# Symmetries, almost symmetries, and lazy clause generation

- 149 Downloads
- 2 Citations

## Abstract

Lazy Clause Generation is a powerful approach for reducing search in Constraint Programming. This is achieved by recording sets of domain restrictions that previously led to failure as new clausal propagators. Symmetry breaking approaches are also powerful methods for reducing search by avoiding the exploration of symmetric parts of the search space. In this paper, we show how we can successfully combine Symmetry Breaking During Search and Lazy Clause Generation to create a new symmetry breaking method which we call SBDS-1UIP. We show that the more precise nogoods generated by a lazy clause solver allow our combined approach to exploit symmetries that cannot be exploited by any previous symmetry breaking method. We also show that SBDS-1UIP can easily be modified to exploit *almost symmetries* very effectively.

### Keywords

Symmetry breaking Almost symmetry Lazy clause generation## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

### References

- 1.Backofen, R., & Will, S. (1999). Excluding symmetries in constraint-based search. In J. Jaffar (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 5th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, Lecture Notes in Computer Science*(Vol. 1713, pp. 73–87). Springer.Google Scholar - 2.Benhamou, B. (1994). Study of symmetry in constraint satisfaction problems. In
*PPCP’94: 2nd international workshop on principles and practice of constraint programming*(pp. 246–254).Google Scholar - 3.Boussemart, F., Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., Sais, L. (2004). Boosting systematic search by weighting constraints. In
*Proceedings of the European conference on artificial intelligence*(pp. 146–150).Google Scholar - 4.Chu, G., Garcia de la Banda, M., Mears, C., Stuckey, P. (2011). Symmetries and lazy clause generation. In
*Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence*(pp. 516–521).Google Scholar - 5.Cohen, D.A., Jeavons, P., Jefferson, C., Petrie, K.E., Smith, B.M. (2006). Symmetry definitions for constraint satisfaction problems.
*Constraints*,*11*(2–3), 115–137.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 6.Crawford, J.M., Ginsberg, M.L., Luks, E.M., Roy, A. (1996). Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. In
*Proceedings of the 5th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning*(pp. 148–159). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar - 7.Donaldson, A. (2005). Partial symmetry in model checking. In
*SymNet workshop on almost-symmetry in search*(pp. 17–21). http://www.allydonaldson.co.uk/edited_volumes/SymNet2005.pdf. - 8.Fahle, T., Schamberger, S., Sellmann, M. (2001). Symmetry breaking. In T. Walsh (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 7th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 2239, pp. 93–107). Springer.Google Scholar - 9.Feydy, T., & Stuckey, P.J. (2009). Lazy clause generation reengineered. In I. P. Gent (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 15th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 5732, pp. 352–366). Springer.Google Scholar - 10.Frisch, A., Miguel, I., Walsh, T. (2003). CGRASS: a system for transforming constraint satisfaction problems. In
*recent advances in constraints, joint ERCIM/Colognet international workshop on constraint solving and constraint logic programming*(pp. 15–30).Google Scholar - 11.Gargani, A., & Refalo, P. (2007). An efficient model and strategy for the steel mill slab design problem. In C. Bessiere (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 4741, pp. 77–89). Springer.Google Scholar - 12.Gent, I.P., Jefferson, C., Kelsey, T., Lynce, I., Miguel, I., Nightingale, P., Smith, B.M., Tarim, A. (2007). Search in the patience game ’Black Hole’.
*AI Communications*,*20*(3), 211–226.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 13.Gent, I.P., Kelsey, T., Linton, S., McDonald, I., Miguel, I., Smith, B.M. (2005). Conditional symmetry breaking. In P. van Beek (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 11th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 3709, pp. 256–270). Springer.Google Scholar - 14.Gent, I.P., & Smith, B.M. (2000). Symmetry breaking in constraint programming. In W. Horn (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 14th European conference on artificial intelligence*, (pp. 599–603). IOS Press.Google Scholar - 15.Gomes, C., & Shmoys, D.B. (2002). Completing quasigroups or latin squares: a structured graph colouring problem. In D. S. Johnson, A. Mehrotra, M. Trick (Eds.)
*Proceedings of the computational symposium on graph colouring and extensions*(pp. 22–39).Google Scholar - 16.Gregory, P. (2005). Almost-symmetry in planning. In
*SymNet workshop on almost-symmetry in search*(pp. 14–16). http://www.allydonaldson.co.uk/edited_volumes/SymNet2005.pdf. - 17.Harvey, W. (2005). Symmetric relaxation techniques for constraint programming. In
*SymNet workshop on almost-symmetry in search*(pp. 50–59). http://www.allydonaldson.co.uk/edited_volumes/SymNet2005.pdf. - 18.Krishnamurthy, B. (1985). Short proofs for tricky formulas.
*Acta Informatica*,*22*(3), 253–275.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 19.Law, Y.C., Lee, J.H.M., Walsh, T., Yip, J.Y.K. (2007). Breaking symmetry of interchangeable variables and values. In C. Bessiere (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 13th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 4741, pp. 423–437). Springer.Google Scholar - 20.Martin, R. (2005). The challenge of exploiting weak symmetries. In B. Hnich, M. Carlsson, F. Fages, F. Rossi (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the international workshop on constraint solving and constraint logic programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 3978, pp. 149–163). Springer.Google Scholar - 21.Mears, C. (2009).
*Automatic symmetry detection and dynamic symmetry breaking for constraint programming*. PhD thesis, Clayton School of Information Technology, Monash University.Google Scholar - 22.Mears, C., de la Banda, G.M., Wallace, M. (2009). On implementing symmetry detection.
*Constraints*,*14*(4), 443–477.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 23.Mears, C., de la Banda, G.M., Wallace, M., Demoen, B. (2008). A novel approach for detecting symmetries in CSP models. In L. Perron, M. Trick (Eds.),
*Proceedings of the 8th international conference on integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and operations research (OR) techniques in constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 5015, pp. 158–172). Springer.Google Scholar - 24.Mears, C., Niven, T., Jackson, M., Wallace, M. (2011). Proving symmetries by model transformation. In J. Lee (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 17th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 6876, pp. 591–605). Springer.Google Scholar - 25.Meseguer, P. (2001). Exploiting symmetries within constraint satisfaction search.
*Artificial Intelligence*,*129*(1–2), 133–163.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 26.Moskewicz, M.W., Madigan, C.F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: engineering an efficient SAT solver. In
*Proceedings of the 38th design automation conference*(pp. 530–535). ACM.Google Scholar - 27.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, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 4741, pp. 529–543). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - 28.Ohrimenko, O., Stuckey, P.J., Codish, M. (2007). Propagation = lazy clause generation. In C. Bessiere (Ed.),
- 29.Puget, J.-F. (2002). Symmetry breaking revisited. In P. Van Hentenryck (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 2470, pp. 446–461). Springer.Google Scholar - 30.Puget, J.-F. (2003). Symmetry breaking using stabilizers. In F. Rossi (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 9th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 2470, pp. 585–589). Springer.Google Scholar - 31.Roney-Dougal, C., Gent, I., Kelsey, T., Linton, S. (2004). Tractable symmetry breaking using restricted search trees. In
*Proceedings of the 16th European conference on artificial intelligence*, (pp. 211–215). IOS Press.Google Scholar - 32.Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P.J., Wallace, M. (2009). Why cumulative decomposition is not as bad as it sounds. In I. P. Gent (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 15th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 5732, pp. 746–761). Springer.Google Scholar - 33.Schutt, A., Stuckey, P.J., Verden, A.R. (2011). Optimal carpet cutting. In J. Lee (Ed.),
*Proceedings of the 17th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming, lecture notes in computer science*(Vol. 6876, pp. 69–84). Springer.Google Scholar - 34.Zhang, L., Madigan, C.F., Moskewicz, M.W., Malik, S. (2001). Efficient conflict driven learning in Boolean satisfiability solver. In
*Proceedings of the international conference on computer-aided design*(pp. 279–285). ACM.Google Scholar