Towards Inductive Constraint Solving

  • Slim Abdennadher
  • Christophe Rigotti
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2239)


A difficulty that arises frequently when writing a constraint solver is to determine the constraint propagation and simplification algorithm. In previous work, different methods for automatic generation of propagation rules [5],[17],[3] and simplification rules [4] for constraints defined over finite domains have been proposed. In this paper, we present a method for generating rule-based solvers for constraint predicates defined by means of a constraint logic program, even when the constraint domain is infinite. This approach can be seen as a concrete step towards Inductive Constraint Solving.


Logic Program Logic Programming Constraint Programming Constraint Logic Inductive Logic Programming 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Abdennadher. Operational semantics and confluence of constraint propagation rules. In Proc. of the third International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP’97, LNCS 1330, pages 252–266. Springer-Verlag, November 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abdennadher, T. Frühwirth, and H. Meuss. Confluence and semantics of constraint simplification rules. Constraints Journal, Special Issue on the Second International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 4(2):133–165, May 1999.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Abdennadher and C. Rigotti. Automatic generation of propagation rules for finite domains. In Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP’00, LNCS 1894, pages 18–34. Springer-Verlag, September 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Abdennadher and C. Rigotti. Using confluence to generate rule-based constraint solvers. In Proc. of the third International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming. ACM Press, September 2001. To appear.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Apt and E. Monfroy. Automatic generation of constraint propagation algorithms for small finite domains. In Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP’99, LNCS 1713, pages 58–72. Springer-Verlag, October 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Frühwirth. Theory and practice of constraint handling rules, special issue on constraint logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1–3):95–138, October 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Frühwirth. Proving termination of constraint solver programs. In New Trends in Constraints, pages 298–317. LNAI 1865, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. V. Hentenryck, V. Saraswat, and Y. Deville. Desing, implementation, and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1–3):139–164, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Jaffar and M. J. Maher. Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming, 19–20:503–581, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Martin and C. Vrain. Induction of constraint logic programs. In Proc. of the International Conference on Algorithms and Learning Theory, LNCS 1160, pages 169–176. Springer-Verlag, October 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Mizoguchi and H. Ohwada. Constrained relative least general generalization for inducing constraint logic programs. New Generation Computing, 13:335–368, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Muggleton and L. De Raedt. Inductive Logic Programming: theory and methods. Journal of Logic Programming, 19,20:629–679, 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Padmanabhuni and A. K. Ghose. Inductive constraint logic programming: An overview. In Learning and reasoning with complex representations, LNCS 1359, pages 1–8. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Page and A. Frisch. Generalization and learnability: a study of constrained atoms. In Inductive Logic Programming, pages 29–61. London: Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Plotkin. A note on inductive generalization. In Machine Intelligence, volume 5, pages 153–163. Edinburgh University Press, 1970.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. L. Provost and M. Wallace. Generalized constraint propagation over the CLP scheme. Journal of Logic Programming, 16(3):319–359, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Ringeissen and E. Monfroy. Generating propagation rules for finite domains: A mixed approach. In New Trends in Constraints, pages 150–172. LNAI 1865, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sebag and C. Rouveirol. Constraint inductive logic programming. In Advances in ILP, pages 277–294. IOS Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H. Tamaki and T. Sato. OLD resolution with tabulation. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming, LNCS 225, pages 84–98. Springer-Verlag, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Würtz and T. Müller. Constructive disjunction revisited. In Proc. of the 20th German Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1137, pages 377–386. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Slim Abdennadher
    • 1
  • Christophe Rigotti
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of MunichMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Laboratoire d’Ingénierie des Systèmes d’InformationVilleurbanne CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations