Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byElmer Tiggs Modified over 4 years ago

1
Global Constraints Toby Walsh National ICT Australia and University of New South Wales www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~tw

2
Course outline ● Introduction ● All Different ● Lex ordering ● Value precedence ● Complexity ● GAC-Schema ● Soft Global Constraints ● Global Grammar Constraints ● Roots Constraint ● Range Constraint ● Slide Constraint ● Global Constraints on Sets

3
Global grammar constraints ● Often easy to specify a global constraint – ALLDIFFERENT([X1,..Xn]) iff Xi=/=Xj for i<j ● Difficult to build an efficient and effective propagator – Especially if we want global reasoning

4
Global grammar constraints ● Promising direction initiated is to specify constraints via automata/grammar – Sequence of variables = string in some formal language – Satisfying assignment = string accepted by the grammar/automata Global constraints meets formal language theory

5
REGULAR constraint ● REGULAR(A,[X1,..Xn]) holds iff – X1.. Xn is a string accepted by the deterministic finite automaton A – Proposed by Pesant at CP 2004 – GAC algorithm using dynamic programming – However, DP is not needed since simple ternary encoding is just as efficient and effective

6
REGULAR constraint ● Deterministic finite automaton (DFA) – – Q is finite set of states – Sigma is alphabet (from which strings formed) – T is transition function: Q x Sigma -> Q – q0 is starting state – F subseteq Q are accepting states ● DFAs accept precisely regular languages – Regular language can be specified by rules of the form: NonTerminal -> Terminal | Terminal NonTerminal

7
REGULAR constraint ● DFAs accept precisely regular languages – Regular language can be specified by rules of the form: NonTerminal -> Terminal NonTerminal -> Terminal NonTerminal - Alternatively given by regular expressions - More limited than BNF which can express context-free grammars

8
REGULAR constraint ● Deterministic finite automation (DFA) 5 tuple where – Q is finite set of states – Sigma is alphabet (from which strings formed) – T is transition function: Q x Sigma -> Q – q0 is starting state – F subseteq Q are accepting states

9
REGULAR constraint ● Regular language – S -> 0 | 0A| AB | 1B | 1 – A -> 0 | 0A – B -> 1 | 1B ● DFA – Q={q0,q1,q2,q3} – Sigma={0.1} – T(q0,0)=q0. T(q0,1)=q1 – T(q1,0)=q2, T(q1,1)=q1 – T(q2,0)=q2, T(q2,1)=q3 – T(q3,0)=T(q3,1)=q3 – F={q0,q1,q2}

10
REGULAR constraint ● Regular language – S -> A | AB | ABA | BA | B – A -> 0 | 0A – B -> 1 | 1B ● DFA – Q={q0,q1,q2,q3} – Sigma={0.1} – T(q0,0)=q0. T(q0,1)=q1 – T(q1,0)=q2, T(q1,1)=q1 – T(q2,0)=q2, T(q2,1)=q3 – T(q3,0)=T(q3,1)=q3 – F={q0,q1,q2} This is the CONTIGUITY global constraint

11
REGULAR constraint ● Many global constraints are instances of REGULAR – AMONG – CONTIGUITY – LEX – PRECEDENCE – STRETCH –.. ● Domain consistency can be enforced in O(ndQ) time using dynamic programming

12
REGULAR constraint ● REGULAR constraint can be encoded into ternary constraints ● Introduce Qi+1 – state of the DFA after the ith transition ● Then post sequence of constraints – C(Xi,Qi,Qi+1) iff DFA goes from state Qi to Qi+1 on symbol Xi

13
REGULAR constraint ● REGULAR constraint can be encoded into ternary constraints ● Constraint graph is Berge-acyclic – Constraints only overlap on one variable – Enforcing GAC on ternary constraints achieves GAC on REGULAR in O(ndQ) time

14
REGULAR constraint ● PRECEDENCE([X1,..Xn]) iff – min({i | Xi=j or i=n+1}) < min({i | Xi=k or i=n+2}) for all j<k ● DFA has one state for each value plus a single non-accepting state, fail – State represents largest value so far used ● T(Si,vj)=Si if j<=i ● T(Si,vj)=Sj if j=i+1 ● T(Si,vj)=fail if j>i+1 ● T(fail,v)=fail

15
REGULAR constraint ● PRECEDENCE([X1,..Xn]) iff – min({i | Xi=j or i=n+1}) < min({i | Xi=k or i=n+2}) for all j<k ● DFA has one state for each value plus a single non-accepting state, fail – State represents largest value so far used ● T(Si,vj)=Si if j<i ● T(Si,vj)=Sj if j=i+1 ● T(Si,vj)=fail if j>i+1 ● T(fail,v)=fail ● REGULAR encoding of this is just these transition constraints (can ignore fail)

16
REGULAR constraint ● STRETCH([X1,..Xn]) holds iff – Any stretch of consecutive values is between shortest(v) and longest(v) length – Any change (v1,v2) is in some permitted set, P – For example, you can only have 3 consecutive night shifts and a night shift must be followed by a day off

17
REGULAR constraint ● STRETCH([X1,..Xn]) holds iff – Any stretch of consecutive values is between shortest(v) and longest(v) length – Any change (v1,v2) is in some permitted set, P ● DFA – Qi is – Q0= – T(,a)= if q+1<=longest(a) – T(,b)= if (a,b) in P and q>=shortest(a) – All states are accepting

18
NFA constraint ● Automaton does not need to be deterministic ● Non-deterministic finite automaton (NFA) still only accept regular languages – But may require exponentially fewer states – Important as O(ndQ) running time for propagator – E.g. 0* (1|2)* 2 (1|2)^k 0* – Where 0=closed, 1=production, 2=maintenance ● Can use the same ternary encoding

19
Soft REGULAR constraint ● May wish to be “near” to a regular string ● Near could be – Hamming distance – Edit distance ● SoftREGULAR(A,[X1,..Xn],N) holds iff – X1..Xn is at distance N from a string accepted by the finite automaton A – Can encode this into a sequence of 5-ary constraints

20
Soft REGULAR constraint ● SoftREGULAR(A,[X1,..Xn],N) – Consider Hamming distance (edit distance similar though a little more complex) – Qi+1 is state of automaton after the ith transition – Di+1 is Hamming distance up to the ith variable – Post sequence of constraints ● C(Xi,Qi,Qi+1,Di,Di+1) where ● Di+1=Di if T(Xi,Qi)=Qi+1 else Di+1=1+Di

21
Soft REGULAR constraint ● SoftREGULAR(A,[X1,..Xn],N) – To propagate – Dynamic programming ● Pass support along sequence – Just post the 5-ary constraints ● Accept less than GAC – Tuple up the variables

22
Cyclic forms of REGULAR ● REGULAR+(A,[X1,..,Xn]) – X1.. XnX1 is accepted by A – Can convert into REGULAR by increasing states by factor of d where d is number of initial symbols – qi => (qi,d) – T(qi,a)=qj => T((qi,d),a)=(qj,d) – T(q0,d)=qk => T(q0,d)=(qk,d) – Thereby pass along value taken by X1 so it can be checked on last transition

23
Cyclic forms of REGULAR ● REGULARo(A,[X1,..,Xn]) – Xi.. X1+(i+n-1)mod n is accepted by A for each 1<=i<=n – Can decompose into n instances of the REGULAR constraint – However, this hinders propagation ● Suppose A accepts just alternating sequences of 0 and 1 ● Xi in {0,1} and REGULARo(A,[X1,X2.X3]) – Unfortunately enforcing GAC on REGULARo is NP- hard

24
Cyclic forms of REGULAR ● REGULARo(A,[X1,..,Xn]) – Reduction from Hamiltonian cycle – Consider polynomial sized automaton A1 that accepts any sequence in which the 1st character is never repeated – Consider polynomial sized automaton A2 that accepts any walk in a graph ● T(a,b)=b iff (a,b) in edges of graph – Consider polynomial sized automaton A1 intersect A2 – This accepts only those strings corresponding to Hamiltonian cycles

25
Other generalizations of REGULAR ● REGULAR FIX(A,[X1,..Xn],[B1,..Bm]) iff – REGULAR(A,[X1,..Xn]) and Bi=1 iff exists j. Xj=I – Certain values must occur within the sequence – For example, there must be a maintenance shift – Unfortunately NP-hard to enforce GAC on this

26
Other generalizations of REGULAR ● REGULAR FIX(A,[X1,..Xn],[B1,..Bm]) – Simple reduction from Hamiltonian path – Automaton A accepts any walk on a graph – n=m and Bi=1 for all i

27
Chomsky hierarchy ● Regular languages ● Context-free languages ● Context-sensitive languages ●..

28
Chomsky hierarchy ● Regular languages – GAC propagator in O(ndQ) time ● Conext-free languages – GAC propagator in O(n^3) time and O(n^2) space – Asymptotically optimal as same as parsing! ● Conext-sensitive languages – Checking if a string is in the language PSPACE- complete – Undecidable to know if empty string in grammar and thus to detect domain wipeout and enforce GAC!

29
Context-free grammars ● Possible applications – Hierarchy configuration – Bioinformatics – Natual language parsing – … ● CFG(G,[X1,…Xn]) holds iff – X1.. Xn is a string accepted by the context free grammar G

30
Context-free grammars ● CFG(G,[X1,…Xn]) – Consider a block stacking example – S -> NP | P | PN | NPN – N -> n | nN – P -> aa | bb | aPa | bPb – These rules give n* w rev(w) n* where w is (a|b)* – Not expressible using a regular language ● Chomsky normal form – Non-terminal -> Terminal – Non-terminal -> Non-terminal Non-terminal

31
Context-free grammars ● CFG(G,[X1,…Xn]) – Example with X1 in {n,a}, X2 in {b}, X3 in {a,b} and X4 in {n,a} – Enforcing GAC on CFG prunes X3=a – Only supports are nbbn and abba

32
CFG propagator ● Adapt CYK parser ● Works on Chomsky normal form – Non-terminal -> Terminal – Non-terminal -> Non-terminal Non-terminal ● Using dynamic programming – Computes V[i,j], set of possible parsings for the ith to the jth symbols

33
CFG propagator ● Adapt CYK parser which uses dynamic programming – For i=1 to n do – V[i,1]:={A | A->a in G, a in dom(Xi) – For j=2 to n do – For i=1 to n-j+1 do – V[i,j]:={} – For k=1 to j-1 do – V[i,j]:=V[i,j] u {A|A->BC in G, – B in V[i,k], C in V[i+k,j-k]} – If not(S in V[1,n]) then “unsat”

34
Conclusions ● Global grammar constraints – Specify wide range of global constraints – Provide efficient and effective propagators automatically – Nice marriage of formal language theory and constraint programming!

Similar presentations

OK

Complexity and Computability Theory I Lecture #4 Rina Zviel-Girshin Leah Epstein Winter 2002-2003.

Complexity and Computability Theory I Lecture #4 Rina Zviel-Girshin Leah Epstein Winter 2002-2003.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google