Abstract
In continuous constraint programming, the solving process alternates propagation steps, which reduce the search space according to the constraints, and branching steps. In practice, the solvers spend a lot of computation time in propagation to separate feasible and infeasible parts of the search space. The constraint propagators cut the search space into two subspaces: the inconsistent one, which can be discarded, and the consistent one, which may contain solutions and where the search continues. The status of all this consistent subspace is thus indeterminate. In this article, we introduce a new step called elimination. It refines the analysis of the consistent subspace by dividing it into an indeterminate one, where the search must continue, and a satisfied one, where the constraints are always satisfied. The latter can be stored and removed from the search process. Elimination relies on the propagation of the negation of the constraints, and a new difference operator to efficiently compute the obtained set as an union of boxes, thus it uses the same representations and algorithms as those already existing in the solvers. Combined with propagation, elimination allows the solver to focus on the frontiers of the constraints, which is the core difficult part of the problem. We have implemented our method in the AbSolute solver, and present experimental results on classic benchmarks with good performances.
The work was supported, in part, by the project ANR-15-CE25-0002 Coverif from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche, and in part by the European Research Council under Consolidator Grant Agreement 681393 – MOPSA.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
All informations about the problems can be found at http://www.gamsworld.org/minlp/minlplib/minlpstat.htm and http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/glopt/coconut/Benchmark/Benchmark.html.
References
Batnini, H., Michel, C., Rueher, M.: Mind the gaps: a new splitting strategy for consistency techniques. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 77–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11564751_9
Benhamou, F.: Heterogeneous constraint solvings. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Algebraic and Logic Programming, pp. 62–76 (1996)
Benhamou, F., Goualard, F., Granvilliers, L., Puget, J.-F.: Revisiting hull and box consistency. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 230–244 (1999)
Boussemart, F., Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., Sais, L.: Boosting systematic search by weighting constraints. In: Proceedings of the 16th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (ECAI 2004), pp. 146–150. IOS Press (2004)
Bussieck, M.R., Drud, A.S., Meeraus, A.: Minlplib - a collection of test models for mixed-integer nonlinear programming. INFORMS J. Comput. 15(1), 114–119 (2003)
Chabert, G., Jaulin, L.: Contractor programming. Artif. Intell. 173, 1079–1100 (2009)
Collavizza, H., Delobel, F., Rueher, M.: Extending consistent domains of numeric CSP. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 406–413 (1999)
Hansen, E.: Global optimization using interval analysis. Marcel Dekker, New York (1992)
Haralick, R.M., G.L. Elliott. Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence (IJCAI 1979), pp. 356–364. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (1979)
Jaulin, L., Walter, E.: Set inversion via interval analysis for nonlinear bounded-error estimation. Automatica 29(4), 1053–1064 (1993)
Moore, R.E.: Interval Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1966)
Pelleau, M., Miné, A., Truchet, C., Benhamou, F.: A Constraint Solver Based on Abstract Domains. In: Giacobazzi, R., Berdine, J., Mastroeni, I. (eds.) VMCAI 2013. LNCS, vol. 7737, pp. 434–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35873-9_26
Ratz, D.: Box-splitting strategies for the interval Gauss-Seidel step in a global optimization method. Computing 53, 337–354 (1994)
Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T. (eds.): Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier Science Inc., New York (2006)
Schulte, C., Stuckey, P.J.: Efficient constraint propagation engines. Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 31(1), 1–43 (2008)
Shcherbina, O., Neumaier, A., Sam-Haroud, D., Vu, X.-H., Nguyen, T.-V.: Benchmarking global optimization and constraint satisfaction codes. In: Bliek, C., Jermann, C., Neumaier, A. (eds.) COCOS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2861, pp. 211–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39901-8_16
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ziat, G., Pelleau, M., Truchet, C., Miné, A. (2018). Finding Solutions by Finding Inconsistencies. In: Hooker, J. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11008. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98334-9_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98334-9_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98333-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98334-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)