Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Estimating Problem Instance Difficulty

2020

https://doi.org/10.5220/0009390003590369

Abstract

Even though for solving concrete problem instances, e.g., through case-based reasoning (CBR) or heuristic search, estimating their difficulty really matters, there is not much theory available. In a prototypical realworld application of CBR for reuse of hardware/software interfaces (HSIs) in automotive systems, where the problem adaptation has been done through heuristic search, we have been facing this problem. Hence, this work compares different approaches to estimating problem instance difficulty (similarity metrics, heuristic functions). It also shows that even measuring problem instance difficulty depends on the ground truth available and used. A few different approaches are investigated on how they statistically correlate. Overall, this paper compares different approaches to both estimating and measuring problem instance difficulty with respect to CBR and heuristic search. In addition to the given real-world domain, experiments were made using slidingtile puzzles. As a consequence, this paper points out that admissible heuristic functions h guiding search (normally used for estimating minimal costs to a given goal state or condition) may be used for retrieving cases for CBR as well. Notation s,t Start node and goal node, respectively c(m, n) Cost of the direct arc from m to n k(m, n) Cost of an optimal path from m to n g * (n) Cost of an optimal path from s to n h * (n) Cost of an optimal path from n to t g(n), h(n) Estimates of g * (n) and h * (n), respectively f (n) Static evaluation function: g(n) + h(n) C * Cost of an optimal path from s to t N# Number of nodes generated

References (25)

  1. Aamodt, A. and Plaza, E. (1994). Case-based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches. AI Commun., 7(1):39-59.
  2. Bandyopadhyay, S. and Saha, S. (2012). Unsuper- vised Classification: Similarity Measures, Classi- cal and Metaheuristic Approaches, and Applications. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.
  3. Bu, Z. and Korf, R. E. (2019). A*+IDA*: A simple hy- brid search algorithm. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial In- telligence, IJCAI-19, pages 1206-1212. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organiza- tion.
  4. Bulitko, V., Björnsson, Y., and Lawrence, R. (2010). Case- based subgoaling in real-time heuristic search for video game pathfinding. J. Artif. Int. Res., 39(1):269- 300.
  5. Burke, E. K., Petrovic, S., and Qu, R. (2006). Case-based heuristic selection for timetabling problems. Journal of Scheduling, 9(2):115-132.
  6. Cha, S.-H. (2007). Comprehensive Survey on Dis- tance/Similarity Measures between Probability Den- sity Functions. International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 1(4):300- 307. Dechter, R. and Pearl, J. (1985). Generalized best- first strategies and the optimality of a*. J. ACM, 32(3):505-536.
  7. Edelkamp, S. and Schroedl, S. (2012). Heuristic Search: Theory and Applications. Morgan Kaufmann, Waltham, MA.
  8. Felner, A., Korf, R. E., and Hanan, S. (2004). Additive pat- tern database heuristics. J. Artif. Int. Res., 22(1):279- 318.
  9. Goel, A. K. and Diaz-Agudo, B. (2017). What's hot in case- based reasoning. In Proc. Thirty-First AAAI Confer- ence on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17), pages 5067- 5069, Menlo Park, CA. AAAI Press / The MIT Press.
  10. Hart, P., Nilsson, N., and Raphael, B. (1968). A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cy- bernetics (SSC), SSC-4(2):100-107.
  11. Hegedus, A., Horvath, A., Rath, I., and Varro, D. (2011). A Model-driven Framework for Guided De- sign Space Exploration. In Proceedings of the 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Auto- mated Software Engineering, ASE '11, pages 173- 182, Washington, DC, USA. IEEE Computer Society.
  12. Kaindl, H. and Kainz, G. (1997). Bidirectional heuristic search reconsidered. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 7:283-317.
  13. Kaindl, H., Kainz, G., Leeb, A., and Smetana, H. (1995). How to use limited memory in heuristic search. In Proc. Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 236-242. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  14. Kaindl, H., Smialek, M., and Nowakowski, W. (2010). Case-based reuse with partial requirements speci- fications. In Proceedings of the 18th IEEE In- ternational Requirements Engineering Conference (RE'10), pages 399-400.
  15. Kirsopp, C., Shepperd, M., and Hart, J. (2002). Search heuristics, case-based reasoning and software project effort prediction. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computa- tion, GECCO'02, pages 1367-1374, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  16. Kolodner, J. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kauf- mann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA.
  17. Korf, R. (1985). Depth-first iterative deepening: An op- timal admissible tree search. Artificial Intelligence, 27(1):97-109.
  18. Korf, R. E., Reid, M., and Edelkamp, S. (2001). Time complexity of iterative-deepening-A*. Artificial In- telligence, 129(1):199 -218.
  19. Lopez de Mantaras, R., McSherry, D., Bridge, D., Leake, D., Smyth, B., Craw, S., Faltings, B., Maher, M. L., Cox, M. T., Forbus, K., and et al. (2005). Retrieval, reuse, revision and retention in case-based reasoning. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3):215-240.
  20. Pearl, J. (1984). Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strate- gies for Computer Problem Solving. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
  21. Rathfux, T., Kaindl, H., Hoch, R., and Lukasch, F. (2019a). An Experimental Evaluation of Design Space Explo- ration of Hardware/Software Interfaces. In Proceed- ings of the 14th International Conference on Evalu- ation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, ENASE 2019, pages 289-296. INSTICC, SciTePress.
  22. Rathfux, T., Kaindl, H., Hoch, R., and Lukasch, F. (2019b). Efficiently finding optimal solutions to easy problems in design space exploration: A* tie-breaking. In van Sinderen, M. and Maciaszek, L. A., editors, Proceed- ings of the 14th International Conference on Software Technologies, ICSOFT 2019, Prague, Czech Republic, July 26-28, 2019., pages 595-604. SciTePress.
  23. Reiser, C. and Kaindl, H. (1995). Case-based reasoning for multi-step problems and its integration with heuristic search. In Haton, J.-P., Keane, M., and Manago, M., editors, Advances in Case-Based Reasoning, pages 113-125, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidel- berg.
  24. Schank, R. C. (1983). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  25. Sohangir, S. and Wang, D. (2017). Improved sqrt-cosine similarity measurement. Journal of Big Data, 4(1):25.