SOLVING NON BINARY CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS WITH DUAL BACKTRACKING ON HYPERTREE DECOMPOSITION

Zineb Habbas, Kamal Amroun, Daniel Singer

Abstract

Solving a CSP (Constraint Satisfaction Problem) is NP-Complete in general. However, there are various classes of CSPs that can be solved in polynomial time. Some of them can be identified by analyzing their structure. It is theoretically well established that a tree (or hypertree) structured CSP can be solved in a backtrack-free way leading to tractability. Different methods exist for converting CSPs in a tree (or hypertree) structured representation. Among these methods Hypertree Decomposition has been proved to be the most general one for non-binary CSPs. Unfortunately, in spite of its good theoretical bound, the unique algorithm for solving CSP from its hypertree structure is inefficient in practice due to its memory explosion. To overcome this problem, we propose in this paper a new approach exploiting a Generalized Hypertree Decomposition. We present the so called HD DBT algorithm (Dual BackTracking algorithm guided by an order induced by a generalized Hypertree Decomposition). Different heuristics and implementations are presented showing its practical interest.

References

  1. Dechter, R. and Pearl, J. (1989). Tree clustering for constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 38:353-366.
  2. Dermaku, A., Ganzow, T., Gottlob, G., McMahan, B., Musliu, N., and Samer, M. (2005). Heuristic methods for hypertree decompositions. Technical report, DBAI-R.
  3. Freuder, E. C. (1982). A sufficient condition for backtrackfree search. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 29:24-32.
  4. Gottlob, G., Crohe, M., and Musliu, N. (2005). Hypertree decomposition: structure, algorithms and applications. In Proceeding of 31 st International workshop WG, Metz.
  5. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. (1999). On tractable queries and constraints. In Proceedings of DEXA'99.
  6. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. (2000). A comparison of structural csp decomposition methods. Artificial Intelligence, 124:243-282.
  7. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. (2001). Hypertree decompositions: A survey. In Proceedings of MFCS 7801, pages 37-57.
  8. Gottlob, G., Leone, N., and Scarcello, F. (2002). Robbers, marshals and guards : Theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width. Journal of the ACM.
  9. Greco, G. and Scarcello, F. (2010). On the power of structural decompositions of graph-based representations of constraint problems. Artificial Intelligence, 174:382-409.
  10. Grohe, M. and Marx, D. (2006). Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. ACM 2006, C-30(2):101-106.
  11. Gyssens, M., Jeavons, P. G., and Cohen, D. A. (1994). Decomposing constraint satisfaction problems using database techniques. Artificial Intelligence, 66:57-89.
  12. Harvey, P. and Ghose, A. (2003). Reducing redundancy in the hypertree decomposition scheme. In Proceeding of ICTAI'03, pages 548-555, Montreal.
  13. Jeavons, P. G., A, C. D., and Gyssens, M. (1994). A structural decomposition for hypergraphs. Contemporary Mathematics, 178:161-177.
  14. Jégou, P., Ndiaye, S. N., and Terrioux, C. (2009). Combined strategies for decomposition-based methods for solving csps. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2009), pages 184-192.
  15. Jégou, P. and Terrioux, C. (2003). Hybrid backtracking bounded by tree-decomposition of constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence,, 146:43-75.
  16. Korimort, T. (2003). Heuristic hypertree decomposition. AURORA TR 2003-18.
  17. Montanari, U. (1974). Networks of constraints: Fundamental properties and applications to pictures processing. Information Sciences, 7:95-132.
  18. Musliu, N. and Schafhauser, W. (2005). Genetic algorithms for generalized hypertree decompositions. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 1(3):317-340.
  19. Pang, W. and Goodwin, S. D. (1997). Constraint-directed backtracking. In 1Oth Australian Joint Conference on AI, pages 47-56, Perth, Western Australia.
  20. Pang, W. and Goodwin, S. D. (2003). A graph based backtracking algorithm for solving general csps. In Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences of AI 2003, pages 114-128, Halifax.
  21. Samer, M. (2005). Hypertree-decomposition via branchdecomposition. In Proceedings of the 19th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence, pages 1535-1536, Edinburgh, Scotland.
  22. Sathiamoorthy, S. and Andersen, H. R. (2007). Backtracking procedures for hypertree, hyperspread and connected hypertree decomposition of csps. In Proceedings of the IJCAI-07.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Habbas Z., Amroun K. and Singer D. (2011). SOLVING NON BINARY CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS WITH DUAL BACKTRACKING ON HYPERTREE DECOMPOSITION . In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-8425-40-9, pages 146-156. DOI: 10.5220/0003184801460156


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart11,
author={Zineb Habbas and Kamal Amroun and Daniel Singer},
title={SOLVING NON BINARY CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS WITH DUAL BACKTRACKING ON HYPERTREE DECOMPOSITION},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,},
year={2011},
pages={146-156},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0003184801460156},
isbn={978-989-8425-40-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1: ICAART,
TI - SOLVING NON BINARY CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS WITH DUAL BACKTRACKING ON HYPERTREE DECOMPOSITION
SN - 978-989-8425-40-9
AU - Habbas Z.
AU - Amroun K.
AU - Singer D.
PY - 2011
SP - 146
EP - 156
DO - 10.5220/0003184801460156