Constraints

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 434–462

Symmetries, almost symmetries, and lazy clause generation

  • Geoffrey Chu
  • Maria Garcia de la Banda
  • Christopher Mears
  • Peter J. Stuckey
Article
  • 144 Downloads

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.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 18.
    Krishnamurthy, B. (1985). Short proofs for tricky formulas. Acta Informatica, 22(3), 253–275.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. 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. 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. 22.
    Mears, C., de la Banda, G.M., Wallace, M. (2009). On implementing symmetry detection. Constraints, 14(4), 443–477.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 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. 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. 25.
    Meseguer, P. (2001). Exploiting symmetries within constraint satisfaction search. Artificial Intelligence, 129(1–2), 133–163.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 28.
    Ohrimenko, O., Stuckey, P.J., Codish, M. (2007). Propagation = lazy clause generation. 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. 544–558). Springer.Google Scholar
  29. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoffrey Chu
    • 1
  • Maria Garcia de la Banda
    • 2
  • Christopher Mears
    • 2
  • Peter J. Stuckey
    • 1
  1. 1.National ICT Australia, Victoria Laboratory, Department of Computing and Information SystemsUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations