Skip to main content
Log in

A CSP Search Algorithm with Responsibility Sets and Kernels

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A CSP search algorithm, like FC or MAC, explores a search tree during its run. Every node of the search tree can be associated with a CSP created by the refined domains of unassigned variables. If the algorithm detects that the CSP associated with a node is insoluble, the node becomes a dead-end. A strategy of pruning “by analogy” states that the current node of the search tree can be discarded if the CSP associated with it is “more constrained” than a CSP associated with some dead-end node. In this paper we present a method of pruning based on the above strategy. The information about the CSPs associated with dead-end nodes is kept in the structures called responsibility sets and kernels. We term the method that uses these structures for pruning RKP, which is abbreviation of Responsibility set, Kernel, Propagation. We combine the pruning method with algorithms FC and MAC. We call the resulting solvers FC-RKP and MAC-RKP, respectively. Experimental evaluation shows that MAC-RKP outperforms MAC-CBJ on random CSPs and on random graph coloring problems. The RKP-method also has theoretical interest. We show that under certain restrictions FC-RKP simulates FC-CBJ. It follows from the fact that intelligent backtracking implicitly uses the strategy of pruning “by analogy.”

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. Bacchus, F. (2000). Extending forward checking. In Principles and practice of constraint programming (pp. 35–51).

  2. Choueiry, B., & Noubir, G. (1998). On the computation of local interchangeability in discrete constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of AAAI (pp. 326–333). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fahle, T., Schamberger, S., & Sellmann, M. (2001). Symmetry breaking. In CP2001 (pp. 93–108). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Focacci, F., & Milano, M. (2001). Global cut framework for removing symmetries. In CP2001 (pp. 93–108). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Frost, D., & Dechter, R. (1995). Look-ahead value ordering for constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’95 (pp. 572–578). Montreal, Canada.

  6. Gent, I., MacIntyre, E., Prosser, P., Smith, B., & Walsh, T. (1996). An empirical study of dynamic variable ordering heuristics. In CP-96 (pp. 179–193).

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jussien, N., Debruyne, R., & Boizumault, P. (2000). Maintaining arc-consistency within dynamic backtracking. In Principles and practice of constraint programming (CP 2000) (pp. 249–261). Singapore, Springer

  10. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (2003). Ten challenges redux: Recent progress in propositional reasoning and search. In CP2003 (pp. 1–18). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Prosser, P. (1995). MAC-CBJ: Maintaining Arc Consistency with Conflict-directed Backjumping. Technical Report, Research Report/95/177, Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde.

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Puget, J. (2005). Symmetry breaking revisited. Constraints, 10(1), 23–46.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Quimper, C.-G., Lopez-Ortiz, A., vanBeek, P., & Golynski, A. (2004). Improved algorithms for the global cardinality constraint. In Principles and practice of constraint programming-CP2004, Toronto, Canada (pp. 542–556). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Razgon, I., & Meisels, A. (2003). Maintaining dominance consistency. In Principles and practice of constraint programming-CP2003, Kinsale, Ireland (pp. 945–950). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Razgon, I., & Meisels, A. (2004). Pruning by equally constrained variables. In Proceedings of CSCLP 2004 (pp. 26–40).

  18. Regin, J.-C. (1994). A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In AAAI ’94: Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 362–367). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sabin, D., & Freuder, E. C. (1994). Contradicting conventional wisdom in constraint satisfaction. In PPCP’94 (pp. 10–20).

  20. Wallace, R. (2005). Analysis of heuristic synergies. In CSCLP 2005 (pp. 1–13).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Igor Razgon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Razgon, I., Meisels, A. A CSP Search Algorithm with Responsibility Sets and Kernels. Constraints 12, 151–177 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-007-9016-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-007-9016-x

Keywords

Navigation