Skip to main content

Defining and Evaluating Heuristics for the Compilation of Constraint Networks

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10416))

Abstract

Several branching heuristics for compiling in a top-down fashion finite-domain constraint networks into multi-valued decision diagrams (MDD) or decomposable multi-valued decision graphs (MDDG) are empirically evaluated, using the cn2mddg compiler. This MDDG compiler has been enriched with various additional branching rules. These rules can be gathered into two families, the one consisting of heuristics for the satisfaction problem (which are suited to compiling networks into MDD representations) and the family of heuristics favoring decompositions (which are relevant when the MDDG language is targeted). Our empirical investigation on a large dataset shows the value of decomposability (targeting MDDG allows for compiling many more instances and leads to much smaller compiled representations). The well-known (Dom/Wdeg) heuristics appears as the best choice for compiling networks into MDD. When MDDG is the target, a new rule, based on a dynamic, yet parsimonious use of hypergraph partitioning for the decomposition purpose turns out to be the best option. As expected, the best heuristics for the satisfaction problem perform better than the best heuristics favoring decompositions when MDD is targeted, and the converse is the case when MDDG is targeted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    From www.cril.fr/~lecoutre/benchmarks.html, http://github.com/MiniZinc/minizinc-benchmarks, and www.itu.dk/research/cla/externals/clib/.

References

  1. Amilhastre, J., Fargier, H., Marquis, P.: Consistency restoration and explanations in dynamic CSPs application to configuration. Artif. Intell. 135(1–2), 199–234 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Amilhastre, J., Fargier, H., Niveau, A., Pralet, C.: Compiling CSPs: a complexity map of (non-deterministic) multivalued decision diagrams. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools 23(4) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bart, A., Koriche, F., Lagniez, J.M., Marquis, P.: An improved CNF encoding scheme for probabilistic inference. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2016, pp. 613–621 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bavelas, A.: Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 22(6), 725–730 (1950)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brandes, U.: A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J. Math. Soc. 25(2), 163–177 (2001)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Brandes, U.: On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Soc. Netw. 30(2), 136–145 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Catalyürek, U., Aykanat, C.: PaToH (Partitioning Tool for Hypergraphs), pp. 1479–1487. Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Darwiche, A.: Decomposable negation normal form. J. ACM 48(4), 608–647 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Darwiche, A.: New advances in compiling CNF into decomposable negation normal form. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2004, pp. 328–332 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Darwiche, A., Hopkins, M.: Using recursive decomposition to construct elimination orders, jointrees, and dtrees. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds.) ECSQARU 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2143, pp. 180–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). doi:10.1007/3-540-44652-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Edmonds, J., Karp, R.M.: Theoretical improvements in algorithmic efficiency for network flow problems. J. ACM 19(2), 248–264 (1972). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/321694.321699

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Fargier, H., Marquis, P.: On the use of partially ordered decision graphs in knowledge compilation and quantified Boolean formulae. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2006, pp. 42–47 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gergov, J., Meinel, C.: Efficient analysis and manipulation of OBDDs can be extended to FBDDs. IEEE Trans. Comput. 43(10), 1197–1209 (1994)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Girvan, M., Newman, M.E.J.: Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99(12), 7821–7826 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., Sais, L.: Boosting systematic search by weighting constraints. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2004, pp. 146–150 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Huang, J., Darwiche, A.: The language of search. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 29, 191–219 (2007)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Koriche, F., Lagniez, J.M., Marquis, P., Thomas, S.: Compiling constraint networks into multivalued decomposable decision graphs. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2015, pp. 332–338 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lecoutre, C., Sais, L., Tabary, S., Vidal, V.: Reasoning from last conflict(s) in constraint programming. Artif. Intell. 173(18), 1592–1614 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Marinescu, R., Dechter, R.: Dynamic orderings for AND/OR branch-and-bound search in graphical models. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2006, pp. 138–142 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Michel, L., Hentenryck, P.: Activity-based search for black-box constraint programming solvers. In: Beldiceanu, N., Jussien, N., Pinson, É. (eds.) CPAIOR 2012. LNCS, vol. 7298, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29828-8_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Narodytska, N., Walsh, T.: Constraint and variable ordering heuristics for compiling configuration problems. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2007, pp. 149–154 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oztok, U., Darwiche, A.: On compiling CNF into decision-DNNF. In: O’Sullivan, B. (ed.) CP 2014. LNCS, vol. 8656, pp. 42–57. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-10428-7_7

    Google Scholar 

  23. Refalo, P.: Impact-based search strategies for constraint programming. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) CP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3258, pp. 557–571. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30201-8_41

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Sang, T., Beame, P., Kautz, H.A.: Performing Bayesian inference by weighted model counting. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2005, pp. 475–482 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stoer, M., Wagner, F.: A simple min-cut algorithm. J. ACM 44(4), 585–591 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Marquis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lagniez, JM., Marquis, P., Paparrizou, A. (2017). Defining and Evaluating Heuristics for the Compilation of Constraint Networks. In: Beck, J. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10416. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66158-2_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66158-2_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66157-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66158-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics