Counting, structure identification and maximum consistency for binary constraint satisfaction problems

  • Gabriel Istrate
Session 2b
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1330)


Using a framework inspired by Schaefer's generalized satisfiability model [Sch78], Cohen, Cooper and Jeavons [CCJ94] studied the computational complexity of constraint satisfaction problems in the special case when the set of constraints is closed under permutation of labels and domain restriction, and precisely identified the tractable (and intractable) cases.

Using the same model we characterize the complexity of three related problems:
  1. 1.

    counting the number of solutions.

  2. 2.

    structure identification (Dechter and Pearl [DP92]).

  3. 3.

    approximating the maximum number of satisfiable constraints.



Polynomial Time Turing Machine Constraint Satisfaction Problem Constraint Network Satisfying Assignment 
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. [CCJ94]
    M. Cooper, D. Cohen, and P. Jeavons. Characterizing tractable constraints. Artificial Intelligence, 65:347–361, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [CFG+96]
    D. Clark, J. Frank, I. Gent, E. MacIntyre, N. Tomov, and T. Walsh. Local search and the number of solutions. In E. Render, editor, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP'96, number 1118 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 323–337. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [CH96]
    N. Creignou and M. Hermann. Complexity of generalized counting problems. Information and Computation, 125(1):1–12, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [DI92]
    R. Dechter and A. Itai. Finding all solutions if you can find one. In Workshop on Tractable Reasoning, AAAI'92, pages 35–39, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [DP92]
    R. Dechter and J. Pearl. Structure identification in relational data. Artificial Intelligence, 58:237–270, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. [FW]
    E. Freuder and R. Wallace. Heuristic methods for over-constrained constraint satisfaction problems. In CP'95 Workshop on Over-Constrained Systems.Google Scholar
  7. [FW92]
    E. Freuder and R. Wallace. Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 58(1-3):21–70, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [KMSV94]
    S. Khanna, R. Motwani, M. Sudan, and U. Vazirani. On syntactic versus computational views of approximability. In Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 819–830. IEEE Computer Society, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [Kor95]
    R. Korf. From approximate to optimal solutions: A case study of number partitioning. In Proceedings of the 14th IJCAI, pages 266–272, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [KS96]
    D. Kavvadias and M. Sideri. The inverse satisfiability problem. In Proceeding of the Second Annual International Computing and Combinatorics Conference, pages 250–259, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. [KSW96]
    S. Khanna, M. Sudan, and D. Williamson. A complete classification of the approximability of maximization problems derived from boolean constraint satisfaction. Technical Report TR96-062, Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity,, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [Lau96]
    H. Lau. A new approach for weighted constraint satisfaction: theoretical and computational results. In E. Freuder, editor, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP'96, number 1118 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 323–337. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [Mac77]
    A. Mackworth. Consistency in network of relations. Artificial Intelligence, 8:99–118, 1977.Google Scholar
  14. [MR95]
    R. Motwani and P. Raghavan. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [Sch78]
    T. J. Schaefer. The complexity of satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 216–226, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. [SD96]
    B. Smith and M. Dyer. Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 81(1-2):155–181, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [Sel82]
    A. Selman. Analogues of semirecursive sets and effective reducibilities to the study of NP complexity. Information and Control, 52:36–51, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Istrate
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations