1 / 77

Finite Constraint Domains - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Finite Constraint Domains. Finite Constraint Domains. Constraint satisfaction problems (CSP) A backtracking solver Node and arc consistency Bounds consistency Generalized consistency Optimization for arithmetic CSPs. Finite Constraint Domains. An important class of constraint domains

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Finite Constraint Domains' - haley

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Finite Constraint Domains

• Constraint satisfaction problems (CSP)

• A backtracking solver

• Node and arc consistency

• Bounds consistency

• Generalized consistency

• Optimization for arithmetic CSPs

• An important class of constraint domains

• Use to model constraint problems involving choice: e.G. Scheduling, routing and timetabling

• The greatest industrial impact of constraint programming has been on these problems

• A constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) consists of:

• A constraint C over variables x1,..., Xn

• A domain D which maps each variable xi to a set of possible values d(xi)

• It is understood as the constraint

A classic CSP is the problem of coloring a map so that no adjacent regions have the same color

Can the map of Australia be colored with 3 colors ?

Q2

Q3

Q4

1

2

3

4

4-queens

Place 4 queens on a 4 x 4 chessboard so that none can take another.

Four variables Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 representing the row of the queen in each column. Domain of each variable is {1,2,3,4}

One solution! -->

The constraints:

Not on the same row

Not diagonally up

Not diagonally down

Smuggler with knapsack with capacity 9, who needs to choose items to smuggle to make profit at least 30

What should be the domains of the variables?

• exploring the solution space

• complete and sound

• efficiency issues

• Backtracking (BT)

• Generate & Test (GT)

exploring subspace

exploringindividual assignments

Z

Y

X

• probably the most general problem solving method

• Algorithm:

generate labelling

test satisfaction

Drawbacks: Improvements:

blind generator smart generator --> local search

late discovery of testing within generator

inconsistencies --> backtracking

• incrementally extends a partial solution towards a complete solution

• Algorithm:

assign value to variable

check consistency

until all variables labelled

• Drawbacks:

• thrashing

• redundant work

• late detection of conflict

A

1

B

2

1

C

2

1

1

D

2

2

1

1

1

A = D, B  D, A+C < 4

• Problem:X::{1,2}, Y::{1,2}, Z::{1,2}X = Y, X  Z, Y > Z

generate & test backtracking

• The simplest way to solve CSPs is to enumerate the possible solutions

• The backtracking solver:

• Enumerates values for one variable at a time

• Checks that no prim. Constraint is false at each stage

• Assume satisfiable(c) returns false when primitive constraint c with no variables is unsatisfiable

• Check whether a constraint is unsatisfiable because of a prim. Constraint with no vars

• Partial_satisfiable(c)

• For each primitive constraint c in C

• If vars(c) is empty

• Ifsatisfiable(c) = falsereturnfalse

• Returntrue

• Back_solve(c,d)

• Ifvars(c) is empty returnpartial_satisfiable(c)

• Choose x in vars(c)

• For each value d in d(x)

• Let C1 be C with x replaced by d

• Ifpartial_satisfiable(c1) then

• Ifback_solve(c1,d) then returntrue

• Returnfalse

Choose var X domain {1,2}

Choose var Y domain {1,2}

Choose var Z domain {1,2}

Variable X domain {1,2}

Choose var Y domain {1,2}

No variables, and false

partial_satisfiablefalse

No variables, and false

• removing inconsistent values from variables’ domains

• graph representation of the CSP

• binary and unary constraints only (no problem!)

• nodes = variables

• edges = constraints

• node consistency (NC)

• arc consistency (AC)

• path consistency (PC)

• (strong) k-consistency

A>5

A

A<C

AB

C

B

B=C

• Basic idea: find an equivalent CSP to the original one with smaller domains of vars

• Key: examine 1 prim.Constraint c at a time

• Node consistency: (vars(c)={x}) remove any values from domain of x that falsify c

• Arc consistency: (vars(c)={x,y}) remove any values from d(x) for which there is no value in d(y) that satisfies c and vice versa

• Primitive constraint c is node consistent with domain D if |vars(c)| /=1 or

• If vars(c) = {x} then for each d in d(x)

• X assigned d is a solution of c

• A CSP is node consistent if each prim. Constraint in it is node consistent

Example CSP is not node consistent (see Z)

This CSP is node consistent

The map coloring and 4-queens CSPs are node consistent. Why?

• Node_consistent(c,d)

• For each prim. Constraint c in C

• D := node_consistent_primitive(c, D)

• ReturnD

• Node_consistent_primitive(c, D)

• If|vars(c)| =1then

• Let {x} = vars(c)

• ReturnD

• A primitive constraint c is arc consistent with domain D if |vars{c}| != 2 or

• Vars(c) = {x,y} and for each d in d(x) there exists e in d(y) such that

• And similarly for y

• A CSP is arc consistent if each prim. Constraint in it is arc consistent

This CSP is node consistent but not arc consistent

For example the value 4 for X and X < Y.

The following equivalent CSP is arc consistent

The map coloring and 4-queens CSPs are also arc consistent.

• Arc_consistent_primitive(c, D)

• If|vars(c)| = 2then

• ReturnD

• Removes values which are not arc consistent with c

• Arc_consistent(c,d)

• Repeat

• W := d

• For each prim. Constraint c in C

• D := arc_consistent_primitive(c,d)

• UntilW = D

• ReturnD

• A very naive version (there are much better)

• We can build constraint solvers using the consistency methods

• Two important kinds of domain

• False domain: some variable has empty domain

• Valuation domain: each variable has a singleton domain

• Extend satisfiable to CSP with val. Domain

• D := node_consistent(C,D)

• D := arc_consistent(C,D)

• ifD is a false domain

• returnfalse

• ifD is a valuation domain

• returnsatisfiable(C,D)

• returnunknown

Node and Arc Solver Example

Colouring Australia: with constraints

Node consistency

Node and Arc Solver Example

Colouring Australia: with constraints

Arc consistency

Node and Arc Solver Example

Colouring Australia: with constraints

Arc consistency

Node and Arc Solver Example

Colouring Australia: with constraints

Arc consistency

unknown

• We can combine consistency with the backtracking solver

• Apply node and arc consistency before starting the backtracking solver and after each variable is given a value

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1

Therefore,

we need to

choose

another value

for Q2.

No value

can be

assigned to

Q3 in this

case!

There is no

possible

value for

variable Q3!

2

3

4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1

Backtracking…

Find another

value for Q3?

No!

backtracking,

Find another

value of Q2?

No!

backtracking,

Find another

value of Q1?

Yes, Q1 = 2

We cannot

find any

possible value

for Q4 in

this case!

2

3

4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1

2

3

4

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

1

2

3

4

Node and Arc Solver Example

Colouring Australia: with constraints

Backtracking enumeration

Select a variable with domain of more than 1, T

Apply consistency

• empty domain => no solution

• cardinality of all domains is 1 => solution

• Problem:X::{1,2}, Y::{1,2}, Z::{1,2}X  Y, X  Z, Y  Z

X

1 2

1 2

Y

Z

1 2

V2

V4

V3

V5

• Path (V0 … Vn) is path consistent iff for each pair of compatible values x in D(V0) and y in D(Vn) there exists an instantiation of the variables V1 ..Vn-1 such that all the constraint (Vi,Vi+1) are satisfied

• CSP is path consistent iff each path is path consistent

• consistency along the path only

V0

V1

???

V2

V4

V3

V5

• checking paths of length 2 is enough

• Plus/Minus

+ detects more inconsistencies than AC

- extensional representation of constraints (01 matrix), huge memory consumption

- changes in graph connectivity

V0

V1

???

• K-consistency

• consistent valuation o (K-1) variables can be extended to K-th variable

• strong K-consistency J-consistency for each JK

• If all the domains have cardinality 1=> solution

• If any domain is empty => no solution

• Otherwise ?

• strongly k-consistent constraint graph with k nodes => completeness

• for some special kind of graphs weaker forms of consistency are enough

• strongly N-consistent constraint graph with N nodes => solution

• strongly K-consistent constraint graph with N nodes (K<N) => ???path consistent but no solution

• Special graph structures

• tree structured graph => (D)AC is enough

A

D

{1,2,3}

{1,2,3}

C

B

{1,2,3}

{1,2,3}

• A primitive constraint c is hyper-arc consistent with domain D if

• for each variable x in c and for each d in d(x) the valuation x-->d can be extended to a solution of c

• A CSP is hyper-arc consistent if each prim. Constraint in it is hyper-arc consistent

• NC  hyper-arc consistency for constraint with 1 var

• AC  hyper-arc consistency for constraint with 2 var

• What about prim. constraints with more than 2 variables?

• Each CSP can be transformed into an equivalent binary CSP (dual encoding)

• k-consitncy

• hyper-arc consistency

• Each CSP can be transformed into an equivalent binary CSP by ``dual encoding’’:

• k-ary constraint c is converted to a dual variable vc with the domain consisting of compatible tuples

• for each pair of constraint c,c’ sharing some variable there is a binary constraint between vc and vc’ restricting the dual variables to tuples in which the original shared variables take the same value

• hyper-arc consistency: extending arc consistency to arbitrary number of variables

• (better than binary representation)

• Unfortunately determining hyper-arc consistency is NP-hard (as expensive as determinining if a CSP is satisfiable).

• Solution?

• arithmetic CSP: domains = integers

• range: [l..u] represents the set of integers {l, l+1, ..., u}

• idea use real number consistency and only examine the endpoints (upper and lower bounds) of the domain of each variable

• Define min(D,x) as minimum element in domain of x, similarly for max(D,x)

• A prim. constraint c is bounds consistent with domain D if for each var x in vars(c)

• exist real numbers d1, ..., dk for remaining vars x1, ..., xk such that min(D,xj),= dj<= max(D,xj) and is a solution of c

• and similarly for

• An arithmetic CSP is bounds consistent if all its primitive constraints are

Not bounds consistent, consider Z=2, then X-3Y=10

But the domain below is bounds consistent

Compare with the hyper-arc consistent domain

• Given a current domain D we wish to modify the endpoints of domains so the result is bounds consistent

• propagation rules do this

Consider the primitive constraint X = Y + Z which is equivalent to the three forms

Reasoning about minimum and maximum values:

Propagation rules for the constraint X = Y + Z

The propagation rules determine that:

Hence the domains can be reduced to

Given initial domain:

We determine that

new domain:

Disequations give weak propagation rules, only when one side takes a fixed value that equals the minimum or maximum of the other is there propagation

If all variables are positive its simple enough

Example:

becomes:

But what if variables can be 0 or negative?

Calculate X bounds by examining extreme values

Similarly for upper bound on X using maximum

BUT this does not work for Y and Z? As long as min(D,Z) <0 and max(D,Z)>0 there is no bounds restriction on Y

Recall we are using real numbers (e.g. 4/d)

We can wait until the range of Z is non-negative or non-positive and then use rules like

division by 0:

• Repeatedly apply the propagation rules for each primitive constraint until there is no change in the domain

• We do not need to examine a primitive constraint until the domains of the variables involve are modified

Smugglers knapsack problem (no whiskey available)

Continuing there is no further change

Note how we had to reexamine the profit constraint

• D := bounds_consistent(C,D)

• ifD is a false domain

• returnfalse

• ifD is a valuation domain

• returnsatisfiable(C,D)

• returnunknown

• Apply bounds consistency before starting the backtracking solver and after each variable is given a value

Smugglers knapsack problem (whiskey available)

Current domain:

Initial bounds consistency

W = 0

Solution Found: return true

P = 1

(0,1,3)

Smugglers knapsack problem (whiskey available)

Current domain:

Backtrack

Backtrack

Initial bounds consistency

W = 0

W = 1

W = 2

P = 1

P = 2

P = 3

(1,1,1)

(2,0,0)

No more solutions

(0,1,3)

false

(0,3,0)

• Can use any consistency method with any other communicating through the domain,

• node consistency : prim constraints with 1 var

• arc consistency: prim constraints with 2 vars

• bounds consistency: other prim. constraints

• Sometimes we can get more information by using complex constraints and special consistency methods

• alldifferent({V1,...,Vn}) holds when each variable V1,..,Vn takes a different value

• alldifferent({X, Y, Z}) is equivalent to

• Arc consistent with domain

• BUT there is no solution! specialized consistency for alldifferent can find it

• let c be of the form alldifferent(V)

• while exists v in V where D(v) = {d}

• V := V - {v}

• for each v’ in V

• D(v’) := D(v’) - {d}

• DV := union of all D(v) for v in V

• if|DV| < |V|thenreturn false domain

• returnD

DV = {1,2}, V={X,Y,Z} hence detect unsatisfiability

DV = {1,2,3,4,5}, V={X,Y,Z,T} don’t detect unsat. Maximal matching based consistency could

• schedule n tasks with start times Si and durations Di needing resources Ri where L resources are available at each moment

• array access if I = i, then X = Vi and if X != Vi then I != i

• Because domains are finite can use a solver to build a straightforward optimizer

• retry_int_opt(C, D, f, best)

• D2 := int_solv(C,D)

• ifD2 is a false domain then returnbest

• let sol be the solution corresponding to D2

• returnretry_int_opt(C /\ f < sol(f), D, f, sol)

Smugglers knapsack problem (optimize profit)

First solution found:

Next solution found:

No next solution!

Corresponding solution

Return best solution

• Since the solver may use backtrack search anyway combine it with the optimization

• At each step in backtracking search, if best is the best solution so far add the constraint f < best(f)

Smugglers knapsack problem (whiskey available)

Smugglers knapsack problem (whiskey available)

Current domain:

Initial bounds consistency

W = 0

P = 1

(0,1,3)

Smugglers knapsack problem (whiskey available)

Initial bounds consistency

W = 0

W = 1

W = 2

P = 1

P = 2

P = 3

(1,1,1)

false

(0,1,3)

false

false

Modify constraint

Return last sol (1,1,1)

• The previous methods,unlike simplex don't use the objective function to direct search

• branch and bound optimization for (C,f)

• use simplex to find a real optimal,

• if solution is integer stop

• otherwise choose a var x with non-integer opt value d and examine the problems

• use the current best solution to constrain prob.

Smugglers knapsack problem

false

false

Solution (2,0,0) = 30

Solution (1,1,1) = 32

false

Worse than best sol

false

false

false

• CSPs form an important class of problems

• Solving of CSPs is essentially based on backtracking search

• Reduce the search using consistency methods

• node, arc, bound, generalized

• Optimization is based on repeated solving or using a real optimizer to guide the search