1 / 20

Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems. Chris Ray. Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs). Textbook Definition: Set of variables V = {X 1 , X 2 , …,X n }, with each having an associated nonempty domain of possible values

phila
Download Presentation

Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Distributed Constraint Satisfaction Problems Chris Ray

  2. Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) • Textbook Definition: • Set of variables V = {X1, X2, …,Xn}, with each having an associated nonempty domain of possible values • set of constraints C1, C2, …,Cm which contain subsets of V and specify a relationship within that subset among those variables according to some constraint language • An assignment that does not violate any constraints is called consistent

  3. Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs)1 • Well developed branch of Artificial Intelligence • Numerous Applications • Configuring, planning, scheduling, resource allocation • Advent of Internet has expanded their application

  4. Distributed Constraint Problems(DisCSP)1 • One agent has all the information about the problem vs. multiple agents, each having some information about the problem (but not all) • Why have multiple agents?

  5. Disadvantages of Traditional CSP Techniques for Distributed1 Problems • Cost of creating a central agent • Sensor networks, meeting schedule • Knowledge transfer costs • If internal decision processes for a variable (agent) are complex, centralized solver would have to discern constraints for all possible situations

  6. Disadvantages of Traditional CSP Techniques for Distributed Problems • Privacy • If agents have to communicate constraints to a central solver, heightened risk of information being compromised • Robustness • A Distributed Solution would allow for agent failure, whereas if a central solver crashed, the problem can not be solved

  7. Early DisCSP Algorithms • Work Pioneered by Makoto Yokoo • Assumptions • Each agent represents a variable • Agents communicate by sending messages • Finite, random delay between messages • Messages received in order that they are sent

  8. Asynchronous Backtracking2 • Each agent starts with instantiated variables, and knows all constraints that concern it • Agent graph is connected, but not necessarily fully connected. Each agent has a set of values for the agents connected to it by incoming links (agent view) • agents can change their values or message agents that are linked to them • Messages are either Ok? Or noGood

  9. Asynchronous Backtracking • Agent view: the values of all agents linked to a particular agent • Message Handling • Ok? -> Agent wants to know if it can assign a certain value to itself, so it asks another agent • Receiving agent updates agent view and checks for consistency, makes sure updated agent view is not a “noGood” • Oks only sent to lower priority agents • NoGood -> in evaluating an Ok? Message, an agent cannot find a value for itself that is consistent, then its updated agent view is noGood and a NoGood (backtracking) message is sent to another agent. • Nogoods only sent to higher priority agents • NoGoods can be seen as derived constraints

  10. Preventing Infinite Loops • Have total order among agents for communication • Only need to know order of agents that one agent is linked to

  11. Example: Asynchronous Backtracking Source: M. Yokoo, E.H. Durfee, T. Ishida, K. Kuwabara, Distributed constraint satisfaction for formalizing distributed problem solving, in: 12th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS-92), 1992, pp. 614–621.

  12. Comparison Source: M. Yokoo, E.H. Durfee, T. Ishida, K. Kuwabara, Distributed constraint satisfaction for formalizing distributed problem solving, in: 12th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS-92), 1992, pp. 614–621.

  13. Asynchronous Weak-Commitment Search (AWC)2 • Improvement over asynchronous backtracking • Uses local dynamic priority values rather than static global ordering • When an agent generates a nogood value, it promotes itself within its local network

  14. How to think about ABT and AWC • In ABT, an agent backtracks at dead-ends by sending a nogood to a higher priority agent • in AWC, an agent gives up the attempt to satisfy its constraints and delegates the problem to other agents by raising its own priority

  15. Comparison Source: M. Yokoo, E.H. Durfee, T. Ishida, K. Kuwabara, Distributed constraint satisfaction for formalizing distributed problem solving, in: 12th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS-92), 1992, pp. 614–621.

  16. Distributed Breakout Algorithm3 • Agents have a starts state which they repeatedly change in attempt to minimize “cost”, or the amount of constraint violation • Constraints are weighted with an initial value of 1 • The cost of a proposed solution is the sum of the weights of all the constraints that it violates • Communication between agents tells them information about the “costs” of their proposed changes • If an agent gets trapped in a local minimum for cost, it alters the weights to escape

  17. Distributed Breakout Algorithm • Outperforms Multi-AWC (AWC with multiple variables for each agent) • Sometimes shows very poor performance for a few specific test cases • However, algorithm is incomplete

  18. Other Algorithms Out There4 • Distributed Stochastic Algorithms • Controversy over their performance in comparison to these benchmark algorithms

  19. Persisting Issues for DisCSP1 • High price paid in message traffic (efficiency) • Current algorithms make strict assumptions about what agents know • High trade off between privacy and efficiency • More research needed in characterizing agent failure with respect to different algorithms

  20. Works Cited • 1. M. Yokoo, E.H. Durfee, T. Ishida, K. Kuwabara, “The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: formalization and algorithms”, IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Engrg. 10 (5) (1998) 673–685. • 2. Faltings, Boi, and Yokoo, Makoto, “Introduction: Special Issue on Distributed Constraint Satisfaction”, Artificial Intelligence 161 (2005) 1–5. • 3. Hirayama, Katsutoshi, and Yokoo, Makoto, “The Distributed Breakout Algorithms”, Artificial Intelligence 161 (2005) 89-115. • 4. W. Zhang, Z. Xing, Distributed breakout vs. distributed stochastic: a comparative evaluation on scan scheduling, in: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Distributed Constraint Reasoning, 2002, pp. 192–201.

More Related