Guarantees and Limits of Preprocessing in Constraint Satisfaction and Reasoning

We present a first theoretical analysis of the power of polynomial-time preprocessing for important combinatorial problems from various areas in AI. We consider problems from Constraint Satisfaction, Global Constraints, Satisfiability, Nonmonotonic and Bayesian Reasoning under structural restrictions. All these problems involve two tasks: (i) identifying the structure in the input as required by the restriction, and (ii) using the identified structure to solve the reasoning task efficiently. We show that for most of the considered problems, task (i) admits a polynomial-time preprocessing to a problem kernel whose size is polynomial in a structural problem parameter of the input, in contrast to task (ii) which does not admit such a reduction to a problem kernel of polynomial size, subject to a complexity theoretic assumption. As a notable exception we show that the consistency problem for the AtMost-NValue constraint admits a polynomial kernel consisting of a quadratic number of variables and domain values. Our results provide a firm worst-case guarantees and theoretical boundaries for the performance of polynomial-time preprocessing algorithms for the considered problems.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1104.2541, arXiv:1104.556

The Role of Commutativity in Constraint Propagation Algorithms

Constraint propagation algorithms form an important part of most of the constraint programming systems. We provide here a simple, yet very general framework that allows us to explain several constraint propagation algorithms in a systematic way. In this framework we proceed in two steps. First, we introduce a generic iteration algorithm on partial orderings and prove its correctness in an abstract setting. Then we instantiate this algorithm with specific partial orderings and functions to obtain specific constraint propagation algorithms. In particular, using the notions commutativity and semi-commutativity, we show that the {\tt AC-3}, {\tt PC-2}, {\tt DAC} and {\tt DPC} algorithms for achieving (directional) arc consistency and (directional) path consistency are instances of a single generic algorithm. The work reported here extends and simplifies that of Apt \citeyear{Apt99b}.Comment: 35 pages. To appear in ACM TOPLA

Dynamic Consistency of Conditional Simple Temporal Networks via Mean Payoff Games: a Singly-Exponential Time DC-Checking

Conditional Simple Temporal Network (CSTN) is a constraint-based graph-formalism for conditional temporal planning. It offers a more flexible formalism than the equivalent CSTP model of Tsamardinos, Vidal and Pollack, from which it was derived mainly as a sound formalization. Three notions of consistency arise for CSTNs and CSTPs: weak, strong, and dynamic. Dynamic consistency is the most interesting notion, but it is also the most challenging and it was conjectured to be hard to assess. Tsamardinos, Vidal and Pollack gave a doubly-exponential time algorithm for deciding whether a CSTN is dynamically-consistent and to produce, in the positive case, a dynamic execution strategy of exponential size. In the present work we offer a proof that deciding whether a CSTN is dynamically-consistent is coNP-hard and provide the first singly-exponential time algorithm for this problem, also producing a dynamic execution strategy whenever the input CSTN is dynamically-consistent. The algorithm is based on a novel connection with Mean Payoff Games, a family of two-player combinatorial games on graphs well known for having applications in model-checking and formal verification. The presentation of such connection is mediated by the Hyper Temporal Network model, a tractable generalization of Simple Temporal Networks whose consistency checking is equivalent to determining Mean Payoff Games. In order to analyze the algorithm we introduce a refined notion of dynamic-consistency, named \epsilon-dynamic-consistency, and present a sharp lower bounding analysis on the critical value of the reaction time \hat{\varepsilon} where the CSTN transits from being, to not being, dynamically-consistent. The proof technique introduced in this analysis of \hat{\varepsilon} is applicable more in general when dealing with linear difference constraints which include strict inequalities

Checking Dynamic Consistency of Conditional Hyper Temporal Networks via Mean Payoff Games (Hardness and (pseudo) Singly-Exponential Time Algorithm)

In this work we introduce the \emph{Conditional Hyper Temporal Network (CHyTN)} model, which is a natural extension and generalization of both the \CSTN and the \HTN model. Our contribution goes as follows. We show that deciding whether a given \CSTN or CHyTN is dynamically consistent is \coNP-hard. Then, we offer a proof that deciding whether a given CHyTN is dynamically consistent is \PSPACE-hard, provided that the input instances are allowed to include both multi-head and multi-tail hyperarcs. In light of this, we continue our study by focusing on CHyTNs that allow only multi-head or only multi-tail hyperarcs, and we offer the first deterministic (pseudo) singly-exponential time algorithm for the problem of checking the dynamic-consistency of such CHyTNs, also producing a dynamic execution strategy whenever the input CHyTN is dynamically consistent. Since \CSTN{s} are a special case of CHyTNs, this provides as a byproduct the first sound-and-complete (pseudo) singly-exponential time algorithm for checking dynamic-consistency in CSTNs. The proposed algorithm is based on a novel connection between CSTN{s}/CHyTN{s} and Mean Payoff Games. The presentation of the connection between \CSTN{s}/CHyTNs and \MPG{s} is mediated by the \HTN model. In order to analyze the algorithm, we introduce a refined notion of dynamic-consistency, named $\epsilon$-dynamic-consistency, and present a sharp lower bounding analysis on the critical value of the reaction time $\hat{\varepsilon}$ where a \CSTN/CHyTN transits from being, to not being, dynamically consistent. The proof technique introduced in this analysis of $\hat{\varepsilon}$ is applicable more generally when dealing with linear difference constraints which include strict inequalities.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1505.0082