Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 180, Issue 1, pp 233–263 | Cite as

Discovering implied constraints in precedence graphs with alternatives

Article

Abstract

During automated problem solving it may happen that some knowledge that is known at the user level is lost in the formal model. As this knowledge might be important for efficient problem solving, it seems useful to re-discover it in order to improve the efficiency of the solving procedure. This paper compares three methods for discovering certain implied constraints in the constraint models describing manufacturing (and other) processes with serial, parallel, and alternative operations. In particular, we focus on identifying equivalent nodes in the precedence graph with parallel and alternative branches. Equivalent nodes correspond to operations that either must be all simultaneously present or none of them can be present in the schedule. Such information is frequently known at the user level, but it is lost in the formal model. The paper shows that identifying equivalent nodes is an NP-hard problem in general, but it is tractable if the graph has a nested structure. As the nested structure is typical for real-life processes and workflows, we use the nested graphs to experimentally compare the proposed methods.

Keywords

Constraint satisfaction Modelling Implied constraints Temporal networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barták, R. (2007). Generating implied Boolean constraints via singleton consistency. In LNAI : Vol. 4612. Abstraction, reformulation, and approximation (SARA 2007) (pp. 50–64). New York: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barták, R., & Čepek, O. (2007). Nested temporal networks with alternatives. In Technical Report WS-07-12. Papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop on spatial and temporal reasoning (pp. 1–8). Menlo Park: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
  3. Barták, R., Čepek, O., & Surynek, P. (2007). Modelling alternatives in temporal networks. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in scheduling (CI-Sched 2007) (pp. 129–136). New York: IEEE Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, J. Ch., & Fox, M. S. (2000). Constraint-directed techniques for scheduling alternative activities. Artificial Intelligence, 121, 211–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeri, C., Fagin, R., Maier, D., & Yannakakis, M. (1983). On the desirability of acyclic database schemes. Journal of the ACM, 30, 479–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bessiere, C., Coletta, R., & Petit, T. (2007) Learning implied global constraints, In Proceedings of twentieth international conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 07) (pp. 44–49). Google Scholar
  7. Brélaz, D. (1979). New methods to color the vertices of a graph. Communications of the ACM, 22, 251–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charnley, J., Colton, S., & Miguel, I. (2006) Automatic generation of implied constraints, In Proceedings of 17th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI 06) (pp. 73–77). Google Scholar
  9. Crowston, W., & Thompson, G. L. (1967). Decision CPM: A method for simultaneous planning, scheduling, and control of projects. Operations Research, 15, 407–426. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. Los Altos: Kaufmann. Google Scholar
  11. Dechter, R., Meiri, I., & Pearl, J. (1991). Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 61–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erol, K., Nau, D., & Hendler, J. (1994). HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. In Proceedings of AAAI-94 (pp. 1123–1128). Menlo Park: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
  13. Focacci, F., Laborie, P., & Nuijten, W. (2000) Solving scheduling problems with setup times and alternative resources, In Proceedings of AIPS 2000. Google Scholar
  14. Frisch, A. M., Miguel, I., & Walsh, T. (2001) Generating implied constraints via proof planning, In Proceedings of the IJCAR-01 workshop on future directions in automated reasoning (pp. 48–55). Google Scholar
  15. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. San Francisco: Freeman. Google Scholar
  16. Horling, B., Leader, V., Vincent, R., Wagner, T., Raja, A., Zhang, S., Decker, K., & Harvey, A. (1999) The taems white paper. University of Massachusetts, http://mas.cs.umass.edu/research/taems/white/taemswhite.pdf.
  17. Kim, P., Williams, B., & Abrahmson, M. (2001) Executing reactive, model-based programs through graph-based temporal planning, In Proceedings of IJCAI-2001 (pp. 487–493). Google Scholar
  18. Kuster, J., Jannach, D., & Friedrich, G. (2007) Handling alternative activities in resource-constrained project scheduling problems, In Proceedings of twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-07) (pp. 1960–1965). Google Scholar
  19. Nuijten, W., Bousonville, T., Focacci, F., Godard, D., & Le Pape, C. (2003) MaScLib: Problem description and test bed design. http://www2.ilog.com/masclib.
  20. Tsamardinos, I., Vidal, T., & Pollack, M. E. (2003). CTP: A new constraint-based formalism for conditional temporal planning. Constraints, 8(4), 365–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Beek, P., & Dechter, R. (1994) Constraint tightness versus global consistency, In Proceedings of knowledge representation (KR-94) (pp. 572–582). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityPrague 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.Institute of Finance and AdministrationPrague 10Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations