Abstract
Classical methods for solving numerical CSPs are based on a branch and prune algorithm, a dichotomic enumeration process interleaved with a consistency filtering algorithm. In many interval solvers, the pruning step is based on local consistencies or partial consistencies. The associated pruning algorithms compute numerous data required to identify gaps within some domains, i.e. inconsistent intervals strictly included in the domain. However, these gaps are only used to compute the smallest approximation of the box enclosing all the solutions. This paper introduces a search strategy, named MindTheGaps, that takes advantage of the gaps identified during the filtering process. Gaps are collected with a negligible overhead, and are used to select the splitting direction as well as to define relevant cutting points within the domain. Splitting the domain by removing such gaps definitely reduces the search space. It also helps to discard some redundant solutions and helps the search algorithm to isolate different solutions. First experimental results show that MindTheGaps significantly improves performances of the search process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ratz, D.: Box-splitting strategies for the interval Gauss–Seidel step in a global optimization method. Computing 53, 337–354 (1994)
Hansen, E.: Global optimization using interval analysis. Marcel Deckler (1992)
Kearfott, R.: Rigorous global search: continuous problems. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)
Lhomme, O.: Consistency techniques for numerical csps. In: IJCAI 1993, pp. 232–238 (1993)
Benhamou, F., Goualard, F., Granvilliers, L., Puget, J.: Revising hull and box consistency. In: International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 230–244 (1999)
Benhamou, F., McAllister, D., Van Hentenryck, P.: CLP(intervals) revisited. In: Bruynooghe, M. (ed.) International Symposium of Logic Programming, pp. 124–138. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)
Van Hentenryck, P., McAllister, D., Kapur, D.: Solving polynomial systems using a branch and prune approach. SIAM, Journal of Numerical Analysis 34(2), 797–827 (1997)
Collavizza, H., Delobel, F., Rueher, M.: Comparing partial consistencies. Journal of Reliable Computing 5, 213–228 (1999)
Lebbah, Y.: Contribution á la résolution de contraintes par consistance forte. Thése de doctorat, École des Mines de Nantes (1999)
Puget, J., Van Hentenryck, P.: A constraint satisfaction approach to a circuit design problem. Journal of Global Optimization 13, 75–93 (1998)
Jussien, N., Lhomme, O.: Dynamic domain splitting for numeric CSPs. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 224–228 (1998)
Hansen, E., Greenberg, R.: An interval newton method. Applied Mathematics and Computations 12, 89–98 (1983)
Hyvönen, E.: Constraint reasoning based on interval arithmetic: the tolerance propagation approach. Artificial Intelligence 58, 71–112 (1992)
ILOG: Solver Reference manual (2002), http://www.ilog.com/product/jsolver
Granvilliers, L.: Realpaver: Solving non linear constraints by interval computations. User’s manual (2003), http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/info/perso/permanents/granvil/realpaver
Macworth, A.: Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 99–118 (1977)
Moore, R.: Interval analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1977)
Kearfott, R.: A review of techniques in the verified solution of constrained global optimization problems. In: Kearfott, R.B., Kreinovich, V. (eds.) Applications of Interval Computations, pp. 23–59. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)
Jaulin, L., Kieffer, M., Didrit, O., Walter, E.: Applied Interval Analysis. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)
Lhomme, O.: Contribution á la résolution de contraintes sur les réels par propagation d’intervalles. Thése de doctorat, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis (1994)
Jermann, C., Trombettoni, G., Neveu, B., Rueher, M.: A constraint programming approach for solving rigid geometric systems. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 233–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Batnini, H., Rueher, M.: Décomposition sémantique pour la résolution de systémes d’équations de distances. JEDAI 2 (2004); Édition spéciale JNPC (2003)
Traverso, C.: The posso test suite examples (2003), http://www.inria.fr/saga/POL/index.html
Ceberio, M.: Contribution á l’étude des CSPs numériques sous et sur-contraints. Outils symboliques et contraintes flexibles continues. PhD thesis, Université de Nantes (2003)
Bordeaux, L., Monfroy, E., Benhamou, F.: Improved bounds on the complexity of kb-consistency. In: Kaufmann, M. (ed.) Proceeding of IJCAI 2001, pp. 303–308 (2001)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Batnini, H., Michel, C., Rueher, M. (2005). Mind the Gaps: A New Splitting Strategy for Consistency Techniques. In: van Beek, P. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2005. CP 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3709. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11564751_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11564751_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29238-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-32050-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)