Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compiling CSPs into Tree-Driven Automata for Interactive Solving

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Constraint programming techniques are widely used to model and solve decision problems and many algorithms have been developed to solve automatically and efficiently families of CSPs; nevertheless, they do not help solve interactive decision support problems, like product configuration. In such problems, the user chooses the values of the variables, and the role of the system is not to solve the CSP, but to help the user in this task. Dynamic global consistency maintaining is one of the most useful functionalities that should be offered by such a CSP platform. Unfortunately, this task is intractable in the worst case. Since interactivity requires short response times, intractability must be circumvented some way. To this end, compilation methods have been proposed that transform the original problem into a data structure allowing a short response time. In this paper, we extend the work of Amilhastre et al. [1] and Vempaty [15] by the use of a new structure, tree-driven automata, that takes advantage of the structural characteristics of configuration problems (decomposition of the components into independent subcomponents). Tree-driven automata can be far more compact than classical automata while keeping their good properties, especially a tractable complexity for the maintenance of global consistency.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amilhastre, J. (1999). Représentation par automate de lénsemble des solutions de problémes de satisfaction de contraintes. PhD Thesis, Université du Languedoc, Montpellier.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amilhastre, J., Fargier, H., & Marquis, P. (2002). Consistency restoration and explanations in dynamic CSPs-Application to configuration. Artif. Intell. 135: 199-234.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cadoli, M., & Donini, F. M. (1997). A survey on knowledge compilation. AI Commun. 10: 137-150.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Darwiche, A., & Marquis, P. (2001). A perspective on knowledge compilation. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2001, 175-182.

  5. Dechter, R., & Pearl, J. (1989). Tree clustering for constraint networks. Artif. Intell. 38: 353-366.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Diaz, J., Petit, J., & Serna, M. (2002). A survey of graph layout problems. ACM Comput. Surv. 34(3): 313-356.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ellis, J., Sudborough, I. H., & Turner, J. (1979). The vertex separation and search number of a graph. Inf. Comput. 113: 50-79.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gelle, E., & Weigel, R. (1996). Interactive configuration using constraint satisfaction techniques. In Artificial Intelligence and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop, AAAI Technical Report FS-96-03, 37-44.

  9. Hoey, J., St-Aubin, R., Hu, A., & Boutilier, C. (1999). SPUDD: Stochastic planning using decision diagrams. In Proceedings UAI'99, pages 279-288.

  10. Pargamin, B. (2003). Extending cluster tree compilation with non-boolean variables in product configuration: A tractable approach to preference-based configuration. In Proceedings of the IJCAI'03 Workshop on Configuration. Acapulco, Mexico.

  11. Sabin, D., & Freuder, E.C. (1996). Composite constraint satisfaction. In Artificial Intelligence and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop, pages 153-161.

  12. Sabin, D., & Weigel, R. (1998). Product configuration frameworks-A survey. In IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications, pages 42-49.

  13. Soininen, T., & Gelle, E. (1999). Dynamic constraint satisfaction in configuration. In Proceedings of the AAAI'99 Workshop on Configuration, 95-100. Orlando, Florida.

  14. Stumptner, M. (1997). An overview of knowledge-based configuration. AI Commun. 111-125.

  15. Vempaty, N. R. (1992). Solving constraint satisfaction problems using finite state automata. In Proceedings of AAAI'92, pages 453-458.

  16. Weigel, R., & Faltings, B. (1999). Compiling constraint satisfaction problems. Artif. Intell. 115: 257-287.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, 118 route de Narbonne, Toulouse, France. Email

    Hélène Fargier

  2. LIRMM, 161 rue Ada, Montpellier, France. Email

    Marie-Catherine Vilarem

Authors
  1. Hélène Fargier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie-Catherine Vilarem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fargier, H., Vilarem, MC. Compiling CSPs into Tree-Driven Automata for Interactive Solving. Constraints 9, 263–287 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CONS.0000049204.75635.7e

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CONS.0000049204.75635.7e

Search

Navigation