ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
When do bounds and domain propagation lead to the same search space?
Full text PdfPdf (381 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) archive
Volume 27 ,  Issue 3  (May 2005) table of contents
Pages: 388 - 425  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISSN:0164-0925
Authors
Christian Schulte  KTH---Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Kista, Sweden
Peter J. Stuckey  University of Melbourne, Australia
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 41,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1065887.1065889
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This article explores the question of when two propagation-based constraint systems have the same behavior, in terms of search space. We categorize the behavior of domain and bounds propagators for primitive constraints, and provide theorems that allow us to determine propagation behaviors for conjunctions of constraints. We then show how we can use this to analyze CLP(FD) programs to determine when we can safely replace domain propagators by more efficient bounds propagators without increasing search space. Empirical evaluation shows that programs optimized by the analysis' results are considerably more efficient.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Apt, K. 2003. Principles of Constraint Programming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
 
2
 
3
Beasley, J. E. 1990. OR library: Distributing test problems by electronic mail. J. Open. Res. Soc. 41, 11 (Nov.), 1069--1072. (URL: http://www.ms.ic.ac.uk/info.html).
 
4
Demoen, B., García de la Banda, M., and Stuckey, P. J. 1999. Type constraint solving for parametric and ad-hoc polymorphism. In Proceedings of the 22nd Australasian Computer Science Conference (Auckland, New Zealand), J. Edwards, Ed. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 217--228.
 
5
6
 
7
 
8
Harvey, W. and Schimpf, J. 2002. Bounds consistency techniques for long linear constraints. In Proceedings of TRICS: Techniques foR Implementing Constraint programming Systems, a workshop of CP 2002, N. Beldiceanu, P. Brisset, M. Carlsson, F. Laburthe, M. Henz, E. Monfroy, L. Perron, and C. Schulte, Eds. Number TRA9/02. 55 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117599, 39--46.
 
9
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
Marriott, K. and Stuckey, P. J. 1998. Programming with Constraints: An Introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
Mozart Consortium. 1999. The Mozart programming system. Available online from www.mozart-oz.org.
 
18
 
19
Quimper, C.-G., van Beek, P., López-Ortiz, A., Golynski, A., and Sadjad, S. B. 2003. An efficient bounds consistency algorithm for the global cardinality constraint. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming---CP 2003 (Kinsale, Ireland), F. Rossi, Ed. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2833. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 600--614.
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
Van Hentenryck, P., Saraswat, V., and Deville, Y. 1998. Design, implementation and evaluation of the constraint language cc(FD). J. Logic Prog. 37, 1--3, 139--164.
 
25


Collaborative Colleagues:
Christian Schulte: colleagues
Peter J. Stuckey: colleagues