Combining local consistency, symbolic rewriting and interval methods

  • Frédéric Benhamou
  • Laurent Granvilliers
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1138)


This paper is an attempt to address the processing of non-linear numerical constraints over the Reals by combining three different methods: local consistency techniques, symbolic rewriting and interval methods. To formalize this combination, we define a generic two-step constraint processing technique based on an extension of the Constraint Satisfaction Problem, called Extended Constraint Satisfaction Problem (ECSP). The first step is a rewriting step, in which the initial ECSP is symbolically transformed. The second step, called approximation step, is based on a local consistency notion, called weak arc-consistency, defined over ECSPs in terms of fixed point of contractant monotone operators. This notion is shown to generalize previous local consistency concepts defined over finite domains (arc-consistency) or infinite subsets of the Reals (arc B-consistency and interval, hull and box-consistency). A filtering algorithm, derived from AC-3, is given and is shown to be correct, confluent and to terminate. This framework is illustrated by the combination of Gröbner Bases computations and Interval Newton methods. The computation of Gröbner Bases for subsets of the initial set of constraints is used as a rewriting step and operators based on Interval Newton methods are used together with enumeration techniques to achieve weak arc-consistency on the modified ECSP. Experimental results from a prototype are presented, as well as comparisons with other systems.


Constraint Satisfaction Problem local consistency arc-consistency filtering algorithms non-linear constraint solving Gröbner bases Newton methods interval arithmetic interval constraints 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    G. Alefeld and J. Herzberger. Introduction to Interval Computations. Academic Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Barth and A. Bockmayr. Finite domain and cutting plane techniques in CLP \(\left( {\mathcal{P}\mathcal{B}} \right)\). In L. Sterling, editor, Proceedings of ICLP'95, pages 133–147, Kanagawa, Japan, 1995. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Benhamou. Interval Constraint Logic Programming. In A. Podelski, editor, Constraint Programming: Basics and Trends, volume 910 of LNCS, pages 1–21. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Benhamou, D. McAllester, and P. Van Hentenryck. CLP(Intervals) Revisited. In Proceedings of ILPS'94, pages 124–138, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Benhamou and W. J. Older. Applying Interval Arithmetic to Real, Integer and Boolean Constraints. Journal of Logic Programming, 1996. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Buchberger. An Algorithm for Finding a Basis for the Residue Class Ring of a Zero-Dimensional Polynomial Ideal. PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck, 1965. (in German).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Buchberger. Gröbner Bases: an Algorithmic Method in Polynomial Ideal Theory. In Multidimensional Systems Theory, pages 184–232. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. G. Cleary. Logical Arithmetic. Future Computing Systems, 2(2):125–149, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Cox, J. Little, and D. O'Shea. Ideals, Varieties and Algorithms. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Davis. Constraint Propagation with Interval Labels. Artificial Intelligence, (32), 1987.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. R. Hansen and R. I. Greenberg. An Interval Newton Method. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 12:89–98, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. R. Hansen and S. Sengupta. Bounding Solutions of Systems of Equations using Interval Analysis. BIT, 21:203–211, 1981.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    H. Hong. Confluency of Cooperative Constraint Solving. Technical Report 94-08, RISC-Linz, Johannes Kepler University, Linz, Austria, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Hong and V. Stahl. Safe Start Region by Fixed points and Tightening. Computing, 53(3–4):323–335, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Hyvönen. Constraint Reasoning based on Interval Arithmetic. The Tolerance Propagation Approach. Artificial Intelligence, 58:71–112, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Krawczyk. Newton-Algorithmen zur Bestimmung von Nullstellen mit Fehlerschranken. Computing, 4:187–201, 1969.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Krawczyk. A Class of Interval Newton Operators. Computing, 37:179–183, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O. Lhomme. Consistency techniques for numeric CSPs. In R. Bajcsy, editor, Proceedings of the 13th IJCAI, pages 232–238, Chambéry, France, 1993. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Mackworth. Consistency in Networks of Relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8(1):99–118, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Marti and M. Rueher. A Distributed Cooperating Constraint Solving System. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 4(1):93–113, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Monfroy. Gröbner Bases: Strategies and Applications. In Proceedings of AISMC'92, volume 737 of LNCS, pages 133–151. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E. Monfroy, M. Rusinowitch, and R. Schott. Implementing Non-Linear Constraints with Cooperative Solvers. In K. George, J. Carroll, D. Oppenheim, and J. Hightower, editors, Proceedings of ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pages 63–72, February 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    U. Montanari. Networks of Constraints: Fundamental Properties and Applications to Picture Processing. Information Science, 7(2):95–132, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. E. Moore. Interval Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1966.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Neumaier. Interval Methods for Systems of Equations. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. Older and A. Vellino. Constraint Arithmetic on Real Intervals. In F. Benhamou and A. Colmerauer, editors, Constraint Logic Programming: Selected Research. MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    I. Shvetzov, A. Semenov, and V. Telerman. Constraint Programming based on Subdefinite Models and its Applications. In ILPS'95 post-conference workshop on Interval Constraints, Portland, Oregon, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Van Hentenryck, D. McAllester, and D. Kapur. Solving Polynomial Systems Using a Branch and Prune Approach. SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis. (To appear).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Van Hentenryck, H. Simonis, and M. Dincbas. Constraint Satisfaction Using Constraint Logic Programming. Artificial Intelligence, 58(1–3): 113–159, Dec. 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    D. L. Waltz. Generating Semantic Descriptions from Drawings of Scenes with Shadows. In P. H. Winston, editor, The Psychology of Computer Vision. McGraw Hill, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédéric Benhamou
    • 1
  • Laurent Granvilliers
    • 1
  1. 1.LIFO, Université d'Orléans, I.I.I.A.Orleans Cedex 2France

Personalised recommendations