Advertisement

Matrix-Like Structures for Representation and Processing of Constraints over Finite Domains

  • Alexander Zuenko
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 875)

Abstract

The paper presents two types of matrix-like structures, the C-systems and the D-systems, which are proposed to be used in representation and handling the constraints over finite domains. The modifications of the well known constraints propagation algorithms have been developed by the author. The proposed approach allows representing the n-ary relations in a compressed form, and accelerating searching the solution by means of analyzing the specific features of the constraints matrices.

Keywords

Constraints propagation Consistency-enforcing algorithms Constraints over finite domains Combinatorial search 

References

  1. 1.
    Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., Nuijten W.: Constraint-Based Scheduling: Applying Constraint Programming to Scheduling Problems. International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 39. Springer, New York (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1479-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bartak, R.: Constraint programming. Pursuit of the Holy Grail. In: Proceedings of the Week of Doctoral Students (WDS 1999), Part IV, pp. 555–564. MathFyzPress, Praque (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russel, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T.: Constraint programming. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation (Foundations of Artificial Intelligence), vol. 3, pp. 181–211. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kulik, B., Fridman, A., Zuenko, A.: Logical inference and defeasible reasoning in N-tuple algebra. In: Naidenova, X., Ignatov, D. (eds.) Diagnostic Test Approaches to Machine Learning and Commonsense Reasoning Systems, pp. 102–128. IGI Global, Hershey (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1900-5.ch005
  6. 6.
    Kulik, B., Zuenko, A., Fridman, A.: Deductive and defeasible reasoning on the basis of a unified algebraic approach. Sci. Tech. Inf. Process. 42(6), 8–16 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688215060076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zakrevskij, A.: Integrated model of inductive-deductive inference based on finite predicates and implicative regularities. In: Naidenova, X., Ignatov, D. (eds.) Diagnostic Test Approaches to Machine Learning and Commonsense Reasoning Systems, pp. 1–12. IGI Global, Hershey (2013).  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1900-5.ch001
  8. 8.
    Mackworth, A.: Consistency in networks of relations. Artif. Intell. 8(1), 99–118 (1977).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(77)90007-8MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mackworth, A., Freuder, E.: The complexity of some polynomial network consistency algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems. Artif. Intell. 25(1), 65–74 (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(85)90041-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bessiere, C.: Arc-consistency and arc-consistency again. Artif. Intell. 65(1), 179–190 (1994).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)90041-8MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Informatics and Mathematical Modeling – Subdivision of the Federal Research CentreKola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of SciencesApatity MurmanskRussia

Personalised recommendations