Skip to main content

Universal Booleanization of Constraint Models

  • Conference paper
Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2008)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 5202))

Abstract

While the efficiency and scalability of modern SAT technology offers an intriguing alternative approach to constraint solving via translation to SAT, previous work has mostly focused on the translation of specific types of constraints, such as pseudo Boolean constraints, finite integer linear constraints, and constraints given as explicit listings of allowed tuples. By contrast, we present a translation of constraint models to SAT at language level, using the recently proposed constraint modeling language MiniZinc, such that any satisfaction or optimization problem written in the language (not involving floats) can be automatically Booleanized and solved by one or more calls to a SAT solver. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of such a universal constraint solver, and report on a large-scale empirical evaluation of it against two existing solvers for MiniZinc: the finite domain solver distributed with MiniZinc and one based on the Gecode constraint programming platform. Our results indicate that Booleanization indeed offers a competitive alternative, exhibiting superior performance on some classes of problems involving large numbers of constraints and complex integer arithmetic, in addition to, naturally, problems that are already largely Boolean.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y.: Efficient CNF Encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sinz, C.: Towards an optimal CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In: [16], pp. 827–831

    Google Scholar 

  3. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2, 1–26 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., Roussel, O.: A translation of pseudo Boolean constraints to SAT. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2, 191–200 (2006)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Silva, J.P.M., Lynce, I.: Towards robust CNF encodings of cardinality constraints. In: [17], pp. 483–497

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tamura, N., Taga, A., Kitagawa, S., Banbara, M.: Compiling finite linear CSP into SAT. In: Benhamou, F. (ed.) CP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4204, pp. 590–603. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Hawkins, P., Lagoon, V., Stuckey, P.J.: Solving set constraint satisfaction problems using ROBDDs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24, 109–156 (2005)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Nethercote, N., Stuckey, P.J., Becket, R., Brand, S., Duck, G.J., Tack, G.: Minizinc: Towards a standard CP modelling language. In: [17], pp. 529–543

    Google Scholar 

  9. G12: MiniZinc distribution, version rotd-2008-03-03, http://www.g12.csse.unimelb.edu.au/minizinc/

  10. Huang, J.: A case for simple SAT solvers. In: [17], pp. 839–846

    Google Scholar 

  11. Stuckey, P.J., de la Banda, M.J.G., Maher, M.J., Marriott, K., Slaney, J.K., Somogyi, Z., Wallace, M., Walsh, T.: The G12 project: Mapping solver independent models to efficient solutions. In: [16], pp. 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  12. SAT: The Annual SAT Competitions, http://www.satcompetition.org/

  13. Katsirelos, G., Bacchus, F.: Generalized nogoods in CSPs. In: Veloso, M.M., Kambhampati, S. (eds.) AAAI, pp. 390–396. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schulte, C., Lagerkvist, M., Tack, G.: Gecode, http://www.gecode.org/

  15. Brand, S., Duck, G.J., Puchinger, J., Stuckey, P.J.: Flexible, rule-based constraint model linearisation. In: Hudak, P., Warren, D.S. (eds.) PADL 2008. LNCS, vol. 4902, pp. 68–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. van Beek, P. (ed.): Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Bessière, C. (ed.): Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4741. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Peter J. Stuckey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Huang, J. (2008). Universal Booleanization of Constraint Models. In: Stuckey, P.J. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5202. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85958-1_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85958-1_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85957-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85958-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics