Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining the cumulative propagator

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The global cumulative constraint was proposed for modelling cumulative resources in scheduling problems for finite domain (FD) propagation. Since that time a great deal of research has investigated new stronger and faster filtering techniques for cumulative, but still most of these techniques only pay off in limited cases or are not scalable. Recently, the “lazy clause generation” hybrid solving approach has been devised which allows a finite domain propagation engine possible to take advantage of advanced SAT technology, by “lazily” creating a SAT model of an FD problem as computation progresses. This allows the solver to make use of SAT explanation and autonomous search capabilities. In this article we show how, once we use lazy clause generation, modelling the cumulative constraint by decomposition creates a highly competitive version of cumulative. Using decomposition into component parts automatically makes the propagator incremental and able to explain itself. We then show how, using the insights from the behaviour of the decomposition, we can create global cumulative constraints that explain their propagation. We compare these approaches to explaining the cumulative constraint on resource constrained project scheduling problems. All our methods are able to close a substantial number of open problems from the well-established PSPlib benchmark library of resource-constrained project scheduling problems.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aggoun, A., & Beldiceanu, N. (1993). Extending CHIP in order to solve complex scheduling and placement problems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17(7), 57–73.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Baptiste, P., & Le Pape, C. (2000). Constraint propagation and decomposition techniques for highly disjunctive and highly cumulative project scheduling problems. Constraints, 5(1–2), 119–139.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Blazewicz, J., Lenstraand, J. K., & Rinnooy Kan, A. H. G. (1983). Scheduling subject to resource constraints: Classification and complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 5, 11–24.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Carlier, J., & Pinson, E. (2004). Jackson’s pseudo-preemptive schedule and cumulative scheduling problems. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 145(1), 80–94. doi:10.1016/j.dam.2003.09.009.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Caseau, Y., & Laburthe, F. (1996). Cumulative scheduling with task intervals. In Procs. of the 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (pp. 363–377). MIT. citeseer.ist.psu.edu/caseau94cumulative.html.

  6. Claessen, K., Een, N., Sheeran, M., Sörensson, N., Voronov, A., & Åkesson, K. (2009). Sat-solving in practice, with a tutorial example from supervisory control. Discrete Event Dynamic Systems, 19(4), 495–524. doi:10.1007/s10626-009-0081-8.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis, M., Logemman, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem proving. Communications of the ACM, 5(7), 394–397.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Dechter, R., Meiri, I., & Pearl, J. (1991). Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 61–95.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Demeulemeester, E. L., & Herroelen, W. S. (1997). New benchmark results for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Management Science, 43(11), 1485–1492.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2003). An extensible SAT-solver. In E. Giunchiglia & A. Tacchella (Eds.), Proceedings of SAT 2003, LNCS (Vol. 2919, pp. 502–518). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. El-Kholy, A. O. (1996). Resource feasibility in planning. Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, University of London.

  12. Erschler, J., & Lopez, P. (1990). Energy-based approach for task scheduling under time and resources constraints. In 2nd International Workshop on Project Management and Scheduling (pp. 115–121). France: Compiègne.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Feydy, T., & Stuckey, P. J. (2009). Lazy clause generation reengineered. In I. Gent (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, LNCS (Vol. 5732, pp. 352–366). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_29.

  14. Hartmann, S., & Kolisch, R. (2000). Experimental evaluation of state-of-the-art heuristics for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 127(2), 394–407. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00485-3.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Jussien, N. (2003). The versatility of using explanations within constraint programming. Research Report 03-04-INFO, École des Mines de Nantes, Nantes, France. http://www.emn.fr/jussien/publications/jussien-RR0304.pdf.

  16. Jussien, N., & Barichard, V. (2000). The PaLM system: Explanation-based constraint programming. In Proceedings of Techniques foR Implementing Constraint Programming Systems (TRICS 2000) (pp. 118–133). http://www.emn.fr/jussien/publications/jussien-WCP00.pdf.

  17. Jussien, N., & Lhomme, O. (2002). Local search with constraint propagation and conflict-based heuristics. Artificial Intelligence, 139(1), 21–45.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Jussien, N., Debruyne, R., & Boizumault, P. (2000). Maintaining arc-consistency within dynamic backtracking. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming—CP 2000, no. 1894 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 249–261). Singapore: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Katsirelos, G., & Bacchus, F. (2005). Generalized nogoods in csps. In M. M. Veloso & S. Kambhampati (Eds.), National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 390–396). AAAI Press/The MIT.

  20. Kolisch, R. (1996). Serial and parallel resource-constrained project scheduling methods revisited: Theory and computation. European Journal of Operational Research, 90(2), 320–333. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00357-6.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Kolisch, R., & Hartmann, S. (2006). Experimental investigation of heuristics for resource-constrained project scheduling: An update. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(1), 23–37. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.01.065.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Kolisch, R., & Sprecher, A. (1997). PSPLIB—A project scheduling problem library. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(1), 205–216. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00170-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Laborie, P. (2005). Complete MCS-based search: Application to resource constrained project scheduling. In L. P. Kaelbling & A. Saffiotti (Eds.), Proceedings IJCAI 2005 (pp. 181–186). Professional Book Center. http://ijcai.org/papers/0571.pdf.

  24. Lahrichi, A. (1982). Scheduling: The notions of hump, compulsory parts and their use in cumulative problems. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. Paris, Série 1, Mathématique, 294(2), 209–211.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Liess, O., & Michelon, P. (2008). A constraint programming approach for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Annals of Operations Research, 157(1), 25–36. doi:10.1007/s10479-007-0188-y.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Marriott, K., Nethercote, N., Rafeh, R., Stuckey, P. J., Garcia de la Banda, M., & Wallace, M. G. (2008). The design of the Zinc modelling language. Constraints, 13(3), 229–267. doi:10.1007/s10601-008-9041-4.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Mercier, L., & Van Hentenryck, P. (2008). Edge finding for cumulative scheduling. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 20(1), 143–153. doi:10.1287/ijoc.1070.0226.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Moskewicz, M. W., Madigan, C. F., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Design automation conference (pp. 530–535). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/378239.379017.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nuijten, W. P. M. (1994). Time and resource constrained scheduling. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.

  30. Ohrimenko, O., Stuckey, P., & Codish, M. (2009). Propagation via lazy clause generation. Constraints, 14(3), 357–391.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Ohrimenko, O., Stuckey, P. J., & Codish, M. (2007). Propagation = lazy clause generation. In Procs. of the CP2007, LNCS (Vol. 4741, pp. 544–558). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74970-7_39.

  32. PSPLib—project scheduling problem library (2009). http://129.187.106.231/psplib/. Accessed 23 April 2009.

  33. Schulte, C., & Stuckey, P. (2008). Efficient constraint propagation engines. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 31(1), 1–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schutt, A. (2006). Entwicklung suchraumeinschränkender Verfahren zur Constraint-basierten Lösung kumulativer Ressourcenplanungsprobleme. Master’s thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

  35. Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P. J., & Wallace, M. G. (2009). Why cumulative decomposition is not as bad as it sounds. In I. Gent (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, LNCS (Vol. 5732, pp. 746–761). Springer-Verlag.

  36. Schutt, A., Wolf, A., & Schrader, G. (2006). Not-first and not-last detection for cumulative scheduling in \({\cal O}(n^3\log n)\). In Declarative programming for knowledge management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4369, pp. 66–80). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11963578. INAP 2005—16th international conference on applications of declarative programming and knowledge management.

  37. Vilím, P. (2005). Computing explanations for the unary resource constraint. In Integration of AI and OR techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization problems, LNCS (Vol. 3524, pp. 396–409). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11493853_29. http://kti.ms.mff.cuni.cz/~vilim/cpaior2005.pdf.

  38. Vilím, P. (2009). Edge finding filtering algorithm for discrete cumulative resources in \({\mathcal O}(kn\log n)\). In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming—CP 2009, LNCS (Vol. 5732, pp. 802–816). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04244-7_62.

  39. Wolf, A., & Schrader, G. (2006). \({\mathcal O}(n\log n)\) overload checking for the cumulative constraint and its application. In Declarative programming for knowledge management, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4369, pp. 88–101). Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/11963578_8. INAP 2005—16th international conference on applications of declarative programming and knowledge management.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National ICT Australia, Department of Computer Science & Software Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Andreas Schutt, Thibaut Feydy & Peter J. Stuckey

  2. School of Computer Science & Software Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, 3800, Australia

    Mark G. Wallace

Authors
  1. Andreas Schutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thibaut Feydy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter J. Stuckey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark G. Wallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Schutt.

Additional information

A preliminary version of this paper appears as [35].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P.J. et al. Explaining the cumulative propagator. Constraints 16, 250–282 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-010-9103-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-010-9103-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation