Abstract
Propagation based finite domain solvers provide a general mechanism for solving combinatorial problems. Different propagation methods can be used in conjunction by communicating through the domains of shared variables. The flexibility that this entails has been an important factor in the success of propagation based solving for solving hard combinatorial problems. In this paper we investigate how linear integer constraints should be represented in order that propagation can determine strong domain information. We identify two kinds of substitution which can improve propagation solvers, and can never weaken the domain information. This leads us to an alternate approach to propagation based solving where the form of constraints is modified by substitution as computation progresses. We compare and contrast a solver using substitution against an indexical based solver, the current method of choice for implementing propagation based constraint solvers, identifying the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches. In doing so, we investigate a number of choices in propagation solvers and their effects on a suite of benchmarks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aggoun, A., & Beldiceanu, N. (1993). Overview ofthe CHIP compiler system. In Benhamou, F., & Colmerauer, A., eds., Constraint Logic Programming: Selected Research, pages 421–435. MIT Press.
Applegate, D., & Cook, W. (1991). A computational study ofthe job-shop scheduling instance. ORSA Journal on Computing, 3:149–156.
Codognet, P., & Diaz, D. (1996). Compiling constraints in clp(FD). The Journal of Logic Programming, 27(3):185–226.
Cousot, P., & Cousot, R. (1977). Automatic synthesis ofoptimal invariant assertions: Mathematical foundations. In ACM Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Programming Languages, pages 1–12.
Diaz, D., & Codognet, P. (1993). A minimal extension ofthe WAM for clp(FD). In Warren, D. S., ed., Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 774–790. MIT Press.
Jaffar, J., Michaylov, S., Stuckey, P., & Yap, R. (1992). The CLP(ℛ) language and system. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 14(3):339–395.
Lawrence, S. (1984). Resource constrained project scheduling: an experimental investigation of heuristic scheduling techniques (supplement). Technical report, Graduate School ofIndustrial Administration, Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University.
Lee, J. H. M., Leung, H. F., & Won, H. W. (1995). Extending GENET for non-binary CSP's. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pages 338–343. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Ostroff, J. S. (1989). Temporal Logic for Real-Time Systems. Wiley.
Puget, J. F. (1994). A C++ implementation of CLP. Technical report, ILOG SOLVER collected papers, ILOG.
Van Hentenryck, P. (1989). Constraint Satisfaction in Logic Programming. Logic Programming Series. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Van Hentenryck, P., Saraswat, V., & Deville, Y. (1993). Design, implementation and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). Report CS-93-02, Brown University.
Van Hentenryck, P., Saraswat, V., & Deville, Y. (1998). Design, implementation and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). Journal of Logic Programming, 37(1-3):139–164.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harvey, W., Stuckey, P.J. Improving Linear Constraint Propagation by Changing Constraint Representation. Constraints 8, 173–207 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022323717928
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022323717928