Advertisement

Solving over-constrained CSP using weighted OBDDs

  • Fabrice Bouquet
  • Philippe Jégou
Alternative Paradigms
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1106)

Abstract

In Artificial Intelligence, for practical applications, we often have to manage over-constrained systems of constraints. So, a model based on the formalism of finite Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) [14] has been proposed with Dynamic CSPs (DCSPs) to handle this kind of problems [10][11]. Some classical techniques defined in the field of CSPs are usable in DCSPs, but the management of over-constrained system with DCSPs induces new problems. The purpose of this paper is to introduce an efficient way to solve DCSPs based on a logical approach. We use Ordered Binary Decision Diagrams (OBDDs) [3] and propose a particular coding for dynamicity. We show that our approach allows to solve some major questions in the field of DCSP, particularly consistency maintenance. This kind of problems is naturally expressed as a problem of optimal path computing in weighted graphs. Moreover, we shall see that the problem of finding optimal solutions can be solved easily and efficiently by our approach. One important problem in OBDD is the amount of memory required to represent the OBDD. In the worst case, this amount is in O(2N) where N is the number of propositional variables for static CSPs. We prove here that, if the number of dynamic constraints is m and if n is the number of variables in the problem, the size of OBDD is bounded by O(m×2n). First experimental results attest the interest of the approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Bessière. Arc-consistency for dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. AAAI, Anaheim, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Brewka. Prefered subtheories: An extended logical framwork for default reasoning. Proceedings of IJCAI 89, Detroit, USA, pages 1043–1048, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Bryant. Graph-based algorithhms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on computers, C-35:677–691, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Bryant. Symbolic boolean manipulation with ordered bdd. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol 24 No.3, September 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Cayrol, M.C. Lagasquie-Schiex, and T. Schiex. Non-monotonic reasoning: from complexity to algorithms. 4th International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, Fort Lauderdale, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. Cormen, C. Leiserson, and R. Rivest. Introduction to algorithms. MIT Press-McGraw-Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Corsini and A. Rauzy. Toupie user's manual. Technical report, LABRI, Université de Bordeaux I, France, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Coudert and J.C. Madre. A logically complete reasonning maintenance system based on a logical constraint solver. IJCAI91, I:294–299, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. De Kleer. A comparaison of atms and csps techniques. In IJCAI89, volume Detroit, USA, pages 290–296, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Dechter and A. Dechter. Belief maintenance in dynamic constraint networks. In AAAI, volume Saint Paul, USA, pages 37–42, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Janssen, P. Jégou, B. Nougier, M.C. Vilarem, and B. Castro. Synthia: Assited design of peptide synthesis plans. New Journal of Chemistry, 14-12:969–976, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P. Jégou. Using Binary Decision Diagrams to solve Dynamic CSPs: Preliminary Report. In Constraint Satisfacton issues raised by practical applications Workshop, editor, ECAI, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Lehmann. Another perspective on default reasoning. Technical report, Leibniz Center for Research in Computer Science. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U. Montanari. Networks of constaints: fundamental properties and applications to picture procesing. Information Sciences, 7:95–132, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Rauzy. Cedre version 0.2: user's guide. Technical report, LaBRI URA CNRS 1304, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Schiex and G. Verfaillie. Nogood recording for static and dynamic csps. In IEEE, editor, 5th IEEE International Conference on tools with Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N.R. Vempaty. Solving constraint satisfaction problems using finite state automata. AAAI, San Jose, USA:453–458, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrice Bouquet
    • 1
  • Philippe Jégou
    • 1
  1. 1.LIM - URA CNRS 1787 CMI - Université de ProvenceMarseille Cedex 13France

Personalised recommendations