A Framework to Simplify Usability Analysis of Constraint Solvers

  • Broderick CrawfordEmail author
  • Ricardo Soto
  • Franklin JohnsonEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10913)


Currently, given the complexity of industrial problems, a powerful software is required to solve Constraint Satisfaction Problems. The constraint solvers are a kind of software that are based on a constraint approach. During the last years many constraint solvers have been created, some of them are intricate software and others are libraries to extend the features of a programming language. There are few efforts to have a framework that allows to compare a constraint system and less to allow the usability analysis of the solvers. In most cases, the users of these systems are more concerned about the number of enumeration and propagation strategies that can be used instead of the ease of use of constraint solvers. This paper presents a framework to compare and obtain a simple and objective analysis of the usability of these kind of systems. The paper shows that it is possible to establish comparison in terms of usability, allowing an analysis beyond the simple comparison of their internal strategies.


Constraint programming Constraint solvers Usability 



Broderick Crawford is supported by Grant CONICYT/FONDECYT/REGULAR/1171243, Ricardo Soto is supported by Grant CONICYT/FONDECYT/REGULAR/1160455


  1. 1.
    ISO 9241–11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 11: Guidance on usability. International (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt, K.R., Wallace, M.: Constraint Logic Programming Using Eclipse. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlsson, M., Mildner, P.: Sicstus prolog - the first 25 years. CoRR abs/1011.5640 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    choco Team. choco: an open source Java constraint programming library. Research report 10-02-INFO, École des Mines de Nantes (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dincbas, M., Van Hentenryck, P., Simonis, H., Aggoun, A., Herold, A.: The CHIP system: constraint handling in Prolog. In: Lusk, E., Overbeek, R. (eds.) CADE 1988. LNCS, vol. 310, pp. 774–775. Springer, Heidelberg (1988). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fernández, A., Hill, P.: A comparative study of eight constraint programming languages over the boolean and finite domains. Constraints 5(3), 275–301 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fruhwirth, T.: Theory and practice of constraint handling rules. J. Logic Program. 37(1–3), 95–138 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frühwirth, T., Abdennadher, S.: Principles of constraint systems and constraint solvers (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frühwirth, T., Raiser, F. (eds.) Constraint Handling Rules: Compilation, Execution, and Analysis, March 2011Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gecode Team. Gecode: Generic constraint development environment (2006).
  11. 11.
    Gent, I.P., Jefferson, C., Miguel, I.: MINION: a fast scalable constraint solver. In: Proceedings of ECAI 2006, Riva del Garda, pp. 98–102. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hebrard, E., Siala, M.: Mistral 2.0. LAAS-CNRS, Universite de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse, France, XCSP3 Competition (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hentenryck, P.V., Saraswat, V., Deville, Y.: Design, implementation, and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). J. Logic Program. 37(1–3), 139–164 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IBM company: Ibm ilog cp (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P.J., Yap, R.H.C.: The CLP(R ) language and system. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 14(3), 339–395 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mariott, K., Stuckey, P.: Programming with Constraints: An Introduction. MIT Press, London (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuchcinski, K., Szymanek, R.: Jacop library user’s guide (2010).
  18. 18.
    Lazaar, N., Gotlieb, A., Lebbah, Y.: A CP framework for testing CP. Constraints 17(2), 123–147 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lecoutre, C., Roussel, O., van Dongen, M.: Promoting robust black-box solvers through competitions. Constraints 15(3), 317–326 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lecoutre, C., Tabary, S.: Abscon 109 A generic CSP solver (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niederliński, A.: A gentle guide to constraint logic programming via eclipse (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability 101: Introduction to usability. Nielsen Norman Group, 4 January 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Teaching user interface design based on usability engineering. SIGCHI Bull. 21(1), 45–48 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 1990, pp. 249–256. ACM, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’mahony, E., Hebrard, E., Holland, A., Nugent, C.: Using case-based reasoning in an algorithm portfolio for constraint solving. In: Iris Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    OscaR Team. OscaR: Scala in OR (2012).
  27. 27.
    Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T.: Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smolka, G.: The development of Oz and Mozart. In: Van Roy, P. (ed.) MOZ 2004. LNCS, vol. 3389, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Soto, R., Crawford, B., Olivares, R., Galleguillos, C., Castro, C., Johnson, F., Paredes, F., Norero, E.: Using autonomous search for solving constraint satisfaction problems via new modern approaches. Swarm Evol. Computat. 30, 64–77 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Soto, R., Crawford, B., Palma, W., Galleguillos, K., Castro, C., Monfroy, E., Johnson, F., Paredes, F.: Boosting autonomous search for CSPs via skylines. Inf. Sci. 308, 38–48 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tulácek, M.: Constraint solvers, bachelor thesis, Charles university in Prague (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wallace, M., Schimpf, J., Shen, K., Harvey, W.: On benchmarking constraint logic programming platforms. Response to Fernandez and Hill’s “a comparative study of eight constraint programming languages over the boolean and finite domains”. Constraints 9(1), 5–34 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhou, N.-F.: The language features and architecture of B-Prolog. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 12(1–2), 189–218 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pontificia Universidad Católica de ValparaísoValparaísoChile
  2. 2.Universidad de Playa AnchaValparaísoChile

Personalised recommendations