From restricted path consistency to max-restricted path consistency

  • Romuald Debruyne
  • Christian Bessière
Session 5b
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1330)


There is no need to show the importance of the filtering techniques to solve constraint satisfaction problems i.e. to find values for problem variables subject to constraints that specify which combinations of values are consistent. They can be used during a preprocessing step to remove once and for all some local inconsistencies, or during the search to efficiently prune the search tree. Recently, in [5], a comparison of the most practicable filtering techniques concludes that restricted path consistency (RPC) is a promising local consistency that requires little additional cpu time compared to arc consistency while removing most of the path inverse inconsistent values. However, the RPC algorithm used for this comparison (presented in [1] and called RPC1 in the following) has a non optimal worst case time complexity and bad average time and space complexities. Therefore, we propose RPC2, a new RPC algorithm with O(end2) worst case time complexity and requiring less space than RPC1 in practice. The second aim of this paper is to extend RPC to new local consistencies, k-RPC and Max-RPC, and to compare their pruning efficiency with the other practicable local consistencies. Furthermore, we propose and study a Max-RPC algorithm based on AC-6 that we used for this comparison.


Constraint Network Local Consistency Constraint Check Unique Support Path Consistency 
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.
    Berlandier, P.: Improving Domain Filtering using Restricted Path Consistency. In proceedings of IEEE CAIA-95, Los Angeles CA (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bessière, C., Freuder, E.C., Régin, J.C.: Using inference to reduce arc-consistency computation. In proceedings of IJCAI-95, Montrèal, Canada (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bessière, C.: Arc-consistency and arc-consistency again. Artificial Intelligence 65 (1984) 179–190Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Debruyne, R., Bessière, C.: From Restricted Path Consistency to Max-Restricted Path Consistency. Technical Report 97036, Montpellier, France (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debruyne, R., Bessière, C.: Some Practicable Filtering Techniques for the Constraint Satisfaction Problem. In proceedings of IJCAI-97, Nagoya, Japan (1997) (to appear)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Debruyne, R., Bessiere, C.: Some Practicable Filtering Techniques for the Constraint Satisfaction Problem. Technical Report 97035, Montpellier, France (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freuder, E., Elfe, D.C.: Neighborood Inverse Consistency Preprocessing. In proceedings of AAAI-96, Portland OR (1996) 202–208Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haralick, R., Elliott, G.: Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14 (1980) 263–313Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mohr, R., Henderson, T.C.: Arc and Path Consistency Revisited. Artificial Intelligence 28 (1986) 225–233Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabin, D., Freuder, E.: Contradicting conventional wisdom in constraint satisfaction. In Allan Borning, editor, PPCP'94: second workshop on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Seattle WA (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh, M.: Path Consistency Revisited. In proceedings of IEEE ICTAI-95, Washington D.C.(1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romuald Debruyne
    • 1
  • Christian Bessière
    • 1
  1. 1.LIRMM (UMR 5506 CNRS)Montpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations