Understanding the Potential of Propagators

Propagation is at the very core of Constraint Programming (CP): it can provide significant performance boosts as long as the search space reduction is not outweighed by the cost for running the propagators. A lot of research effort in the CP community is directed toward improving this trade-off, which for a given type of filtering amounts to reducing the computation cost. This is done chiefly by 1) devising more efficient algorithms or by 2) using on-line control policies to limit the propagator activations. In both cases, obtaining improvements is a long and demanding process with uncertain outcome. We propose a method to assess the potential gain of both approaches before actually starting the endeavor, providing the community with a tool to best direct the research efforts. Our approach is based on instrumenting the constraint solver to collect statistics, and we rely on replaying search trees to obtain more realistic assessments. The overall approach is easy to setup and is showcased on the Energetic Reasoning (ER) and the Revisited Cardinality Reasoning for BinPacking (RCRB) propagators.

[1]  Philippe Baptiste,et al.  Constraint-based scheduling , 2001 .

[2]  Alban Derrien,et al.  A New Characterization of Relevant Intervals for Energetic Reasoning , 2014, CP.

[3]  Gilles Pesant,et al.  Revisiting the Sequence Constraint , 2006, CP.

[4]  Christian Bessiere,et al.  Optimal and Suboptimal Singleton Arc Consistency Algorithms , 2005, IJCAI.

[5]  Timo Berthold,et al.  An Approximative Criterion for the Potential of Energetic Reasoning , 2011, TAPAS.

[6]  Nicolas Beldiceanu,et al.  Extending CHIP in order to solve complex scheduling and placement problems , 1993, JFPL.

[7]  Roland H. C. Yap,et al.  An MDD-based generalized arc consistency algorithm for positive and negative table constraints and some global constraints , 2010, Constraints.

[8]  David Bergman,et al.  MDD Propagation for Sequence Constraints , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[9]  Pierre Schaus,et al.  Revisiting the Cardinality Reasoning for BinPacking Constraint , 2013, CP.

[10]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Encodings of the Sequence Constraint , 2007, CP.

[11]  P. Schaus Solving balancing and bin-packing problems with constraint programming , 2009 .

[12]  Mats Carlsson,et al.  A New Multi-resource cumulatives Constraint with Negative Heights , 2002, CP.

[13]  Philippe Baptiste,et al.  Constraint - based scheduling : applying constraint programming to scheduling problems , 2001 .

[14]  Paul Shaw,et al.  A Constraint for Bin Packing , 2004, CP.

[15]  Jorge J. Moré,et al.  Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1007/s101070100263 , 2001 .

[16]  Pierre Schaus,et al.  Supervised Learning to Control Energetic Reasoning: A Feasibility Study , 2014 .

[17]  Claude Le Pape,et al.  Time-versus-Capacity Compromises in Project Scheduling1 , 1994 .

[18]  Philippe Baptiste,et al.  Constraint Propagation and Decomposition Techniques for Highly Disjunctive and Highly Cumulative Project Scheduling Problems , 1997, CP.

[19]  Rainer Kolisch,et al.  Benchmark instances for project scheduling problems , 1999 .

[20]  Nicolas Beldiceanu,et al.  Introducing global constraints in CHIP , 1994 .