Local Search and Optimization
Yasir Rashid Darr
(Based on slides of Padhraic Smyth,
Stuart Russell, Rao Kambhampati,
Raj Rao, Dan Weld…)
1
Outline
• Local search techniques and optimization
– Hill-climbing
– Gradient methods
– Simulated annealing
– Genetic algorithms
– Issues with local search
2
Local search and optimization
• Previous lecture: path to goal is solution to problem
– systematic exploration of search space.
• This lecture: a state is solution to problem
– for some problems path is irrelevant.
– E.g., 8-queens
• Different algorithms can be used
– Depth First Branch and Bound
– Local search
3
Goal
Optimization
Satisfaction
reach the goal node optimize(objective fn)
Constraint satisfaction Constraint Optimization
You can go back and forth between the two problems
Typically in the same complexity class
4
Local search and optimization
• Local search
– Keep track of single current state
– Move only to neighboring states
– Ignore paths
• Advantages:
– Use very little memory
– Can often find reasonable solutions in large or infinite (continuous)
state spaces.
• “Pure optimization” problems
– All states have an objective function
– Goal is to find state with max (or min) objective value
– Does not quite fit into path-cost/goal-state formulation
– Local search can do quite well on these problems.
5
Trivial Algorithms
• Random Sampling
– Generate a state randomly
• Random Walk
– Randomly pick a neighbor of the current state
• Both algorithms asymptotically complete.
6
Hill-climbing (Greedy Local Search)
max version
function HILL-CLIMBING( problem) return a state that is a local maximum
input: problem, a problem
local variables: current, a node.
neighbor, a node.
current MAKE-NODE(INITIAL-STATE[problem])
loop do
neighbor a highest valued successor of current
if VALUE [neighbor] ≤ VALUE[current] then return STATE[current]
current neighbor
min version will reverse inequalities and look for
lowest valued successor
7
Hill-climbing search
• “a loop that continuously moves towards increasing value”
– terminates when a peak is reached
– Aka greedy local search
• Value can be either
– Objective function value
– Heuristic function value (minimized)
• Hill climbing does not look ahead of the immediate neighbors
• Can randomly choose among the set of best successors
– if multiple have the best value
• “climbing Mount Everest in a thick fog with amnesia”
8
“Landscape” of search
Hill Climbing gets stuck in local maxima
depending on?
9
Example: n-queens
• Put n queens on an n x n board with no two
queens on the same row, column, or diagonal
• Is it a satisfaction problem or optimization?
10
Hill-climbing search: 8-queens problem
• Need to convert to an optimization problem
• h = number of pairs of queens that are attacking each other
• h = 17 for the above state
11
Search Space
• State
– All 8 queens on the board in some configuration
• Successor function
– move a single queen to another square in the
same column.
• Example of a heuristic function h(n):
– the number of pairs of queens that are attacking
each other
– (so we want to minimize this) 12
Hill-climbing search: 8-queens problem
• Is this a solution?
• What is h?
13
Hill-climbing on 8-queens
• Randomly generated 8-queens starting states…
• 14% the time it solves the problem
• 86% of the time it get stuck at a local minimum
• However…
– Takes only 4 steps on average when it succeeds
– And 3 on average when it gets stuck
– (for a state space with 8^8 =~17 million states)
14
Hill Climbing Drawbacks
• Local maxima
• Plateaus
• Diagonal ridges
15
Escaping Shoulders: Sideways Move
• If no downhill (uphill) moves, allow sideways moves
in hope that algorithm can escape
– Need to place a limit on the possible number of sideways
moves to avoid infinite loops
• For 8-queens
– Now allow sideways moves with a limit of 100
– Raises percentage of problem instances solved from 14 to
94%
– However….
• 21 steps for every successful solution
• 64 for each failure
16
Simulated Annealing
• Simulated Annealing = physics inspired twist on random walk
• Basic ideas:
– like hill-climbing identify the quality of the local improvements
– instead of picking the best move, pick one randomly
– say the change in objective function is d
– if d is positive, then move to that state
– otherwise:
• move to this state with probability proportional to d
• thus: worse moves (very large negative d) are executed less often
– however, there is always a chance of escaping from local maxima
– over time, make it less likely to accept locally bad moves
– (Can also make the size of the move random as well, i.e., allow “large”
steps in state space)
17
Physical Interpretation of Simulated Annealing
• A Physical Analogy:
• Imagine letting a ball roll downhill on the function surface
– this is like hill-climbing (for minimization)
• Now imagine shaking the surface, while the ball rolls,
gradually reducing the amount of shaking
– this is like simulated annealing
• Annealing = physical process of cooling a liquid or metal
until particles achieve a certain frozen crystal state
• simulated annealing:
– free variables are like particles
– seek “low energy” (high quality) configuration
– slowly reducing temp. T with particles moving around randomly
18
Temperature T
• high T: probability of “locally bad” move is higher
• low T: probability of “locally bad” move is lower
• typically, T is decreased as the algorithm runs longer
• i.e., there is a “temperature schedule”
19
Simulated Annealing in Practice
– method proposed in 1983 by IBM researchers for
solving VLSI layout problems (Kirkpatrick et al,
Science, 220:671-680, 1983).
• theoretically will always find the global optimum
– Other applications: Traveling salesman, Graph
partitioning, Graph coloring, Scheduling, Facility
Layout, Image Processing, …
– useful for some problems, but can be very slow
• slowness comes about because T must be decreased
very gradually to retain optimality
20
Local beam search
• Idea: Keeping only one node in memory is an
extreme reaction to memory problems.
• Keep track of k states instead of one
– Initially: k randomly selected states
– Next: determine all successors of k states
– If any of successors is goal finished
– Else select k best from successors and repeat
21
Local Beam Search (contd)
• Not the same as k random-start searches run in parallel!
• Searches that find good states recruit other searches to
join them
• Problem: quite often, all k states end up on same local hill
• Idea: Stochastic beam search
– Choose k successors randomly, biased towards good ones
• Observe the close analogy to natural selection!
22
Sure! Check out
ye book.
23
Genetic algorithms
• Twist on Local Search: successor is generated by combining two parent states
• A state is represented as a string over a finite alphabet (e.g. binary)
– 8-queens
• State = position of 8 queens each in a column
• Start with k randomly generated states (population)
• Evaluation function (fitness function):
– Higher values for better states.
– Opposite to heuristic function, e.g., # non-attacking pairs in 8-queens
• Produce the next generation of states by “simulated evolution”
– Random selection
– Crossover
– Random mutation
24
8
7
6 String representation
16257483
5
4
3
2
1
Can we evolve 8-queens through genetic algorithms?
25
Evolving 8-queens
Sorry!
Wrong queens
26
Genetic algorithms
4 states for 2 pairs of 2 states New states Random
8-queens randomly selected based after crossover mutation
problem on fitness. Random applied
crossover points selected
• Fitness function: number of non-attacking pairs of queens (min = 0, max =
8 × 7/2 = 28)
• 24/(24+23+20+11) = 31%
• 23/(24+23+20+11) = 29% etc
27
Genetic algorithms
Has the effect of “jumping” to a completely different new
part of the search space (quite non-local)
28
Comments on Genetic Algorithms
• Genetic algorithm is a variant of “stochastic beam search”
• Positive points
– Random exploration can find solutions that local search can’t
• (via crossover primarily)
– Appealing connection to human evolution
• “neural” networks, and “genetic” algorithms are metaphors!
• Negative points
– Large number of “tunable” parameters
• Difficult to replicate performance from one problem to another
– Lack of good empirical studies comparing to simpler methods
– Useful on some (small?) set of problems but no convincing evidence
that GAs are better than hill-climbing w/random restarts in general
29
