Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying and Exploiting Problem Structures Using Explanation-based Constraint Programming

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Identifying structures in a given combinatorial problem is often a key step for designing efficient search heuristics or for understanding the inherent complexity of the problem. Several Operations Research approaches apply decomposition or relaxation strategies upon such a structure identified within a given problem. The next step is to design algorithms that adaptively integrate that kind of information during search. We claim in this paper, inspired by previous work on impact-based search strategies for constraint programming, that using an explanation-based constraint solver may lead to collect invaluable information on the intimate dynamically revealed and static structures of a problem instance. Moreover, we discuss how dedicated OR solving strategies (such as Benders decomposition) could be adapted to constraint programming when specific relationships between variables are exhibited.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Achlioptas, D., Kirousis, L., Kranakis, E., Krizanc, D., Molloy, M., & Stamatiou, Y. (1997). Random constraint satisfaction: A more accurate picture. In Proceedings CP 1997, pages 121–135. Linz, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benders, J. F. (1962). Partitionning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Numerische Mathematik, 4: 238–252.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bessière, C., Chmeiss, A., & Sais, L. (2001). Neighborhood-based variable ordering heuristics for the constraint satisfaction problem. In Proceedings CP’01, Paphos, Cyprus, pages 565–569.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bessiere, C., & Régin, J.-C. (1996). MAC and combined heuristics: Two reasons to forsake FC (and CBJ?) on hard problems. In Proceeding CP’96, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pages 61–75.

  5. Boussemart, F., Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., & Sais, L. (2004). Boosting systematic search by weighting constraints. In Proceedings ECAI’04, pages 482–486.

  6. Cabon, B., de Givry, S., Lobjois, L., Schiex, T., & Warners, J.P. (1999). Radio link frequency assignment. Constraints Journal, 4: 79–89.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cambazard, H., Hladik, P.-E., Déplanche, A.-M., Jussien, N., & Trinquet, Y. (2004). Decomposition and learning for a real time task allocation problem. In Proceedings CP 2004, Toronto, Canada, pages 153–167.

  8. Cambazard, H., & Jussien, N. (2005). Integrating benders decomposition within constraint programming. In Proceedings CP 2005, Sitges, Spain, pages 752–756.

  9. Cleuziou, G., Martin, L., & Vrain, C. (2003). Disjunctive learning with a soft-clustering method. In ILP’03:13th International Conference on Inductive Logic Programming LNCS, Szeged, Hungary, pages 75–92.

  10. Geoffrion, A. M. (1972). Generalized benders decomposition. Journal of Optimization Theory And Practice 10(4): 237–260.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghoniem, M., Jussien, N., & Fekete, J.-D. (2004). VISEXP: Visualizing constraint solver dynamics using explanations. In Proceedings FLAIRS’04. Miami, Florida.

  12. Gomes, C. P., Selman, B., & Crato, N. (1997). Heavy-tailed distributions in combinatorial search. In Proceeding CP 1997, pages 121–135. Linz, Austria.

  13. Haralick, R. & Elliot, G. (1980). Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 14(9): 263–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hooker, J. N., & Ottosson, G. (2003). Logic-based benders decomposition. Mathematical Programming, 96: 33–60.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Jain, V., & Grossmann, I. E. (2001). Algorithms for hybrid milp/cp models for a class of opti- mization problems. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 13: 258–276.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Jussien, N. (2003). The Versatility of Using Explanations within Constraint Programming. Habilitation thesis, Université de Nantes, France. (Also available as RR-03-04 research report at École des Mines de Nantes).

  17. Jussien, N., & Barichard, V. (2000). The PaLM system: Explanation-based constraint programming. In Proceedings of TRICS: Techniques for Implementing Constraint Programming Systems, a Post-conference Workshop of CP 2000, Singapore, pages 118–133.

  18. Jussien, N., Debruyne, R., & Boizumault, P. (2000). Maintaining arc-consistency within dynamic backtracking. In Proceedings CP 2000, Singapore, pages 249–261. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jussien, N., & Lhomme, O. (2002). Local search with constraint propagation and conflict-based heuristics. Artificial Intelligence, 139(1): 21–45.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Monasson, R., Zecchina, R., Kirkpatrick, S., Selman, B., & Troyanski, L. (1999). Determining computational complexity for characteristic ‘phase transitions.’ Nature, 400: 133–137.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Prosser, P. (2005). MAC-CBJ: Maintaining arc-consistency with conflict-directed back-jumping. Research report 95/177. Glasgow, UK: Department of Computer Science—University of Strathclyde.

  22. Prosser, P., Stergiou, K., & Walsh, T. (2000). Singleton consistencies. In R. Dechter (Ed.), Proceedings CP 2000, Singapore, pages 353–368.

  23. Refalo, P. (2004). Impact-based search strategies for constraint programming. In Proceedings CP 2004, Toronto, Canada, pages 556–571.

  24. Régin, J.-C. (1994). A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In AAAI 94, Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, pages 362–367.

  25. Williams, R., Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2003). On the connections between backdoors, restarts, and heavy-tails on combinatorial search. In The International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT).

  26. Williams, R., Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2003). Backdoors to typical case complexity. In Proceedings International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. École des Mines de Nantes, LINA CNRS FRE 2729, 4 rue Alfred Kastler, BP 20722, F-44307, Nantes Cedex 3, France

    Hadrien Cambazard & Narendra Jussien

Authors
  1. Hadrien Cambazard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Narendra Jussien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hadrien Cambazard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cambazard, H., Jussien, N. Identifying and Exploiting Problem Structures Using Explanation-based Constraint Programming. Constraints 11, 295–313 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-006-9002-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-006-9002-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation