1 / 23

Scaling Up Solutions for Combinatorial Problems in Cooperative Control

Investigating techniques to scale up solutions for ROBOFLAG Drill, such as mixed integer programming, randomization, approximation methods, portfolios of algorithms, and combining MIP and constraint search techniques.

eheath
Download Presentation

Scaling Up Solutions for Combinatorial Problems in Cooperative Control

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. Combinatorial Problems in Cooperative Control: Complexity and Scalability Carla Gomes and Bart SelmanCornell UniversityMuri MeetingMarch 2002

  2. We are investigating how to scale up solutions • of the ROBOFLAGDrill focusing on: • - Mixed Integer Program (MIP) formulations • - Randomization • - Approximation methods • - Portfolios of Algorithms • - Combining MIP and constraint search • techniques.

  3. Problem Representation • ROBOFLAG Drill • Formulation by Raff D’Andrea and Matt Earl. • Problem is hybrid, combining discrete and continuous components, with multiple constraints. • Represented as a mixed logical system (MLD) in which the objective is to compute optimal control policies that minimize the total score of the game. • Mathematical Formulation of the Optimization Problem • Mixed Integer Linear Program

  4. Scaling Up Mixed Integer Linear Program Formulations (MILP) • Standard approach for solving MILP: • Branch and Bound • How can we improve upon Branch and Bound strategies? • Ideas: • Randomization • Different search strategies for node selection • Portfolios of algorithms

  5. Branch & Bound:Depth First vs. Best bound • Critical to performance of Branch & Bound is the way • in which the next node to be expanded is selected. • Standard approach: • Best-bound --- select the node with the best LP bound • Alternative: • Depth-first --- often quickly reaches an integer solution • (may take longer to produce an overall optimal value) • Tradeoffs between these choices depend on underlying • problem stucture (Gomes et al. 2001).

  6. ROBOFLAG Testbed • Depth First search works well. • Problems that could not be solved before with best bound using were solved with depth first. • Current largest problem solved with CPLEX using Depth First Search (8 attackers and 3 defenders): • Integer variables = 4040 • Continuous variables 400 • Constraints - 13580 constraints • Time - 244 secs • (Matt Earl 2002)

  7. Much room for improvement… • We are not yet incorporating any randomization • or discrete constraint propagation techniques. • Nor are we yet exploiting parallelism using a • portfolio approach. • Doing so should allow us to solve problems at • least one or two orders of magnitude larger. • (100,000 to 500,000 vars and 1,000,000+ • constraints) • Also, we should be able to include more complex constraints.

  8. Other Formulations for Solving the Control Optimization Problem • Encodings that provide “tighter” relaxations for the LP problem. • Approximate representations using abstractions (“synthesize larger movements / trajecturies”). • Less compact representations may allow for more propagation and scale up better. • Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) formulations. (*) • Hybrid CSP/LP formulation. • Approximations based on LP randomized rounding. (*)Sat – the satisfiability problem is a particular case of CSP; however, we believe that SAT encodings may not scale up well in this domain.

  9. Overall the Roboflag control problem provides an • excellent test bed for the development of scalable • techniques for complex optimization.

  10. Auxiliary Slides • Background on improvements on branch and • bound using randomization and parallel portfolios.

  11. Branch & Bound(Randomized) • Solve linear relaxation of MIP • Branch on the integer variables for which the solution of the LP relaxation is non-integer: • apply a good heuristic (e.g., max infeasibility) for variable selection ( + randomization ) and createtwo new nodes (floor and ceiling of the fractional value) • Once we have found an integer solution, its objective value can be used to prune other nodes, whose relaxations have worse values

  12. The performance of randomized Branch and • Bound varies dramatically, on the same • instance. • In fact, the run time distributions often exhibit • long tails (Heavy-tailed Distributions)

  13. Heavy-tailed behavior of Depth-first

  14. So, how can we take advantage of the high • variability of randomized methods? • - restart strategies • - portfolio strategies

  15. Algorithm Portfolio Design

  16. Motivation • The runtime and performance of randomized algorithms can vary dramatically on the same instance and on different instances. • Goal: Improve the performance of different algorithms by combining them into a portfolio to exploit their relative strengths.

  17. Portfolio of Algorithms • A portfolio of algorithm is a collection of algorithms and / or copies of the same algorithm running interleaved or on different processors. • Goal: to improve on the performance of the component algorithms in terms of: • expected computational cost • “risk” (variance) • Efficient Set or Efficient Frontier:set of portfolios that are best in terms of expected value and risk.

  18. Best-Bound ~50% Depth-First ~30% Depth-first vs. Best-bound(logistics planning) Cumulative Frequencies Number of nodes

  19. Depth-First and Best and Bound do not dominate each other overall. What if we have more than one processors or if we interleave processes on a single processor?

  20. Portfolio for heavy-tailed search procedures (2 processors) 2 DF / 0 BB Expected run time of portfolios 0 DF / 2 BB Standard deviation of run time of portfolios

  21. Portfolio for heavy-tailed search procedures (20 processors) 0 DF / 20 BB The optimal strategy is to run Depth First on the 20 processors! Expected run time of portfolios 20 DF / 0 BB Standard deviation of run time of portfolios

  22. Optimal collective behavior can • emerge from suboptimal individual • behavior.

  23. A portfolio approach can lead to substantial improvements in the expected cost and risk of stochastic algorithms, especially in the presence of heavy-tailed phenomena.

More Related