The versatility of handling disjunctions as constraints
The first contribution of this paper is to clarify and to extend the way of handling disjunction as active constraints in CLP(FD). Analyzing all related works, we design complete specification, semantics and implementation of a Constructive 1 Disjunction operator (CD).
The second contribution is to show the versatility of Constructive disjunction. We exhaust all its intrinsic properties in order to take advantage of them. We show how these properties may define some new heuristics or may even refine some others while we show the pertinence of some intrinsic concepts. Finally, we prove the strong impact of Constructive Disjunction on classic CLP benchmarks demonstrating the stabilization of execution times on scheduling problems. In order to emphasize the impact of our work, we confront our new CD implementation to an industrial problem of Aircraft Sequencing in Terminal Zone. The obtained results push a step forward the automation of the Aircraft Sequencing Problem task allowing the study of problems beyond the scope of previous approaches.
Keywordsconstructive disjunction constraint logic programming look-ahead analysis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [AB92]A. Aggoun and N. Beldiceanu, “Extending CHIP in Order to Solve Complex Scheduling and Placement Problems”, Tregastel 92.Google Scholar
- [BIA87]L. Bianco, G. Rinaldi and A. Sassano, “A combinatorial optimization approach to aircraft sequencing problems”, Flow control of congested network, edited by A. Odoni operations research center MIT, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987Google Scholar
- [CSF92]P. Codognet, F. Fages and T. Sola, “A metalevel compiler of CLP(FD) and its combination with intelligent backtracking”, in “Constraint logic programming: collected papers”, Ed. A. Colmerauer, MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- [DSV88]M. Dincbas, H. Simonis and P. Van Hentenryck, A. Aggoun, T. Graf, and F. Berthier, “The Constraint Logic Programming Language CHIP”, fifth Generation Computer Systems conference, Tokyo, Japan, Dec. 1988.Google Scholar
- [DSV90]M. Dincbas, H. Simonis and P. Van Hentenryck, “Solving Large Combinatorial Problems in Logic Programming”, Journal of Logic Programming, 1990:8:75–93.Google Scholar
- [FF91]F.Fages and J.Fowler, “Programmation logique avec contraintes sur les domaines finis: manuel de Meta(F) version 2.3”, Technical Report Thomson-CSF, LACS-91-6, sept. 1991.Google Scholar
- [Jou92]J. Jourdan, “Modelization of Terminal Zone Aircraft Sequencing in Constraint Logic Programming”, Technical Report Thomson-CSF,LACS-92-6.Google Scholar
- [Sad91]N. Sadeh, “Look-ahead techniques for micro-opportunistic job-shop scheduling”, PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU-CS-91-102, 1991.Google Scholar
- [VD91]P. Van Hentenryck and Y. Deville, “The Cardinality Operator: A new Logical Connective for Constraint Logic Programming”, ICLP '91, p745–760, Paris, 1991.Google Scholar
- [VH89]P. Van Hentenryck, “Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming”, MIT Press, 1989.Google Scholar
- [VSD91]P. Van Hentenryck, V. Saraswatt and Y. Deville, “Constraint processing in cc(FD)”, Technical Report. 1991.Google Scholar
- [War88]D.H.D. Warren, “The Andorra Model”, Presented at Gigalips Project Workshop, University of Manchester, March 1988.Google Scholar