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

A Framework for Decision-based Consistencies

International audienceConsistencies are properties of constraint networks that can be enforced by appropriate algorithms to reduce the size of the search space to be explored. Recently, many consistencies built upon taking decisions (most often, variable assignments) and stronger than (general- ized) arc consistency have been introduced. In this paper, our ambition is to present a clear picture of decision-based consistencies. We identify four general classes (or levels) of decision-based consistencies, denoted by S∆φ, E∆φ, B∆φ and D∆φ, study their relationships, and show that known consistencies are particular cases of these classes. Interestingly, this gen- eral framework provides us with a better insight into decision-based con- sistencies, and allows us to derive many new consistencies that can be directly integrated and compared with other ones

Local consistency for extended CSPs

AbstractWe extend the framework of Constraint Satisfaction Problems to make it more suitable for/applicable to modern constraint programming languages where both constraint satisfaction and constraint solving have a role. Some rough principles for local consistency conditions in the extended framework are developed, appropriate notions of local consistency are formulated, and relationships between the various consistency conditions are established

Collective Singleton-Based Consistency for Qualitative Constraint Networks

Partial singleton closure under weak composition, or partial singleton (weak) path-consistency for short, is essential for approximating satisfiability of qualitative constraints networks. Briefly put, partial singleton path-consistency ensures that each base relation of each of the constraints of a qualitative constraint network can define a singleton relation in the corresponding partial closure of that network under weak composition, or in its corresponding partially (weak) path-consistent subnetwork for short. In particular, partial singleton path-consistency has been shown to play a crucial role in tackling the minimal labeling problem of a qualitative constraint network, which is the problem of finding the strongest implied constraints of that network. In this paper, we propose a stronger local consistency that couples partial singleton path-consistency with the idea of collectively deleting certain unfeasible base relations by exploiting singleton checks. We then propose an efficient algorithm for enforcing this consistency that, given a qualitative constraint network, performs fewer constraint checks than the respective algorithm for enforcing partial singleton path-consistency in that network. We formally prove certain properties of our new local consistency, and motivate its usefulness through demonstrative examples and a preliminary experimental evaluation with qualitative constraint networks of Interval Algebra