*** To appear in IJCAI 2015 proceedings *** In Constraint Programming (CP), a portfolio solver uses a variety of different solvers for solving a given Constraint Satisfaction / Optimization Problem. In this paper we introduce sunny-cp2: the first par
allel CP portfolio solver that enables a dynamic, cooperative, and simultaneous execution of its solvers in a multicore setting. It incorporates state-of-the-art solvers, providing also a usable and configurable framework. Empirical results are very promising. sunny-cp2 can even outperform the performance of the oracle solver which always selects the best solver of the portfolio for a given problem.
*** To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) *** Within the context of constraint solving, a portfolio approach allows one to exploit the synergy between different solvers in order to create a globally better solver. In this pap
er we present SUNNY: a simple and flexible algorithm that takes advantage of a portfolio of constraint solvers in order to compute --- without learning an explicit model --- a schedule of them for solving a given Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP). Motivated by the performance reached by SUNNY vs. different simulations of other state of the art approaches, we developed sunny-csp, an effective portfolio solver that exploits the underlying SUNNY algorithm in order to solve a given CSP. Empirical tests conducted on exhaustive benchmarks of MiniZinc models show that the actual performance of SUNNY conforms to the predictions. This is encouraging both for improving the power of CSP portfolio solvers and for trying to export them to fields such as Answer Set Programming and Constraint Logic Programming.
Recent research has shown that a single arbitrarily efficient solver can be significantly outperformed by a portfolio of possibly slower on-average solvers. The solver selection is usually done by means of (un)supervised learning techniques which exp
loit features extracted from the problem specification. In this paper we present an useful and flexible framework that is able to extract an extensive set of features from a Constraint (Satisfaction/Optimization) Problem defined in possibly different modeling languages: MiniZinc, FlatZinc or XCSP. We also report some empirical results showing that the performances that can be obtained using these features are effective and competitive with state of the art CSP portfolio techniques.
Recent research in areas such as SAT solving and Integer Linear Programming has shown that the performances of a single arbitrarily efficient solver can be significantly outperformed by a portfolio of possibly slower on-average solvers. We report an
empirical evaluation and comparison of portfolio approaches applied to Constraint Satisfaction Problems (CSPs). We compared models developed on top of off-the-shelf machine learning algorithms with respect to approaches used in the SAT field and adapted for CSPs, considering different portfolio sizes and using as evaluation metrics the number of solved problems and the time taken to solve them. Results indicate that the best SAT approaches have top performances also in the CSP field and are slightly more competitive than simple models built on top of classification algorithms.
Gecode is one of the most efficient libraries that can be used for constraint solving. However, using it requires dealing with C++ programming details. On the other hand several formats for representing constraint networks have been proposed. Among t
hem, XCSP has been proposed as a format based on XML which allows us to represent constraints defined either extensionally or intensionally, permits global constraints and has been the standard format of the international competition of constraint satisfaction problems solvers. In this paper we present a plug-in for solving problems specified in XCSP by exploiting the Gecode solver. This is done by dynamically translating constraints into Gecode library calls, thus avoiding the need to interact with C++.
We study the decidability of termination for two CHR dialects which, similarly to the Datalog like languages, are defined by using a signature which does not allow function symbols (of arity >0). Both languages allow the use of the = built-in in the
body of rules, thus are built on a host language that supports unification. However each imposes one further restriction. The first CHR dialect allows only range-restricted rules, that is, it does not allow the use of variables in the body or in the guard of a rule if they do not appear in the head. We show that the existence of an infinite computation is decidable for this dialect. The second dialect instead limits the number of atoms in the head of rules to one. We prove that in this case, the existence of a terminating computation is decidable. These results show that both dialects are strictly less expressive than Turing Machines. It is worth noting that the language (without function symbols) without these restrictions is as expressive as Turing Machines.
