Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Integrating Standard Dependency Schemes in QCSP Solvers

  • Short Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quantified constraint satisfaction problems (QCSPs) are an extension to constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) with both universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. In this paper we apply variable ordering heuristics and integrate standard dependency schemes in QCSP solvers. The technique can help to decide the next variable to be assigned in QCSP solving. We also introduce a new factor into the variable ordering heuristics: a variable’s dep is the number of variables depending on it. This factor represents the probability of getting more candidates for the next variable to be assigned. Experimental results show that variable ordering heuristics with standard dependency schemes and the new factor dep can improve the performance of QCSP solvers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Nightingale P. Consistency and the quantified constraint satisfaction problem [PhD thesis]. School of Computer Science, St Andrews University, 2007.

  2. Nightingale P. Non-binary quantified CSP: Algorithms and modelling. Constraints, 2009, 14(4): 539–581.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Stynes D. Value ordering for offline and realtime-online solving of quantified constraint satisfaction problem [PhD thesis]. Department of Computer Science, National University of Ireland, 2009.

  4. Gent I P, Nightingale P, Stergiou K. QCSP-Solve: A solver for quantified constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. Int. Joint. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Edinburgh, UK, July 30-August 5, 2005, pp.138–143.

  5. Gent I P, Nightingale P, Rowley A, Stergiou K. Solving quantified constraint satisfaction problems. Artif. Intell., 2008, 172(6–7): 738–771.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Verger G, Bessiere C. Blocksolve: A bottom-up approach for solving quantified CSPs. In Proc. CP, Nantes, France, September 25–29, 2006, pp.635–649.

  7. Benedetti M, Lallouet A, Vautard J. Reusing CSP propagators for QCSPs. In Proc. CSCLP, Caparica, Portugal, June 26–28, 2006, pp.63–77.

  8. Bessière C, Régin J C. MAC and combined heuristics: Two reasons to forsake FC (and CBJ?) on hard problems. In Proc. CP, Cambridge, USA, August 19–22, 1996, pp.61–75.

  9. Stynes D, Brown K N. Value ordering for quantified CSPs. Constraints, 2009, 14(1): 16–37.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Bacchus F, Stergiou K. Solution directed backjumping for QCSP. In Proc. CP, Providence, USA, September 23–27, 2007, pp.148–163.

  11. Lonsing F, Biere A. Integrating dependency schemes in search-based QBF solvers. In Proc. SAT, Edinburgh, UK, July 11–14, 2010, pp.158–171.

  12. Bubeck U. Model-based transformations for quantified boolean formulas [Dissertations]. In Artificial Intelligent, Vol.329, Bibel W (eds.), IOS Press/Academische Verlags gesellschaft AKA, Amsterdam NL Heidelberg DE, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bubeck U, Kleine Büning H. Bounded universal expansion for preprocessing QBF. In Proc. SAT, Lisbon, Portugal, May 28–31, 2007, pp.244–257.

  14. Samer M. Variable dependencies of quantifed CSPs. In Proc. Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning, Doha, Qatar, November 22–27, 2008, pp.512–527.

  15. Samer M, Szeider S. Backdoor sets of quantified boolean formulas. J. Autom. Reasoning, 2009, 42(1): 77–97.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Rossi F, van Beek P, Walsh T. Handbook of Constraint Programming, Elsevier. 2006.

  17. Dechter R, Meiri I. Experimental evaluation of preprocessing algorithms for constraint satisfaction problems. Artif. Intell., 1994, 68(2): 211–241.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Frost D, Dechter R. Look-ahead value ordering for constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. Int. Joint. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Montreal, Canada, August 20–25, 1995, pp.572–578.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100190, China

    Ji-Wei Jin, Fei-Fei Ma (Member, ACM) & Jian Zhang (Senior Member, CCF, ACM, IEEE)

Authors
  1. Ji-Wei Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fei-Fei Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ji-Wei Jin.

Additional information

This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61070039.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

(PDF 99 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jin, JW., Ma, FF. & Zhang, J. Integrating Standard Dependency Schemes in QCSP Solvers. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 27, 37–41 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-012-1204-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-012-1204-5

Keywords