Finding robust solutions for constraint satisfaction problems with discrete and ordered domains by coverings

Constraint programming is a paradigm wherein relations between variables are stated in the form of constraints. Many real life problems come from uncertain and dynamic environments, where the initial constraints and domains may change during its execution. Thus, the solution found for the problem may become invalid. The search forrobustsolutions for constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) has become an important issue in the ¿eld of constraint programming. In some cases, there exists knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. In other cases, this information is unknown or hard to obtain. In this paper, we consider CSPs with discrete and ordered domains where changes only involve restrictions or expansions of domains or constraints. To this end, we model CSPs as weighted CSPs (WCSPs) by assigning weights to each valid tuple of the problem constraints and domains. The weight of each valid tuple is based on its distance from the borders of the space of valid tuples in the corresponding constraint/domain. This distance is estimated by a new concept introduced in this paper: coverings. Thus, the best solution for the modeled WCSP can be considered as a most robust solution for the original CSP according to these assumptionsThis work has been partially supported by the research projects TIN2010-20976-C02-01 (Min. de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain) and P19/08 (Min. de Fomento, Spain-FEDER), and the fellowship program FPU.Climent Aunés, LI.; Wallace, RJ.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Barber Sanchís, F. (2013). Finding robust solutions for constraint satisfaction problems with discrete and ordered domains by coverings. Artificial Intelligence Review. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-013-9420-0S126Climent L, Salido M, Barber F (2011) Reformulating dynamic linear constraint satisfaction problems as weighted csps for searching robust solutions. In: Ninth symposium of abstraction, reformulation, and approximation (SARA-11), pp 34–41Dechter R, Dechter A (1988) Belief maintenance in dynamic constraint networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th national conference on, artificial intelligence (AAAI-88), pp 37–42Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J (1991) Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intell 49(1):61–95Fargier H, Lang J (1993) Uncertainty in constraint satisfaction problems: a probabilistic approach. In: Proceedings of the symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning and uncertainty (EC-SQARU-93), pp 97–104Fargier H, Lang J, Schiex T (1996) Mixed constraint satisfaction: a framework for decision problems under incomplete knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 13th national conference on, artificial intelligence, pp 175–180Fowler D, Brown K (2000) Branching constraint satisfaction problems for solutions robust under likely changes. In: Proceedings of the international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP-2000), pp 500–504Goles E, Martínez S (1990) Neural and automata networks: dynamical behavior and applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtHays W (1973) Statistics for the social sciences, vol 410, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkHebrard E (2006) Robust solutions for constraint satisfaction and optimisation under uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of New South WalesHerrmann H, Schneider C, Moreira A, Andrade Jr J, Havlin S (2011) Onion-like network topology enhances robustness against malicious attacks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 2011(1):P01,027Larrosa J, Schiex T (2004) Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artif Intell 159:1–26Larrosa J, Meseguer P, Schiex T (1999) Maintaining reversible DAC for Max-CSP. J Artif Intell 107(1):149–163Mackworth A (1977) On reading sketch maps. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’77, pp 598–606Sam J (1995) Constraint consistency techniques for continuous domains. These de doctorat, École polytechnique fédérale de LausanneSchiex T, Fargier H, Verfaillie G (1995) Valued constraint satisfaction problems: hard and easy problems. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on, artificial intelligence (IJCAI-95), pp 631–637Taillard E (1993) Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. Eur J Oper Res 64(2):278–285Verfaillie G, Jussien N (2005) Constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments: a survey. Constraints 10(3):253–281Wallace R, Freuder E (1998) Stable solutions for dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP-98), pp 447–461Wallace RJ, Grimes D (2010) Problem-structure versus solution-based methods for solving dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI-10), IEEEWalsh T (2002) Stochastic constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on, artificial intelligence (ECAI-02), pp 111–115William F (2006) Topology and its applications. Wiley, New YorkWiner B (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkYorke-Smith N, Gervet C (2009) Certainty closure: reliable constraint reasoning with incomplete or erroneous data. J ACM Trans Comput Log (TOCL) 10(1):

Robustness and stability in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems

Constraint programming is a paradigm wherein relations between variables are stated in the form of constraints. It is well-known that many real life problems can be modeled as Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs). Much effort has been spent to increase the efficiency of algorithms for solving CSPs. However, many of these techniques assume that the set of variables, domains and constraints involved in the CSP are known and fixed when the problem is modeled. This is a strong limitation because many problems come from uncertain and dynamic environments, where both the original problem may evolve because of the environment, the user or other agents. In such situations, a solution that holds for the original problem can become invalid after changes. There are two main approaches for dealing with these situations: reactive and proactive approaches. Using reactive approaches entails re-solving the CSP after each solution loss, which is a time consuming. That is a clear disadvantage, especially when we deal with short-term changes, where solution loss is frequent. In addition, in many applications, such as on-line planning and scheduling, the delivery time of a new solution may be too long for actions to be taken on time, so a solution loss can produce several negative effects in the modeled problem. For a task assignment production system with several machines, it could cause the shutdown of the production system, the breakage of machines, the loss of the material/object in production, etc. In a transport timetabling problem, the solution loss, due to some disruption at a point, may produce a delay that propagates through the entire schedule. In addition, all the negative effects stated above will probably entail an economic loss. In this thesis we develop several proactive approaches. Proactive approaches use knowledge about possible future changes in order to avoid or minimize their effects. These approaches are applied before the changes occur. Thus, our approaches search for robust solutions, which have a high probability to remain valid after changes. Furthermore, some of our approaches also consider that the solutions can be easily adapted when they did not resist the changes in the original problem. Thus, these approaches search for stable solutions, which have an alternative solution that is similar to the previous one and therefore can be used in case of a value breakage. In this context, sometimes there exists knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. However in many cases, this information is unknown or hard to obtain. For this reason, for the majority of our approaches (specifically 3 of the 4 developed approaches), the only assumptions made about changes are those inherent in the structure of problems with ordered domains. Given this framework and therefore the existence of a significant order over domain values, it is reasonable to assume that the original bounds of the solution space may undergo restrictive or relaxed modifications. Note that the possibility of solution loss only exists when changes over the original bounds of the solution space are restrictive. Therefore, the main objective for searching robust solutions in this framework is to find solutions located as far away as possible from the bounds of the solution space. In order to meet this criterion, we propose several approaches that can be divided in enumeration-based techniques and a search algorithm.Climent Aunés, LI. (2013). Robustness and stability in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/34785TESI

Robustness and Stability in Constraint Programming under Dynamism and Uncertainty

[EN] Many real life problems that can be solved by constraint programming, come from uncertain and dynamic environments. Because of the dynamism, the original problem may change over time, and thus the solution found for the original problem may become invalid. For this reason, dealing with such problems has become an important issue in the fields of constraint programming. In some cases, there is extant knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment. In other cases, this information is fragmentary or unknown. In this paper, we extend the concept of robustness and stability for Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) with ordered domains, where only limited assumptions need to be made as to possible changes. We present a search algorithm that searches for both robust and stable solutions for CSPs of this nature. It is well-known that meeting both criteria simultaneously is a desirable objective for constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments. We also present compelling evidence that our search algorithm outperforms other general-purpose algorithms for dynamic CSPs using random instances and benchmarks derived from real life problems.This work has been partially supported by the research project TIN2010-20976-C02-01 and FPU program fellowship (Min. de Ciencia e Innovacion, Spain). We wish to thank Dr. Christophe Lecoutre and Dr. Diarmuid Grimes for their assistance.Climent Aunés, LI.; Wallace, R.; Salido Gregorio, MA.; Barber Sanchís, F. (2014). Robustness and Stability in Constraint Programming under Dynamism and Uncertainty. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 49(1):49-78. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4126S497849

Exploration of the High Entropy Alloy Space as a Constraint Satisfaction Problem

High Entropy Alloys (HEAs), Multi-principal Component Alloys (MCA), or Compositionally Complex Alloys (CCAs) are alloys that contain multiple principal alloying elements. While many HEAs have been shown to have unique properties, their discovery has been largely done through costly and time-consuming trial-and-error approaches, with only an infinitesimally small fraction of the entire possible composition space having been explored. In this work, the exploration of the HEA composition space is framed as a Continuous Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CCSP) and solved using a novel Constraint Satisfaction Algorithm (CSA) for the rapid and robust exploration of alloy thermodynamic spaces. The algorithm is used to discover regions in the HEA Composition-Temperature space that satisfy desired phase constitution requirements. The algorithm is demonstrated against a new (TCHEA1) CALPHAD HEA thermodynamic database. The database is first validated by comparing phase stability predictions against experiments and then the CSA is deployed and tested against design tasks consisting of identifying not only single phase solid solution regions in ternary, quaternary and quinary composition spaces but also the identification of regions that are likely to yield precipitation-strengthened HEAs.Comment: 14 pages, 13 figure

A general framework integrating techniques for scheduling under uncertainty

Ces dernières années, de nombreux travaux de recherche ont porté sur la planification de tâches et l'ordonnancement sous incertitudes. Ce domaine de recherche comprend un large choix de modèles, techniques de résolution et systèmes, et il est difficile de les comparer car les terminologies existantes sont incomplètes. Nous avons cependant identifié des familles d'approches générales qui peuvent être utilisées pour structurer la littérature suivant trois axes perpendiculaires. Cette nouvelle structuration de l'état de l'art est basée sur la façon dont les décisions sont prises. De plus, nous proposons un modèle de génération et d'exécution pour ordonnancer sous incertitudes qui met en oeuvre ces trois familles d'approches. Ce modèle est un automate qui se développe lorsque l'ordonnancement courant n'est plus exécutable ou lorsque des conditions particulières sont vérifiées. Le troisième volet de cette thèse concerne l'étude expérimentale que nous avons menée. Au-dessus de ILOG Solver et Scheduler nous avons implémenté un prototype logiciel en C++, directement instancié de notre modèle de génération et d'exécution. Nous présentons de nouveaux problèmes d'ordonnancement probabilistes et une approche par satisfaction de contraintes combinée avec de la simulation pour les résoudre. ABSTRACT : For last years, a number of research investigations on task planning and scheduling under uncertainty have been conducted. This research domain comprises a large number of models, resolution techniques, and systems, and it is difficult to compare them since the existing terminologies are incomplete. However, we identified general families of approaches that can be used to structure the literature given three perpendicular axes. This new classification of the state of the art is based on the way decisions are taken. In addition, we propose a generation and execution model for scheduling under uncertainty that combines these three families of approaches. This model is an automaton that develops when the current schedule is no longer executable or when some particular conditions are met. The third part of this thesis concerns our experimental study. On top of ILOG Solver and Scheduler, we implemented a software prototype in C++ directly instantiated from our generation and execution model. We present new probabilistic scheduling problems and a constraintbased approach combined with simulation to solve some instances thereof

Hybrid tractability of soft constraint problems

The constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) is a central generic problem in computer science and artificial intelligence: it provides a common framework for many theoretical problems as well as for many real-life applications. Soft constraint problems are a generalisation of the CSP which allow the user to model optimisation problems. Considerable effort has been made in identifying properties which ensure tractability in such problems. In this work, we initiate the study of hybrid tractability of soft constraint problems; that is, properties which guarantee tractability of the given soft constraint problem, but which do not depend only on the underlying structure of the instance (such as being tree-structured) or only on the types of soft constraints in the instance (such as submodularity). We present several novel hybrid classes of soft constraint problems, which include a machine scheduling problem, constraint problems of arbitrary arities with no overlapping nogoods, and the SoftAllDiff constraint with arbitrary unary soft constraints. An important tool in our investigation will be the notion of forbidden substructures.Comment: A full version of a CP'10 paper, 26 page

Robustness, stability, recoverability, and reliability in constraint satisfaction problems

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-014-0778-3Many real-world problems in Artificial Intelligence (AI) as well as in other areas of computer science and engineering can be efficiently modeled and solved using constraint programming techniques. In many real-world scenarios the problem is partially known, imprecise and dynamic such that some effects of actions are undesired and/or several un-foreseen incidences or changes can occur. Whereas expressivity, efficiency and optimality have been the typical goals in the area, there are several issues regarding robustness that have a clear relevance in dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSP). However, there is still no clear and common definition of robustness-related concepts in CSPs. In this paper, we propose two clearly differentiated definitions for robustness and stability in CSP solutions. We also introduce the concepts of recoverability and reliability, which arise in temporal CSPs. All these definitions are based on related well-known concepts, which are addressed in engineering and other related areas.This work has been partially supported by the research project TIN2013-46511-C2-1 (MINECO, Spain). We would also thank the reviewers for their efforts and helpful comments.Barber Sanchís, F.; Salido Gregorio, MA. (2015). Robustness, stability, recoverability, and reliability in constraint satisfaction problems. Knowledge and Information Systems. 44(3):719-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-014-0778-3S719734443Abril M, Barber F, Ingolotti L, Salido MA, Tormos P, Lova A (2008) An assessment of railway capacity. Transp Res Part E 44(5):774–806Barber F (2000) Reasoning on intervals and point-based disjunctive metric constraints in temporal contexts. J Artif Intell Res 12:35–86Bartak R, Salido MA (2011) Constraint satisfaction for planning and scheduling problems. Constraints 16(3):223–227Bertsimas D, Sim M (2004) The price of robustness. Oper Res 52(1):35–53Climent L, Wallace R, Salido M, Barber F (2013) Modeling robustness in CSPS as weighted CSPS. In: Integration of AI and OR techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems CPAIOR 2013, pp 44–60Climent L, Wallace R, Salido M, Barber F (2014) Robustness and stability in constraint programming under dynamism and uncertainty. J Artif Intell Res 49(1):49–78Dechter R (1991) Temporal constraint network. Artif Intell 49:61–295Hazewinkel M (2002) Encyclopaedia of mathematics. Springer, New YorkHebrard E (2007) Robust solutions for constraint satisfaction and optimisation under uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of New South WalesHebrard E, Hnich B, Walsh T (2004) Super solutions in constraint programming. In: Integration of AI and OR techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems (CPAIOR-04), pp 157–172Jen E (2003) Stable or robust? What’s the difference? Complexity 8(3):12–18Kitano H (2007) Towards a theory of biological robustness. Mol Syst Biol 3(137)Liebchen C, Lbbecke M, Mhring R, Stiller S (2009) The concept of recoverable robustness, linear programming recovery, and railway applications. In: LNCS, vol 5868Papapetrou P, Kollios G, Sclaroff S, Gunopulos D (2009) Mining frequent arrangements of temporal intervals. Knowl Inf Syst 21:133–171Rizk A, Batt G, Fages F, Solima S (2009) A general computational method for robustness analysis with applications to synthetic gene networks. Bioinformatics 25(12):168–179Rossi F, van Beek P, Walsh T (2006) Handbook of constraint programming. Elsevier, New YorkRoy B (2010) Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: a multi-faceted issue. Eur J Oper Res 200:629–638Szathmary E (2006) A robust approach. Nature 439:19–20Verfaillie G, Schiex T (1994) Solution reuse in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-94), pp 307–312Wallace R, Grimes D, Freuder E (2009) Solving dynamic constraint satisfaction problems by identifying stable features. In: Proceedings of international joint conferences on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-09), pp 621–627Wang D, Tse Q, Zhou Y (2011) A decentralized search engine for dynamic web communities. Knowl Inf Syst 26(1):105–125Wiggins S (1990) Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos. Springer, New YorkZhou Y, Croft W (2008) Measuring ranked list robustness for query performance prediction. Knowl Inf Syst 16:155–17

Robustness, Stability, Recoverability and Reliability in Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Many real-world problems in Artificial Intelligence (AI) as well as in other areas of computer science and engineering can be efficiently modeled and solved using constraint programming techniques. In many real-world scenarios the problem is partially known, imprecise and dynamic, so that some effects of actions are undesired and/or several un-foreseen incidences or changes can occur. Whereas expressivity, efficiency, and optimality have been the typical goals in the area, several is-sues regarding robustness appear with a clear relevance in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems (DCSPs). However, there is still no a clear and common definition of robustness-related concepts in CSPs. In this paper, we propose two clearly differentiated definitions for robustness and stability in CSP solutions. We also introduce the concepts of recoverability and reliability which arise in temporal DCSPs. All these definitions are based on related well-known concepts addressed in engineering and other related areas.Barber Sanchís, F.; Salido Gregorio, MA. (2011). Robustness, Stability, Recoverability and Reliability in Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/1070