, S., & Falhenhainer, B. (1990). Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. Proc. Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pp. 25–32. AAAI/M1T Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Mukerjee, A. (1991). Qualitative geometric design. In Symposium on Solid Modeling Foundation and CAD/CAM Applications (Rossignac, J., & Turner, J., Eds.), pp. 503–514. ACM Press.Google Scholar
Murthy, S. (1992). Synergy in cooperating agents: Designing manipulators from task specifications. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, C.H., & Steiglitz, K. (1982). Algorithms and Complexity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Serrano, D. (1987). Constraint management in conceptual design. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Steele, G.J. (1980). The definition and implementation of a computer programming language based on constraints. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Sutherland, I. (1963). Sketchpad – a man machine graphical interface. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Talukdar, S.T. (1994). Designing super-agents. Workshop on Computational Organization Design, AAAI Spring Symposium Series, pp. 187–191. AAA1/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Talukdar, S.T., & Desouza, P.S. (1992). Scale efficient organizations. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Systems Science and Cybernetics, 2, 1458–1463.Google Scholar
Thornton, A.C. (1994). Genetic algorithms versus simulated annealing: Satisfaction of large sets of algebraic mechanical design constraints. In Artificial Intelligence in Design ’94 (Gero, J.S., & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 381–398. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, C., & Sriram, R.D. (1992). Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, Vol. 1. pp. 1–53. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Van Beek, P. (1989). Approximation algorithms for temporal reasoning. Proc. Eleventh IJCAI, pp. 1291–1296. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
Vilain, M., Kautz, H., & van Beek, P. (1986). Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning: A revised report. Proc. Fifth Nat. Conf. on AI (AAAI-86), pp. 377–382. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
White, R., Gergely, P., & Sexsmith, R. (1972). Structural Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar