Constraint programming involves defining problems as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and using constraint solvers to find solutions. CSPs define variables, their domains, and constraints between variables. Constraint propagation techniques like arc consistency and generalized arc consistency prune inconsistent values to help solve CSPs more efficiently. Maintaining a level of local consistency during search, such as arc consistency or forward checking, is a common technique used by constraint solvers.
Constraint programming involves defining problems as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and using constraint solvers to find solutions. CSPs define variables, their domains, and constraints between variables. Constraint propagation techniques like arc consistency and generalized arc consistency prune inconsistent values to help solve CSPs more efficiently. Maintaining a level of local consistency during search, such as arc consistency or forward checking, is a common technique used by constraint solvers.
Constraint programming involves defining problems as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and using constraint solvers to find solutions. CSPs define variables, their domains, and constraints between variables. Constraint propagation techniques like arc consistency and generalized arc consistency prune inconsistent values to help solve CSPs more efficiently. Maintaining a level of local consistency during search, such as arc consistency or forward checking, is a common technique used by constraint solvers.
Constraint programming involves defining problems as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and using constraint solvers to find solutions. CSPs define variables, their domains, and constraints between variables. Constraint propagation techniques like arc consistency and generalized arc consistency prune inconsistent values to help solve CSPs more efficiently. Maintaining a level of local consistency during search, such as arc consistency or forward checking, is a common technique used by constraint solvers.
Constraint programming Ongoing dream of declarative programming State the constraints No two exams at the same time Only 5 shifts in one week Parcel picked up between 10am-noon
Black box solver finds a solution
Just like magic!
Paradigm of choice for many hard combinatorial
problems Scheduling, assignment, routing,
Constraints are everywhere!
No meetings before 10am
Network traffic < 100 Gbytes/sec PCB width < 21cm Salary > 45k Euros No two exams at the same time Only 5 shifts in one week Parcel picked up before 10am
Constraint satisfaction Constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) consists of: Set of variables Each variable has set of values Usually assume finite domain {true,false}, {red,blue,green}, [0,10],
Set of constraints
Goal Find assignment of values to variables to satisfy all the constraints
Example CSP
Sudoku
Variable for each square
Domain: numbers 1 to 9 Constraints Row: AllDifferent(X1,..X9) AllDifferent(X10,..X18)
Column AllDifferent(X1,X10,..)
Small square AllDifferent(X1,..,X3,X10,..X12,..)
Example CSP
Course timetabling Variable for each course X1, X2 ..
optimization within an imperative of functional language Popular toolkits in C++, Java, CAML,
Constraints Constraints Scope list of variables to which constraint applies
Relation specifying allowed values (goods)
Extensionally specified: (X=red, Y=blue) or (X=red, Y=green) or (X=blue, Y=red) or (X=blue, Y=green) or (X=green, Y=red) or (X=green, Y=blue) Intensionally specified: X =/= Y X + 2Y - Z < 5 Alldifferent(X,Y,Z) AtLeast(1,[X,Y,Z],{red})
Binary v non-binary Binary constraint Scope covers 2 variables E.g. not-equals constraint: X1 =/= X2. E.g. ordering constraint: X1 < X2
Non-binary constraint Scope covers 3 or more variables E.g. alldifferent(X1,X2,X3). E.g. tour(X1,X2,X3,X4). Non-binary constraints usually do not include unary constraints!
Some non-binary examples
Timetabling Variables: Lecture1, Lecture2, Values: time1, time2, Constraint that lectures taught by same lecturer do not conflict: alldifferent(Lecture1,Lecture5,).
Some non-binary examples
Scheduling Variables: Job1. Job2, Values: machine1, machine2, Constraint on number of jobs on each machine: atmost(2,[Job1,Job2,],machine1), atmost(1,[Job1,Job2,],machine2).
Why use non-binary constraints?
Binary constraints are NP-complete Any non-binary constraint can be represented using binary constraints E.g. alldifferent(X1,X2,X3) is equivalent to X1 =/= X2, X1 =/= X3, X2 =/= X3
Constraint solvers Two main approaches Systematic, tree search algorithms Local search or repair based procedures
Other more exotic possibilities
Hybrid algorithms Quantum algorithms
Systematic solvers Tree search Assign value to variable Deduce values that must be removed from future/unassigned variables Propagation to ensure some level of consistency
If future variable has no values, backtrack else repeat
Number of choices Variable to assign next, value to assign
Some important refinements like nogood learning, nonchronological backtracking,
Local search Repair based methods Generate complete assignment Change value to some variable in a violated constraint
Number of choices Violated constraint, variable within it, Unable to exploit powerful constraint propagation techniques
Constraint propagation Arc-consistency (AC) A binary constraint r(X1,X2) is AC iff for every value for X1, there is a consistent value (often called support) for X2 and vice versa
A problem is AC iff every constraint is AC
Enforcing arc-consistency Remove all values that are not AC (i.e. have no support)
May remove support from other values
(often queue based algorithm)
Best AC algorithms (AC7, AC-2000) run in
O(ed^2) Optimal if we know nothing else about the constraints
Enforcing arc-consistency
Consider 1st column
Binary not equals constraints: X1=/=X10, X1=/=X19, ..
Consider 8th row
Look at domain of the 1st variable
Properties of AC Unique maximal AC subproblem Or problem is unsatisfiable
Enforcing AC can process
constraints in any order But order does affect (average-case) efficiency
Non-binary constraint propagation
Most popular is generalized arc-consistency (GAC) A non-binary constraint is GAC iff for every value for a variable there are consistent values for all other variables in the constraint We can again prune values that are not supported
GAC on alldifferent AllDifferent on 6th small square
{6,7} {1,2,4} {8} {9} {5,7} {4,5} {1,7} {3} {4,6}
Enforcing GAC Enforcing GAC is expensive in general GAC schema is O(d^k) On k-ary constraint on vars with domains of size d
Trick is to exploit semantics of constraints
Regins all-different algorithm Achieves GAC in just O(k^2 d^2) On k-ary all different constraint with domains of size d Based on finding matching in value graph
Other types of constraint propagation
(i,j)-consistency Non-empty domains Any consistent instantiation for i variables can be extended to j others
Describes many different consistency techniques
(i,j)-consistency
Generalization of arc-consistency AC = (1,1)-consistency Path-consistency = (2,1)-consistency Strong path-consistency = AC + PC
Path inverse consistency = (1,2)-consistency
Enforcing (i,j)-consistency
problem is (1,1)-consistent (AC) BUT is not (2,1)-consistent (PC) X1=2, X2=3 cannot be extended to X3 Need to add constraints: not(X1=2 & X2=3) not(X1=2 & X3=3)
Nor is it (1,2)-consistent (PIC)
X1=2 cannot be extended to X2 & X3 (so needs to be deleted)
{1,2} X1 \= {2,3} X2
\=
\=
{2,3} X3
Other types of constraint propagation
Bounds consistency (BC)
With ordered domains Enforce AC just on max/min elements Used often for arithmetic constraints (eg linear inequalities) GAC is intractable on a sum constraints (= subset sum)
Maintaining a local consistency property
Tree search Assign value to variable Enforce some level of local consistency Remove values/add new constraints
If any future variable has no values, backtrack else
repeat
Two popular algorithms
Maintaining arc-consistency (MAC) Make the whole problem arc-consistent
Forward checking (very restricted form of AC
maintained)
Forward checking Binary constraints (FC) Make constraints involving current variable and one future variable arc-consistent No need to look at any other constraints!
Non-binary constraints Several choices as to how to do forward checking
Forward checking with non-binary constraints
nFC0 makes AC only those k-ary constraints with k-1 variables set nFC1 applies one pass of AC on constraints and projections involving current var and one future var nFC2 applies one pass of GAC on constraints involving current var and at least one future var nFC3 enforces GAC on this set nFC4 applies one pass of GAC on constraints involving at least one past and one future var nFC5 enforces GAC on this set
n-queens problem Put n-queens on a n by n chess board Constraints: No queen attacks another
Here n=8 Studied by Carl Gauss and others (1850)
n-queens problem ILP formulation Xij = 1 iff (i,j) square has queen on it Row attack constraints Col attack constraints Diag attack constraints Objective function (can only get n queens on board!)
n-queens problem CSP model One variable for each row Value is position of queen on that row Constraints Col attack Diag attack
Here n=4
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward check prunes domains of future variables
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Assign Row2=col3 Queen on 2nd row placed on 3rd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables Row3 has domain wipeout (no values left)
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Assign Row2=col3 Queen on 2nd row placed on 3rd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables Row3 has domain wipeout (no values left) Backtrack to last assignment and try some other value
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Assign Row2=col4 Queen on 2nd row placed on 4th column
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Assign Row2=col4 Queen on 2nd row placed on 4th column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Assign Row2=col4 Queen on 2nd row placed on 4th column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row4 is forced Only one value left
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Assign Row2=col4 Queen on 2nd row placed on 4th column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row4 is forced Only one value left
Row3 has domain wipeout
Backtrack to next choice
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col1 Queen on 1st row placed on 1st column
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col2 Queen on 1st row placed on 2nd column
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col2 Queen on 1st row placed on 2nd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col2 Queen on 1st row placed on 2nd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row2 is forced Only one value left Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col2 Queen on 1st row placed on 2nd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row2 is forced Only one value left Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col2 Queen on 1st row placed on 2nd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row2 is forced Only one value left Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row3 is forced Only one value left Forward checking prunes domain of last variable
Forward checking on n-queens problem
Assign Row1=col2 Queen on 1st row placed on 2nd column Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row2 is forced Only one value left Forward checking prunes domains of future variables
Row3 is forced Only one value left Forward checking prunes domain of last variable
Row4 is forced
Local search for n-queens problem
Throw n queens on chessboard Move a queen to reduce number of attacks Repeat until no queen is attacked
Surprisingly effective Especially as n increases!
Summary
Constraint solving Tree search Try variable assignment Be prepared to backtrack on this choice if it does not lead to a solution Use propagation (inference) to prune domains of remaining variables
Local search
Tomorrow Modelling problems using constraint programming
