Constraint (Logic) Programming - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 63
About This Presentation
Title:

Constraint (Logic) Programming

Description:

Constraint (Logic) Programming An overview Boolean Constraint Propagation Finite Domains and Constraint Networks Consistency Criteria Maintaning Node Consistency – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:126
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 64
Provided by: ssdiDiFc9
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Constraint (Logic) Programming


1
Constraint (Logic) Programming
  • An overview
  • Boolean Constraint Propagation
  • Finite Domains and Constraint Networks
  • Consistency Criteria
  • Maintaning Node Consistency
  • Maintaining Arc Consistency
  • Dech04 Rina Dechter, Constraint Processing,

2
Boolean Satisfiability
  • In most Boolean problems, the use of a complete
    solver is quite innefficient, since it maintains
    the set of all solutions in a solved form.
  • Alternatively, a Boolean satisfiability problem
    may be solved, usually much more efficiently, by
    searching for a solution.
  • In this case, two alternatives are available,
    with respect to the role of constraints
  • Constraints are used passively. Once the variable
    appearing in the constraint are instantiated, the
    constraint is checked. If it is not satisfied,
    the search backtracks.
  • Constraints are used actively, to reduce the
    domain of the variables still to instantiate.
  • These alternatives are illustrated by modelling
    all constraints as clauses.

3
Boolean Clauses
  • Syntatically,
  • A literal ? variable or its negation
  • Variables are denoted by upper case identifiers,
    and negation with ?.
  • A clause ? set of literals.
  • Clauses are represented with the disjunction
    operator, e.g. A ? ?B ? C
  • A Boolean Satisfiabilty Problem ? set of
    clauses.
  • Semantically,
  • Boolean variables may take values True / False
    (or T / F or 1 / 0).
  • A negation ? reverses, of course, this value.
  • A clause is interpreted as a disjunction of
    literals. Hence, a clause is satisfied if at
    least one of its literals takes value True.
  • Solving a problem corresponds to find values to
    the variables such that all clauses are
    satisfied.

4
Search Tree
  • Every problem may be represented as a (search)
    tree, where each node has two children,
    corresponding to a variable and its negation not
    appearing in the path from the root to the node.
  • A solution of the problem, a complete asignment
    of T/F values to all variables, corresponds to a
    path from the root to a leaf, that satisfies all
    constraints.
  • The search process may be implemented by
    traversing the search tree.
  • A complete search will visit (if necessary) all
    leafs.

5
Search Tree
  • A generate and test approach to constraint
    solving will visit all leafs (generate potential
    solutions) and test the satisfiability of all
    clauses for the corresponding assignments of
    values to variables.
  • Search may be improved by backtracking at each
    node (not only in the leafs) the clauses with
    variables defined are tested for satisfiability.
  • In this form, by testing incomplete solutions,
    backtracking avoids the completion of many
    impossible partial solutions.

c1 ?A ? B c2 ?A ? C c3 ?B ? ?C
6
Search Tree
  • Still, backtracking handles constraints
    passively. First values are assigned to
    variables, and then constraints (clauses) are
    tested.
  • Alternatively, constraints are handled actively
    with constraint propagation.
  • In the Boolean Constraint Propagation (BCP)
  • when all literals but one of a clause are
    assigned False, then the clause becomes active
    and propagates the remaining literal is assigned
    True.

c1 ?A ? B c2 ?A ? C c3 ?B ? ?C
7
Boolean Constraint Propagation
  • This propagation can be noticed in the 4-queens
    problem. Here are some examples
  • Propagate a 0-assignment
  • Propagate a 1

X21 ? X22 ? X23 ? X24 ? X24 ? 1
8
Boolean Constraint Propagation
  • Here is the complete search process with
    constraint propagation
  • Assign X11 Propagate X23 Propagate
  • X24 Propagate Propagate
  • X12 Propagate Propagate Propagate
    Propagate

Fail ! X31 ? X32 ? X33 ? X34 Backtrack X23
Fail ! X41 ? X42 ? X43 ? X44 Backtrack X24
9
Boolean Clauses in SICStus
  • SICStus does not provide any constraint solver
    for the satisfiability of Boolean clauses (SAT).
  • Nevertheless, it can be easily implemented as an
    instance of a finite domains solver, where the
    domain of the variables are 0,1.
  • A clause is thus converted into an inequality
    constraint over an arithmetic expression. An
    example illustrates this modelling
  • Clause X ? ?Y ? Z
  • ? X (1-Y) Z ? 1 ? X Y Z ? 0
  • Propagation 1 X 0, Y 1 ? 0-1Z ? 0
    ? Z ? 1 ? Z ? 1
  • Propagation 2 X 0, Z 0 ? 0-Y0 ? 0
    ? Y ? 0 ? Y ? 0
  • (see details in queens4_sat_fd.pl)

10
Why Finite Domains ?
  • In most problems, and notwithstanding the
    theoretical and practical interest in SAT,
    problems are more naturally specified with
    variables whose domain is not restricted to 0/1
    values, but may take a finite set of values.
  • In particular, the N queens problem is more
    easily programmed with n variables, one for
    each row, whose value denotes the column that the
    queen of that row must be in. The values allowed
    are, of course, the number of the column, i.e.
    integers from 1 to n.
  • Such specification, not only is more natural, but
    it also may lead to a substantial increase in the
    efficiency of the solving process.
  • Finite Domain encodings of problems where n
    variables can take k different values implement a
    search space with a substantially different size
    from the corresponding Boolean coding where each
    value is represented by a distinct Boolean
    variable.

11
Why Finite Domains ?
  • To compare the search spaces of Boolean and
    Finite Domain encodings for problems where n
    variables can take k different values we note
    that
  • Boolean Encodings - kn boolean variables (
    0/1).
  • Search Space 2kn.
  • Finite Domains - n variables each with k possible
    values
  • Search Space kn
  • Ratio of the Search Spaces
  • r 2kn / 2log2kn 2 (k-log2(k))n
  • For example, in the N-queens problem, we have
  • n 8 ? k 8, and r2(8-3)8 240 ? 1012
  • n 16 ? k 16, and r2(16-4)16 2192 ? 1058

12
Finite Domains
  • Of course, the ratio of the search spaces that
    are actually searched is not so large, namely due
    to constraint propagation. Still, the differences
    may be quite significant.
  • The efficiency of the CLP programs over finite
    domains (including the Boolean case) may still be
    improved by making use of
  • Adequate Propagation Algorithms
  • Appropriate Heuristics for selection of the
    Variable to label and the Value to assign
  • Before investigating these issues, a number of
    concepts are introduced
  • Constraints and Constraint Network
  • Partial and Total Solutions
  • Satisfaction and Consistency

13
Basic Concepts Domains
  • Definition (Domain of a Variable)
  • The domain of a variable is the (finite) set of
    values that can be assigned to that variable.
  • Given some variable X, its domain will be usually
    referred to as dom(X) or, simply, Dx.
  • Example The N queens problem may be modelled by
    means of N variables, X1 to Xn, all with the
    domain from 1 to n.
  • Dom(Xi) 1,2, ..., n or
    Xi 1..n.

14
Basic Concepts Labels
  • To formalise the notion of the state of a
    variable (i.e. its assignment with one of the
    values in its domain) we have the following
  • Definition (Label)
  • A label is a Variable-Value pair, where the Value
    is one of the elements of the domain of the
    Variable.
  • The notion of a partial solution, in which some
    of the variables of the problem have already
    assigned values, is captured by the following
  • Definition (Compound Label)
  • A compound label is a set of labels with distinct
    variables.

15
Basic Concepts Constraints
  • We come now to the formal definition of a
    constraint
  • Definition (Constraint)
  • Given a set of variables, a constraint is a set
    of compound labels on these variables.
  • Alternatively, a constraint may be defined simply
    as a relation, i.e. a subset of the cartesian
    product of the domains of the variables involved
    in that constraint.
  • For example, given a constraint Rijk involving
    variables Xi, Xj and Xk, then
  • Rijk ? dom(Xi) x dom(Xj) x dom(Xk)

16
Basic Concepts Constraints
  • Given a constraint C, the set of variables
    involved in that constraint is denoted by
    vars(C).
  • Simetrically, the set of constraints in which
    variable X participates is denoted by cons(X).
  • Notice that a constraint is a relation, not a
    function, so that it is always Cij Cji.
  • In practice, constraints may be specified by
  • Extension through an explicit enumeration of the
    allowed compound labels
  • Intension through some predicate (or procedure)
    that determines the allowed compound labels.

17
Basic Concepts Constraint Definition
  • For example, the constraint C13 involving X1 and
    X3 in the 4-queens problem, may be specified
  • By extension (label form)
  • C13 X1-1,X3-2,X1-1,X3-4,X1-2,X3-1,X1-2,
    X3-3,
  • X1-3,X3-2,X1-3,X3-4,X1-4,X3-1,X1-4,X3-3
    .
  • or, in tuple (relational) form, omitting the
    variables
  • C13 lt1,2gt,lt1,4gt,lt2,1gt,lt2,3gt,lt3,2gt,lt3,4gt,lt4,1gt,
    lt4,3gt.
  • By intension
  • C13 (X1 ? X3) ? (1X1 ? 3X3) ? (3X1 ?
    1X3).

18
Basic Concepts Constraint Arity
  • Definition (Constraint Arity)
  • The constraint arity of some constraint C is the
    number of variables over which the constraint is
    defined, i.e. the cardinality of the set Vars(C).
  • Despite the fact that constraints may have an
    arbitrary arity, an important subset of the
    constraints is the set of binary constraints.
  • The importance of such constraints is two fold
  • All constraints may be converted into binary
    constraints
  • A number of concepts and algorithms are
    appropriate for these constraints.

19
Basic Concepts Binary Constraints
  • Conversion to Binary Constraints
  • An n-ary constraint, C, defined by k compound
    labels on its variables X1 to Xn, is equivalent
    to n binary constraints, C0i, through the
    addition of a new variable, X0, whose domain is
    the set 1 to k.
  • In practice,
  • The k n-ary labels may be sorted in some
    arbitrary order.
  • Each of the n binary constraints C0i relates the
    new variable X0 with the variable Xi.
  • The compound label Xi-vi, X0-j belongs to
    constraint C0i iff Xi-vi belongs to the j-th
    compound label that defines C.

20
Basic Concepts Binary Constraints
  • Example
  • Given variables X1 to X3, with domains 1..3, the
    following ternary constraint C is composed of 6
    labels..
  • C(X1, X2, X3) lt1,2,3gt,lt1,3,2gt,lt2,1,3gt,lt2,3,1gt
    ,lt3,1,2gt,lt3,2,1gt
  • Each of the labels may be associated to a value
    from 1 to 6
  • 1 lt1,2,3gt, 2 lt1,3,2gt, ... , 6 lt3,2,1gt
  • Now, the following binary constraints, C01 to
    C03, are equivalent to the initial ternary
    constraint C
  • C01(X0, X1) lt1,1gt, lt2,1gt, lt3,2gt, lt4,2gt,
    lt5,3gt, lt6,3gt
  • C02(X0, X2) lt1,2gt, lt2,3gt, lt3,1gt, lt4,3gt,
    lt5,1gt, lt6,2gt
  • C03(X0, X3) lt1,3gt, lt2,2gt, lt3,3gt, lt4,1gt,
    lt5,2gt, lt6,1gt

21
Basic Concepts Constraint Satisfaction
  • Definition (Constraint Satisfaction 1)
  • A compound label satisfies a constraint if their
    variables are the same and if the compound label
    is a member of the constraint.
  • In practice, it is convenient to generalise
    constraint satisfaction to compound labels that
    strictly contain the constraint variables.
  • Definition (Constraint Satisfaction 2)
  • A compound label satisfies a constraint if its
    variables contain the constraint variables and
    the projection of the compound label to these
    variables is a member of the constraint.

22
Basic Concepts Constraint Satisfaction Problem
  • Definition (Constraint Satisfaction Problem)
  • A constraint satisfaction problem is a triple
    ltV, D, Cgt where
  • V is the set of variables of the problem
  • D is the domain(s) of its variables
  • C is the set of constraints of the problem
  • Definition (Problem Solution)
  • A solution to a Constraint Satisfaction Problem
    P ltV, D, Cgt, is a compound label over the
    variables V of the problem, which satisfies all
    constraints in C.

23
Basic Concepts Constraint Graph
  • For convenience, the constraints of a problem may
    be considered as forming a special graph.
  • Definition (Constraint Graph or Constraint
    Network)
  • The Constraint Graph or Constraint Network of a
    binary constraint satisfaction problem is defined
    as follows
  • There is a node for each of the variables of the
    problem.
  • For each non-trivial constraint of the problem,
    involving one or two variables, the graph
    contains an arc linking the corresponding nodes.
  • When the problems include constraints with
    arbitrary arity, the Constraint Network may be
    formed after converting these constraints on its
    binary equivalent.

24
Basic Concepts Constraint Hyper-Graph
  • When it is not convenient to convert n-ary
    constraints to their binary equivalent, the
    problem may be represented by an hiper-graph.
  • Definition (Constraint Hyper-Graph)
  • Any constraint satisfaction problem with
    arbitrary n-ary constraints may be represented
    by a Constraints Hiper-Graph formed as follows
  • There is a node for each of the variables of the
    problem.
  • For each constraint of the problem, the graph
    contains an hiper-arc linking the corresponding
    nodes.
  • Of course, when the problem has only binary
    constraints, the hiper-graph degenerates into the
    simpler graph.

25
Example 4-Queens
  • Example
  • The 4 queens problem may be specified by the
    following constraint network

C13 lt1,2gt, lt1,4gt, lt2,1gt, lt2,3gt, lt3,2gt, lt3,4gt,
lt4,1gt, lt4,3gt
26
Basic Definitions Graph Density
  • Definition (Complete Constraint Network)
  • A constraint netwok is complete, when there is
    an arc connecting any two nodes of the graph
    (i.e. when there is a constraint over any pair of
    variables).
  • The 4 queens problem (in fact, any n queens
    problem) has a complete graph.
  • However, this is often not the case most graphs
    are sparse. In this case, it is important to
    measure the density of the constraint network.
  • Definition (Density of a Constraint Graph)
  • The density of a constraint graph is the ratio
    between the number of its arcs and the number of
    arcs of a complete graph on the same number of
    nodes

27
Basic Definitions Problem Difficulty
  • In principle, the difficulty of a constraint
    problem is related to the density of its graph.
  • Intuitively, the denser the graph is, the more
    difficult the problem becomes, since there are
    more opportunities to invalidate a compound
    label.
  • It is important to distinguish between the
    difficulty of a problem and the difficulty of
    solving the problem.
  • In particular, a difficult problem may be so
    difficult that it is trivial to find it to be
    impossible!
  • The difficulty of a problem is also related to
    the difficulty of satisfying each of its
    constraints. Such difficulty may be measured
    through its tightness.

28
Basic Definitions Constraint Tightness
  • Definition (Tightness of a Constraint)
  • Given a constraint C on variables X1 ... Xn,
    with domains D1 to Dn, the tightness of C is
    defined as the ratio between the number of labels
    that define the constraint and the size (i.e. the
    cardinality) of the cartesian product D1 x D2 x
    .. Dn.
  • For example, the tightness of constraint C13 of
    the 4 queens problem, on variables X1 and X3 with
    domains 1..4
  • C13 lt1,2gt, lt1,4gt, lt2,1gt, lt2,3gt, lt3,2gt,
    lt3,4gt, lt4,1gt, lt4,3gt
  • is ½, since there are 8 tuples in the relation
    out of the possible 16 (44).
  • The notion of tightness may be generalised for
    the whole problem.

29
Basic Definitions Problem Tightness
  • Definition (Tightness of a Problem)
  • The tightness of a constraint satisfaction
    problem with variables X1 ... Xn, is the ratio
    between the number of its solutions and the
    cardinality of the cartesian product
  • D1 x D2 x .. Dn.
  • For example, the 4 queens problem, that has only
    two solutions lt2,4,1,3gt and lt3,1,4,2gt
  • has tightness 2/(4444) 1/128.

30
Basic Definitions Problem Solving Difficulty
  • The difficulty in solving a constraint
    satisfaction problem is related both with the
  • The density of its graph and
  • Its tightness.
  • As such, when testing algorithms to solve this
    type of problems, it is usual to generate random
    problem instances, parameterised not only by the
    number of variables and the size of their
    domains, but also by the density of its graph and
    the tightness of its constraints.
  • The study of these issues has led to the
    conclusion that constraint satisfaction problems
    often exhibit a phase transition, which should be
    taken into account in the study of the
    algorithms.
  • This phase transition typically contains the most
    difficult instances of the problem, and separates
    the instances that are trivially satisfied from
    those that are trivially insatisfiable.

31
Basic Definitions Problem Solving Difficulty
  • For example, in SAT, it has been found that the
    phase transition occurs when the ration of
    clauses to variables is around 4.3.

32
Basic Definitions Redundancy
  • Another issue to consider in the difficulty of
    solving a constraint satisfaction problem is the
    potential existence of redundant values and
    labels in its constraints.
  • Definition (Redundant Value)
  • A value in the domain of a variable is redundant,
    if it does not appear in any solution of the
    problem.
  • Definition (Redundant Label)
  • A compound label of a constraint is redundant if
    it is not the projection to the constraint
    variables of a solution to the whole problem.
  • Redundant values and labels increase the search
    space useless, and should thus be avoided. There
    is no point in testing a value that does not
    appear in any solution !

33
Basic Definitions Redundancy
  • Example
  • The 4 queens problem only admits two solutions
  • lt2,4,1,3gt and lt3,1,4,2gt.
  • Hence, values 1 and 4 are redundant in the domain
    of variables X1 and X4, and values 2 and 3 are
    redundant in the domain of variables X2 and X3.
  • Regarding redundant labels, labels lt2,3gt (shown
    in the figure) and lt3,2gt are redundant in
    constraint C13.

34
Basic Definitions Redundancy
  • Example
  • The 4 queens problem, which only admits the two
    solutions lt2,4,1,3gt and lt3,1,4,2gt may be
    simplified by elimination of the redundant
    values and labels.

C13 lt1,2gt, lt1,4gt, lt2,1gt, lt2,3gt, lt3,2gt, lt3,4gt,
lt4,1gt, lt4,3gt
35
Basic Definitions Equivalent Problems
  • Of course, any problem should be equivalent to
    any of its simplified versions. Formally,
  • Definition (Equivalent Problems)
  • Two problems P1 ltV1, D1, C1gt and P2 ltV2, D2,
    C2gt are equivalent iff they have the same
    variables (i.e. V1 V2) and the same set of
    solutions.
  • The simplification of a problem may also be
    formalised
  • Definition (Reduced Problem)
  • A problem PltV,D,Cgt is reduced to PltV, D,
    Cgt if
  • P and P are equivalent
  • The domains D are included in D and
  • The constraints C are at least as restrictive as
    those in C.

36
Constraint Solving Methods
  • As shown before, and independently of any problem
    reduction, a generate and test procedure to solve
    a Constraint Satisfaction Problem is usually very
    inneficient.
  • Nevertheless, this is the approach taken in local
    search methods (simulated annealing or genetic
    algorithms) although mostly in an optimisation
    context !
  • It is thus often preferable to use a solving
    method that is constructive and incremental,
    whereby a compound label is being completed
    (constructive), one variable at a time
    (incremental), until a solution is reached.
  • However, one must check that at every step in the
    construction of a solution the resulting label
    has still the potential to reach a complete
    solution.

37
Constraint Solving Methods
  • Ideally, a compound label should be the
    projection of some problem solution.
  • Unfortunately, in the process of solving a
    problem, its solutions are not known yet!
  • Hence, one must use a notion weaker than that of
    a (complete) solution, namely
  • Definition (k-Partial Solution)
  • A k-partial solution of a constraint solving
    problem P ltV,D,Cgt, is a compound label on a
    subset of k of its variables, Vk, that satisfies
    all the constraints in C whose variables are
    included in Vk.

38
Constructive Solving Methods
  • This is of course, the basis of the solving
    methods that use some form of backtracking. If
    conveniently performed, backtracking may be
    regarded as a tree search, where the partial
    solutions correspond to the internal nodes of the
    tree and complete solutions to its leaves.

39
Problem Search Space
  • Clearly, the more a problem is reduced, the
    easier it is, in principle, to solve it.
  • Given a problem PltV,D,Cgt with n variables
    X1,..,Xn the potential search space where
    solutions can be found (i.e. the leaves of the
    search tree with compound labels ltX1-v1gt, ...,
    ltXn-vngt) has cardinality
  • S D1 D2 ... Dn
  • Assuming identical cardinality (or some kind of
    average of the domains size) for all the variable
    domains, (Di d) the search space has
    cardinality
  • S dn
  • which is exponential on the size n of the
    problem.

40
Problem Search Space
  • If instead of the cardinality d of the initial
    problem, one solves a reduced problem whose
    domains have lower cardinality d (ltd) the size
    of the potential search space also decreases
    exponentially!
  • S/S dn / dn (d/d)n
  • Such exponential decrease may be very significant
    for reasonably large values of n, as shown in
    the table.

41
Reduction of the Search Space
  • In practice, this potential narrowing of the
    search space has a cost involved in finding the
    redundant values (and labels).
  • A detailed analysis of the costs and benefits in
    the general case is extremely complex, since the
    process depends highly on the instances of the
    problem to be solved.
  • However, it is reasonable to assume that the
    computational effort spent on problem reduction
    is not proportional to the reduction achieved,
    becoming less and less efficient.
  • After some point, the gain obtained by the
    reduction of the search space does not compensate
    the extra effort required to achieve such
    reduction.

42
Reduction of the Search Space
  • Qualitatively, this process may be represented by
    means of the following graph

43
Reduction of the Search Space
  • The effort in reducing the domains must be
    considered within the general scheme to solve the
    problem.
  • In Constraint Logic Programming, the
    specification of the constraints usually precedes
    the enumeration of the variables.
  • Problem(Vars)-
  • Declaration of Variables and Domains,
  • Specification of Constraints,
  • Labelling of the Variables.
  • In general, search is performed exclusively on
    the labelling of the variables.
  • The execution model alternates enumeration with
    propagation, making it possible to reduce the
    problem at various stages of the solving process.

44
Reduction of the Search Space
  • Hence, given a problem with n variables X1 to Xn
    the execuction model follows the following
    pattern
  • Declaration of Variables and Domains,
  • Specification of Constraints,
  • indomain(X1), value selection with
    backtraking
  • propagation, reduction of problem X2 to Xn
  • indomain(X2),
  • propagation, reduction of problem X3 to Xn
  • ...
  • indomain(Xn-1)
  • propagation, reduction of problem Xn
  • indomain(Xn)

45
Domain Reduction Consistency Criteria
  • Once formally defined the notion of problem
    reduction, one must discuss the actual procedure
    that may be used to achieve it.
  • First of all, one must ensure that whatever
    procedure is used, the reduction keeps the
    problem equivalent to the initial one.
  • Here we have a small problem, since the
    definition of equivalence requires the solutions
    to be the same and we do not know in general what
    the solutions are!
  • Nevertheless, the solutions will be the same if
    in the process of reduction we have the guarantee
    that no solutions are lost. Such guarantees are
    met by several criteria.

46
Domain Reduction Consistency Criteria
  • Consistency criteria enable to establish
    redundant values in the variables domains in an
    indirect form, i.e. requiring no prior knowledge
    on the set of problem solutions.
  • Hence, procedures that maintain these criteria
    during the propagation phases, will eliminate
    redundant values and so decrease the search space
    on the variables yet to be enumerated.
  • For constraint satisfaction problems with binary
    constraints, the most usual criteria are, in
    increasingly complexity order,
  • Node Consistency
  • Arc Consistency
  • Path Consistency

47
Domain Reduction Node Consistency
  • Definition (Node Consistency)
  • A constraint satisfaction problem is
    node-consistent if no value on the domain of its
    variables violates the unary constraints.
  • This criterion may seem both obvious and useless.
    After all, who would specify a domain that
    violates the unary constraints ?!
  • However, this criterion must be regarded within
    the context of the execution model that
    incrementally completes partial solutions.
    Constraints that were not unary in the initial
    problem become so when one (or more) variables
    are enumerated.

48
Domain Reduction Node Consistency
  • Example
  • After the initial posting of the constraints, the
    constraint network model at the right represents
    the 4-queens problem.
  • After enumeration of variable X1, i.e. X11,
    constraints C12, C13 and C14 become unary !!

49
Domain Reduction Node Consistency
  • An algorith that maintains node consistency
    should remove from the domains of the future
    variables the appropriate values.
  • Maintaining node consistency achieves a domain
    reduction similar to what was achieved in
    propagation with the boolean formulation.

50
Maintaining Node Consistency
  • Given the simplicity of the node consistency
    criterion, an algorithm to maintain it is very
    simple and with low complexity.
  • A possible algorithm is NC-1, below.
  • procedure NC-1(V, D, R)
  • for X in V
  • for v in Dx do
  • for Cx in Cons(X) Vars(Cx) X do
  • if not satisfy(X-v, Cx) then
  • Dx lt- Dx \ v
  • end for
  • end for
  • end for
  • end procedure

51
Maintaining Node Consistency
  • Space Complexity of NC-1 O(nd)
  • Assuming n variables in the problem, each with d
    values in its domain, and assuming that the
    variables domains are represented by extension,
    a space nd is required to keep explicitely the
    domains of the variables.
  • For example, the initial domain 1..4 of variables
    Xi in the 4 queens problem is represented by a
    boolean vector (where 1 means the value is in the
    domain)
  • Xi 1,1,1,1 or 1111.
  • After enumeration X11, node consistency prunes
    the domain of other variables to X1 1000, X2
    0011, X3 0101 and X4 0110
  • Algorithm NC-1 does not require additional space,
    so its space complexity is
  • O(nd).

52
Maintaining Node Consistency
  • Time Complexity of NC-1 O(nd)
  • Assuming n variables in the problem, each with d
    values in its domain, and taking into account
    that each value is evaluated one single time, it
    is easy to conclude that algorithm NC-1 has time
    complexity O(nd).
  • The low complexity, both temporal and spatial, of
    algorithm NC-1, makes it suitable to be used in
    virtual all situations by a solver.
  • However, node consistency is rather incomplete,
    not being able to detect many possible reductions.

53
Domain Reduction Arc Consistency
  • A more demanding and complex criterion of
    consistency is that of arc-consistency
  • Definition (Arc Consistency)
  • A constraint satisfaction problem is
    arc-consistent if,
  • It is node-consistent and
  • For every label Xi-vi of every variable Xi, and
    for all constraints Cij, defined over variables
    Xi and Xj, there must exist a value vj that
    supports vi, i.e. such that the compound label
    Xi-vi, Xj-vj satisfies constraint Cij.

54
Domain Reduction Arc Consistency
  • Example
  • After enumeration of variable X11, and making
    the network node-consistent, the 4 queens problem
    has the following constraint network
  • However, label X2-3 has no support in variable
    X3, since neither compound label X2-3 , X3-2
    nor X2-3 , X3-4 satisfy constraint C23.
  • Therefore, value 3 can be safely removed from the
    domain of X2.

55
Domain Reduction Arc Consistency
  • Example (cont.)
  • In fact, none (!) of the values of X3 has support
    in variables X2 and X4., as shown below
  • label X3-4 has no support in variable X2, since
    none of the compound labels X2-3, X3-4 and
    X2-4, X3-4 satisfy constraint C23.
  • label X3-2 has no support in variable X4, since
    none of the compound labels X3-2, X4-2 and
    X3-2, X4-3 satisfy constraint C34.

56
Domain Reduction Arc Consistency
  • Example (cont.)
  • Since none of the values from the domain of X3
    has support in variables X2 and X4, maintenance
    of arc-consistency empties the domain of X3!
  • Hence, maintenance of arc-consistency not only
    prunes the domain of the variables but also
    antecipates the detection of unsatisfiability in
    variable X3 ! In this case, backtracking of X11
    may be started even before the enumeration of
    variable X2.
  • Given the good trade-of between pruning power and
    simplicity of arc-consistency, a number of
    algorithms have been proposed to maintain it.

57
Maintaining Arc Consistency AC-1
  • AC-1, shown below, is a very simple algorithm to
    maintain Arc Consistency
  • procedure AC-1(V, D, C)
  • NC-1(V,D,C) node consistency
  • Q aij Cij ? C ? Cji ? C see note
  • repeat
  • changed lt- false
  • for aij in Q do
  • changed lt- changed or revise_dom(aij,V,D,C)
  • end for
  • until not change
  • end procedure
  • Note for constraint Cij two directed arcs, aij
    and aji, are considered

58
Maintaining Arc Consistency AC-1
  • Predicate rev_dom(aij,V,D,R) succeeds iff it
    prunes values from the domain of Xi
  • predicate revise_dom(aij,V,D,C) Boolean
  • success lt- false
  • for vi in dom(Xi) do
  • if there is no vj in dom(Xj) such that
  • satisfies(Xi-vi,Xj-vj,Cij) then
  • dom(Xi) lt- dom(Xi) \ vi
  • success lt- true
  • end if
  • end for
  • revise_dom lt- success
  • end predicate

59
Time Complexity of AC-1
  • Time Complexity of AC-1 O(nad3)
  • Assuming n variables in the problem, each with d
    values in its domain, and a total of a arcs, in
    the worst case, predicate revise_dom, checks d2
    pairs of values.
  • The number of arcs aij in queue Q is 2a (2
    directed arcs aij and aji are considered for each
    constraint Cij). For each value removed from one
    domain, revise_dom is called 2a times.
  • In the worst case, only one value from one
    variable is removed in each cycle, and the cycle
    is executed nd times.
  • Therefore, the worst-case time complexity of
    AC-1 is O( d2 2and), i.e.
  • O(nad3)

60
Space Complexity of AC-1
  • Space Complexity of AC-1 O(ad2) O(n2d2)
  • AC-1 must maintain a queue Q, with maximum size
    2a. Hence the inherent spacial complexity of AC-1
    is O(a).
  • To this space, one has to add the space required
    to represent the domains O(nd) and the
    constraints of the problem. Assuming a
    constraints and d values in each variable domain
    the space required is O(ad2), and a total space
    requirement of
  • O(nd ad2)
  • which dominates O(a).
  • For dense constraint networks, a ? n2/2. This
    is then the dominant term, and the space
    complexity becomes
  • O(ad2) O(n2d2)

61
Maintaining Arc Consistency From AC-1 to AC-3
  • Inefficiency of AC-1
  • Every time a value vi is removed from the domain
    of variable Xi by predicate revise_dom(aij,V,D,R),
    all arcs are reexamined.
  • However, only the arcs aki (for k ? i and k ? j )
    should be reexamined.
  • This is because the removal of vi may eliminate
    the support from some value vk of some variable
    Xk for which there is a constraint Cki (or Cik).
  • Such inefficiency is eliminated in algorithm
    AC-3.

62
Maintaining Arc Consistency AC-3
  • AC-3 only revisits arcs for which the domain of
    the leading variable has been revised
    (narrowed).
  • procedure AC-3(V, D, C)
  • NC-1(V,D,R) node consistency
  • Q aij Rij ? C ? Cji ? C
  • while Q ? ? do
  • Q Q \ aij removes an element from Q
  • if revise_dom(aij,V,D,C) then revised Xi
  • Q Q ? aki Cki ? C ? k ? i ? k ? j
  • end if
  • end while
  • end procedure
  • Intuitively, AC-3 must have not only better
    worst-case, but also a better typical-case
    complexity than AC-1.

63
Time and Space Complexity of AC-3
  • Time Complexity of AC-3 O(ad3)
  • Each arc aki is only added to Q when some value
    vi is removed from the domain of Xi.
  • In total, each of the 2a arcs may be added to Q
    (and removed from Q) d times.
  • Every time that an arc is removed, predicate
    revise_dom is called, to check at most d2 pairs
    of values.
  • All things considered, and in contrast with AC-1,
    with complexity O(nad3), the time complexity of
    AC-3, in the worst case, is O(2ad d2), i.e.
    O(ad3).
  • Space Complexity of AC-3 O(ad2)
  • As to space complexity AC-3 has the same
    requirements than AC-1, and the same worst-case
    space complexity of O(ad2) ? O(n2d2), due to the
    representation of constraints by extension.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com