Study of symmetry in qualitative temporal interval networks

  • BelaÏd Benhamou
  • Amar Isli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1480)


Symmetry has been studied in both propositional calculus and discrete constraint satisfaction problems. This has been shown to reduce considerably the search space. In this paper, we extend the study to qualitative interval networks. We provide experimental tests on the performances of a variant of Ladkin and Reinefeld's search algorithm in the following two cases: (1) the algorithm as provided by its authors, with no advantage of symmetry, and (2) the algorithm to which is added symmetry detection during the search. The experiments show that symmetries are profitable for hard problems.


Efficiency Temporal reasoning Constraint satisfaction Solution search 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J F Allen. Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 26(11):832–843, 1983.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B Benhamou. Study of symmetry in constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings PPCP, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B Benhamou and L Sais. Tractability through symmetries in propositional calculus. Automated Reasoning, 12:89–102, 1994.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S Benzer. On the topology of the genetic fine structure. Proceedings Nat. Acad. Sci., USA 45:1607–1620, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E C Freuder. Synthesizing constraint expressions. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 21:958–966, 1978.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E C Freuder. A sufficient condition for backtrack-free search. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 29:24–32, 1982.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    E C Freuder. Eliminating interchangeable values in constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the AAAI-91, pages 227–233, Anaheim, CA, 1991. AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J Gasching. Experimental case studies of backtrack vs. waltz-type vs. new algorithms for satisfying assignment problems. In Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pages 268–277, Toronto, Ont., 1978.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M C Golumbic and R Shamir. Complexity and algorithms for reasoning about time: a graph-theoretic approach. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 40(5):1108–1133, 1993.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    R M Haralick and G L Elliott. Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 14:263–313, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    A Haselbök. Exploiting interchangeabilities in constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-93, pages 282–287, Chambéry, France, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A Isli and H Bennaceur. Qualitative interval networks: combining path consistency and circuit consistency in the search for a solution. In Proceedings of the International Workshop of Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME-96), Key West, Florida, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P Ladkin and A Reinefeld. Effective solution of qualitative constraint problems. Artificial Intelligence, 57:105–124, 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A K Mackworth. Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8:99–118, 1977.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U Montanari. Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Information Sciences, 7:95–132, 1974.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    B Nebel. Solving hard qualitative temporal reasoning problems: Evaluating the efficiency of using the ord-horn class. CONSTRAINTS, 1(3):175–190, 1997.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G S Tseitin. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In Structures in the constructive Mathematics and Mathematical logic, pages 115–125. Shsenko, H A O, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R E Valdés-Pérez. The satisfiability of temporal constraint networks. In Proceedings of the AAAI-87, pages 256–260, Seattle, WA, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P van Beek. Reasoning about qualitative temporal information. Artificial Intelligence, 58:297–326, 1992.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    P van Beek and D M Manchak. The design and experimental analysis of algorithms for temporal reasoning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:1–18, 1996.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    M B Vilain and H Kautz. Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning. In Proceedings AAAI-86, Philadelphia, August 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M B Vilain, H Kautz, and P van Beek. Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning: A revised report. In Morgan Kaufmann, editor, Readings in Qualitative Reasoning about Physical Systems, pages 373–381, San Mateo, CA, 1990. Revised version of paper that appeared in Proceedings of AAAI-86, 377–382.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • BelaÏd Benhamou
    • 1
  • Amar Isli
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire d'Informatique de MarseilleCentre de Mathématiques et d'InformatiqueMarseille cedex 13France
  2. 2.School of Computer StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsEngland

Personalised recommendations