A widely adopted approach to solving constraint satisfaction problems combines systematic tree search with constraint propagation for pruning the search space. Constraint propagation is performed by propagators implementing a certain notion of consistency. Bounds consistency is the method of choice for building propagators for arithmetic constraints and several global constraints in the finite integer domain. However, there has been some confusion in the definition of bounds consistency. In this paper we clarify the differences and similarities among the three commonly used notions of bounds consistency.
reworded Lhomme @cite_15 defines which formalizes bounds propagation for both integer and real constraints. He proposes an efficient propagation algorithm implementing arc B-consistency with complexity analysis and experimental results. However, his study focuses on constraints defined by numeric relations (i.e. numeric CSPs). Lhomme @cite_15 defines which formalizes bounds propagation techniques for numeric CSPs. Unlike our definition of CSPs, constraints in numeric CSPs cannot be given extensionally and must be defined by numeric relations, which can be interpreted in either the real or the finite integer domain. Numeric CSPs also restrict the domain of variables to be a single interval.
@cite_15
1548650523 2950890626 2118406528 179407972
Many problems can be expressed in terms of a numeric constraint satisfaction problem over finite or continuous domains (numeric CSP). The purpose of this paper is to show that the consistency techniques that have been developed for CSPs can be adapted to numeric CSPs. Since the numeric domains are ordered the underlying idea is to handle domains only by their bounds. The semantics that have been elaborated, plus the complexity analysis and good experimental results, confirm that these techniques can be used in real applications. Random constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) are known to exhibit threshold phenomena: given a uniformly random instance of a CSP with @math variables and @math clauses, there is a value of @math beyond which the CSP will be unsatisfiable with high probability. Strong refutation is the problem of certifying that no variable assignment satisfies more than a constant fraction of clauses; this is the natural algorithmic problem in the unsatisfiable regime (when @math ). Intuitively, strong refutation should become easier as the clause density @math grows, because the contradictions introduced by the random clauses become more locally apparent. For CSPs such as @math -SAT and @math -XOR, there is a long-standing gap between the clause density at which efficient strong refutation algorithms are known, @math , and the clause density at which instances become unsatisfiable with high probability, @math . In this paper, we give spectral and sum-of-squares algorithms for strongly refuting random @math -XOR instances with clause density @math in time @math or in @math rounds of the sum-of-squares hierarchy, for any @math and any integer @math . Our algorithms provide a smooth transition between the clause density at which polynomial-time algorithms are known at @math , and brute-force refutation at the satisfiability threshold when @math . We also leverage our @math -XOR results to obtain strong refutation algorithms for SAT (or any other Boolean CSP) at similar clause densities. Our algorithms match the known sum-of-squares lower bounds due to Grigoriev and Schonebeck, up to logarithmic factors. Additionally, we extend our techniques to give new results for certifying upper bounds on the injective tensor norm of random tensors. We perform a comprehensive study of mappings between constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and propositional satisfiability (SAT). We analyse four different mappings of SAT problems into CSPs, and two of CSPs into SAT problems. For each mapping, we compare the impact of achieving arc-consistency on the CSP with unit propagation on the SAT problem. We then extend these results to CSP algorithms that maintain (some level of) arc-consistency during search like FC and MAC, and to the Davis-Putnam procedure (which performs unit propagation at each search node). Because of differences in the branching structure of their search, a result showing the dominance of achieving arc-consistency on the CSP over unit propagation on the SAT problem does not necessarily translate to the dominance of MAC over the Davis-Putnam procedure. These results provide insight into the relationship between propositional satisfiability and constraint satisfaction. We report on a novel technique called spatial coupling and its application in the analysis of random constraint satisfaction problems (CSP). Spatial coupling was invented as an engineering construction in the area of error correcting codes where it has resulted in efficient capacity-achieving codes for a wide range of channels. However, this technique is not limited to problems in communications, and can be applied in the much broader context of graphical models. We describe here a general methodology for applying spatial coupling to random constraint satisfaction problems and obtain lower bounds for their (rough) satisfiability threshold. The main idea is to construct a distribution of geometrically structured random K-SAT instances - namely the spatially coupled ensemble - which has the same (rough) satisfiability threshold, and is at the same time algorithmically easier to solve. Then by running well-known algorithms on the spatially coupled ensemble we obtain a lower bound on the (rough) satisfiability threshold of the original ensemble. The method is versatile because one can choose the CSP, there is a certain amount of freedom in the construction of the spatially coupled ensemble, and also in the choice of the algorithm. In this work we focus on random K-SAT but we have also checked that the method is successful for Coloring, NAE-SAT and XOR-SAT. We choose Unit Clause propagation for the algorithm which is analyzed over the spatially coupled instances. For K = 3, for instance, our lower bound is equal to 3.67 which is better than the current bounds in the literature. Similarly, for graph 3-colorability we get a bound of 2.22 which is also better than the current bounds in the literature.