Exploiting the Constrainedness in Constraint Satisfaction Problems

  • Miguel A. Salido
  • Federico Barber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3192)


Nowadays, many real problem in Artificial Intelligence can be modeled as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). A general rule in constraint satisfaction is to tackle the hardest part of a search problem first. In this paper, we introduce a parameter (τ) that measures the constrainedness of a search problem. This parameter represents the probability of the problem being feasible. A value of τ= 0 corresponds to an over-constrained problem and no states are expected to be solutions. A value of τ=1 corresponds to an under-constrained problem which every state is a solution. This parameter can also be used in a heuristic to guide search. To achieve this parameter, a sample in finite population is carried out to compute the tightnesses of each constraint. We take advantage of this tightnesses to classify the constraints from the tightest constraint to the loosest constraint. This heuristic may accelerate the search due to inconsistencies can be found earlier and the number of constraint checks can significantly be reduced.


Constraint Satisfaction Problems complexity heuristic search 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bartak, R.: Constraint programming. In: pursuit of the holy grail. In: Proceedings of WDS 1999 (invited lecture), Prague (June 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dechter, R., Pearl, J.: Network-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 34, 1–38 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gent, I.P., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Walsh, T.: The constrainedness of search. In: Proceedings of AAAI 1996, pp. 246–252 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gent, I.P., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Walsh, T.: The constrainedness of arc consistency. Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 327–340 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haralick, R., Elliot, G.: Increasing tree efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14, 263–314 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, V.: Algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems: a survey. Artificial Intelligence Magazine 1, 32–44 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadeh, N., Fox, M.S.: Variable and value ordering heuristics for activity-based jobshop scheduling. In: Proc. of Fourth International Conference on Expert Systems in Production and Operations Management, pp. 134–144 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salido, M.A., Giret, A., Barber, F.: Distributing Constraints by Sampling in Non-Binary CSPs. In: IJCAI Workshop on Distributing Constraint Reasoning, pp. 79–87 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wallace, R., Freuder, E.: Ordering heuristics for arc consistency algorithms. In: Proc. of Ninth Canad. Conf. on A.I., pp. 163–169 (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Walsh, T.: The constrainedness knife-edge. In: Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on AI (AAAI 1998), pp. 406–411 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waltz, D.L.: Understanding line drawings of scenes with shadows. The Psychology of Computer Vision, 19–91 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel A. Salido
    • 1
  • Federico Barber
    • 2
  1. 1.Dpto. Ciencias de la Computación e Inteligencia ArtificialUniversidad de AlicanteAlicanteSpain
  2. 2.Dpto. Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUniversidad Politécnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations