Scribd
Upload
11 views

Constraint Propogation

Uploaded by

Akshana Arash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
11 views

Constraint Propogation

Uploaded by

Akshana Arash
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

 A number of inference techniques use the constraints to infer which variable/value pairs

are consistent and which are not. These include node, arc, path, and k-consistent.
constraint propagation: Using the constraints to reduce the number of legal values for
a variable, which in turn can reduce the legal values for another variable, and so on.
local consistency: If we treat each variable as a node in a graph and each binary
constraint as an arc, then the process of enforcing local consistency in each part of the
graph causes inconsistent values to be eliminated throughout the graph.
 There are different types of local consistency:

Node consistency
 A single variable (a node in the CSP network) is node-consistent if all the values in
the variable’s domain satisfy the variable’s unary constraint.
 For example, in the variant of the Australia map-coloring problem where South
Australians dislike green, the variable starts with domain {red, green, blue} , and we
can make it node consistent by eliminating green, leaving SA with the reduced
domain {red, blue}.
 We say that a network is node-consistent if every variable in the network is node-
consistent.

Arc consistency
 A variable in a CSP is arc-consistent if every value in its domain satisfies the
variable’s binary constraints.
 Xi is arc-consistent with respect to another variable Xj if for every value in the current
domain Di there is some value in the domain Dj that satisfies the binary constraint on
the arc (Xi, Xj).
 A network is arc-consistent if every variable is arc-consistent with every other
variable.
 Arc consistency tightens down the domains (unary constraint) using the arcs (binary
constraints).
 AC-3 maintains a queue of arcs which initially contains all the arcs in the CSP.
 AC-3 then pops off an arbitrary arc (Xi, Xj) from the queue and makes Xi arc-
consistent with respect to Xj.
 If this leaves Di unchanged, just moves on to the next arc;
 But if this revises Di, then add to the queue all arcs (Xk, Xi) where Xk is a neighbor of
Xi.
 If Di is revised down to nothing, then the whole CSP has no consistent solution, return
failure;
 Otherwise, keep checking, trying to remove values from the domains of variables
until no more arcs are in the queue.
 The result is an arc-consistent CSP that have the same solutions as the original one
but have smaller domains.
 The complexity of AC-3: Assume a CSP with n variables, each with domain size at
most d, and with c binary constraints (arcs). Checking consistency of an arc can be
done in O(d2) time, total worst-case time is O(cd3).

Path consistency:
 A two-variable set {Xi, Xj} is path-consistent with respect to a third variable X m if, for
every assignment {Xi = a, Xj = b} consistent with the constraint on {Xi, Xj}, there is
an assignment to Xm that satisfies the constraints on {Xi, Xm} and {Xm, Xj}.
 Path consistency tightens the binary constraints by using implicit constraints that are
inferred by looking at triples of variables.

K- consistency:
 K-consistency: A CSP is k-consistent if, for any set of k-1 variables and for any
consistent assignment to those variables, a consistent value can always be assigned to
any kth variable.
 1-consistency = node consistency; 2-consisency = arc consistency; 3-consistensy =
path consistency.
 A CSP is strongly k-consistent if it is k-consistent and is also (k - 1)-consistent,
(k – 2)-consistent, … all the way down to 1-consistent.
 A CSP with n nodes and make it strongly n-consistent, we are guaranteed to find a
solution in time O(n2d). But algorithm for establishing n-consitentcy must take time
exponential in n in the worse case, also requires space that is exponential in n.

Global constraints
 A global constraint is one involving an arbitrary number of variables (but not
necessarily all variables). Global constraints can be handled by special-purpose
algorithms that are more efficient than general-purpose methods.

i) inconsistency detection for Alldiff constraints


 A simple algorithm: First remove any variable in the constraint that has a singleton
domain, and delete that variable’s value from the domains of the remaining variables.
Repeat as long as there are singleton variables. If at any point an empty domain is
produced or there are more vairables than domain values left, then an inconsistency
has been detected.
 A simple consistency procedure for a higher-order constraint is sometimes more
effective than applying arc consistency to an equivalent set of binary constrains.

ii) inconsistency detection for resource constraint (the atmost constraint)


 We can detect an inconsistency simply by checking the sum of the minimum of the
current domains;
e.g.
 Atmost(10, P1, P2, P3, P4): no more than 10 personnel are assigned in total.
If each variable has the domain {3, 4, 5, 6}, the Atmost constraint cannot be satisfied.
 We can enforce consistency by deleting the maximum value of any domain if it is not
consistent with the minimum values of the other domains.
e.g. If each variable in the example has the domain {2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, the values 5 and 6 can
be deleted from each domain.

iii) inconsistency detection for bounds consistent


 For large resource-limited problems with integer values, domains are represented by
upper and lower bounds and are managed by bounds propagation.
e.g.
 suppose there are two flights F1 and F2 in an airline-scheduling problem, for which the
planes have capacities 165 and 385, respectively. The initial domains for the numbers
of passengers on each flight are
D1 = [0, 165] and D2 = [0, 385].
 Now suppose we have the additional constraint that the two flight together must carry
420 people: F1 + F2 = 420. Propagating bounds constraints, we reduce the domains to
D1 = [35, 165] and D2 = [255, 385].
 A CSP is bounds consistent if for every variable X, and for both the lower-bound and
upper-bound values of X, there exists some value of Y that satisfies the constraint
between X and Y for every variable Y.
Sudoku
 A Sudoku board consists of 81 squares, some of which are initially filled with digits
from 1 to 9. The puzzle is to fill in all the remaining squares such that no digit appears
twice in any row, column, or box. A row, column, or 3 × 3 box is called a unit.

 A Sudoku puzzle can be considered a CSP with 81 variables, one for each square. We
use the variable names A1 through A9 for the top row (left to right), down to I1
through I9 for the bottom row. The empty squares have the domain {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9} and the pre-filled squares have a domain consisting of a single value.
 There are 27 different Alldiff constraints: one for each row, column, and box of 9
squares:
Alldiff(A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9)
Alldiff(B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9)
…
Alldiff(A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, H1, I1)
Alldiff(A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2, G2, H2, I2)
…
Alldiff(A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3)
Alldiff(A4, A5, A6, B4, B5, B6, C4, C5, C6)

You might also like