Skip to main content
Log in

Bayes networks for estimating the number of solutions of constraint networks

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problem of counting the number of solutions to a constraint network (CN) (also called constraint satisfaction problems, CSPs) is rephrased in terms of probability updating in Bayes networks. Approximating the probabilities in Bayes networks is a problem which has been studied for a while, and may well provide a good approximation to counting the number of solutions. We use a simple approximation based on independence, and show that it is correct for tree‐structured CNs. For other CNs, it is less optimistic than a spanning‐tree approximation suggested in prior work. Experiments show that the Bayes nets estimation is more accurate on the average, compared to competing methods (the spanning‐tree, as well as a scheme based on a product of all compatible pairs of values). We present empirical evidence that our approximation may also be a useful (value ordering) search heuristic for finding a single solution to a constraint satisfaction problem.

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. F. Bacchus and P. van Beek, On the conversion between non-binary and binary CSPs, in: Proc. of AAAI-98, Madison, WI (1998) pp. 147-182.

  2. O. Bailleux and J.J. Chabrier, Counting by statistics on search trees: Application to CSPs,Intelligent Data Analysis 1 (1997).

  3. E. Charniak and S. Husain, A new admissible heuristic for minimal-cost proofs, in: Proc. of AAAI Conference (1991) pp. 446-451.

  4. P. Cheeseman, B. Kanefsky and W.M. Taylor, Where the really hard problems are, in: Proc. of IJCAI-91, Sydney, Australia (1991) pp. 331-337.

  5. G.F. Cooper, The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks, Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3) (1990) 393-405.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. P. Dagum and R.M. Chavez, Approximating probabilistic inference in Bayesian belief networks, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 15(3) (1993) 244-255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. P. Dagum and M. Luby, Approximating probabilistic inference in Bayesian belief networks is NPhard, Artificial Intelligence 60(1) (1993) 141-153.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Dechter and J. Pearl, Network-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems, Artificial Intelligence 34 (1988) 1-38.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. M. Henrion, G. Provan, B. Del Favero and G. Sanders, An experimental comparison of numerical and qualitative probabilistic reasoning, in: UAI, Proceedings of the 10th Conference (July 1994) pp. 319-326.

  11. T. Hogg, Refining the phase transition in combinatorial search, Journal of Logic Programming 19 (1994) 503-581.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. D.E. Knuth, Estimating the efficiency of backtrack programs, Mathematics of Computation 39(129) (1975) 121-136.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. D. Manchak and P. van Beek, A 'C' library of constraint satisfaction techniques (1994). Available by anonymous ftp from: ftp://ftp.cs.ualberta.ca/pub/vanbeek/software.

  14. A. Meisels and N. Liusternik, Experiments on networks of employee timetabling problems, in: Practice & Theory Automated Timetabling II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1408 (Toronto, Canada, 1997) pp. 130-141.

    Google Scholar 

  15. B. Nudel, Consistent-labeling problems and their algorithms: Expected-complexities and theorybased heuristics, Artificial Intelligence 21 (1983) 135-178.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Pearl, Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  17. P. Prosser, Binary constraint satisfaction problems: some are harder than others, in: Proc. of ECAI-94, Amsterdam (1994) pp. 95-99.

  18. D. Roth, On the hardness of approximate reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 82 (1996) 273-302.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. E. Santos Jr., S.E. Shimony and E. Williams, Hybrid algorithms for approximate belief updating in Bayes nets, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 17(2-3) (1997) 191-216.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. B.M. Smith, Phase transition and the mushy region in CSP, in: ECAI, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1994) pp. 100-104.

  21. G. Solotorevsky, E. Shimony and A. Meisels, CSPs with counters: a likelihood-based heuristic, Journal of Exper. Theor. Artif. Intell. 10 (1998) 117-129.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. E. Tsang, Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction (Academic Press, New York, 1993) pp. 184-187.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meisels, A., Shimony, S.E. & Solotorevsky, G. Bayes networks for estimating the number of solutions of constraint networks. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 28, 169–186 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018956222900

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018956222900

Keywords

Navigation