Trying Again to Fail-First

  • J. Christopher Beck
  • Patrick Prosser
  • Richard J. Wallace
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3419)


For constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs), Haralick & Elliott [1] 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 [2] 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.


Domain Size Constraint Satisfaction Problem Search Effort Soluble Problem Constraint Check 
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.
    Haralick, R.M., Elliott, G.L.: Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14, 263–314 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    Beck, J.C., Prosser, P., Wallace, R.J.: Variable ordering heuristics show promise. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) CP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3258, pp. 711–715. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Brelaz, D.: New Methods to Color the Vertices of a Graph. Communications of the ACM 22, 251–256 (1979)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Gent, I.P., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Smith, B.M., Walsh, T.: Random constraint satisfaction: Flaws and structure. Constraints 6, 345–372 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 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
  12. 12.
    Nudel, B.: Consistent-labeling problems and their algorithms: Expected-complexities and theory-based heuristics. Artificial Intelligence 21, 263–313 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hays, W.L.: Statistics for the Social Sciences, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart, Winston (1973)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Christopher Beck
    • 1
  • Patrick Prosser
    • 2
  • Richard J. Wallace
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical & Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of GlasgowScotland
  3. 3.Cork Constraint Computation Center and Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations