Constraints

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 167–192 | Cite as

Increasing Constraint Propagation by Redundant Modeling: an Experience Report

  • B. M. W. Cheng
  • K. M. F. Choi
  • J. H. M. Lee
  • J. C. K. Wu
Article

Abstract

This paper describes our experience with a simple modeling and programming approach for increasing the amount of constraint propagation in the constraint solving process. The idea, although similar to redundant constraints, is based on the concept of redundant modeling. We introduce the notions of CSP model and model redundancy, and show how mutually redundant models can be combined and connected using channeling constraints. The combined model contains the mutually redundant models as sub-models. Channeling constraints allow the sub-models to cooperate during constraint solving by propagating constraints freely amongst the sub-models. This extra level of pruning and propagation activities becomes the source of execution speedup. real-life nurse rostering system. We perform two case studies to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of our method. The first case study is based on the simple and well-known n-queens problem, while the second case study applies our method in the design and construction of a real-life nurse rostering system. Experimental results provide empirical evidence in line with our prediction.

Constraint propagation redundant modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aggoun, A. (1994). A good value-ordering heuristics for the n-queens problem. Private Communication.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baptiste, P. and C. Le Pape. (1995). Disjunctive constraints for manufacturing scheduling: Principles and extensions. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Singapore.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beldiceanu, N. and E. Contejean. (1994). Introducing global constraints in CHIP. Journal of Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 20(12): 97–123.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benson Jr., B.W. and E.C. Freuder. (1992). Interchangeability preprocessing can improve forward checking search. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 28–30.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bessière, C. and M. Cordier. (1993). Arc-consistency and arc-consistency again. In Proceedings of AAAI-93, pages 108–113.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bitner, J. and E.M. Reingold. (1985). Backtrack programming techniques. Communications of the ACM, 18: 651–655.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caseau, Y. (1989).. A formal system for producing demons from rules. In Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, pages 203–219.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caseau, Y. (1991). An object-oriented deductive language. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caseau, Y. and P. Koppstein. (1992). A rule-based approach to a time-constrained traveling salesman problem. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, B.M.W., J.H.M. Lee, and J.C.K. Wu. (1996). A constraint-based nurse rostering system using a redundant modeling approach. In Proceedings of the Eighth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 140–148.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng, B.M.W., J.H.M. Lee, and J.C.K. Wu. (1996). Speeding up constraint propagation by redundant modeling. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 91–103.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng, B.M.W., J.H.M. Lee, and J.C.K. Wu. (1997). Anurse rostering system using constraint programming and redundant modeling. IEEE Transactions in Information Technology in Biomedicine, 1(1): 44–54.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cormen, T.H. (1990). C.E. Leiserson, and R.L. Rivest. Introduction to Algorithms. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dechter, R. and J. Pearl. (1988). Network-based heuristics for constraint-satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 38:1–38.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deville, Y. and P. Van Hentenryck. (1991). An efficient arc consistency algorithm for a class of CSP algorithm. In Proceedings of IJCAI 1991, pages 325–330.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dincbas, M. H. Simonis, and P. Van Hentenryck. (1988). Solving the car-sequencing problem in constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 290–295.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dincbas, M., P. Van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, and T. Graf. (1988). Applications of CHIP to industrial and engineering problems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Industrial & Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence & Expert Systems, pages 887–892.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dincbas, M., P. Van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, T. Graf, and F. Berthier. (1988). The constraint logic programming language CHIP. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS'88), pages 693–702, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eaton, P.S. and E.C. Freuder. (1996). Agent cooperation can compensate for agent ignorance in constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the 1996 AAAI Workshop on Agent Modeling, pages 24–29. AAAI Press. Technical Report WS–96–02.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ellman, T. (1993). Abstraction via approximate symmetry. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 916–921.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Freuder, E.C. (1982). A sufficient condition for backtrack-free search. Journal of the ACM, 29:24–32.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freuder, E.C. and D. Sabin. (1995). Interchangeability supports abstraction and reformation for constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Abstraction, Reformulation and Approximation.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gaschnig, J. (1977). A general backtrack algorithm that eliminates most redundant tests. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaschnig, J. (1978). Experimental case studies of backtrack versus Waltz-type versus new algorithms for satisfying assignment problems. In Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence. Canadian Information Processing Society.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gaschnig, J. (1979). Performance Measurement and Analysis of Certain Search Algorithms. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gaschnig, J. (1979). Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms. Technical Report CMU-CS-79-124, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Geelen, P.A. (1992). Dual viewpoint heuristics for binary constraint satisfaction problem. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 31–35.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gervet, C. (1994). Conjunto: Constraint logic programming with finite set domains. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 1994 International Symposium, pages 339–358.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gervet, C. (1997). Interval propagation to reason about sets: definition and implementation of a practical language. CONSTRAINTS, 1(3):191–244.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haralick, R.M. and G.L. Elliot. (1980). Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 14:263–313.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ILOG. (1995). ILOG SOLVER: Reference Manual Version 3.0.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ILOG. (1995). ILOG SOLVER: User Manual Version 3.0.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    ILOG. (1997). ILOG SOLVER: Reference Manual Version 4.0.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jourdan, J. (1995). Concurrent constraint multiple models in CLP and CC languages: toward a programming methodology by modelling. In Proceedings of the INFORMS Conference, New Orleans, USA.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jourdan, J. (1995). Concurrent constraint multiple models inCLPandCClanguages: Toward a programming methodology by modelling. PhD thesis, Denis Diderot University, Paris VII.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kökény, T. (1995). Constraint satisfaction problems with order-sorted domains. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 4(1&2):55–72.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kumar, V. (1992). Algorithms for constraint-satisfaction problems: A survey. AI Magazine, 13:32–44.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Le Pape, C. (1994). Implementation of resource constraints in ILOG SCHEDULE: Alibrary for the development of constraint-based scheduling systems. Intelligent Systems Engineering, 3:55–66.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Le Pape, C. (1995). Resource constraints in a library for constraint-based scheduling. In Proceedings of the INRIA/IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lee, J.H.M., H.F. Leung, P. Stuckey, V. Tam, and H.W. Won. (1996). Using stochastic methods to guide search in CLP: a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 1996 Asian Computing Science Conference, pages 43–52.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu and K. Sycara, J. (1993). Emergent constraint satisfaction through multi-agent coordinated interaction. In Proceedings of MAAMAW'93, Neuchatel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mackworth, A.K. (1977). Consistency in networks of relations. AI Journal, 8(1):99–118.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mackworth, A.K., J.A. Mulder, and W.S. Havens. (1985). Hierarchical arc consistency: Exploiting structured domains in constraint satisfaction problems. Computational Intelligence, 1:118–126.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marti, P. and M. Rueher. (1995). Adistributed cooperating constraints solving system. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 4(1&2):93–113.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Minton, S., M.D. Johnston, A.B. Philips, and P. Laird. (1992). Minimizing conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling. Artificial Intelligence, 58:161–205.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mohr, R. and T.C. Henderson. (1986). Arc and path consistency revisited. Artificial Intelligence, 28:225–233.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nadel, B.A. (1989). Constraint satisfaction algorithms. Computational Intelligence, 5:188–224.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Perrett, M. (1991). Using constraint logic programming techniques in container port planning. ICL Technical Journal, 7(3):537–545.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prosser, P. (1993). Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Computational Intelligence, 9(3):268–299.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tsang, E.P.K. (1993). Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Beek, P. (1992). On the minimality and decomposability of constraint networks. In Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 447–452.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Van Hentenryck, P. (1989). Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Van Hentenryck, P., Y. Deville, and C.M. Teng. (1992). A generic arc-consistency algorithm and its specializations. Artificial Intelligence, 57:291–321, 1992.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wallace, R. (1996). Partial models in redundant modeling. Private Communication at CP96.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Waltz, D. (1975). Understanding line drawings of scenes with shadows. In P.H. Winston, editor, The Psychology of Computer Vision, pages 19–91. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. M. W. Cheng
  • K. M. F. Choi
  • J. H. M. Lee
  • J. C. K. Wu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatin, N.T.Hong Kong, China

Personalised recommendations