Advertisement

The constrainedness of Arc consistency

  • Ian P. Gent
  • Ewan MacIntyre
  • Patrick Prosser
  • Paul Shaw
  • Toby Walsh
Session 5b
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1330)

Abstract

We show that the same methodology used to study phase transition behaviour in NP-complete problems works with a polynomial problem class: establishing arc consistency. A general measure of the constrainedness of an ensemble of problems, used to locate phase transitions in random NP-complete problems, predicts the location of a phase transition in establishing arc consistency. A complexity peak for the AC3 algorithm is associated with this transition. Finite size scaling models both the scaling of this transition and the computational cost. On problems at the phase transition, this model of computational cost agrees with the theoretical worst case. As with NP-complete problems, constrainedness — and proxies for it which are cheaper to compute — can be used as a heuristic for reducing the number of checks needed to establish arc consistency in AC3.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Michael N. Barber. Finite-size scaling. In Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Volume 8, pages 145–266. Academic Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Bessière. Arc-consistency and arc-consistency again. Artificial Intelligence, 65:179–190, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Bollobas. Random Graphs. Academic Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Cheeseman, B. Kanefsky, and W.M. Taylor. Where the really hard problems are. In Proceedings of IJCAI-91, pages 331–337, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. Chvatal and B. Reed. Mick gets some (the odds are on his side). In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 620–627. IEEE, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I.P. Gent, E. MacIntyre, P. Prosser, and T. Walsh. Scaling effects in the CSP phase transition. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-95), pages 70–87. Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    I.P. Gent, E. MacIntyre, P. Prosser, and T. Walsh. The constrainedness of search. In Proceedings of AAAI-96, pages 246–252, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    I.P. Gent, E. MacIntyre, P. Prosser, and T. Walsh. The scaling of search cost. In Proceedings of AAAI-97, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I.P. Gent and T. Walsh. Phase transitions and annealed theories: Number partitioning as a case study. In Proceedings of ECAI-96, pages 170–174, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.A. Grant and B.M. Smith. The arc and path consistency phase transitions. Report 96.09, Research Report Series, School of Computer Studies, University of Leeds, March 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Kirkpatrick and B. Selman. Critical behavior in the satisfiability of random boolean expressions. Science, 264:1297–1301, May 27 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A.K. Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8:99–118, 1977.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.K. Mackworth and E.C. Freuder. The complexity of some polynomial network consistency algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 25:65–74, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Mitchell, B. Selman, and H. Levesque. Hard and easy distributions of SAT problems. In Proceedings of AAAI-92, pages 459–465. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Mohr and T.C. Henderson. Arc and path consistency revisited. Artificial Intelligence, 28:225–233, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Nudel. Consistent-labeling problems and their algorithms: Expectedcomplexities and theory-based heuristics. Artificial Intelligence, 21:135–178, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Sabin and E.C. Freuder. Contradicting conventional wisdom in constraint satisfaction. In Proceedings of ECAI-94, pages 125–129, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Schiex, J-C. Régin, C. Gaspin and G. Verfaille. Lazy Arc Consistency. In Proceedings of AAAI-96, pages 216–221, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Selman and S. Kirkpatrick. Critical behavior in the computational cost of satisfiability testing. Artificial Intelligence, 81:273–295, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    B.M. Smith and M.E. Dyer. Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 81:155–181, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E.P.K. Tsang. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.J. Wallace. Why AC-3 is almost always better than AC-4 for establishing arc consistency in CSPs. In Proceedings of IJCAI-93, pages 239–245, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R.J. Wallace and E.C. Freuder. Ordering heuristics for arc consistency algorithms. In Proc. Ninth Canada Conf. on AI, pages 163–169, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian P. Gent
    • 1
  • Ewan MacIntyre
    • 1
  • Patrick Prosser
    • 1
  • Paul Shaw
    • 1
  • Toby Walsh
    • 1
  1. 1.The APES Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations