Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byChaya Uttley Modified over 2 years ago

1
Practical Tractability of CSPs by Higher Level Consistency and Tree Decomposition Shant Karakashian Dissertation Defense Collaborations: Bessiere, Geschwender, Hartke, Reeson, Scott, Woodward. Support: NSF CAREER Award #0133568 & NSF Grant No. RI-111795. Experiments were conducted on the equipment of the Holland Computing Center at UNL.

2
Context Constraint Satisfaction – General paradigm for modeling & solving combinatorial decision problems – Applications in Engineering, Management, Computer Science Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs) – NP-complete in general Islands of tractability – Classes of CSPs solvable in polynomial time 2 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense4/11/2013

3
Our Focus One tractability condition links [Freuder 82] – Consistency level to – Width of the constraint network, a structural parameter (treewidth) Catch 22 – Computing width is in NP-hard – Enforcing higher-levels of consistency may require adding constraints, which increases the treewidth Goal – Exploit above condition to achieve practical tractability 3 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense4/11/2013

4
Our Approach Exploit a tree decomposition – Localize application of the consistency algorithm – Steer constraint propagation along the branches of the tree – Add redundant constraints at separators to enhance propagation Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 4 4/11/2013 Propose consistency properties that – Enforce a (parameterized) consistency level – While preserving the width of a problem instance

5
Outline Background Contributions – R( ∗,m)C: Consistency property & algorithms [SAC 10, AAAI 10] – Localized consistency & structure-guided propagation – Bolstering propagation at separators [CP 12, AAAI 13] – Counting solutions – (Appendices include other incidental contributions) Conclusions & Future Research Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 5 4/11/2013 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

6
Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) Given – A set of variables, here X ={A,B,C,D,E,F,G} – Their domains, here D ={D A,D B,D C,D D,D E,D F,D G }, D i ={0,1} – A set of constraints, here C ={C 1,C 2,C 3,C 4,C 5 } where C i = R i,scope(R i ) Question: Find one solution (NPC), find all solutions (#P) R1R1 AEF 001 010 011 101 110 R3R3 ABC 001 010 011 101 110 R4R4 ADG 001 010 011 101 110 R2R2 BE 01 10 R5R5 BD 01 10 6 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense4/11/2013 R4R4 R5R5 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 GFAEBCD A0A0 B0B0 C1C1 D1D1 E1E1 F0F0 G0G0 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

7
Graphical Representations of a CSP HypergraphPrimal graphDual graph A B C D EF G A,B,C A,E,FE,B B,D A,D,G A A A B D B B E 7 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense ABC D E F G R4R4 R5R5 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 4/11/2013 R4R4 R5R5 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

8
Redundant Edges in a Dual Graph R 1 R 4 forces the value of A in R 1 and R 4 The value of A is enforced through R 1 R 3 and R 3 R 4 R 1 R 4 is redundant 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 8 A,B,C A,E,FE,B B,D A,D,G A A A B D B B E R4R4 R5R5 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

9
Solving CSPs A CSP can be solved by – Search (conditioning) Backtrack search Iterative repair (local search) – Synthesizing & propagating constraints (inference) Backtrack search – Constructive, exhaustive exploration of search space – Variable ordering improves the performance – Constraint propagation prunes the search tree 9 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense4/11/2013 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

10
Consistency Property: Definition Example: k-consistency requires that – For all combinations of k-1 variables … all combinations of consistent values … can always be extended to every k th variable A consistency property – Guarantees that the values of all combinations of variables of a given size verify some set of constraints – Is a necessary but not sufficient condition for partial solution to appear in a complete solution 10 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense any consistent assignment of length k-1 k th variable 4/11/2013 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

11
Algorithms for Enforcing a Consistency Property May require adding new implicit or redundant constraints – For k-consistency: add constraints to eliminate inconsistent (k-1)-tuples – Which may increase the width of the problem We propose a consistency property that – Never increases the width of the problem – Allows us to increase & control the level of consistency – Operates by deleting tuples from relations 11 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense any consistent assignment of length k-1 k th variable 4/11/2013 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

12
Tree Decomposition A tree decomposition: 〈 T,, 〉 – T : a tree of clusters – : maps variables to clusters – : maps constraints to clusters {A,B,C,E}, {R 2,R 3 } {A,B,D},{R 3,R 5 } {A,E,F},{R 1 } {A,D,G},{R 4 } C1C1 C2C2 C3C3 C4C4 12 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense HypergraphTree decomposition Conditions – Each constraint appears in at least one cluster with all the variables in the constraint’s scope – For every variable, the clusters where the variable appears induce a connected subtree 4/11/2013 ABC D E F G R4R4 R5R5 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 (C1) BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

13
A separator of two adjacent clusters is the set of variables associated to both clusters Width of a decomposition/network – Treewidth = maximum number of variables in clusters Tree Decomposition: Separators 13 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense A B C D E F G C1C1 C2C2 C3C3 C4C4 4/11/2013 {A,B,C,E},{R 2,R 3 } {A,B,D},{R 3,R 5 } {A,E,F},{R 1 } {A,D,G},{R 4 } C1C1 C2C2 C3C3 C4C4 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

14
Outline Background Contributions – R( ∗,m)C: Consistency property & algorithms [SAC 10, AAAI 10] – Localized consistency & structure-guided propagation – Bolstering propagation at separators [CP 12, AAAI 13] – Counting solutions – (Appendices include other incidental contributions) Conclusions & Future Research Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 14 4/11/2013 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions

15
Relational Consistency R( ∗,m)C 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 15 [SAC 2010, AAAI 2010] A parametrized relational consistency property Definition – For every set of m constraints – every tuple in a relation can be extended to an assignment – of variables in the scopes of the other m-1 relations R(*,m)C ≡ every m relations form a minimal CSP R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions Background

16
Index-Tree Data Structure Given: two relations, R 1 & R 2 – Scope(R 1 )={X,A,B,C} Scope(R 2 )={A,B,C,D} For a given tuple in R 1, find matching tuples in R 2 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 16 R2R2 ABCDdeleted t1t1 00100 t2t2 01100 t3t3 01110 t4t4 11110 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 t1t1 t2t2 t3t3 t4t4 A B C Root R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions Background

17
R 1 R 2 R 3 R 1 R 2 R 4 R 1 R 2 R 5 R 1 R 3 R 4 R 2 R 3 R 4 R 2 R 4 R 5 R 3 R 4 R 5 Weaken R( ∗,m)C by removing redundant edges [Jégou 89] Weakening R( ∗,m)C 17 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense R 1 R 2 R 3 R 1 R 2 R 5 R 1 R 3 R 4 R 2 R 4 R 5 R 3 R 4 R 5 CF CG AD AE ABD ACEG BCF ADE CFG R1R1 R3R3 R2R2 R4R4 R5R5 A B C CF CG AD AE ABD ACEG BCF ADE CFG R1R1 R3R3 R2R2 R4R4 R5R5 B 4/11/2013 R( ∗,3)CwR( ∗,3)C R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusions Background

18
Characterizing R( ∗,m)C 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 18 GACmaxRPWC R3C R( ∗,2)C wR( ∗,2)C R2C R( ∗,3)CR( ∗,4)C R4C wR( ∗,3)CwR( ∗,4)C R( ∗,m)C RmCRmC wR( ∗,m)C GAC [Waltz 75] maxRPWC [Bessiere+ 08] RmC: Relational m Consistency [Dechter+ 97] [Jégou 89] R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

19
Empirical Evaluations (1) 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 19 AlgorithmAvg. #NodesAvg. Time sec#Completed#Fastest#BF SAT aim-100 (instances: 16, vars: 100, dom: 2, rels: 307, arity: 3) GAC9,459,773.0759.71541 wR( ∗,2)C 234,526.7125.61675 wR( ∗,3)C 3,979.119.41637 wR( ∗,4)C 559.126.321629 SAT modifiedRenault (instances: 19, vars: 110, dom: 42, rels: 128, arity: 10) GAC1,171,458.43108.517145 wR( ∗,2)C 211.54.981957 wR( ∗,3)C 110.413.319014 wR( ∗,4)C 110.281.319016 R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

20
Empirical Evaluations (2) 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 20 AlgorithmAvg. #NodesAvg. Time sec#Completed#Fastest#BF UNSAT aim-100 (instances: 8, vars: 100, dom: 2, rels: 173, arity: 3) GAC--000 wR( ∗,2)C 4,619,373.02,016.8310 wR( ∗,3)C 18,766.697.4430 wR( ∗,4)C 18,685.3944.2411 UNSAT modifiedRenault (instances: 31, vars: 111, dom: 42, rels: 130, arity: 10) GAC1,171,458.43782.3920 wR( ∗,2)C 487.05.2282025 wR( ∗,3)C 0.09.630228 wR( ∗,4)C 0.044.2312 R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

21
Algorithms for Enforcing R( ∗,m)C P ER T UPLE – For each tuple find a solution for the variables in the m-1 relations – Many satisfiability searches Effective when there are many solutions Each search is quick & easy A LL S OL – Find all solutions of problem induced by m relations, & keep their tuples – A single exhaustive search Effective when there are few or no solutions Hybrid Solvers (portfolio based) [+Scott] 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 21 t1t1 titi t2t2 t3t3 R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

22
Hybrid Solver Choose between P ER T UPLE & A LL S OL Parameters to characterize the problem – κ predicts if instance is at the phase transition – relLinkage approximates the likelihood of a tuple at the overlap two relations to appear in a solution Classifier built using Machine Learning – C4.5 – Random Forests 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 22 [+Scott] [Gent+ 96] R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

23
Decision Tree 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 23 #1≤ 0.22 No #3≤-2.79 No #7≤0.03 No #10≤10.05 Yes No #2≤-28.75 Yes No P ER T UPLE A LL S OL Yes P ER T UPLE Yes A LL S OL #7≤0.23 Yes No A LL S OL P ER T UPLE #1 κ #2 log 2 (avg( relLinkage )) #3 log 2 (stDev( relLinkage )) #7 stDev( tupPerVvpNorm ) #10 avg( relPerVar ) R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

24
Empirical Evaluations (3) 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 24 #Instances solved by…Average CPU sec Partition A LL S OL P ER T UPLE S OLVER C4.5 S OLVER RF #Instances A LL S OL P ER T UPLE S OLVER C4.5 S OLVER RF A 5,7775,7765,777 5,7761.274.972.142.27 P 10,09515,45715,43914,01210,095109.615.217.7231.53 A ∪ P 15,87221,33321,21619,78915,87170.185.125.6920.88 Task: compute the minimal CSP R(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackground

25
Outline Background Contributions – R( ∗,m)C: Consistency property & algorithms [SAC 10, AAAI 10] – Localized consistency & structure-guided propagation – Bolstering propagation at separators [CP 12, AAAI 13] – Counting solutions – (Appendices include other incidental contributions) Conclusions & Future Research Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 25 4/11/2013 LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

26
Localized Consistency Consistency property cl-R( ∗,m)C – Restrict R( ∗,m)C to the clusters Constraint propagation – Guide along a tree structure 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 26 LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

27
C1C1 C2C2 C7C7 C3C3 C4C4 C5C5 C6C6 C8C8 C9C9 C 10 Triangulate the primal graph using min-fill Identify the maximal cliques using M AX C LIQUES Connect the clusters using J OIN T REE Add constraints to clusters where their scopes appear Generating a Tree Decomposition 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 27 ABC E D FGH IJK ML N R7R7 R2R2 R3R3 R4R4 R5R5 R6R6 R1R1 A B C E D F G H I J K M L N C8C8 C2C2 A,B,C,N A,I,N B,C,D,H I,M,N B,D,F,H C1C1 C3C3 C7C7 A,I,K C4C4 I,J,K C5C5 A,K,L C6C6 B,D,E,F C9C9 F,G,H C 10 Elimination order M AX C LIQUES {A,B,C,N},{R 1 } C2C2 C7C7 C3C3 C8C8 C1C1 C4C4 C5C5 C6C6 C9C9 C 10 J OIN T REE min-fill LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

28
Information Transfer Between Clusters Two clusters communicate via their separator – Constraints common to the two clusters – Domains of variables common to the two clusters 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 28 E R6R6 R5R5 R7R7 R4R4 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 BADC F LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C R4R4 AD BADC

29
Characterizing cl-R( ∗,m)C 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 29 GAC maxRPWC R3C R( ∗,2)C ≡ wR( ∗,2)C R2C R( ∗,3)CR( ∗,4)C R4C wR( ∗,3)CwR( ∗,4)C R( ∗,m)C RmCRmC wR( ∗,m)C cl-R( ∗,3)Ccl-R( ∗,2)Ccl-R( ∗,4)Ccl-R( ∗,m)C cl-w( ∗,3)Ccl-w( ∗,2)Ccl-w( ∗,4)Ccl-w( ∗,m)C GAC [Waltz 75] maxRPWC [Bessiere+ 08] RmC: Relational m Consistency [Dechter+ 97] LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

30
Empirical Evaluations: Localization 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 30 LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

31
Structure-Guided Propagation Orderings – R ANDOM : FIFO/arbitrary – S TATIC, P RIORITY, D YNAMIC : Leavesroot Structure-based propagation – S TATIC Order of M AX C LIQUES – P RIORITY : Process a cluster once in each direction Select most significantly filtered cluster – D YNAMIC Similar to P RIORITY But may process ‘active’ clusters more than once 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 31 {A,B,C,N},{R 1 } C2C2 C7C7 C3C3 C8C8 C1C1 C4C4 C5C5 C6C6 C9C9 C 10 C8C8 C2C2 A,B,C,N A,I,N B,C,D,H I,M,N B,D,F,H C1C1 C3C3 C7C7 A,I,K C4C4 I,J,K C5C5 A,K,L C6C6 B,D,E,F C9C9 F,G,H C 10 Leaves Root M AX C LIQUES LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

32
Empirical Evaluations: Propagation 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 32 + maxRPWC, m=2,4 cl-wR( ∗,3)C cl-R( ∗,| ψ (cl)|)C # Instances R ANDOM STATIC PRIORITY DYNAMIC RA NDOM STATIC PRIORITY DYNAMIC Completed UNSAT233232233234261285282 47948.6%48.4%48.6%48.9%54.5%59.5%58.9% SAT164 165163154152151 20082.0% 82.5%81.5%77.0%76.0%75.5% Fastest UNSAT66157117114151220161155 47913.8%32.8%24.4%23.8%31.5%45.9%33.6%32.4% SAT518811110850887484 20025.5%44.0%55.5%54.0%25.0%44.0%37.0%42.0% Avg. Time (sec) UNSATNbr instances 232Nbr instances 254 479402.9383.9366.3369.3397.4318.9341.3344.1 SATNbr instances 162Nbr instances 150 200622.9601.6599.2598.3571.1542.5557.7546.8 LocallizationBolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)C

33
Outline Background Contributions – R( ∗,m)C: Consistency property & algorithms [SAC 10, AAAI 10] – Localized consistency & structure-guided propagation – Bolstering propagation at separators [CP 12, AAAI 13] – Counting solutions – (Appendices include other incidental contributions) Conclusions & Future Research Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 33 4/11/2013 BolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallization

34
Bolstering Propagation at Separators Localization – Improves performance – Reduces the enforced consistency level Ideally: add unique constraint – Space overhead, major bottleneck Enhance propagation by bolstering – Projection of existing constraints – Adding binary constraints – Adding clique constraints 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 34 [CP 2012, AAAI 2013] E F R6R6 R5R5 R7R7 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 BADC R sep BolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallization

35
Bolstering Schemas: Approximate Unique Separator Constraint 4/11/2013 35 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense E R6R6 R5R5 R7R7 R4R4 R2R2 R1R1 R3R3 BADC F R3’R3’ E F R’ 3 BADC RaRa E BADC F RyRy RxRx B A D CB A D C By projectionBinary constraintsClique constraints BolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallization B A D C RyRy RxRx RaRa E R3R3 DC E R6R6 R2R2 BA F E R5R5 R1R1 BC F

36
Resulting Consistency Properties GAC maxRPWC cl+clq-R( ∗,3)Ccl+clq-R( ∗,4)Ccl+clq-R( ∗,2)C R( ∗,4)C cl-R( ∗,| ψ(cl i ) |)C cl+proj-R( ∗,| ψ(cl i ) |)C cl+proj-R( ∗,3)C R( ∗,3)C cl-R( ∗,2)C cl+bin-R( ∗,4)Ccl+bin-R( ∗,3)C cl+bin-R( ∗,| ψ(cl i ) |)C cl+clq-R( ∗,| ψ(cl i ) |)C cl+bin-R( ∗,2)C cl+proj-R( ∗,2)C R( ∗,2)C cl-R( ∗,3)Ccl-R( ∗,4)C cl+proj-R( ∗,4)C 4/11/2013 36 Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense BolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallization

37
Empirical Evaluations 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 37 + maxRPWC, m=3,4 wR( ∗,2)CR( ∗,|(cl i )|)C #inst. GAC global local Proj. binary clique local Proj. binary clique Completed UNSAT 479 200 41.8% 170 35.5% 167 34.9% 172 35.9% 169 35.3% 162 33.8% 285 59.5% 286 59.7% 282 58.9% 271 56.6% SAT 200 111 55.5% 179 89.5% 178 89.0% 176 88.0% 169 84.5% 104 52.0% 152 76.0% 138 69.0% 124 62.0% 113 56.5% BT-Free UNSAT 479 0 0.0% 70 14.6% 39 8.1% 70 14.6% 70 14.6% 74 15.4% 187 39.0% 223 46.6% 223 46.6% 213 44.5% SAT 200 15 7.5% 55 27.5% 37 18.5% 53 26.5% 52 26.0% 38 19.0% 39 19.5% 77 38.5% 71 35.5% 58 29.0% Min(#NV) UNSAT 479 2 0.4% 73 15.2% 43 9.0% 72 15.0% 72 15.0% 77 16.1% 220 45.9% 249 52.0% 248 51.8% 239 49.9% SAT 200 19 9.5% 64 32.0% 37 18.5% 62 31.0% 61 30.5% 39 19.5% 83 41.5% 111 55.5% 100 50.0% 79 39.5% Fastest UNSAT 479 100 20.9% 13 2.7% 35 7.3% 5 1.0% 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 176 36.7% 108 22.5% 42 8.8% 37 7.7% SAT 200 73 36.5% 45 22.5% 47 23.5% 23 11.5% 14 7.0% 12 6.0% 34 17.0% 18 9.0% 13 6.5% 12 6.0% BolsteringSol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallization

38
Outline Background Contributions – R( ∗,m)C: Consistency property & algorithms [SAC 10, AAAI 10] – Localized consistency & structure-guided propagation – Bolstering propagation at separators [CP 12, AAAI 13] – Counting solutions – (Appendices include other incidental contributions) Conclusions & Future Research Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 38 4/11/2013 Sol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolstering

39
Solution Counting BTD is used to count the number of solutions [Favier+ 09] Using C OUNT algorithm on trees [Dechter+ 87] Witness-based solution counting Find a witness solution before counting Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 39 4/11/2013 CpCp apap wastedno solution Sol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolstering

40
Empirical Evaluations Task: Count solutions – BTD versus W ITNESS BTD – GAC: Pre-processing & full look-ahead 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 40 Sol CountingConclusions BTDW ITNESS BTD Avg. #NV UNSAT (89)1,437,909.79734,983.25 SAT (101)4,785,737.574,735,136.28 Avg. Time (sec) UNSAT (89)145.55123.86 SAT (101)1,151.351,148.46 BackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolstering

41
Empirical Evaluations 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 41 + maxRPWC, m=2,4 wR( ∗,3)CR( ∗,|(cl i )|)C #inst. GAC global local Proj. binary clique local Proj. binary clique Completed UNSAT 479 200 41.8% 192 40.1% 248 51.8% 237 49.5% 236 49.3% 220 45.9% 302 63.0% 290 60.5% 286 59.7% 277 57.8% SAT 200 111 55.5% 85 42.5% 112 56.0% 100 50.0% 96 48.0% 81 40.5% 110 55.0% 90 45.0% 88 44.0% 78 39.0% BT-Free UNSAT 479 0 0.0% 97 20.3% 104 21.7% 139 29.0% 139 29.0% 131 27.3% 186 38.8% 221 46.1% 222 46.3% 212 44.3% SAT 200 15 7.5% 42 21.0% 17 8.5% 47 23.5% 47 23.5% 45 22.5% 25 12.5% 61 30.5% 61 30.5% 52 26.0% Min(#NV) UNSAT 479 2 0.4% 101 21.1% 111 23.2% 145 30.3% 145 30.3% 136 28.4% 235 49.1% 263 54.9% 264 55.1% 244 50.9% SAT 200 19 9.5% 42 21.0% 23 11.5% 52 26.0% 49 24.5% 49 24.5% 57 28.5% 74 37.0% 73 36.5% 65 32.5% Fastest UNSAT 479 100 20.9% 26 5.4% 120 25.1% 71 14.8% 23 4.8% 23 4.8% 189 39.5% 126 26.3% 58 12.1% 52 10.9% SAT 200 73 36.5% 20 10.0% 20 10.0% 18 9.0% 9 4.5% 9 4.5% 27 13.5% 15 7.5% 9 4.5% 9 4.5% Sol CountingConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolstering

42
Conclusions Question – Practical tractability of CSPs exploiting the condition linking the level of consistency to the width of the constraint graph Solution – Introduced a parameterized consistency property R( ∗,m)C – Designed algorithms for implementing it P ER T UPLE and A LL S OL Hybrid algorithms – Adapted R( ∗,m)C to a tree decomposition of the CSP Localizing R( ∗,m)C to the clusters Strategies for guiding propagation along the structure Bolstering separators to strengthen the enforced consistency – Improved the BTD algorithm for solution counting, W ITNESS BTD +Two incidental results in appendices 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 42 ConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol Counting

43
Future Research Extension to non-table constraints Automating the selection of – a consistency property – consistency algorithms [Geschwender+ 13] Characterizing performance on randomly generated problems + much more in dissertation 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 43 ConclusionsBackgroundR(*,m)CLocallizationBolsteringSol Counting

44
4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 44 Thank You Collaborations: Bessiere, Geschwender, Hartke, Reeson, Scott, Woodward. Support: NSF CAREER Award #0133568 & NSF Grant No. RI-111795. Experiments were conducted on the equipment of the Holland Computing Center at UNL.

45
Computing All k-Connected Subgraphs Avoids enumerating non-connected k-subgraphs Competitive on large graphs with small k 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 45 cd eab

46
Solution Cover Problem is in NP-C Solution Cover Problem – Given a CSP with global constraints – is there a set of k solutions – such that ever tuple in the minimal CSP is covered by at least one solution in the set? Set Cover Problem Solution Cover Problem Set Cover Problem – Given a finite set U and a collection S of subsets of U – Are there k elements of S – Whose union is U? 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 46

47
W ITNESS BTD May Visit More Nodes than GAC W ITNESS BTD may search for the same solution more than once in C 2 〈 A,B,C,D 〉 = 〈 0,0,0,0 〉 No witness in C 3 〈 A,B,C,D 〉 = 〈 1,1,0,0 〉 Witness found Restart search in C 2 4/11/2013Karakashian: Ph.D. Defense 47 A B C D C1C1 C2C2 C3C3

48
#isnt. 230GAC Cl+proj-R( ∗,|(cl i )|)C Average Nogoods87,374.148.9 Goods27,180.38,811.1 Max Nogoods4,880,1278,224 Goods1,870,0511,069,081 completed (547):255333 MEMOUT163

Similar presentations

OK

Non-Binary Constraint Satisfaction Toby Walsh Cork Constraint Computation Center.

Non-Binary Constraint Satisfaction Toby Walsh Cork Constraint Computation Center.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on pricing policy of a company Mp ppt online viewer Ppt on positive thinking Ppt on cash flow statement analysis Forms of energy for kids ppt on batteries Ppt on oxygen cycle and ozone layer Ppt on indian sea ports Ppt on production planning and control Ent anatomy and physiology ppt on cells Ppt on javascript events load