Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constraint models for graceful graphs

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present three constraint models of the problem of finding a graceful labelling of a graph, or proving that the graph is not graceful. An experimental comparison of the models applied to different classes of graph is given. The first model seems a natural way to represent the problem, but explores a much larger search tree than the other models. The second model does much less search, by making the most constrained decisions first, but is slow because the constraints are time-consuming to propagate. The third model combines the best features of the others, doing little more search than the second model while being much the fastest of the three. The comparison of the three models provides a useful case-study of modelling problems as constraint satisfaction problems. In addition, we show that constraint programming can be a useful tool for the study of graceful graphs; the models presented here have contributed many new results.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Beldiceanu, N. (2000). Global constraints as graph properties on structured network of elementary constraints of the same type. Technical report T2000/01, SICS.

  2. Bermond, J. C., & Farhi, G. (1982). Sur un problème combinatoire d’antennes en radioastronomie II. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 12, 49–53.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bessière, C. (2006). Constraint propagation. In F. Rossi, P. van Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming (Chapter 3, pp. 19–73). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bessière, C., & Régin, J. (1999). Enforcing arc consistency on global constraints by solving subproblems on the fly. In Proceedings CP’99 (pp. 103–117).

  5. Bessière, C., & Régin, J.-C. (1997). Arc consistency for general constraint networks: Preliminary results. In Proceedings IJCAI’97 (Vol. 1, pp. 398–404).

  6. Beutner, D., & Harborth, H. (2002). Graceful labelings of nearly complete graphs. Results in Mathematics, 41, 34–39.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng, B. M. W., Choi, K. M. F., Lee, J. H. M., & Wu, J. C. K. (1999). Increasing constraint propagation by redundant modeling: An experience report. Constraints, 4, 167–192.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen, D., Jeavons, P., Jefferson, C., Petrie, K. E., & Smith, B. M. (2006). Symmetry definitions for constraint programming. Constraints, 11, 115–137.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Crawford, J., Ginsberg, M., Luks, E., & Roy, A. (1996). Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. In Proceedings KR’96 (pp. 149–159), Nov. 1996.

  10. Gallian, J. A. (2008). A dynamic survey of graph labeling. The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, (DS6), 11th edition. www.combinatorics.org.

  11. Gent, I. P., Irving, R. W., Manlove, D., Prosser, P., & Smith, B. M. (2001). A constraint programming approach to the stable marriage problem. In T. Walsh (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming - CP 2001. LNCS (Vol. 2239, pp. 225–239). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Gent, I. P., & Smith, B. M. (2000). Symmetry breaking during search in constraint programming. In W. Horn (Ed.), Proceedings ECAI’2000, the European conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 599–603).

  13. Golomb, S. W. (1972). How to number a graph. In R. C. Read (Ed.), Graph theory and computing (pp. 23–37). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hnich, B., Smith, B. M., & Walsh, T. (2004). Dual models of permutation and injection problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 21, 357–391.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. ILOG S.A., Gentilly, France (2007). Solver 6.4 reference manual. ILOG S.A., May 2007.

  16. Law, Y. C., & Lee, J. H. M. (2006). Symmetry breaking constraints for value symmetries in constraint satisfaction. Constraints, 11, 221–267.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Lustig, I. J., & Puget, J.-F. (2001). Program does not equal program: Constraint programming and its relationship to mathematical programming. INTERFACES, 31(6), 29–53.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Petrie, K. E., & Smith, B. M. (2003). Symmetry breaking in graceful graphs. Technical report APES-56-2003, APES Research Group. Available from http://www.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/∼apes/apesreports.html.

  19. Puget, J.-F. (2005). Breaking symmetries in all different problems. In Proceedings of IJCAI’05 (pp. 272–277).

  20. Puget, J.-F. (2006). An efficient way of breaking value symmetries. In Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-06) (pp. 117–122). Cambridge: AAAI.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Puget, J.-F. (2006). Dynamic lex constraints. In F. Benhamou (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming - CP 2006, LNCS 4204. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Puget, J.-F., & Smith, B. M. (2006). Improved models for graceful graphs. In Proceedings of the CP 2006 workshop on modelling and solving problems with constraints.

  23. Régin, J.-C. (1994). A filtering algorithm for constraints of difference in CSPs. In Proceedings AAAI’94 (Vol. 1, pp. 362–367).

  24. Smith, B., & Petrie, K. (2003). Graceful graphs: Results from constraint programming. http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/bms/Graceful/.

  25. Smith, B. M. (2005). Symmetry and search in a network design problem. In R. Bartak, & M. Milano (Eds.), Integration of AI and OR techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems, proceedings of CPAIOR 2005 (2nd international conference). LNCS (Vol. 3524, pp. 336–350). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Smith, B. M. (2006). Constraint programming models for graceful graphs. In F. Benhamou (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming - CP 2006, LNCS (Vol. 4204, pp. 545–559). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. van Beek, P. (2006). Constraint propagation. In F. Rossi, P. van Beek, & T. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming (Chapter 4, pp. 75–124). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Barbara M. Smith

  2. ILOG, an IBM Company, 7 Bd des moulins, 13620, Carry-le-Rouet, France

    Jean-François Puget

Authors
  1. Barbara M. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-François Puget
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara M. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, B.M., Puget, JF. Constraint models for graceful graphs. Constraints 15, 64–92 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-009-9071-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-009-9071-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation