Boolean approach for representing and solving constraint-satisfaction problems

  • Hachemi Bennaceur
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 992)


In this paper, we propose a new way for representing and solving constraintsatisfaction problems (CSPs). We first show that a CSP can be modelized by a single pseudo-Boolean function. Then some theoretical results establishing the links between a CSP and its associated pseudo-Boolean function are described. We propose a Branch and Bound method exploiting this representation for solving CSPs. This method follows the same scheme developed by the Forward-Checking procedure. The main difference between the Branch and bound method and the Forward-Checking method lies in the computation performed at every node of the search tree. The Branch and Bound method uses the constraints in an active way to infer a knowledge about the problem. Then a solution or failure may be detected quickly.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    B. Aspvall, M.F. Plass and R.E. Tarjan, “A linear algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified Boolean formulas”, Information Processing Letters 8, 121–123, (1979).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    F. Barahona, M. Jüngler and G. Reinelt, “Experiments in quadratic 0-1 programming”, Mathematical Programming 44, 127–137 (1989).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    H. Bennaceur, “Partial consistency for constraint-satisfaction problems”, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 120–125, (1994).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Bessière, “Arc-consistency and arc-consistency again”, Research Note, Vol. 65, 1, 179–190, (1994).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Y. Crama, “Recognition problems for special classes of polynomials in 0-1 variables”, Mathematical Programming 44, 127–137, (1989).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    E.C. Freuder, “A sufficient condition for backtrack-free search”, Journal of the ACM, vol. 29 nℴ 1, 24–32, (1982).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    V.P. Gulti, S.K. Gupta and A.K. Mittal, “Unconstrained quadratic bivalent programming problem”, European Journal of Operational Research 15, 121–125, (1994).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P.L. Hammer and P. Hansen, “Logical relations in quadratic 0-1 optimization”, Revue roumaine de mathématiques pures et appliqués, tome XXVI, nℴ 3, 421–429, (1981).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P.L. Hammer, P. Hansen and B. Simeoné, “Roof Duality, complementation and persistency in quadratic 0-1 optimization”, Mathematical programming, 28, 121–155, (1984).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Mohr and T.C. Hendeson, “Arc and path consistency revisited”, Artificial Intelligence 28–2, (1986).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    U. Montanari, “Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to picture processing”, Information Sciences, vol. 7 nℴ2, 95–132, (1974).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B. Nadel, “Constraint satisfaction algorithms”, Computational Intelligence, 5, 188–224, (1986).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    P. Jegou, “Contribution à l'étude des problèmes de satisfaction de contraintes”, Thèse de Doctorat, Montpellier II, France, (1991).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    A. Sutter, “Programmation non linéaire en variables 0-1”, Thèse de doctorat du CNAM (Paris), (1989).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hachemi Bennaceur
    • 1
  1. 1.LIPN, CNRS URA 1507, Institut GaliléeUniversité Paris-NordVilletaneuseFrance

Personalised recommendations