求解可满足性问题的两种进化方法的实证比较

Jin-Kao Hao, R. Dorne
{"title":"求解可满足性问题的两种进化方法的实证比较","authors":"Jin-Kao Hao, R. Dorne","doi":"10.1109/ICEC.1994.349908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper compares two evolutionary methods for model finding in the satisfiability problem (SAT): genetic algorithms (GAs) and the mask method (MASK). The main characteristics of these two methods are that both of them are population-based, and use binary representation. Great care is taken to make sure that the same SAT instances and the same criteria are used in the comparison. Results indicate that MASK greatly outperforms GAs in the sense that MASK manages to deal with harder SAT instances at a lower cost.<<ETX>>","PeriodicalId":393865,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence","volume":"178 9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An empirical comparison of two evolutionary methods for satisfiability problems\",\"authors\":\"Jin-Kao Hao, R. Dorne\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICEC.1994.349908\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper compares two evolutionary methods for model finding in the satisfiability problem (SAT): genetic algorithms (GAs) and the mask method (MASK). The main characteristics of these two methods are that both of them are population-based, and use binary representation. Great care is taken to make sure that the same SAT instances and the same criteria are used in the comparison. Results indicate that MASK greatly outperforms GAs in the sense that MASK manages to deal with harder SAT instances at a lower cost.<<ETX>>\",\"PeriodicalId\":393865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence\",\"volume\":\"178 9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEC.1994.349908\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the First IEEE Conference on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEC.1994.349908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

本文比较了两种用于求解可满足性问题模型的进化方法:遗传算法和掩码法。这两种方法的主要特点是它们都是基于种群的,并且使用二进制表示。我们非常小心地确保在比较中使用相同的SAT实例和相同的标准。结果表明,MASK在某种意义上大大优于GAs,因为MASK能够以更低的成本处理更难的SAT实例
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An empirical comparison of two evolutionary methods for satisfiability problems
The paper compares two evolutionary methods for model finding in the satisfiability problem (SAT): genetic algorithms (GAs) and the mask method (MASK). The main characteristics of these two methods are that both of them are population-based, and use binary representation. Great care is taken to make sure that the same SAT instances and the same criteria are used in the comparison. Results indicate that MASK greatly outperforms GAs in the sense that MASK manages to deal with harder SAT instances at a lower cost.<>
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信