Heuristics Dr Matthew Hyde mvh@cs.nott.ac.uk Prof Edmund Burke, Prof - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

heuristics
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Heuristics Dr Matthew Hyde mvh@cs.nott.ac.uk Prof Edmund Burke, Prof - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference GECCO 2011 Human Competitive Awards Evolving Two Dimensional Strip Packing Heuristics Dr Matthew Hyde mvh@cs.nott.ac.uk Prof Edmund Burke, Prof Graham Kendall, Dr John Woodward University of


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

The Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference

GECCO 2011 Human Competitive Awards Evolving Two Dimensional Strip Packing Heuristics

Dr Matthew Hyde mvh@cs.nott.ac.uk Prof Edmund Burke, Prof Graham Kendall, Dr John Woodward

University of Nottingham. U.K.

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Outline

2

Why the result qualifies as human competitive Why the judges should consider it as the “best” in relation to the other entries

slide-3
SLIDE 3

2D Packing

3

2D packing problem Minimise the height Solution found by an evolved

  • heuristic. Not

found „directly‟ by GP

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Justification for “human-competitive”

4

 The result is equal to or better than a result that was accepted as a new scientific result at the time when it was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  The result is equal to or better than a result that was considered an achievement in its field at the time it was first discovered.  Competitive with  Better than

Burke; G. Kendall & G Whitwell. A New Placement Heuristic for the Orthogonal Stock-Cutting Problem. Operations Research, Volume 55, Number 4, Pages 655-671, 2004.

  • E. Hopper & B. C. H. Turton. An Empirical

investigation of meta-heuristic and heuristic algorithms for a 2D packing problem. European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 128, Number 1, Pages 34-57, 2001.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Justification for “human-competitive”

5

 The result is equal to or better than the most recent human-created solution to a long- standing problem for which there has been a succession of increasingly better human-created solutions.  References at the end show a succession of increasingly better solutions.  “Best-Fit” is the most recent.  Our evolved heuristic is (at least) competitive with Best-Fit.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Justification for “human-competitive”

6

 Best-Fit has a post-processing stage, which deals with “towers”.  In contrast, our evolution process designs methods which deal with the problem before it becomes a

  • problem. Superior to Best-Fit‟s constructive stage.

 Humans have not designed this ability into their heuristics, yet GP does.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Why should it be considered the best?

7

1) Beats the most recent heuristic, not just an older heuristic. 2) Evolves specialised heuristics. 3) Evolves solution methods, not just solutions.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Why should it be considered the best?

8

1) Beats the most recent heuristic, not just an older heuristic. 2) Evolves specialised heuristics. 3) Evolves solution methods, not just solutions.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Why should it be considered the best?

9

1) Beats the most recent heuristic, not just an older heuristic. 2) Evolves specialised heuristics. 3) Evolves solution methods, not just solutions.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

2) Evolves specialised heuristics

10

Each organisation may have different characteristics of problem. Each would ideally require a different heuristic. Maybe their problem changes each week, and would ideally need a new heuristic each week. With a system based on automatic heuristic generation, this requires no extra human effort.

slide-11
SLIDE 11

2) Evolves specialised heuristics

11

We show that GP can automatically specialise a heuristic to deal with particular problem characteristics. Or it can evolve a general heuristic. Automatic specialisation is important because it is time consuming and expensive to do manually.

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Why should it be considered the best?

12

1) Beats the most recent heuristic, not just an older heuristic. 2) Evolves specialised heuristics. 3) Evolves solution methods, not just solutions.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

3) Evolves solution methods, not just solutions

13

For example, this is a solution, not a solution method The evolved individual cannot go on to create new antennas for different situations

Image source: http://www.genetic-programming.com/

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Horizontal Space Left

  • +

Piece Height Slot Height Piece Width Area

slide-15
SLIDE 15

3) Evolves solution methods, not just solutions

15

The evolved individual is reusable after it has been evolved May not be true of all entries The solutions we produce are human competitive But importantly, we show that GP can design human competitive solution constructors

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Summary

16

The evolved individuals in this work are heuristic methods in their own right, which are shown to be as good as the very best heuristic methods designed by humans.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Thank you for listening Questions?

slide-18
SLIDE 18

References

18

 References show a succession of solutions to this long standing problem  Brenda S. Baker; Edward G. Coffman & Ronald L. Rivest. Orthogonal Packings in Two Dimensions.. SIAM J. Comput., Volume 9, Number 4, Pages 846-855, 1980.  D. Sleator. A 2.5 Times Optimal Algorithm for Packing in Two

  • Dimensions. Information Processing Letters, Volume 10, Number 1,

Pages 37-40, 1980.  E. Hopper & B. C. H. Turton. An Empirical investigation of meta- heuristic and heuristic algorithms for a 2D packing problem. European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 128, Number 1, Pages 34-57, 2001.  E. Burke; G. Kendall & G Whitwell. A New Placement Heuristic for the Orthogonal Stock-Cutting Problem. Operations Research, Volume 55, Number 4, Pages 655-671, 2004.