Advertisement

Constraint Acquisition as Semi-Automatic Modeling

  • Remi Coletta
  • Christian Bessiere
  • Barry O’Sullivan
  • Eugene C. Freuder
  • Sarah O’Connell
  • Joel Quinqueton

Abstract

Constraint programming is a technology which is now widely used to solve combinatorial problems in industrial applications. However, using it requires considerable knowledge and expertise in the field of constraint reasoning. This paper introduces a framework for automatically learning constraint networks from sets of instances that are either acceptable solutions or non-desirable assignments of the problem we would like to express. Such an approach has the potential to be of assistance to a novice who is trying to articulate her constraints. By restricting the language of constraints used to build the network, this could also assist an expert to develop an efficient model of a given problem. This paper provides a theoretical framework for a research agenda in the area of interactive constraint acquisition, automated modelling and automated constraint programming.

Keywords

Version Space Constraint Programming Projection Property Specific Boundary Target Concept 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Coletta, C. Bessière, B. O’Sullivan, E.C. Freuder, S. O’Connell, and J. Quinqueton. Semi-automatic modeling by constraint acquisition. In CP-03 Second Workshop on Reformulating Constraint Satisfaction Problems, 2003.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    E.C. Freuder and B. O’Sullivan. Generating tradeoffs for interative constraintbased configuration. In Toby Walsh, editor, Proceedings ofthe Seventh International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 590–594, November 2001.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E.C. Freuder and RJ. Wallace. Suggestion strategies for constraint-based matchmaker agents. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP98, pages 192–204, October 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Haym Hirsh. Polynomial-time learning with version spaces. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 117–122, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J. Little, C. Gebruers, D. Bridge, and E.C. Freuder. Capturing constraint programming experience: A case-based approach. In CP-02 Workshop on Reformulating Constraint Satisfaction Problems, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    T. Mitchell. Concept learning and the general-to-specific ordering. In Machine Learning, chapter 2, pages 20–51. McGraw Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    U. Montanari. Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to picture processing. Information Sciences, 7(95–132), 1974.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    S. O’Connell, B. O’Sullivan, and E.C. Freuder. Query generation for interactive constraint acquisition. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Recent Advances in Soft Computing (RASC-2002), pages 295–300, December 2002.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    F. Rossi and A. Sperduti. Learning solution preferences in constraint problems. Journal ofexperimental and theoretical computer science, 10, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Wallace. Practical applications of constraint programming. Constraints, 1(12): 139–168, 1996.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Remi Coletta
    • 1
  • Christian Bessiere
    • 1
  • Barry O’Sullivan
    • 2
  • Eugene C. Freuder
    • 2
  • Sarah O’Connell
    • 2
  • Joel Quinqueton
    • 1
  1. 1.LIRMM-CNRS (UMR 5506)Montpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Cork Constraint Computation CentreUniversity College CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations