Many real life problems come from uncertain and dynamic environments, where the initial constraints and/or domains may undergo changes. Thus, a solution found for the problem may become invalid later. Hence, searching for robust solutions for Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) becomes an important goal. In some cases, no knowledge about the uncertain and dynamic environment exits or it is hard to obtain it. In this paper, we consider CSPs with discrete and ordered domains where only limited assumptions are made commensurate with the structure of these problems. In this context, we model a CSP as a weighted CSP (WCSP) by assigning weights to each valid constraint tuple based on its distance from the edge of the space of valid tuples. This distance is estimated by a new concept introduced in this paper: coverings. Thus, the best solution for the modeled WCSP can be considered as a robust solution for the original CSP according to our assumptions.


Robustness Uncertainty Dynamic CSPs 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bofill, M., Busquets, D., Villaret, M.: A declarative approach to robust weighted Max-SAT. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP 2010), pp. 67–76 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Climent, L., Salido, M., Barber, F.: Reformulating dynamic linear constraint satisfaction problems as weighted CSPs for searching robust solutions. In: Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation (SARA 2011), pp. 34–41 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dechter, R., Dechter, A.: Belief maintenance in dynamic constraint networks. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1988), pp. 37–42 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fargier, H., Lang, J.: Uncertainty in constraint satisfaction problems: A probabilistic approach. In: Moral, S., Kruse, R., Clarke, E. (eds.) ECSQARU 1993. LNCS, vol. 747, pp. 97–104. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fargier, H., Lang, J., Schiex, T.: Mixed constraint satisfaction: A framework for decision problems under incomplete knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1996), pp. 175–180 (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fowler, D.W., Brown, K.N.: Branching constraint satisfaction problems for solutions robust under likely changes. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 500–504. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hays, W.: Statistics for the social sciences, 2nd edn., vol. 410. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hebrard, E.: Robust Solutions for Constraint Satisfaction and Optimisation under Uncertainty. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herrmann, H., Schneider, C., Moreira, A., Andrade Jr., J., Havlin, S.: Onion-like network topology enhances robustness against malicious attacks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2011(1), P01027 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Larrosa, J., Schiex, T.: Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artificial Intelligence 159, 1–26 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mackworth, A.: On reading sketch maps. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1977), pp. 598–606 (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schiex, T., Fargier, H., Verfaillie, G.: Valued constraint satisfaction problems: Hard and easy problems. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), pp. 631–637 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verfaillie, G., Jussien, N.: Constraint solving in uncertain and dynamic environments: A survey. Constraints 10(3), 253–281 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallace, R.J., Freuder, E.C.: Stable solutions for dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In: Maher, M.J., Puget, J.-F. (eds.) CP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1520, pp. 447–461. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walsh, T.: Stochastic constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), pp. 111–115 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    William, F.: Topology and its applications. John Wiley & Sons (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winer, B.: Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company (1971)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yorke-Smith, N., Gervet, C.: Certainty closure: Reliable constraint reasoning with incomplete or erroneous data. Journal of ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL) 10(1), 3 (2009)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Climent
    • 1
  • Richard J. Wallace
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Salido
    • 1
  • Federico Barber
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Automática e Informática IndustrialUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaSpain
  2. 2.Cork Constraint Computation CentreUniversity College CorkIreland

Personalised recommendations