Tractable Structures for Constraint Satisfaction Problems

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on structure-driven constraint processing algorithms. It discusses that search in constraint satisfaction takes the form of depth-first backtracking, while inference is performed by variable-elimination and tree-clustering algorithms, or by bounded local consistency enforcing. Compared to human problem solving techniques, conditioning is analogous to guessing, or reasoning by assumption. On the other hand, inference corresponds to reinterpreting or making deduction from the problem at hand. Inference-based algorithms derive and record new information, generating equivalent problem representations that facilitate an easier solution. The chapter also reviews that inference algorithms shows their performance is controlled by graph parameters such as tree-width, induced-width and hypertree width. The chapter also discusses that hybrids of search and inference can be controlled by graph-based parameters such as cycle-cutset, and w-cutset and separator-size. It presents the notion of AND/OR search spaces for exploiting independencies displayed in the constraint graph during search, which, similar to inference, leads to graph-based performance bounds using parameters such as the depth of the pseudo-tree, path-width and tree-width.

[1]  Reuven Bar-Yehuda,et al.  Random Algorithms for the Loop Cutset Problem , 1999, UAI.

[2]  Vibhav Gogate,et al.  Counting-Based Look-Ahead Schemes for Constraint Satisfaction , 2004, CP.

[3]  Marc Gyssens,et al.  Decomposing Constraint Satisfaction Problems Using Database Techniques , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[4]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  A Comparison of Structural CSP Decomposition Methods , 1999, IJCAI.

[5]  Dan Geiger,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Haplotyping for General Pedigrees , 2005, Human Heredity.

[6]  David Maier,et al.  The Theory of Relational Databases , 1983 .

[7]  Umberto Bertelè,et al.  Nonserial Dynamic Programming , 1972 .

[8]  Dan Geiger,et al.  Exact genetic linkage computations for general pedigrees , 2002, ISMB.

[9]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Enhancement Schemes for Constraint Processing: Backjumping, Learning, and Cutset Decomposition , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[10]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Constraint Processing , 1995, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[11]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  The complexity of acyclic conjunctive queries , 2001, JACM.

[12]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Bucket Elimination: A Unifying Framework for Reasoning , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Dan Geiger,et al.  A Practical Algorithm for Finding Optimal Triangulations , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[14]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Simple Linear-Time Algorithms to Test Chordality of Graphs, Test Acyclicity of Hypergraphs, and Selectively Reduce Acyclic Hypergraphs , 1984, SIAM J. Comput..

[15]  H. L. Bodlaender,et al.  Treewidth: Algorithmic results and techniques , 1997 .

[16]  Dan Geiger,et al.  A sufficiently fast algorithm for finding close to optimal junction trees , 1996, UAI.

[17]  Francesco Scarcello,et al.  Non-Binary Constraints and Optimal Dual-Graph Representations , 2003, IJCAI.

[18]  Eugene C. Freuder A Sufficient Condition for Backtrack-Free Search , 1982, JACM.

[19]  Christophe Lecoutre Constraint Networks , 1992 .

[20]  Michael J. Quinn,et al.  Taking Advantage of Stable Sets of Variables in Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1985, IJCAI.

[21]  Javier Larrosa,et al.  Unifying tree decompositions for reasoning in graphical models , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[22]  David J. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems , 1990 .

[23]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Tree Clustering for Constraint Networks , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[24]  Eugene C. Freuder,et al.  Partial Constraint Satisfaction , 1989, IJCAI.

[25]  Shimon Even,et al.  Graph Algorithms , 1979 .

[26]  Dan Geiger,et al.  Optimizing exact genetic linkage computations , 2003, RECOMB '03.

[27]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Resolution versus Search: Two Strategies for SAT , 2000, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[28]  Derek G. Corneil,et al.  Complexity of finding embeddings in a k -tree , 1987 .

[29]  Daniel P. Miranker,et al.  A Complexity Analysis of Space-Bounded Learning Algorithms for the Constraint Satisfaction Problem , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[30]  John R. Gilbert,et al.  Approximating Treewidth, Pathwidth, and Minimum Elimination Tree Height , 1991, WG.

[31]  Prakash P. Shenoy,et al.  Binary Join Trees , 1996, UAI.

[32]  Catriel Beeri,et al.  On the Desirability of Acyclic Database Schemes , 1983, JACM.

[33]  Rina Dechter,et al.  AND/OR search spaces for graphical models , 2007, Artif. Intell..

[34]  Raimund Seidel,et al.  A New Method for Solving Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1981, IJCAI.

[35]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Approximation algorithms for graphical models , 2001 .

[36]  Stefan Arnborg,et al.  Efficient algorithms for combinatorial problems on graphs with bounded decomposability — A survey , 1985, BIT.

[37]  Rina Dechter,et al.  Network-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction problems , 1988 .

[38]  Alan K. Mackworth Consistency in Networks of Relations , 1977, Artif. Intell..

[39]  Rina Dechter,et al.  The Impact of AND/OR Search Spaces on Constraint Satisfaction and Counting , 2004, CP.

[40]  Eugene C. Freuder A sufficient condition for backtrack-bounded search , 1985, JACM.

[41]  Francesco Scarcello,et al.  Weighted hypertree decompositions and optimal query plans , 2004, PODS '04.

[42]  Javier Larrosa,et al.  Dynamic Combination of Search and Variable Elimination in CSP and Max-CSP , 2003 .

[43]  Eugene C. Freuder,et al.  The Complexity of Some Polynomial Network Consistency Algorithms for Constraint Satisfaction Problems , 1985, Artif. Intell..

[44]  Marko Samer Hypertree-decomposition via Branch-decomposition , 2005, IJCAI.