Skip to main content

Constraint Programming Lessons Learned from Crossword Puzzles

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Artificial Intelligence (Canadian AI 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2056))

Abstract

Constraint programming is a methodology for solving difficult combinatorial problems. In the methodology, one makes three design decisions: the constraint model, the search algorithm for solving the model, and the heuristic for guiding the search. Previous work has shown that the three design decisions can greatly influence the efficiency of a constraint programming approach. However, what has not been explicitly addressed in previous work is to what level, if any, the three design decisions can be made independently. In this paper we use crossword puzzle generation as a case study to examine this question. We draw the following general lessons from our study. First, that the three design decisions—model, algorithm, and heuristic—are mutually dependent. As a consequence, in order to solve a problem using constraint programming most efficiently, one must exhaustively explore the space of possible models, algorithms, and heuristics. Second, that if we do assume some form of independence when making our decisions, the resulting decisions can be sub-optimal by orders of magnitude.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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. P. Baptiste and C. Le Pape. A theoretical and experimental comparison of constraint propagation techniques for disjunctive scheduling. In Proc. of IJCAI-95, pp. 600–606.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. Bessière and J.-C. Régin. MAC and combined heuristics: Two reasons to forsake FC (and CBJ?) on hard problems. In Proc. of CP-96, pp. 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Bessière and J.-C. Régin. Arc consistency for general constraint networks: Preliminary results. In Proc. of IJCAI-97, pp. 398–404.

    Google Scholar 

  4. P. R. Cohen. Empirical Methods for Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. M. Crawford and L. D. Auton. Experimental results on the crossover point in random 3-SAT. Artif. Intell., 81:31–57, 1996.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. D. Frost and R. Dechter. In search of the best search: An empirical evaluation. In Proc. of AAAI-94, pp. 301–306.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Gaschnig. Experimental case studies of backtrack vs. Waltz-type vs. new algorithms for satisfying assignment problems. In Proc. of the 2nd Canadian Conf. on AI, pp. 268–277, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  8. I. P. Gent, E. MacIntyre, P. Prosser, B. M. Smith, and T. Walsh. An empirical study of dynamic variable ordering heuristics for the constraint satisfaction problem. In Proc. of CP-96, pp. 179–193.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. L. Ginsberg, M. Frank, M. P. Halpin, and M. C. Torrance. Search lessons learned from crossword puzzles. In Proc. of AAAI-90, pp. 210–215.

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. M. Haralick and G. L. Elliott. Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artif. Intell., 14:263–313, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. H. Kautz and B. Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. of ECAI-92, pp. 359–363.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. K. Mackworth. On reading sketch maps. In Proc. of IJCAI-77, pp. 598–606.

    Google Scholar 

  13. B. A. Nadel. Representation selection for constraint satisfaction: A case study using n-queens. IEEE Expert, 5:16–23, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. P. Prosser. Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Comput. In-tell., 9:268–299, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J.-F. Puget and M. Leconte. Beyond the glass box: Constraints as objects. In Proc. of ISLP-95, pp. 513–527.

    Google Scholar 

  16. F. Rossi, C. Petrie, and V. Dhar. On the equivalence of constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of ECAI-90, pp. 550–556.

    Google Scholar 

  17. B. Smith, K. Stergiou, and T. Walsh. Using auxilliary variables and implied constraints to model non-binary problems. In Proc. of AAAI-00.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. P. K. Tsang, J. E. Borrett, and A. C. M. Kwan. An attempt to map the performance of a range of algorithm and heuristic combinations. In Proc. of the AI and Simulated Behaviour Conf., pp. 203–216, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  19. T. Walsh. SAT v CSP. In Proc. of CP-00.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Beacham, A., Chen, X., Sillito, J., van Beek, P. (2001). Constraint Programming Lessons Learned from Crossword Puzzles. In: Stroulia, E., Matwin, S. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Canadian AI 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2056. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45153-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45153-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42144-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45153-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics