, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 245–264 | Cite as

Constraint Logic Programming and Integer Programming approaches and their collaboration in solving an assignment scheduling problem

  • Ken Darby-Dowman
  • James Little
  • Gautam Mitra
  • Marco Zaffalon


Generalised Assignment Problems (GAP), traditionally solved by Integer Programming techniques, are addressed in the light of current Constraint Programming methods. A scheduling application from manufacturing, based on a modified GAP, is used to examine the performance of each technique under a variety of problem characteristics. Experimental evidence showed that, for a set of assignment problems, Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) performed consistently better than Integer Programming (IP). Analysis of the CLP and IP processes identified ways in which the search was effective. The insight gained from the analysis led to an Integer Programming approach with significantly improved performance. Finally, the issue of collaboration between the two contrasting approaches is examined with respect to ways in which the solvers can be combined in an effective manner.


constraint logic programming integer programming generalised assignment problem optimisation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bellone, J., Chamard, A., & Pradelles. C (1992). ‘Plane’: an evolutive planning system for aircraft production written in CHIP. In Proceedings of the Practical Applications of Prolog Conference.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    British Telecom Laboratories. 250-118 Data Sets of Workforce Management Scheduling Problem. With permission of British Telecom, “”.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    City University Constraints Archive. 11 Data Sets for the Frequency Assignment Problem. With permission of “Centre d'Electronique de l'Armement”, Scholar
  4. 4.
    CPLEX OPTIMIZATION, Inc. (1995). Version 4.0 of Using the CPLEX Callable Library and CPLEX Mixed Integer Library. Incline Village, NV: CPLEX Optimization, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crowder, H. P., Dembo, R. S., & Mulvey, J. M. (1978). Reporting mathematical experiments in mathematical programming. In Mathematical Programming 15:316–329.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dincbas, M., & Simonis, H. (1991). APACHE—A constraint based automated stand allocation system. In Proceedings of the Advanced Software Technology in Air Transport Conference, pages 267–282.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duncan, T. (1994). Schedule IT: Experiences with a constraint based approach to building an intelligent vehicle scheduling system. Presented at Constraint Handling Techniques Seminar. Operational Research Society.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Sakkout. (1995). Modelling fleet assignment in a flexible environment. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Practical Application of Constraint Technology (PACT 96), pages 27–39.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Computer Research Centre, Munich (1994). ECLiPSe User Guide. ECRC GmbH, Arabellastr. 17, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fisher, M., & Jaikumar, R. (1981). A generalized assignment heuristic for the large scale vehicle routing problem. In Networks 11(2):109–124.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hajian, M. T., El-Sakkout, H., Wallace, M., Lever., J. M., & Richards. E. B. (1995). Towards a closer integration of finite domain propagation and simplex-based algorithms. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics. Also at Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haralick, R. M., & Elliot, G. L. (1980). Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. In Artificial Intelligence 14:263–313.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Little, J., & Darby-Dowman, K. (1995). The significance of constraint logic programming to operational research. In M. Lawrence and C. Wilsdon, editors, Operational Research Tutorial Papers, pages 20–45.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martello, S., & Toth, P. (1981). An algorithm for the generalized assignment problem. In J. P. Brans, editor, Operational Research '81, pages 589–603, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martello, S., and Toth, P. (1990). Knapsack Problems. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MIPLIB (1996). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd and Brunel University (1995). FortMP Manual, Release 1, Oxford, UK: NAG Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross, G. T., & Soland, R. M. (1977). Modelling facility location problems as generalised assignment problems. In Management Science 24(3):345–357.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith, B., Brailsford, S., Hubbard, P. M., & Williams, H. P. (1995). The progressive party problem: Integer linear programming and constraint propagation compared. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming—CP'95, Proceedings of the First International Conference, pages 36–52, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stella, F., Vercellis, C., & Zaffalon, M. (1994). A GAP formulation of production planning problems in reconfigurable assembly lines. In Operations Research Proceedings 1994, pages 334–338, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shtub, A. (1989). Modelling group technology cell formation as a generalized assignment problem. In International Journal of Production Research 27(5):775–782.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Hentenryck, P., & Carillon, J. (1988). Generality versus specificity: An experience with AI and OR techniques. In American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-88).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken Darby-Dowman
    • 1
  • James Little
    • 2
  • Gautam Mitra
    • 3
  • Marco Zaffalon
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsBrunel UniversityUxbridge
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsBrunel UniversityUxbridgeUK
  4. 4.Universitá degli studi di Milano Dip. di MatematicaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations