Skip to main content
Log in

Neural networks for finite constraint satisfaction

  • Articles
  • Published:
Neural Computing & Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) are in general NP-hard, and a general deterministic polynomial time algorithm is not known. They play a central role in real-life problems. The satisfaction of a Conjunctive Normal Form (CNF-SAT)is the core of any CSP. We present a new modelisation technique for any CSP with finite variable domains, and, in particular, for solving CNF-SAT. The knowledge representation is based on two fundamental types of constraint: the choice constraint, and the exclusion constraint. These models are then implemented by means of several different neural networks, some based on backpropagation learning and others on different procedures. All these networks are trained through a supervised procedure, and learn to efficiently solve CNF-SAT. The results of significant tests are described: they show that some networks can effectively solve the proposed problems.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rich E. Artificial Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  2. Daniel L. Planning and operation research.Artificial Intelligence. Eisenstadt, Harper & Row, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grant T. Lessons for O.R. from A.I.: A scheduling case study.J Operat Res Soc 1986; 37 (1)

  4. Phelps RI. Artificial intelligence —an overview of similarities with O.R.J Operat Res Soc 1986; 37 (1)

  5. Sussman, GJ, Steele Jr, GL. Constraints: A language for expressing a most-hierarchical descriptions. Artif Intell 1980; 14

  6. Mackworth AK, Freuder, EC, Eds. Special volume: constraint-based reasoning. Artif Intell 1992;58

  7. Parker RG, Rardin RL.Discrete Optimization. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  8. Garegy MR, Johnson DS.Computer and Intractability. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fox M. Why is scheduling difficult? A CSP perspective.ECAI' 90 Proc 1990; Stockholm, Sweden

  10. Monfroglio A. General heuristics for logic constraint satisfaction.Proc 1st AIIA Conf 1989; Trento, Italy

  11. Gallo G, Urbani G. Algorithms for testing the satisfiability of propositional formulae.J Logic Program 1989

  12. Freuder EC. A sufficient condition of backtrack-free search.J ACM 1982; 29 (1)

  13. Mitchell D, Selman, B, Levesque, H. Hard and easy distributions for SAT problems.Proc Tenth Nat Conf Artif Intell (AAAI-92) 1992; 459–465

  14. Monfroglio A. Connectionist networks for constraint satisfaction. Neurocomputing, 1991; 3(1)

  15. Franco J, Pauli M. Probabilistic analysis of the Davis Putman procedure for solving the satisfiability problem. Discrete Appl Math 1983; 5

  16. Pao YH. Adaptive Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  17. Samad T. Back-propagation extensions.Honeywell SSDC Tech. Rep., MN, 1989

  18. Wilensky G, Manukian N. The projection neural network. Proc Int Joint Conf Neural Networks 1992; Baltimore, MD, Vol. II, pp. 358–367

    Google Scholar 

  19. Leonard JA, Kramer MA, Ungar LH. Using radial basis functions to approximate a function and its error bounds. IEEE Trans Neural Net 1992; 3 (4): 624–627

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moody J, Darken CJ. Fast learning in networks of locally tuned processing units.Neural Computation 1989; 1: 281–294

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fahlman SE, Lebiere C. The Cascade correlation learning architecture. School of Computer Science Report CMU-CS-90-100. Pittsburgh PA, Carnegie Mellon Univ., 1990

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kohonen T. Self-Organization and Associative Memory. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  23. Willshaw DJ, Von der Malsburg C. How patterned neural connections can be set up by self-organization. Proc R Soc London 1976; 194

  24. DeSieno D. Adding a conscience to competitive learning. Proc 2nd Ann IEEE Int Conf Neural Networks 1988; Vol I

  25. Batchelor BG, Practical Approach to Pattern Recognition. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1974

    Google Scholar 

  26. Specht DF. Probabilistic neural networks. Neural Networks (1990)

  27. Klimasauskas CC. Neural Computing (manual for NeuralWorks, NeuralWare, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, 1991. (1993 (version 5))

    Google Scholar 

  28. Simonis H, Dincbas M. Propositional calculus problems in CHIP. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Algebraic and Logic Programming, 2nd Int. Conf., Nancy, France, 1990, H. Kirchner and W. Wechler, Eds, Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 189–203

    Google Scholar 

  29. Yinyu, Y. A ‘build-down’ scheme for linear programming.Math Program 1990; 46: 61–72

    Google Scholar 

  30. Monfroglio A. Neural networks for constraint satisfaction. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 728, Pietro Torasso editor, Advances in Artificial Intelligence, third Congress of APIA, Torino, Italy 1993; pp. 102–107

  31. Monfroglio A. Integer programs for logic constraint satisfaction.Theor Comput Sci 1992; 97: 105–130

    Google Scholar 

  32. Monfroglio A. Neural logic constraint solving.J Parallel Distributed Comput 1994; 20 (1): 92–98

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Monfroglio, A. Neural networks for finite constraint satisfaction. Neural Comput & Applic 3, 78–100 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01421960

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01421960

Keywords

Navigation