Skip to main content

Indexical-Based Solver Learning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2002 (CP 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2470))

Abstract

The pioneering works of Apt and Monfroy, and Abdennadher and Rigotti have shown that the construction of rule-based solvers can be automated using machine learning techniques. Both works implement the solver as a set of CHRs. But many solvers use the more specialized chaotic iteration of operators as operational semantics and not CHR’s rewriting semantics. In this paper, we first define a language-independent framework for operator learning and then we apply it to the learning of partial arc-consistency operators for a subset of the indexical language of Gnu-Prolog and show the effectiveness of our approach by two implementations. On tested examples, Gnu-Prolog solvers are learned from their original constraints and powerful propagators are found for user-defined constraints.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. S. Abdennadher and C. Rigotti. Automatic generation of propagation rules for finite domains. In Rina Dechter, editor, Constraint Programming, volume 1894 of LNCS, pages 18–34, Singapore, 2000. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Abdennadher and C. Rigotti. Towards inductive constraint solving. In Toby Walsh, editor, Constraint Programming, volume 2239 of LNCS, pages 31–45. Springer, Nov 26–Dec 1 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. R. Apt. The essence of constraint propagation. Theoretical Computer Science, 221(1-2):179–210, 1999.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. K. R. Apt and E. Monfroy. Automatic generation of constraint propagation algorithms for small finite domains. In Constraint Programming CP’99, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. R. Apt and E. Monfroy. Constraint programming viewed as rule-based programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 1(6):713–750, 2001.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Michel Bergère, Thi Bich Hanh Dao, AbdelAli Ed-Dbali, Gérard Ferrand, Arnaud Lallouet, Andrei Legtchenko, Lionel Martin, and Christel Vrain. Learning interval bounds of indexical-based solvers. Research Report RR-LIFO-2002-07, LIFO, Université d’Orléans, BP 6759, F-45067 Orléans Cedex 2, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Stephano Bistarelli, Ugo Montanari, and Francesca Rossi. Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of the ACM, 44(2):201–236, March 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mats Carlsson, Greger Ottosson, and Björ Carlson. An open-ended finite domain constraint solver. In Hugh Glaser, Pieter H. Hartel, and Herbert Kuchen, editors, Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics, and Programs, volume 1292 of LNCS, pages 191–206, Southampton, UK, September 3-5 1997. Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Philippe Codognet and Daniel Diaz. A minimal extension of the wam for clp(fd). In David Scott Warren, editor, International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 774–790, Budapest, Hungary, June 21-25 1993. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Philippe Codognet and Daniel Diaz. Compiling constraints in clp(fd). Journal of Logic Programming, 27(3):185–226, 1996.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Daniel Diaz and Philippe Codognet. Design and implementation of the gnu prolog system. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming, 2001(6), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mehmet Dincbas, P. Van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, A. Aggoun, and A. Herold. The CHIP System: Constraint Handling in Prolog. In Ewing Lusk and Ross Overbeek, editors, 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, Argonne, May 1988. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  13. François Fages, Julian Fowler, and Thierry Sola. Experiments in reactive constraint logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1-3):185–212, 1998.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Thom Früwirth. Theory and practice of Constraint Handling Rules. Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1-3):95–138, 1998.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Joxan Jaffar, Spiro Michaylov, Peter J. Stuckey, and Roland H. C. Yap. The CLP(R) language and system. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 14(3):339–395, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. François Laburthe and the OCRE project. Choco: implementing a CP kernel. In TRICS, Techniques foR Implementing Constraint programming Systems, CP 2000 post-conference workshop, Technical report TRA9/00, Singapore, sep 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Thierry Le Provost and Mark Wallace. Generalized constraint propagation over the CLP Scheme. Journal of Logic Programming, 16:319–359, 1993.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Jean-Francois Puget and Michel Leconte. Beyond the glass box: Constraints as objects. In John W. Lloyd, editor, International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 513–527, Portland, Oregon, 1995. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jean-Charles Régin. A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in csps. In AAAI, National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 362–367, Seattle, WA, USA,, 1994. AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Edward Tsang. Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. P. van Hentenryck, V. Saraswat, and Y. Deville. Constraint processing in cc(fd). draft, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  22. V. N. Vapnik. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer, New York, 1995.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Neng-Fa Zhou. A high-level intermediate language and the algorithms for compiling finite-domain constraints. In Joxan Jaffar, editor, Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pages 70–84, Manchester, UK, 15-19 June 1998. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dao, T.B.H., Lallouet, A., Legtchenko, A., Martin, L. (2002). Indexical-Based Solver Learning. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2002. CP 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46135-3_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46135-3_36

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44120-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46135-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics