Skip to main content

MAC-DBT Revisited

  • Conference paper
Book cover Recent Advances in Constraints (CSCLP 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6384))

Abstract

Dynamic Backtracking (DBT) is a well known algorithm for solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems. In DBT, variables are allowed to keep their assignment during backjump, if they are compatible with the set of eliminating explanations. A previous study has shown that when DBT is combined with variable ordering heuristics, it performs poorly compared to standard Conflict-directed Backjumping (CBJ) [Bak94]. In later studies, DBT was enhanced with constraint propagation methods. The MAC-DBT algorithm was reported by [JDB00] to be the best performing version, improving on both standard DBT and on FC-DBT by a large factor.

The present study evaluates the DBT algorithm from a number of aspects. First we show that the advantage of MAC-DBT over FC-DBT holds only for a static ordering. When dynamic ordering heuristics are used, FC-DBT outperforms MAC-DBT. Second, we show theoretically that a combined version of DBT that uses both FC and MAC performs equal or less computation at each step than MAC-DBT. An empirical result which presents the advantage of the combined version on MAC-DBT is also presented. Third, following the study of [Bak94], we present a version of MAC-DBT and FC-DBT which does not preserve assignments which were jumped over. It uses the Nogood mechanism of DBT only to determine which values should be restored to the domains of variables. These versions of MAC-DBT and FC-DBT outperform all previous versions.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, A.B.: The hazards of fancy backtracking. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1994), Seattle, WA, USA, July 31 - August 4, vol. 1, pp. 288–293. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bessière, C., Freuder, E., Régin, J.: Using inference to reduce arc consistency computation. In: IJCAI 1995, pp. 592–598 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bessière, C., Regin, J.C.: Mac and combined heuristics: two reasons to forsake fc (and cbj?) on hard problems. In: Freuder, E.C. (ed.) CP 1996. LNCS, vol. 1118, pp. 61–75. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chen, X., van Beek, P.: Conflict-directed backjumping revisited. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 14, 53–81 (2001)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Dechter, R., Frost, D.: Backjump-based backtracking for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 136(2), 147–188 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Ginsberg, M.L.: Dynamic backtracking. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 1, 25–46 (1993)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Gent, I.P., Walsh, T.: Csplib: a benchmark library for constraints. Technical report, Technical report APES-09-1999 (1999), http://csplib.cs.strath.ac.uk/ ; A shorter version appears in the Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Principles and Practices of Constraint Programming (CP 1999)

  9. Haralick, R.M., Elliott, G.L.: Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14, 263–313 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jussien, N., Debruyne, R., Boizumault, P.: Maintaining arc-consistency within dynamic backtracking. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) CP 2000. LNCS, vol. 1894, pp. 249–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Kondrak, G., van Beek, P.: A theoretical evaluation of selected backtracking algorithms. Artificial Intelligence 21, 365–387 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohr, R., Henderson, T.C.: Arc and path consistence revisited. Artif. Intell. 28(2), 225–233 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Prosser, P.: Hybrid algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Computational Intelligence 9, 268–299 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Prosser, P.: An empirical study of phase transitions in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 81, 81–109 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith, B.M.: Locating the phase transition in binary constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 81, 155–181 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zivan, R., Shapen, U., Zazone, M., Meisels, A. (2011). MAC-DBT Revisited. In: Larrosa, J., O’Sullivan, B. (eds) Recent Advances in Constraints. CSCLP 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6384. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19486-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19486-3_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19485-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19486-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics