Localizer A modeling language for local search

  • Laurent Michel
  • Pascal Van Hentenryck
Session 4
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1330)


Local search is a traditional technique to solve combinatorial search problems which has raised much interest in recent years. The design and implementation of local search algorithms is not an easy task in general and may require considerable experimentation and programming effort. However, contrary to global search, little support is available to assist the design and implementation of local search algorithms. This paper is an attempt to support the implementation of local search. It presents the preliminary design of LOCALIZER, a modeling language which makes it possible to express local search algorithms in a notation close to their informal descriptions in scientific papers. Experimental results on our first implementation show the feasibility of the approach.


Local Search Modeling Language Acceptance Criterion Graph Coloring Local Search Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Fourer, D. Gay, and B.W. Kernighan. AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. The Scientific Press, San Francisco, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Glover. Tabu Search. Orsa Journal of Computing, 1:190–206, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Johnson, C. Aragon, L. McGeoch, and C. Schevon. Optimization by Simulated Annealing: An Experimental Evaluation; Part II, Graph Coloring and Number Partitioning. Operations Research, 39(3):378–406, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Kirkpatrick, C. Gelatt, and M. Vecchi. Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science, 220:671–680, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Minton, M.D. Johnston, and A.B. Philips. Solving Large-Scale Constraint Satisfaction and Scheduling Problems using a Heuristic Repair Method. In AAAI-90, August 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz. Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Selman and H. Kautz. An Empirical Study of Greedy Local Search for Satisfiability Testing. In AAAI-93, pages 46–51, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Selman, H. Levesque, and D. Mitchell. A New Method for Solving Hard Satisfiability Problems. In AAAI-92, pages 440–446, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Stuckey and V. Tam. Models for Using Stochastic Constraint Solvers in Constraint Logic Programming. In PLILP-96, Aachen, August 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Van Hentenryck, L. Michel, and Y. Deville. Numerica: a Modeling Language for Global Optimization. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Voudouris and E. Tsang. Partial Constraint Satisfaction Problems and Guided Local Search. In PACT-96, London, April 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Michel
    • 1
  • Pascal Van Hentenryck
    • 1
  1. 1.Brown UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations