*Guide to Constraint
Programming*
*©
Roman Barták, 1998*
**Up**

In the last few years, greedy local search strategies became popular, again. These algorithms incrementally alter inconsistent value assignments to all the variables. They use a "repair" or "hill climbing" metaphor to move towards more and more complete solutions. To avoid getting stuck at "local optima" they are equipped with various heuristics for randomizing the search. Their stochastic nature generally voids the guarantee of "completeness" provided by the systematic search methods.

The local search methodology uses the following terms:

**state (configuration):**one possible assignment of all variables; the number of states is equal to the product of domains' sizes**evaluation value:**the number of constraint violations of the state (sometimes weighted)**neighbor:**the state which is obtained from the current state by changing one variable value**local-minimum:**the state that is not a solution and the evaluation values of all of its neighbors are larger than or equal to the evaluation value of this state**strict local-minimum:**the state that is not a solution and the evaluation values of all of its neighbors are larger than the evaluation value of this state**non-strict local-minimum:**the state that is a local-minimum but not a strict local-minimum.

Hill-Climbing

Hill-climbingis probably the most known algorithm of local search. The idea of hill-climbing is:

- start at randomly generated state
- move to the neighbor with the best evaluation value
- if a strict local-minimum is reached then restart at other randomly generated state.
This procedure repeats till the solution is found. In the algorithm, that we present here, the parameter Max_Flips is used to limit the maximal number of moves between restarts which helps to leave non-strict local-minimum.

## Algorithm Hill-Climbing

procedure hill-climbing(Max_Flips) restart: s <- random valuation of variables; for j:=1 to Max_Flips do if eval(s)=0 then return s endif; if s is a strict local minimum then goto restart else s <- neighborhood with smallest evaluation value endif endfor goto restart end hill-climbingNote, that the hill-climbing algorithm has to explore all neighbors of the current state before choosing the move. This can take a lot of time.

Min-Conflicts

To avoid exploring all neighbors of the current state some heuristics were proposed to find a next move.Min-conflictsheuristics chooses randomly any conflicting variable, i.e., the variable that is involved in any unsatisfied constraint, and then picks a value which minimizes the number of violated constraints (break ties randomly). If no such value exists, it picks randomly one value that does not increase the number of violated constraints (the current value of the variable is picked only if all the other values increase the number of violated constraints).

## Algorithm Min-Conflicts

procedure MC(Max_Moves) s <- random valuation of variables; nb_moves <- 0; while eval(s)>0 & nb_moves<Max_Moves do choose randomly a variable V in conflict; choose a value v' that minimizes the number of conflicts for V; if v' # current value of V then assign v' to V; nb_moves <- nb_moves+1; endif endwhile return s end MCNote, that the pure min-conflicts algorithm presented above is not able to leave local-minimum. In addition, if the algorithm achieves a strict local-minimum it does not perform any move at all and, consequently, it does not terminate.

Min-Conflicts-Random-Walk

Because the pure min-conflicts algorithm cannot go beyond a local-minimum, some noise strategies were introduced in MC. Among them, therandom-walkstrategy becomes one of the most popular. For a given conflicting variable, the random-walk strategy picks randomly a value with probabilityp, and apply the MC heuristic with probability1-p.

## Algorithm Min-Conflicts-Random-Walk

procedure MCRW(Max_Moves,p) s <- random valuation of variables; nb_moves <- 0; while eval(s)>0 & nb_moves<Max_Moves do if probability p verified then choose randomly a variable V in conflict; choose randomly a value v' for V; else choose randomly a variable V in conflict; choose a value v' that minimizes the number of conflicts for V; endif if v' # current value of V then assign v' to V; nb_moves <- nb_moves+1; endif endwhile return s end MCRWThis algorithm is controlled by the random probability

p, it should be clear that the value for this parameter has a big influence on the performance of the algorithm. The preliminary studies determined the following feasible ranges of parameter values 0.02 <=p<= 0.1.

Steepest-Descent-Random-Walk

Stepest-Descent algorithm is a hill-climbing version of the min-conflicts algorithm. Instead of selecting the variable in conflict randomly, this algorithm explores the whole neighborhood of the current configuration and selects the best neighbor according to the evaluation value. Again, the algorithm can be randomized by using random-walk strategy to avoid getting stuck at "local optima"

## Algorithm Steepest-Descent-Random-Walk

procedure SDRW(Max_Moves,p) s <- random valuation of variables; nb_moves <- 0; while eval(s)>0 & nb_moves<Max_Moves do if probability p verified then choose randomly a variable V in conflict; choose randomly a value v' for V; else choose a move <V,v'> with the best performance endif if v' # current value of V then assign v' to V; nb_moves <- nb_moves+1; endif endwhile return s end SDRW

Tabu-Search

Tabu search(TS) is another method to avoid cycling and getting trapped in local minimum. It is based on the notion oftabu list, that is a special short term memory that maintains a selective history, composed of previously encountered configurations or more generally pertinent attributes of such configurations (we use a couple <Variable, Value> as the characterization of the configuration). A simple TS strategy consist in preventing configurations of tabu list from being recognized for the nextkiterations (k, called tabu tenue, is the size of tabu list). Such a strategy prevents Tabu from being trapped in short term cycling and allows the search process to go beyond local optima.Tabu restrictions may be overridden under certain conditions, called

aspiration criteria. Aspiration criteria define rules that govern whether next configuration is considered as a possible move even it is tabu. One widely used aspiration criterion consists of removing a tabu classification from a move when the move leads to a solution better than that obtained so far.

## Algorithm Tabu-Search

procedure tabu-search(Max_Iter) s <- random valuation of variables; nb_iter <- 0; initialize randomly the tabu list; while eval(s)>0 & nb_iter<Max_Iter do choose a move <V,v'> with the best performance among the non-tabu moves and the moves satisfying the aspiration criteria; introduce <V,v> in the tabu list, where v is the current values of V; remove the oldest move from the tabu list; assign v' to V; nb_iter <- nb_iter+1; endwhile return s end tabu-searchAgain, the performance of Tabu Search is greatly influenced by the size of tabu list

tl. A preliminary studies determined the following feasible range of parameter values 10 <=tl<= 35.

GSAT

GSAT is a greedy local search procedure for satisfying logic formulas in a conjunctive normal form (CNF). Such problems are called SAT or k-SAT (kis a number of literals in each clause of the formula) and are known to be NP-c (each NP-hard problem can be transformed to NP-complex problem).The procedure starts with an arbitrary instantiation of the problem variables and offers to reach the highest satisfaction degree by succession of small transformations called repairs or flips (flipping a variable is a changing its value).

## Algorithm GSAT

procedure GSAT(A,Max_Tries,Max_Flips) A: is a CNF formula for i:=1 to Max_Tries do S <- instantiation of variables for j:=1 to Max_Iter do if A satisfiable by S then return S endif V <- the variable whose flip yield the most important raise in the number of satisfied clauses; S <- S with V flipped; endfor endfor return the best instantiation found end GSATSeveral heuristics have been implemented within GSAT in order to efficiently solve structured problems.

Random-Walk

The implementation of random walk within the GSAT algorithm is similar to MCRW.Clause weight

This technic result from the observation that for some problems, several resolution attempts reach the same unsatisfied final set of clauses. So, each clause has not the same weight on the resolution, some clauses will be much harder to solve. The resolution process must offer more importance to these "hard" clauses.

A way to deal with this kind of problems is to associate a weight to each clause, in order to modify its influence on the global score. Thanks to this weight heuristic, the participation of a satisfied "hard" clause is more important. Furthermore the weight can be automatically found using the following method:

- initialize each clause weight to '1'
- at the end of each tries, add '1' to each unsatisfied clause weight.
Averaging in previous near solutions

After each attempt, GSAT restarts with a random initial problem variables. This heuristic offers to reuse parts of the best assignments issued from the two previous states. Therefore, the starting variables vector for i-th attempt is computed from the bitwise* of the two best reached states during the attempts (i-2)-th and (i-1)-th.

* identical bits representing identical variable are reused, the other ones are randomly chosen

Local-Search

All above algorithms are based on common idea known under the notionlocal search. In local search, an initial configuration (valuation of variables) is generated and the algorithm moves from the current configuration to a neighborhood configurations until a solution (decision problems) or a good solution (optimization problems) has been found or the resources available are exhausted. This idea is expressed in the following general local search algorithm that enables implementation of many particular local search algorithms via definitions of specific procedures. This algorithm makes the skeleton of the modeling language LOCALIZER [Michel, Hentenryck] which makes possible to express local search algorithms in a notation close to their informal descriptions in scientific papers.

## Algorithm Local-Search

procedure local-search(Max_Moves,Max_Iter) s <- random valuation of variables; for i:=1 to Max_Tries while Gcondition do for j:=1 to Max_Iter while Lcondition do if eval(s)=0 then return s endif; select n in neighborhood(s); if acceptable(n) then s <- n end if endfor s <- restartState(s); endfor return s end local-search

based on papers from Proceedings of CP97, LNCS 1330, 1997

**Up**
*Designed and
maintained by **Roman
Barták*