POSL: A Parallel-Oriented Metaheuristic-Based Solver Language

  • Alejandro REYES-AmaroEmail author
  • Eric Monfroy
  • Florian Richoux
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 62)


For a couple of years, all processors in modern machines are multi-core. Massively parallel architectures , so far reserved for super-computers, become now available to a broad public through hardware like the Xeon Phi or GPU cards. This architecture strategy has been commonly adopted by processor manufacturers, allowing them to stick with Moore’s law. However, this new architecture implies new ways to design and implement algorithms to exploit its full potential. This is in particular true for constraint-based solvers dealing with combinatorial optimization problems. Here we propose a Parallel-Oriented Solver Language (POSL, pronounced “puzzle”), a new framework to build interconnected meta-heuristic based solvers working in parallel. The novelty of this approach lies in looking at solver as a set of components with specific goals, written in a parallel-oriented language based on operators. A major feature in POSL is the possibility to share not only information, but also behaviors, allowing solver modifications during runtime. Our framework has been designed to easily build constraint-based solvers and reduce the developing effort in the context of parallel architecture. POSL’s main advantage is to allow solver designers to quickly test different heuristics and parallel communication strategies to solve combinatorial optimization problems, usually time-consuming and very complex technically, requiring a lot of engineering.


CSP Meta-heuristic Parallel Inter-process communication Language 


  1. 1.
    G. Blake, R.G. Dreslinski, T. Mudge, A survey of multicore processors. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26(6), 26–37 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Boussaïd, J. Lepagnot, P. Siarry, A survey on optimization metaheuristics. Inf. Sci. 237, 82–117 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.E. Brownlee, J. Swan, E. Özcan, A.J. Parkes, Hyperion 2. A toolkit for {meta-, hyper-} heuristic research, in Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 2014 Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO Comp ’14 (ACM, Vancouver, BC, 2014), pp. 1133–1140Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Cahon, N. Melab, E.G. Talbi, ParadisEO: a framework for the reusable design of parallel and distributed metaheuristics. J. Heuristics 10(3), 357–380 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Diaz, F. Richoux, P. Codognet, Y. Caniou, S. Abreu, Constraint-based local search for the costas array problem, in Learning and Intelligent Optimization (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012), pp. 378–383Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Frank, P. Hofstedt, P.R. Mai, Meta-S: a strategy-oriented meta-solver framework, in Florida AI Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference (2003), pp. 177–181Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A.S. Fukunaga, Automated discovery of local search heuristics for satisfiability testing. Evol. Comput. 16(1), 31–61 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Gendreau, J.Y. Potvin, Tabu search, in Handbook of Metaheuristics, vol. 146, 2nd edn. chap. 2, ed. by M. Gendreau, J.Y. Potvin (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 41–59Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Munera, D. Diaz, S. Abreu, P. Codognet, A parametric framework for cooperative parallel local search, in Evolutionary Computation in Combinatorial Optimisation, ed. by C. Blum, G. Ochoa. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8600 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Granada, 2014), pp. 13–24Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.G. Nikolaev, S.H. Jacobson, Simulated annealing, in Handbook of Metaheuristics, vol. 146, 2nd edn., chap. 1, ed. by M. Gendreau, J.Y. Potvin (Springer, Berlin, 2010), pp. 1–39Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B. Pajot, E. Monfroy, Separating search and strategy in solver cooperations, in Perspectives of System Informatics (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003), pp. 401–414Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Reyes-Amaro, E. Monfroy, F. Richoux, A parallel-oriented language for modeling constraint-based solvers, in Proceedings of the 11th Edition of the Metaheuristics International Conference (MIC 2015) (Springer, Berlin, 2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Swan, N. Burles, Templar - a framework for template-method hyper-heuristics, in Genetic Programming, ed. by P. Machado, M.I. Heywood, J. McDermott, M. Castelli, P. García-Sánchez, P. Burelli, S. Risi, K. Sim. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9025 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2015), pp. 205–216Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.G. Talbi, Combining metaheuristics with mathematical programming, constraint programming and machine learning. 4OR 11(2), 101–150 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro REYES-Amaro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eric Monfroy
    • 1
  • Florian Richoux
    • 1
  1. 1.LINA Inria–TASCUniversité de NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations