Automatically Generating Streamlined Constraint Models with Essence and Conjure

  • James WetterEmail author
  • Özgür Akgün
  • Ian Miguel
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9255)


Streamlined constraint reasoning is the addition of uninferred constraints to a constraint model to reduce the search space, while retaining at least one solution. Previously, effective streamlined models have been constructed by hand, requiring an expert to examine closely solutions to small instances of a problem class and identify regularities. We present a system that automatically generates many conjectured regularities for a given Essence specification of a problem class by examining the domains of decision variables present in the problem specification. These conjectures are evaluated independently and in conjunction with one another on a set of instances from the specified class via an automated modelling tool-chain comprising of Conjure, Savile Row and Minion. Once the system has identified effective conjectures they are used to generate streamlined models that allow instances of much larger scale to be solved. Our results demonstrate good models can be identified for problems in combinatorial design, Ramsey theory, graph theory and group theory - often resulting in order of magnitude speed-ups.


Problem Class Constraint Model Moufang Loop Search Node Abstract Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Akgun, O., Frisch, A.M., Gent, I.P., Hussain, B.S., Jefferson, C., Kotthoff, L., Miguel, I., Nightingale, P.: Automated symmetry breaking and model selection in Conjure. In: Schulte, C. (ed.) CP 2013. LNCS, vol. 8124, pp. 107–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akgün, O., Miguel, I., Jefferson, C., Frisch, A.M., Hnich, B.: Extensible automated constraint modelling. In: AAAI 2011: Twenty-Fifth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayel, J., Favaron, O.: Helms are graceful. Progress in Graph Theory (Waterloo, Ont., 1982), pp. 89–92. Academic Press, Toronto (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charnley, J., Colton, S., Miguel, I.: Automatic generation of implied constraints. In: ECAI, vol. 141, pp. 73–77 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colton, S., Miguel, I.: Constraint generation via automated theory formation. In: Walsh, T. (ed.) Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 575–579 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colton, S.: Automated Theory Formation in Pure Mathematics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frisch, A.M., Jefferson, C., Hernandez, B.M., Miguel, I.: The rules of constraint modelling. In: Proc. of the IJCAI 2005, pp. 109–116 (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frisch, A.M., Harvey, W., Jefferson, C., Martínez-Hernández, B., Miguel, I.: Essence: A constraint language for specifying combinatorial problems. Constraints 13(3), 268–306 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s10601-008-9047-y zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frucht, R.: Graceful numbering of wheels and related graphs. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 319(1), 219–229 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gent, I.P., Jefferson, C., Miguel, I.: Minion: A fast scalable constraint solver. In: ECAI, vol. 141, pp. 98–102 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomes, C., Sellmann, M.: Streamlined constraint reasoning. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) CP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3258, pp. 274–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huczynska, S., McKay, P., Miguel, I., Nightingale, P.: Modelling equidistant frequency permutation arrays: an application of constraints to mathematics. In: Gent, I.P. (ed.) CP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5732, pp. 50–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kouril, M., Franco, J.: Resolution tunnels for improved SAT solver performance. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 143–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Langford, C.D.: Problem. The Mathematical Gazette, 287–287 (1958)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Le Bras, R., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: Double-wheel graphs are graceful. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 587–593. AAAI Press (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Le Bras, R., Gomes, C.P., Selman, B.: On the erdős discrepancy problem. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8656, pp. 440–448. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma, K., Feng, C.: On the gracefulness of gear graphs. Math. Practice Theory 4, 72–73 (1984)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marriott, K., Nethercote, N., Rafeh, R., Stuckey, P.J., de la Banda, M.G., Wallace, M.: The design of the zinc modelling language. Constraints 13(3) (2008). doi: 10.1007/s10601-008-9041-4
  19. 19.
    Nightingale, P., Akgün, Ö., Gent, I.P., Jefferson, C., Miguel, I.: Automatically improving constraint models in savile row through associative-commutative common subexpression elimination. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8656, pp. 590–605. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prestwich, S.: CSPLib problem 028: Balanced incomplete block designs.
  21. 21.
    Rosa, A.: On certain valuations of the vertices of a graph. In: Theory of Graphs Internat. Symposium, Rome, pp. 349–355 (1966)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schur, I.: Über die kongruenz \( x^m+ y^m \equiv z^m ~(mod \; p) \). Jahresber. Deutsch. Math. Verein 25, 114–117 (1916)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slaney, J., Fujita, M., Stickel, M.: Automated reasoning and exhaustive search: Quasigroup existence problems. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 29(2), 115–132 (1995)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van der Waerden, B.L.: Beweis einer baudetschen vermutung. Nieuw Arch. Wisk 15(2), 212–216 (1927)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations