Advertisement

Constraints

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 191–229 | Cite as

Combining restarts, nogoods and bag-connected decompositions for solving CSPs

  • Philippe Jégou
  • Cyril TerriouxEmail author
Article

Abstract

From a theoretical viewpoint, the (tree-)decomposition methods offer a good approach for solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) when their (tree)-width is small. In this case, they have often shown their practical interest. So, the literature (coming from Mathematics, OR or AI) has concentrated its efforts on the minimization of a single parameter, namely the tree-width. Nevertheless, experimental studies have shown that this parameter is not always the most relevant to consider when solving CSPs. So, in this paper, we highlight two fundamental problems related to the use of tree-decomposition and for which we offer two particularly appropriate solutions. First, we experimentally show that the decomposition algorithms of the state of the art produce clusters (a tree-decomposition is a rooted tree of clusters) having several connected components. We highlight the fact that such clusters create a real disadvantage which affects significantly the efficiency of solving methods. To avoid this problem, we consider here a new graph decomposition called Bag-Connected Tree-Decomposition, which considers only tree-decompositions such that each cluster is connected. We analyze such decompositions from an algorithmic point of view, especially in order to propose a first polynomial time algorithm to compute them. Moreover, even if we consider a very well suited decomposition, it is well known that sometimes, a bad choice for the root cluster may significantly degrade the performance of the solving. We highlight an explanation of this degradation and we propose a solution based on restart techniques. Then, we present a new version of the BTD algorithm (for Backtracking with Tree-Decomposition Jégou and Terrioux, Artificial Intelligence, 146 43–75 28) integrating restart techniques. From a theoretical viewpoint, we prove that reduced nld-nogoods can be safely recorded during the search and that their size is smaller than ones recorded by MAC+RST+NG (Lecoutre et al., JSAT, 1(3–4) 147–167 34). We also show how structural (no)goods may be exploited when the search restarts from a new root cluster. Finally, from a practical viewpoint, we show experimentally the benefits of using independently bag-connected tree-decompositions and restart techniques for solving CSPs by decomposition methods. Above all, we experimentally highlight the advantages brought by exploiting jointly these improvements in order to respond to two major problems generally encountered when solving CSPs by decomposition methods.

Keywords

Constraint satisfaction problems Tree-decomposition Bag-connected tree-decomposition Restart 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the French National Research Agency under grant TUPLES (ANR-2010-BLAN-0210). The authors would like to thank Ioan Todinca for their fruitful discussion about this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnborg, S., Corneil, D., & Proskuroswki, A. (1987). Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM Journal of Discrete Mathematics, 8, 277–284.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berge, C. (1973). Graphs and Hypergraphs. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bessière, C., Meseguer, P., Freuder, E.C., & Larrosa, J. (2002). On forward checking for non-binary constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 141, 205–224.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bessière, C., & Régin, J.C. (2001). Refining the basic constraint propagation algorithm. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 309–315).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boussemart, F., Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., & Sais, L. (2004). Boosting systematic search by weighting constraints. In Proceedings of ECAI (pp. 146–150).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabon, C, de Givry, S., Lobjois, L., Schiex, T., & Warners, J.P. (1999). Radio link frequency assignment. Constraints, 4, 79–89.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dechter, R. (2003). Constraint processing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dechter, R., & Fattah, Y.E. (2001). Topological parameters for time-space tradeoff. Artificial Intelligence, 125, 93–118.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dechter, R., & Mateescu, R. (2004). The impact of AND/OR search spaces on constraint satisfaction and counting. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP) (pp. 731–736).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dechter, R., & Mateescu, R. (2007). AND/OR search spaces for graphical models. Artificial Intelligence, 171, 73–106.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dechter, R., & Pearl, J. (1989). Tree-clustering for constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 38, 353–366.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dermaku, A., Ganzow, T., Gottlob, G., McMahan, B.J., Musliu, N., & Samer, M. (2008). Heuristic methods for hypertree decomposition. In Proceedings of MICAI (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Diestel, R., & Müller, M. (2014). Connected tree-width. arXiv:1211.7353v2.
  14. 14.
    Favier, A, de Givry, S., & Jégou, P. (2009). Exploiting problem structure for solution counting. In Proceedings of CP (pp. 335–343).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fraigniaud, P., & Nisse, N. (2006). Connected treewidth and connected graph searching. In Proceedings of LATIN (pp. 479–490).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freuder, E. (1982). A sufficient condition for backtrack-free search. Journal of the ACM, 29(1), 24–32.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gavril, F. (1972). Algorithms for minimum coloring, maximum clique, minimum covering by cliques, and maximum independent set of a chordal graph. SIAM Journal on Computing, 1(2), 180–187.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Golumbic, M. (1980). Algorithmic graph theory and perfect graphs. New York: Academic Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gomes, C.P., Selman, B., Crato, N., & Kautz, H.A. (2000). Heavy-tailed phenomena in satisfiability and constraint satisfaction problems. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 24(1/2), 67–100.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gottlob, G., Leone, N., & Scarcello, F. (2000). A comparison of structural CSP decomposition methods. Artificial Intelligence, 124, 243–282.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gyssens, M., Jeavons, P., & Cohen, D. (1994). Decomposing constraint satisfaction problems using database techniques. Artificial Intelligence, 66, 57–89.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hamann, M., & Weißauer, D. (2015). Bounding connected tree-width. ArXiv:1503.01592.
  23. 23.
    Harvey, W.D. (1995). Nonsystematic backtracking search. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jégou, P., Ndiaye, S.N., & Terrioux, C. (2005). Computing and exploiting tree-decompositions for solving constraint networks. In Proceedings of CP (pp. 777–781).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jégou, P., Ndiaye, S.N., & Terrioux, C. (2006). An extension of complexity bounds and dynamic heuristics for tree-decompositions of CSP. In Proceedings of CP (pp. 741–745).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jégou, P., Ndiaye, S.N., & Terrioux, C. (2007). Dynamic heuristics for backtrack search on tree-decomposition of CSPs. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 112–117).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jégou, P., Ndiaye, S.N., & Terrioux, C. (2007). Dynamic management of heuristics for solving structured CSPs. In Proceedings of CP (pp. 364–378).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jégou, P., & Terrioux, C. (2003). Hybrid backtracking bounded by tree-decomposition of constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 146, 43–75.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jėgou, P., & Terrioux, C. (2014). Combining restarts, nogoods and decompositions for solving csps. In Proceedings of ECAI (pp. 465–470).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jėgou, P., & Terrioux, C. (2014). Tree-decompositions with connected clusters for solving constraint networks. In Proceedings of CP (pp. 407–423).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Karakashian, S., Woodward, R., & Choueiry, B.Y. (2013). Improving the performance of consistency algorithms by localizing and bolstering propagation in a tree decomposition. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 466–473).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kjaerulff, U. (1990). Triangulation of graphs - algorithms giving small total state space. Tech. rep., Judex R.R. Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lecoutre, C. (2009). Constraint networks - techniques and algorithms. ISTE/Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lecoutre, C., Saïs, L., Tabary, S., & Vidal, V. (2007). Recording and minimizing nogoods from restarts. JSAT, 1(3–4), 147–167.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luby, M., Sinclair, A., & Zuckerman, D. (1993). Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Information Processing Letters, 47(4), 173–180.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Müller, M. (2012). Connected tree-width. ArXiv:1211.7353.
  37. 37.
    Nadel, B. (1988). Tree search and arc consistency in constraint-satisfaction algorithms. In Search in artificial intelligence (pp. 287–342). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Petke, J. (2012). On the bridge between constraint satisfaction and Boolean satisfiability. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Robertson, N., & Seymour, P. (1986). Graph minors II: algorithmic aspects of treewidth. Algorithms, 7, 309–322.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rose, D.J. (1973). A graph theoretic study of the numerical solution of sparse positive denite systems of linear equations. In Read, R.C. (Ed.) Graph theory and computing (pp. 183–217). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rossi, F., van Beek, P., & Walsh, T. (2006). Handbook of constraint programming. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sabin, D., & Freuder, E. (1994). Contradicting conventional wisdom in constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of ECAI (pp. 125–129).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sabin, D., & Freuder, E. (1997). Understanding and improving the MAC algorithm. In Proceedings of CP (pp. 167–181).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sanchez, M., Bouveret, S, de Givry, S., Heras, F., Jégou, P., Larrosa, J., Ndiaye, S.N., Rollon, E., Schiex, T., Terrioux, C., Verfaillie, G., & Zytnicki, M. (2008). Max-CSP competition 2008: toulbar2 solver description. In Proceedings of the 3rd CSP solver competition, CP workshop (pp. 63–70).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tarjan, R., & Yannakakis, M. (1984). Simple linear-time algorithms to test chordality of graphs, test acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 13(3), 566–579.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Walsh, T. (1999). Search in a small world. In Proceedings of IJCAI (pp. 1172–1177).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aix Marseille Université, CNRS, ENSAM, Université de Toulon, LSIS UMR 7296MarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations