The circuit constraint is used to constrain a graph represented by a successor for each node, such that the resulting edges form a circuit. Circuit and its variants are important for various kinds of tour-finding, path-finding and graph problems. In this paper we examine how to integrate the circuit constraint, and its variants, into a lazy clause generation solver. To do so we must extend the constraint to explain its propagation. We consider various propagation algorithms for circuit and examine how best to explain each of them. We compare the effectiveness of each propagation algorithm once we use explanation, since adding explanation changes the trade-off between propagation complexity and power. Simpler propagators, although less powerful, may produce more reusable explanations. Even though the most powerful propagator considered for circuit and variants creates huge explanations, we find that explanation is highly advantageous for solving problems involving this kind of constraint.
KeywordsCircuit Constraint propagation Explanation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 4.Caseau, Y., & Laburthe, F. (1997). Solving small TSPs with constraints. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on logic programming (ICLP97) (pp. 316–330).Google Scholar
- 5.cycle constraint. Global constraint catalog: http://www.emn.fr/z-info/sdemasse/gccat/Ccycle.html. Accessed Dec 2012
- 6.Downing, N., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P. (2012). Explaining alldifferent. In M. Reynolds & B. Thomas (Eds.), Proceedings of the australasian computer science conference (ACSC 2012). CRPIT (Vol. 122, pp. 115–124). Melbourne, Australia: ACS.Google Scholar
- 8.Fages, J., & Lorca, X. (2012). Improving the asymmetric TSP by considering graph structure. arXiv:1206.3437.
- 9.Katsirelos, G. (2008). Nogood processing in CSPs. PhD thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
- 10.Katsirelos, G., & Bacchus, F. (2005). Generalized nogoods in CSPs. In Proceedings, the 20th national conference on artificial intelligence and the 17th innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference, 9–13 July 2005, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA (pp. 390–396).Google Scholar
- 13.Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of 38th conference on design automation (DAC’01) (pp. 530–535).Google Scholar
- 14.Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G., Tack, G. (2007). Minizinc: Towards a standard CP modelling language. In C. Bessiere (Ed.), Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming. LNCS (Vol. 4741, pp. 529–543). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- 16.Quesada, L., Van Roy, P., Deville, Y., Collet, R. (2006). Using dominators for solving constrained path problems. In Practical aspects of declarative languages, proceedings 8th international symposium, PADL 2006, Charleston, SC, USA, 9–10 January 2006. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3819, pp. 73–87).Google Scholar
- 17.Schulte, C., & Stuckey, P. (2008). Efficient constraint propagation engines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 31(1), Article No. 2.Google Scholar
- 18.Schulte, C., & Tack, G. (2009). Weakly monotonic propagators. In Principles and practice of constraint programming-CP 2009 (pp. 723–730).Google Scholar
- 19.Schulte, C., Lagerkvist, M., Tack, G. GECODE—an open, free, efficient constraint solving toolkit. http://www.gecode.org/. Accessed Dec 2012
- 21.van Hoeve, W. (2001). The alldifferent constraint: A survey. arXiv:cs/0105015. Accessed Dec 2012