Disjunctive Programming and Cooperating Solvers

  • Ken McAloon
  • Carol Tretkoff
  • Gerhard Wetzel
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 9)


There are two fundamental themes in constraint programming. One is discrete or finite domain constraint programming based on the constraint satisfaction model. The other is continuous constraint programming based on linear programming and its extensions. In this paper we propose techniques for making constraint solvers of these different types cooperate: we present a scheduling application of the Dutch Railways and a new kind of algorithm for solving disjunctive programming problems, one which could not be developed without cooperating solvers. What emerges is that cooperating solvers, which have old roots in special purpose operations research methods, constitute a basic technology with potentially wide applicability.


Constraint Satisfaction Problem Node Count Linear Relaxation Constraint Solver Coupling Constraint 
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]
    Balas, E.: Disjunctive Programming and a Hierarchy of Relaxations for Discrete Optimization Problems. SIAM Journal Algebraic and Discrete Methods 6 (1985), 149–156Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Balas, E.; Ceria, S.; Cornuéjols, G.: A Lift-and-project Cutting Plane Algorithm for Mixed 0–1 Programs. Mathematical Programming 58 (1993) 245–324.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Baptiste, P.;Le Pape, C.: Constraint Propagation and Decomposition Techniques for Highly Disjunctive and Highly Cumulative Project Scheduling Problems. Submitted to CP97.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Barth, P.: Logic Based 0–1 Constraint Programming, Kluwer 1996Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Bertsekas, D.: Linear Network Optimization: Algorithms and Codes. MIT Press 1991Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Beaumont, N.: An algorithm for disjunctive programming European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1990), 362–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Bollapragada, S.; Ghattas, O.; Hooker, J. N.: Optimal Design of Truss Structures by Logic-Based Branch and Cut, to appearGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Carlier, J.; Pinson, E.: An algorithm for solving the job shop problem. Annals of Operations Research 26 (1990), 269–287Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Caseau, Y.; Laburthe, E: Improved CLP Scheduling with Task Intervals. In: Van Hentenryck, P. (ed.): Proc. of the Il t h Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 369–383, MIT Press 1994Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Colmerauer, A.: Opening the Prolog III Universe. BYTE Magazine,8/1987Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    DeBacker, B.; Beringer, H.: Combinatorial Problem Solving in Constraint Logic Programming with Cooperating Solvers. In: Beierle, C.; Plumer, L (eds.): Logic Programming: Formal Methods and Practical Applications, Elsevier 1995Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    DeBacker, B.; Beringer, H.: Cooperative solvers and global constraints: the case of linear arithmetic constraints, ILPS’95 Workshop, 1995Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Dincbas, M.; van Hentenryck, P.; Simonis, H.; Aggoun, A.; Graf, T.; Berthier, F.: The Constraint Logic Programming Language CHIP. FGCS’88 Proceedings (1988) 693–702Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Glover, F: A Bound Escalation Method for the Solution of Integer Linear Programs. Carnegie-Mellon University, 1965Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Gomory, R. E.: An Algorithm for Integer Solutions to Linear Programs. In: Graves, R. L.; Wolfe, P.: Recent Advances in Mathematical Programming. McGraw-Hill (1963) 269–302Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Greenberg, H.: A Branch-and-Bound Solution to the General Scheduling Problem. Operations Research 8 (1968), 353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Groot, R Minimum Circulation of Railway Stock — An Integer Programming Problem. MS Thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1996Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Haken, A.: The Intractability of Resolution. Theoretical Computer Science 39 (1985) 297–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Hooker, J. N.; Yan, H.; Grossmann, I. E.; Raman, R.: Logic Cuts for Processing Networks with Fixed Charges. Computers Ops. Res. 21 (1994) 265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    ILOG Planner Reference Manual, ILOG 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Jaffar, J.; Michaylov, S.: Methodology and Implementation of a CLP System. In: Lassez, J.-L. (ed.): ICLP’87 Proceedings. MIT Press 1987Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Land, A. H.; Doig, A. G.: An Automatic Method of Solving Discrete Programming Problems. Econometrica 28 (1960) 497–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Lovâcs, A.; Schrijver, A.: Cones of matrices and set-functions and 0–1 optimization. SIAM Journal of Optimization 1 (1991) 166–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Mackworth, A. K.; Freuder, E. C.: The complexity of constraint satisfaction revisited. Artificial Intelligence 25 (1993) 65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    McAloon, K.; Tretkoff, C.: Optimization and Computational Logic. John Wiley & Sons 1996Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    McAloon, K.; Tretkoff, C.: Logic, Modeling, and Programming. Annals of Operations Research,to appearGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Nuijten, W.; Aarts, E: A computational study of constraint satisfaction for multiple capacitated job shop scheduling, European Journal of Operational Research (1995)Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Puget, J-F; Leconte, M: Beyond the Glass Box: Constraints as Objects, ILPS ‘85,MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Raman, R.; Grossmann, I. E.: Modeling and Computational Techniques for Logic-Based Integer Programming Computers and Chemical Engineering 18 (1994), 563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    Rodo“sek, R.; Wallace, M.; Hajian, M. T.: A New Approach to Integrate Mixed Integer Programming with CLP, Technical Report, Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Savelsbergh, M.: Preprocessing and probing techniques for mixed integer programming problems. ORSA Journal on Computing 6, 445–454Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    Schimpf, J.; Novello, S.: IC-Parc ECLiPSe Library Manual, Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    Smith, S. F.; Cheng, C.-C.: Slack-Based Heuristics for Constraint Satisfaction Scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    Solnon, C.: Coopération de solveurs linéaires sur les réels pour la résolution de problèmes linéaires sur les entiers. To appear in Journées Francophones 97Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Schrijver, A.: Theory of Linear and Integer Programming, John Wiley & Sons 1986Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Schrijver, A.: Minimum Circulation of Railway Stock, CWI Quarterly 1996Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Van Hentenryck, P.: Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. MIT Press 1989Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Van Hentenryck, P.; Delville, Y.; Teng, Choh-Man: A generic arc consistency algorithm and its specializations, Artificial Intelligence 57 1992. MIT Press 1989Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    Wetzel, G.: Abductive and Constraint Logic Programming PhD Thesis, Imperial CollegeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken McAloon
    • 1
  • Carol Tretkoff
    • 1
  • Gerhard Wetzel
    • 1
  1. 1.Logic Based Systems LabBrooklyn College and CUNY Graduate CenterBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations