Skip to main content

Using a Theorem Prover for Reasoning on Constraint Problems

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3673))

Abstract

Specifications of constraint problems can be considered logical formulae. As a consequence, it is possible to infer their properties by means of automated reasoning tools, with the goal of automatically synthesizing transformations that can make the solving process more efficient. The purpose of this paper is to link two important technologies: automated theorem proving and constraint programming. We report the results on using ATP technology for checking existence of symmetries, checking whether a given formula breaks a symmetry, and checking existence of functional dependencies in a specification. The output of the reasoning phase is a transformed constraint program, consisting in a reformulated specification and, possibly a search strategy. We show our techniques on problems such as Graph coloring, Sailco inventory and Protein folding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cadoli, M., Mancini, T.: Detecting and breaking symmetries on specifications. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cadoli, M., Mancini, T.: Automated reformulation of specifications by safe delay of constraints. In: Proc. of KR 2004. AAAI Press/The MIT Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cadoli, M., Mancini, T.: Exploiting functional dependencies in declarative problem specifications. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 628–640. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Cadoli, M., Schaerf, A.: Compiling problem specifications into SAT. Artif. Intell. 162, 89–120 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Castillo, E., Conejo, A.J., Pedregal, P., Garcia, R., Alguacil, N.: Building and Solving Mathematical Programming Models in Engineering and Science. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dechter, R.: Constraint Networks (Survey). John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fagin, R.: Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets. In: Karp, R.M. (ed.) Complexity of Computation, pp. 43–74. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York (1979)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Giunchiglia, E., Sebastiani, R.: Applying the Davis-Putnam procedure to non-clausal formulas. In: Proc. of AI*IA 1999, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV System for Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. ACM Trans. on Comp. Logic (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Li, C.M.: Integrating equivalency reasoning into Davis-Putnam procedure. In: Proc. of AAAI 2000, AAAI Press/The MIT Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mancini, T., Cadoli, M.: Detecting and breaking symmetries by reasoning on problem specifications. In: Zucker, J.-D., Saitta, L. (eds.) SARA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3607, pp. 165–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. McCune, W.: MACE 2.0 reference manual and guide. Tech. Rep. ANL/MCS-TM-249, Argonne Nat. Lab., Math. and Comp. Sci. Div. (2001), Available at, http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/AR/mace/

  14. McCune, W.: Otter 3.3 reference manual. Tech. Rep. ANL/MCS-TM-263, Argonne Nat. Lab., Math. and Comp. Sci. Div. (2003), Available at, http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/AR/otter/

  15. McKay, B.D.: Nauty user’s guide, version 2.2 (2003), Available at, http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/nauty/nug.pdf

  16. Meseguer, P., Torras, C.: Solving strategies for highly symmetric CSPs. In: Proc. of IJCAI 1999. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Riazanov, A., Voronkov, A.: Vampire. In: Ganzinger, H. (ed.) CADE 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1632, pp. 292–296. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Hentenryck, P.: The OPL Optimization Programming Language. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cadoli, M., Mancini, T. (2005). Using a Theorem Prover for Reasoning on Constraint Problems. In: Bandini, S., Manzoni, S. (eds) AI*IA 2005: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3673. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11558590_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11558590_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29041-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31733-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics