1 / 1

853 instances from the 2008 CP Solver Competition.

Improving Relational Consistency Algorithms Using Dynamic Relation Partitioning A.Schneider 1 , R.J.Woodward 1,2 , B.Y.Choueiry 1 , and C.Bessiere 2 1 Constraint Systems Laboratory • University of Nebraska-Lincoln • USA 2 LIRMM-CNRS • University of Montpellier • France. o 1. C 2. o 1.

kaden-craft
Download Presentation

853 instances from the 2008 CP Solver Competition.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Improving Relational Consistency Algorithms Using Dynamic Relation Partitioning A.Schneider1, R.J.Woodward1,2, B.Y.Choueiry1, and C.Bessiere2 1Constraint Systems Laboratory • University of Nebraska-Lincoln • USA 2LIRMM-CNRS • University of Montpellier • France o1 C2 o1 ti C3 t3 • Partitions: Coarse, Fine, Intermediate • Empirical Evaluation t2 C1 t1 • Contributions o2 C4 o3 Experimental Setup ∀ tuple • DesignedPerFB, an algorithm for enforcing R(*,m)C, exploiting the fact that constraints in dual CSP are piecewise functional. • Compared performance of PerFBand PerTuple(previous algorithm) to empirically establish improvements. The considered set of subscopes determines the partition of R1. C5 ..… • 853 instances from the 2008 CP Solver Competition. • Real full lookaheadcl+proj-wR(*,m)C, which enforces R(*, m)C on each cluster, adds projection of constraints to cluster separators to bolster propagation, and uses the minimal dual graph to reduce the number of combinations. • m = 2,3,4,|𝜓(cl)| (i.e., minimal clusters) • 2 hours and 8 GB per instance, 853 total instances. [Lecoutre+] ∀ relation ∀ m-1 relations R1: intermediate R1: coarse blocks R1: fine • Relational Consistency [Karakashian+ AAAI 13] R(∗,m)C, m-wise consistency, ensures that every combination of m relations is minimal. Cumulative Charts • PerTuple enforces R(*,m)C[Karakshian+ AAAI10] • Given all combinations of m relations • For each relation in each combination • SearchSupport(a backtrack search with FC) ensures each tuple can be extended to the other m-1 relations • If no solution is found, tuple is removed We compute and store fine and coarse blocks at preprocessing. CPU Time (s) • FromPerTupleToPerFB PerFB makes fewer calls to SearchSupport than PerTuple PerFBiteratesover fine blocks rather than tuples At each call, it dynamically determines the intermediate blocks induced on a relation by the considered other relations. Number of instances completed CPU Time (s) • For m=2,3,4, |𝜓(cl)|, PerFB dominates PerTuple • m=3 performs the best, m=|𝜓(cl)| trails closely behind • Piecewise Functional Constraints • Considering relations R1,R2R5 • The union of the subscopes of R1,R2and R1,R5determines the intermediate partition induced by R2R5 on R1. • Projecting a fine block over this union forms a signature of a fine block. • Once SearchSupportfinds (or not) a support for a fine block, it reuses this result for future fine blocks with the same signature. Samaras & Stergiou[JAIR 05] noted that the constraints in the dual CSP are piecewise functional Each relation can be partitioned into blocks of equivalent tuples Each block is supported by at most one other block They used above property to design PW-AC algorithm (m=2) Number of instances completed Summary Results • For all tested combination sizes, • PerFBsolvesmore instances than PerTuple, and, • On instances solved by both algorithms, PerFB has a smaller average CPU time. • Dynamic partitions reduce redundant callsto SearchSupport. R1 R2 R1 A,B,C,D,G R2 R1 R5 A,B A,B,F B,E,G C,F A,B,E R2 R3 R4 R5 ✗ ✗ • The “subscope equality constraint” {A,B} between R1 and R2 determines the partition of R1. • What partition do two subscopes (e.g., {A,B}, {C}) induce on R1? • What partition do all the subscopes with R1’s neighbors (i.e., R2, R3,R4,and R5) induce on R1? • How do those various partitions relate? • How to exploit them in PerTuple? • 〈R1,fb1〉 has support〈R2,fb6〉, 〈R5,fb20〉. • 〈R1,fb2〉 has support 〈R2,fb6〉, 〈R5,fb22〉. • fb2, fb3have the same signature (intermediate block {fb2,fb3}). SearchSupportis not called onfb3. • Future Research • Extend our approach to AllSol, our other algorithm for enforcing minimality of m relations[Karakashian PhD 13] Experiments were conducted on the equipment of the Holland Computing Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Thisresearch was supported by NSF Grant No. RI-111795 and EU project ICON (FP7-284715). Woodward was supported by an NSF GRF Grant No. 1041000 and a Chateaubriand Fellowship. Paper: CP 2014. September 4th, 2014

More Related