Abstract
In this paper, a new form of explanation and recovery technique for the unsatisfiability of discrete CSPs is introduced. Whereas most approaches amount to providing users with a minimal number of constraints that should be dropped in order to recover satisfiability, a finer-grained alternative technique is introduced. It allows the user to reason both at the constraints and tuples levels by exhibiting both problematic constraints and tuples of values that would allow satisfiability to be recovered if they were not forbidden. To this end, the Minimal Set of Unsatisfiable Tuples (MUST) concept is introduced. Its formal relationships with Minimal Unsatisfiable Cores (MUCs) are investigated. Interestingly, a concept of shared forbidden tuples is derived. Allowing any such tuple makes the corresponding MUC become satisfiable. From a practical point of view, a two-step approach to the explanation and recovery of unsatisfiable CSPs is proposed. First, a recent approach proposed by Hemery et al.’s is used to locate a MUC. Second, a specific SAT encoding of a MUC allows MUSTs to be computed by taking advantage of the best current technique to locate Minimally Unsatisfiable Sub-formulas (MUSes) of Boolean formulas. Interestingly enough, shared tuples coincide with protected clauses, which are one of the keys to the efficiency of this SAT-related technique. Finally, the feasibility of the approach is illustrated through extensive experimental results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Hemery, F., Lecoutre, C., Saïs, L., Boussemart, F.: Extracting MUCs from constraint networks. In: ECAI 2006. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 113–117 (2006)
Grégoire, E., Mazure, B., Piette, C.: Extracting MUSes. In: ECAI 2006. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 387–391 (2006)
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates and counterfactual. Artificial Intelligence 57, 227–270 (1992)
Chinneck, J.: Feasibility and Viability, In: Advances in Sensitivity Analysis and Parametric Programming. ch. 14, vol. 6. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (USA) (1997)
de Kleer, J.: A comparison of ATMS and CSP techniques. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1989), pp. 290–296 (1989)
Walsh, T.: SAT v CSP. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 441–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
CSPcomp: CSP competition, http://cpai.ucc.ie/06/competition.html
Petit, T., Bessière, C., Régin, J.: A general conflict-set based framework for partial constraint satisfaction. In: Rossi, F. (ed.) CP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2833, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Ginsberg, M.L.: Dynamic backtracking. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 1, 25–46 (1993)
Jussien, N., Debruyne, R., Boizumault, P.: Maintaining arc-consistency within dynamic backtracking. In: Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 249–261 (2000)
Prosser, P.: Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problems. Computational Intelligence 9(3), 268–299 (1993)
Junker, U.: QuickXplain: Conflict detection for arbitrary constraint propagation algorithms. In: IJCAI 2001 Workshop on Modelling and Solving problems with constraints (CONS-1) (2001)
Han, B., Lee, S.: Deriving minimal conflict sets by CS-Trees with mark set in diagnosis from first principles. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 29, 281–286 (1999)
de la Banda, M., Stuckey, P.J., Wazny, J.: Finding all minimal unsatisfiable subsets. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM-SIGPLAN International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDL 2003), pp. 32–43 (2003)
Mauss, J., Tatar, M.M.: Computing minimal conflicts for rich constraint languages. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), pp. 151–155 (2002)
Junker, U.: QuickXplain: Preferred explanations and relaxations for over-constrained problems. In: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 167–172 (2004)
Jussien, N., Barichard, V.: The PaLM system: explanation-based constraint programming. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 118–133. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Laburthe, F., Team, T.O.P.: Choco: implementing a cp kernel. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, Springer, Heidelberg (2000), http://www.choco-constraints.net
Bakker, R.R., Dikker, F., Tempelman, F., Wognum, P.M.: Diagnosing and solving over-determined constraint satisfaction problems. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1993), vol. 1, pp. 276–281. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1993)
Bruni, R.: Approximating minimal unsatisfiable subformulae by means of adaptive core search. Discrete Applied Mathematics 130(2), 85–100 (2003)
Zhang, L., Malik, S.: Extracting small unsatisfiable cores from unsatisfiable boolean formula. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)
Lynce, I., Marques-Silva, J.: On computing minimum unsatisfiable cores. In: International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (2004)
Mneimneh, M.N., Lynce, I., Andraus, Z.S., Marques Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: A branch-and-bound algorithm for extracting smallest minimal unsatisfiable formulas. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 467–474. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Oh, Y., Mneimneh, M., Andraus, Z., Sakallah, K., Markov, I.: AMUSE: a minimally-unsatisfiable subformula extractor. In: Proceedings of the 41th Design Automation Conference (DAC 2004), pp. 518–523 (2004)
Liffiton, M., Sakallah, K.: On finding all minimally unsatisfiable subformulas. In: Bacchus, F., Walsh, T. (eds.) SAT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3569, pp. 173–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Grégoire, E., Mazure, B., Piette, C.: Boosting a complete technique to find MSSes and MUSes thanks to a local search oracle. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), vol. 2, pp. 2300–2305 (2007)
Atlihan, M., Schrage, L.: Generalized filtrering algorithms for infeasibility analysis. Computers and Operations Research (to appear, 2007)
Grégoire, E., Mazure, B., Piette, C.: Local-search extraction of MUSes. Constraints Journal: Special issue on Local Search in Constraint Satisfaction 12(3) (to appear, 2007)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Grégoire, É., Mazure, B., Piette, C. (2007). MUST: Provide a Finer-Grained Explanation of Unsatisfiability. In: Bessière, C. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming – CP 2007. CP 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4741. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74970-7_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74970-7_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-74969-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-74970-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)