Trying Again to Fail-First
For constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs), Haralick & Elliott  introduced the Fail-First Principle and defined in it terms of minimizing branch depth. By devising a range of variable ordering heuristics, each in turn trying harder to fail first, Smith & Grant  showed that adherence to this strategy does not guarantee reduction in search effort. The present work builds on Smith & Grant. It benefits from the development of a new framework for characterizing heuristic performance that defines two policies, one concerned with enhancing the likelihood of correctly extending a partial solution, the other with minimizing the effort to prove insolubility. The Fail-First Principle can be restated as calling for adherence to the second, fail-first policy, while discounting the other, promise policy. Our work corrects some deficiencies in the work of Smith & Grant, and goes on to confirm their finding that the Fail-First Principle, as originally defined, is insufficient. We then show that adherence to the fail-first policy must be measured in terms of size of insoluble subtrees, not branch depth. We also show that for soluble problems, both policies must be considered in evaluating heuristic performance. Hence, even in its proper form the Fail-First Principle is insufficient. We also show that the “FF” series of heuristics devised by Smith & Grant is a powerful tool for evaluating heuristic performance, including the subtle relations between heuristic features and adherence to a policy.
KeywordsDomain Size Constraint Satisfaction Problem Search Effort Soluble Problem Constraint Check
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Smith, B.M., Grant, S.A.: Trying harder to fail first. In: Proc. Thirteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 1998, pp. 249–253. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1998)Google Scholar
- 3.Beck, J.C., Prosser, P., Wallace, R.J.: Toward understanding variable ordering heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proc. Fourteenth Irish Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science Conference, AICS 2003, pp. 11–16 (2003)Google Scholar
- 5.Geelen, P.A.: Dual viewpoint heuristics for binary constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proc. Tenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 1992, pp. 31–35 (1992)Google Scholar
- 7.Gent, I., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Smith, B., Walsh, T.: An empirical study of dynamic variable ordering heuristics for the constraint satisfaction problem. In: Freuder, E.C. (ed.) CP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1118, pp. 179–193. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
- 8.Beck, J.C., Prosser, P., Wallace, R.J.: Failing first: An update. In: Proc. Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2004, pp. 959–960 (2004)Google Scholar
- 10.Gent, I.P., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Walsh, T.: The constrainedness of search. In: Proc. Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1996, pp. 246–252 (1996)Google Scholar
- 11.Sabin, D., Freuder, E.: Contradicting Conventional Wisdom in Constraint Satisfaction. In: Proc. Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 1994, pp. 125–129. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
- 14.Hays, W.L.: Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart, Winston (1973)Google Scholar