Abstract
Modern constraint solvers do not require constraints to be represented using any particular data structure. Instead, constraints are given as black boxes known as propagators. Propagators are given a list of current domains for variables and are allowed to prune values not consistent with these current domains.
Using propagation as the only primitive operation on constraints imposes restrictions on the operations that can be performed in polynomial time. In the extensional representation of constraints (so-called positive table constraints) join and project are primitive polynomial-time operations. This is not true for propagated constraints.
The question we pose in this paper is: If propagation is the only primitive operation, what are the structurally tractable classes of constraint programs (whose instances can be solved in polynomial time)?
We consider a hierarchy of propagators: arbitrary propagators, whose only ability is consistency checking; partial assignment membership propagators, which allow us to check partial assignments; and generalised arc consistency propagators, the strongest form of propagator.
In the first two cases, we answer the posed question by establishing dichotomies. In the case of generalised arc consistency propagators, we achieve a useful dichotomy in the restricted case of acyclic structures.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Gottlob, G., Leone, N., Scarcello, F.: A comparison of structural CSP decomposition methods. Artif. Intell. 124(2), 243–282 (2000)
Cohen, D., Jeavons, P.: The complexity of constraint languages. In: Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)
Beeri, C., Fagin, R., Maier, D., Yannakakis, M.: On the desirability of acyclic database schemes. Journal of the ACM 30, 479–513 (1983)
Houghton, C., Cohen, D.A., Green, M.J.: The effect of constraint representation on structural tractability. In: Benhamou, F. (ed.) CP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4204, pp. 726–730. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)
Chen, H., Grohe, M.: Constraint satisfaction with succinctly specified relations. In: Creignou, N., Kolaitis, P., Vollmer, H. (eds.) Complexity of Constraints. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings, Dagstuhl, Germany, Internationales Begegnungs- und Forschungszentrum für Informatik (IBFI), vol. 06401. Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany, (2006)
van Hoeve, W.J., Katriel, I.: Global constraints. In: Rossi, F., van Beek, P., Walsh, T. (eds.) Handbook of Constraint Programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2006)
Cheadle, A., Harvery, W., Sadler, A.J., Schimpf, J., Shen, K., Wallace, M.: ECLiPSe: An introduction. Technical Report IC-Parc-03-1, Imperial College, London (2003)
The Gecode team: Generic constraint development environment, http://www.gecode.org
ILOG S.A.: ILOG Solver 5.3 Reference and User Manual (2002)
Gent, I.P., Jefferson, C., Miguel, I.: Minion: A fast scalable constraint solver. In: Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., Traverso, P. (eds.) ECAI, pp. 98–102. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)
Cohen, D.: Tractable decision for a constraint language implies tractable search. Constraints 9(3), 219–229 (2004)
Mackworth, A.: Consistency in networks of relations. Artificial Intelligence 8, 99–118 (1977)
Bessière, C., Régin, J.C.: Arc consistency for general constraint networks: preliminary results. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1997, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 398–404 (1997)
Régin, J.C.: A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In: AAAI 1994: Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on Artificial intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 362–367. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park (1994)
Grohe, M.: The complexity of homomorphism and constraint satisfaction problems seen from the other side. J. ACMÂ 54(1), 1 (2007)
Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Parameterized Complexity. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Flum, J., Grohe, M.: Parameterized Complexity Theory (Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series). Springer, New York (2006)
Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness I: Basic results. SIAM J. Comput. 24(4), 873–921 (1995)
Downey, R.G., Fellows, M.R.: Fixed-parameter tractability and completeness II: On completeness for W[1]. Theoretical Computer Science 141(1–2), 109–131 (1995)
Schulte, C., Stuckey, P.J.: When do bounds and domain propagation lead to the same search space? ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 27(3), 388–425 (2005)
Rivest, R.L., Leiserson, C.E.: Introduction to Algorithms. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York (1990)
Janssen, P., Jegou, P., Nouguier, B., Vilarem, M.: A filtering process for general constraint satisfaction problems: achieving pair-wise consistency using an associated binary representation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Tools for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 420–427 (1989)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Green, M.J., Jefferson, C. (2008). Structural Tractability of Propagated Constraints. In: Stuckey, P.J. (eds) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. CP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5202. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85958-1_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85958-1_25
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-85957-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-85958-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)