Maintaining Soft Arc Consistency in BnB-ADOPT+ During Search

Gutierrez and Meseguer show how to enforce consistency in BnB-ADOPT + for distributed constraint optimization, but they consider unconditional deletions only. However, during search, more values can be pruned conditionally according to variable instantiations that define subproblems. Enforcing consistency in these subproblems can cause further search space reduction. We introduce efficient methods to maintain soft arc consistencies in every subproblem during search, a non trivial task due to asynchronicity and induced overheads. Experimental results show substantial benefits on three different benchmarks. © 2013 Springer-Verlag.The work of Gutierrez and Meseguer was partially supported by the Spanish project TIN2009-13591-C02-02 and Generalitat de Catalunya 2009-SGR-1434.Peer Reviewe

Preprocessing versus search processing for constraint satisfaction problems

A perennial problem in hybrid backtrack CSP search is how much local consistency processing should be done to achieve the best efficiency. This can be divided into two separate questions: (1) how much work should be done before the actual search begins, i.e. during preprocessing? and (2) how much of the same processing should be interleaved with search? At present there are two leading approaches to establishing stronger consistencies than the basic arc consistency maintenance that is done in most solvers. On the one hand there are various kinds singleton arc consistency that can be used; on the other there are several variants of restricted path consistency. To date these have not been compared directly. The present work attempts to do this for a variety of problems, and in so doing, it also provides an empirical evaluation of the preprocessing versus search processing issue. Comparisons are made using the domain/degree and domain/weighted degree variable ordering heuristics. In general, it appears that preprocessing with higher levels of consistency followed by hybrid-AC processing (i.e. MAC) gives the best results, especially when the weighted degree heuristic is used. For problems with n-ary constraints, this difference seems to be even more pronounced. In some cases, higher levels of consistency maintenance established during preprocessing leads to performance gains over MAC of several orders of magnitude

Higher-Level Consistencies: Where, When, and How Much

Determining whether or not a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) has a solution is NP-complete. CSPs are solved by inference (i.e., enforcing consistency), conditioning (i.e., doing search), or, more commonly, by interleaving the two mechanisms. The most common consistency property enforced during search is Generalized Arc Consistency (GAC). In recent years, new algorithms that enforce consistency properties stronger than GAC have been proposed and shown to be necessary to solve difficult problem instances. We frame the question of balancing the cost and the pruning effectiveness of consistency algorithms as the question of determining where, when, and how much of a higher-level consistency to enforce during search. To answer the `where\u27 question, we exploit the topological structure of a problem instance and target high-level consistency where cycle structures appear. To answer the \u27when\u27 question, we propose a simple, reactive, and effective strategy that monitors the performance of backtrack search and triggers a higher-level consistency as search thrashes. Lastly, for the question of `how much,\u27 we monitor the amount of updates caused by propagation and interrupt the process before it reaches a fixpoint. Empirical evaluations on benchmark problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies. Adviser: B.Y. Choueiry and C. Bessier

Higher-Level Consistencies: Where, When, and How Much

Determining whether or not a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) has a solution is NP-complete. CSPs are solved by inference (i.e., enforcing consistency), conditioning (i.e., doing search), or, more commonly, by interleaving the two mechanisms. The most common consistency property enforced during search is Generalized Arc Consistency (GAC). In recent years, new algorithms that enforce consistency properties stronger than GAC have been proposed and shown to be necessary to solve difficult problem instances. We frame the question of balancing the cost and the pruning effectiveness of consistency algorithms as the question of determining where, when, and how much of a higher-level consistency to enforce during search. To answer the `where\u27 question, we exploit the topological structure of a problem instance and target high-level consistency where cycle structures appear. To answer the \u27when\u27 question, we propose a simple, reactive, and effective strategy that monitors the performance of backtrack search and triggers a higher-level consistency as search thrashes. Lastly, for the question of `how much,\u27 we monitor the amount of updates caused by propagation and interrupt the process before it reaches a fixpoint. Empirical evaluations on benchmark problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies. Adviser: B.Y. Choueiry and C. Bessier

Higher-Level Consistencies: Where, When, and How Much

Determining whether or not a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) has a solution is NP-complete. CSPs are solved by inference (i.e., enforcing consistency), conditioning (i.e., doing search), or, more commonly, by interleaving the two mechanisms. The most common consistency property enforced during search is Generalized Arc Consistency (GAC). In recent years, new algorithms that enforce consistency properties stronger than GAC have been proposed and shown to be necessary to solve difficult problem instances. We frame the question of balancing the cost and the pruning effectiveness of consistency algorithms as the question of determining where, when, and how much of a higher-level consistency to enforce during search. To answer the `where\u27 question, we exploit the topological structure of a problem instance and target high-level consistency where cycle structures appear. To answer the \u27when\u27 question, we propose a simple, reactive, and effective strategy that monitors the performance of backtrack search and triggers a higher-level consistency as search thrashes. Lastly, for the question of `how much,\u27 we monitor the amount of updates caused by propagation and interrupt the process before it reaches a fixpoint. Empirical evaluations on benchmark problems demonstrate the effectiveness of our strategies. Adviser: B.Y. Choueiry and C. Bessier

Ant colonies using arc consistency techniques for the set partitioning problem

In this paper, we solve some benchmarks of Set Covering Problem and Equality Constrained Set Covering or Set Partitioning Problem. The resolution techniques used to solve them were Ant Colony Optimization algorithms and Hybridizations of Ant Colony Optimization with Constraint Programming techniques based on Arc Consistency. The concept of Arc Consistency plays an essential role in constraint satisfaction as a problem simplification operation and as a tree pruning technique during search through the detection of local inconsistencies with the uninstantiated variables. In the proposed hybrid algorithms, we explore the addition of this mechanism in the construction phase of the ants so they can generate only feasible partial solutions. Computational results are presented showing the advantages to use this kind of additional mechanisms to Ant Colony Optimization in strongly constrained problems where pure Ant Algorithms are not successful.Applications in Artificial Intelligence - ApplicationsRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI