Advertisement

Abstract

We perform a comprehensive study of mappings between constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and propositional satisfiability (SAT). We analyse four different mappings of SAT problems into CSPs, and two of CSPs into SAT problems. For each mapping, we compare the impact of achieving arc-consistency on the CSP with unit propagation on the SAT problem. We then extend these results to CSP algorithms that maintain (some level of) arc-consistency during search like FC and MAC, and to the Davis-Putnam procedure (which performs unit propagation at each search node). Because of differences in the branching structure of their search, a result showing the dominance of achieving arc-consistency on the CSP over unit propagation on the SAT problem does not necessarily translate to the dominance of MAC over the Davis-Putnam procedure. These results provide insight into the relationship between propositional satisfiability and constraint satisfaction.

Keywords

Unit Propagation Dual Variable Constraint Satisfaction Problem Propositional Variable Truth Assignment 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A99.
    K. Apt. Some Remarks on Boolean Constraint Propagation. In New Trends in Constraints, Papers from the Joint ERCIM/Compulog-Net Workshop. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. Ben96.
    H. Bennaceur. The satisfiability problem regarded as a constraint satisfaction problem. In W. Wahlster, editor, Proc. of the 12th ECAI, pages 155–159. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. BMFL99.
    C. Bessière, P. Meseguer, E. C. Freuder, and J. Larrosa. On Forward Checking for Non-binary Constraint Satisfaction. In A. Brodsky and J. Jaffar, editors, Proc. of Fifth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP99). Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. BvB98.
    F. Bacchus and P. van Beek. On the conversion between non-binary and binary constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 311–318. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. dK89.
    J. de Kleer. A comparison of ATMS and CSP techniques. In Proc. of the 11th IJCAI. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. DLL62.
    M. Davis, G. Logemann, and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, 5:394–397, 1962.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. FP99.
    A. M. Frisch and T. J. Peugniez. Solving non-Boolean satisfiability problems with stochastic local search: A comparison of encodings., 1999. Unpublished manuscript, available from http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/aig/publications.html.
  8. Gas79.
    J. Gaschnig. Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms. Technical report CMU-CS-79-124, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1979. PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  9. GJ79.
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. W. H. Freeman, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. GJ96.
    R. Genisson and P. Jegou. Davis and Putnam were already forward checking. In W. Wahlster, editor, Proc. of the 12th ECAI, pages 180–184. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. MM88.
    R. Mohr and G. Masini. Good old discrete relaxation. In Proc. of the 8th ECAI, pages 651–656, European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. SW99.
    K. Stergiou and T. Walsh. Encodings of non-binary constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of the 16th National Conference on AI. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toby Walsh
    • 1
  1. 1.University of YorkYorkEngland

Personalised recommendations