Artificial Intelligence:
Constraint Satisfaction
problems
Outline
CSP?
Backtracking for CSP
Local search for CSPs
Problem structure and
decomposition
AI 1
* Pag.2
Constraint satisfaction problems
What is a CSP?
– Finite set of variables V1, V2, …, Vn
– Finite set of variables C1, C2, …, Cm
– Nonemtpy domain of possible values for each variable
DV1, DV2, … DVn
– Each constraint Ci limits the values that variables can take,
e.g., V1 ≠ V2
A state is defined as an assignment of values
to some or all variables.
Consistent assignment: assignment does not
not violate the constraints.
AI 1
* Pag.3
Constraint satisfaction problems
An assignment is complete when every value
is mentioned.
A solution to a CSP is a complete assignment
that satisfies all constraints.
Some CSPs require a solution that maximizes
an objective function.
Applications: Scheduling the time of
observations on the Hubble Space Telescope,
Floor planning, Map coloring, Cryptography
AI 1
* Pag.4
CSP example: map coloring
Variables: WA, NT, Q, NSW, V, SA, T
Domains: Di={red,green,blue}
Constraints:adjacent regions must have different colors.
– E.g. WA ≠ NT (if the language allows this)
– E.g. (WA,NT) ≠ {(red,green),(red,blue),(green,red),…}
AI 1
* Pag.5
CSP example: map coloring
Solutions are assignments satisfying all constraints, e.g.
{WA=red,NT=green,Q=red,NSW=green,V=red,SA=blue,T=g
reen}
AI 1
* Pag.6
Constraint graph
CSP benefits
– Standard representation pattern
– Generic goal and successor
functions
– Generic heuristics (no domain
specific expertise).
Constraint graph = nodes are variables, edges show constraints.
Graph can be used to simplify search.
e.g. Tasmania is an independent subproblem.
AI 1
* Pag.7
Varieties of CSPs
Discrete variables
– Finite domains; size d ⇒O(dn) complete assignments.
– E.g. Boolean CSPs, include. Boolean satisfiability (NP-complete).
– Infinite domains (integers, strings, etc.)
– E.g. job scheduling, variables are start/end days for each job
– Need a constraint language e.g StartJob1 +5 ≤ StartJob3.
– Linear constraints solvable, nonlinear undecidable.
Continuous variables
– e.g. start/end times for Hubble Telescope observations.
– Linear constraints solvable in poly time by LP methods.
AI 1
* Pag.8
Varieties of constraints
Unary constraints involve a single variable.
– e.g. SA ≠ green
Binary constraints involve pairs of variables.
– e.g. SA ≠ WA
Higher-order constraints involve 3 or more variables.
– e.g. cryptharithmetic column constraints.
Preference (soft constraints) e.g. red is better than
green often representable by a cost for each variable
assignment → constrained optimization problems.
AI 1
* Pag.9
Example; cryptharithmetic
AI 1
* Pag.10
CSP as a standard search problem
A CSP can easily expressed as a
standard search problem.
Incremental formulation
– Initial State: the empty assignment {}.
– Successor function: Assign value to unassigned
variable provided that there is not conflict.
– Goal test: the current assignment is complete.
– Path cost: as constant cost for every step.
AI 1
* Pag.11
CSP as a standard search problem
This is the same for all CSP’s !!!
Solution is found at depth n (if there are n
variables).
– Hence depth first search can be used.
Path is irrelevant, so complete state
representation can also be used.
Branching factor b at the top level is nd.
b=(n-l)d at depth l, hence n!dn leaves (only
dn complete assignments).
AI 1
* Pag.12
Commutativity
CSPs are commutative.
– The order of any given set of actions has no
effect on the outcome.
– Example: choose colors for Australian
territories one at a time
– [WA=red then NT=green] same as [NT=green then
WA=red]
– All CSP search algorithms consider a single variable
assignment at a time ⇒ there are dn leaves.
AI 1
* Pag.13
Backtracking search
Cfr. Depth-first search
Chooses values for one variable at
a time and backtracks when a
variable has no legal values left to
assign.
Uninformed algorithm
– No good general performance (see table p.
143)
AI 1
* Pag.14
Backtracking search
function BACKTRACKING-SEARCH(csp) return a solution or failure
return RECURSIVE-BACKTRACKING({} , csp)
function RECURSIVE-BACKTRACKING(assignment, csp) return a solution or failure
if assignment is complete then return assignment
var ← SELECT-UNASSIGNED-VARIABLE(VARIABLES[csp],assignment,csp)
for each value in ORDER-DOMAIN-VALUES(var, assignment, csp) do
if value is consistent with assignment according to CONSTRAINTS[csp] then
add {var=value} to assignment
result ← RRECURSIVE-BACTRACKING(assignment, csp)
if result ≠ failure then return result
remove {var=value} from assignment
return failure
AI 1
* Pag.15
Backtracking example
AI 1
* Pag.16
Backtracking example
AI 1
* Pag.17
Backtracking example
AI 1
* Pag.18
Backtracking example
AI 1
* Pag.19
Improving backtracking efficiency
Previous improvements →
introduce heuristics
General-purpose methods can give
huge gains in speed:
– Which variable should be assigned next?
– In what order should its values be tried?
– Can we detect inevitable failure early?
– Can we take advantage of problem structure?
AI 1
* Pag.20
Minimum remaining values
var ← SELECT-UNASSIGNED-VARIABLE(VARIABLES[csp],assignment,csp)
A.k.a. most constrained variable heuristic
Rule: choose variable with the fewest legal moves
Which variable shall we try first?
AI 1
* Pag.21
Degree heuristic
Use degree heuristic
Rule: select variable that is involved in the largest number of
constraints on other unassigned variables.
Degree heuristic is very useful as a tie breaker.
In what order should its values be tried?
AI 1
* Pag.22
Least constraining value
Least constraining value heuristic
Rule: given a variable choose the least constraing
value i.e. the one that leaves the maximum
flexibility for subsequent variable assignments.
AI 1
* Pag.23
Forward checking
Can we detect inevitable failure early?
– And avoid it later?
Forward checking idea: keep track of remaining legal
values for unassigned variables.
Terminate search when any variable has no legal
values.
AI 1
* Pag.24
Forward checking
Assign {WA=red}
Effects on other variables connected by constraints
with WA
– NT can no longer be red
– SA can no longer be red
AI 1
* Pag.25
Forward checking
Assign {Q=green}
Effects on other variables connected by constraints with WA
– NT can no longer be green
– NSW can no longer be green
– SA can no longer be green
MRV heuristic will automatically select NT and SA next, why?
AI 1
* Pag.26
Forward checking
If V is assigned blue
Effects on other variables connected by constraints with WA
– SA is empty
– NSW can no longer be blue
FC has detected that partial assignment is inconsistent with the
constraints and backtracking can occur.
AI 1
* Pag.27
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 {1,2,3,4} {1,2,3,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1,2,3,4} {1,2,3,4}
[4-Queens slides copied from B.J. Dorr CMSC 421 course on AI]
AI 1
* Pag.28
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 {1,2,3,4} {1,2,3,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1,2,3,4} {1,2,3,4}
AI 1
* Pag.29
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 {1,2,3,4} { , ,3,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{ ,2, ,4} { ,2,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.30
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 {1,2,3,4} { , ,3,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{ ,2, ,4} { ,2,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.31
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 {1,2,3,4} { , ,3,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{ , , , } { ,2,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.32
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} {1,2,3,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1,2,3,4} {1,2,3,4}
AI 1
* Pag.33
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} { , , ,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1, ,3, } {1, ,3,4}
AI 1
* Pag.34
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} { , , ,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1, ,3, } {1, ,3,4}
AI 1
* Pag.35
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} { , , ,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1, , , } {1, ,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.36
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} { , , ,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1, , , } {1, ,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.37
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} { , , ,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1, , , } { , ,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.38
Example: 4-Queens Problem
X1 X2
1 2 3 4 { ,2,3,4} { , , ,4}
1
2
3
4
X3 X4
{1, , , } { , ,3, }
AI 1
* Pag.39
Constraint propagation
Solving CSPs with combination of heuristics plus forward
checking is more efficient than either approach alone.
FC checking propagates information from assigned to
unassigned variables but does not provide detection for all
failures.
– NT and SA cannot be blue!
Constraint propagation repeatedly enforces constraints locally
AI 1
* Pag.40
Arc consistency
X → Y is consistent iff
for every value x of X there is some allowed y
SA → NSW is consistent iff
SA=blue and NSW=red
AI 1
* Pag.41
Arc consistency
X → Y is consistent iff
for every value x of X there is some allowed y
NSW → SA is consistent iff
NSW=red and SA=blue
NSW=blue and SA=???
Arc can be made consistent by removing blue from NSW
AI 1
* Pag.42
Arc consistency
Arc can be made consistent by removing blue from
NSW
RECHECK neighbours !!
– Remove red from V
AI 1
* Pag.43
Arc consistency
Arc can be made consistent by removing blue from NSW
RECHECK neighbours !!
– Remove red from V
Arc consistency detects failure earlier than FC
Can be run as a preprocessor or after each assignment.
– Repeated until no inconsistency remains
AI 1
* Pag.44
Arc consistency algorithm
function AC-3(csp) return the CSP, possibly with reduced domains
inputs: csp, a binary csp with variables {X1, X2, …, Xn}
local variables: queue, a queue of arcs initially the arcs in csp
while queue is not empty do
(Xi, Xj) ← REMOVE-FIRST(queue)
if REMOVE-INCONSISTENT-VALUES(Xi, Xj) then
for each Xk in NEIGHBORS[Xi ] do
add (Xi, Xj) to queue
function REMOVE-INCONSISTENT-VALUES(Xi, Xj) return true iff we remove a value
removed ← false
for each x in DOMAIN[Xi] do
if no value y in DOMAIN[Xi] allows (x,y) to satisfy the constraints between Xi and Xj
then delete x from DOMAIN[Xi]; removed ← true
return removed
AI 1
* Pag.45
K-consistency
Arc consistency does not detect all inconsistencies:
– Partial assignment {WA=red, NSW=red} is inconsistent.
Stronger forms of propagation can be defined using
the notion of 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.
– E.g. 1-consistency or node-consistency
– E.g. 2-consistency or arc-consistency
– E.g. 3-consistency or path-consistency
AI 1
* Pag.46
K-consistency
A graph 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.
This is ideal since a solution can be found in
time O(nd) instead of O(n2d3)
YET no free lunch: any algorithm for
establishing n-consistency must take time
exponential in n, in the worst case.
AI 1
* Pag.47
Further improvements
Checking special constraints
– Checking Alldif(…) constraint
– E.g. {WA=red, NSW=red}
– Checking Atmost(…) constraint
– Bounds propagation for larger value domains
Intelligent backtracking
– Standard form is chronological backtracking i.e. try different value
for preceding variable.
– More intelligent, backtrack to conflict set.
– Set of variables that caused the failure or set of previously assigned variables that
are connected to X by constraints.
– Backjumping moves back to most recent element of the conflict set.
– Forward checking can be used to determine conflict set.
AI 1
* Pag.48
Local search for CSP
Use complete-state representation
For CSPs
– allow states with unsatisfied constraints
– operators reassign variable values
Variable selection: randomly select any
conflicted variable
Value selection: min-conflicts heuristic
– Select new value that results in a minimum number of
conflicts with the other variables
AI 1
* Pag.49
Local search for CSP
function MIN-CONFLICTS(csp, max_steps) return solution or failure
inputs: csp, a constraint satisfaction problem
max_steps, the number of steps allowed before giving up
current ← an initial complete assignment for csp
for i = 1 to max_steps do
if current is a solution for csp then return current
var ← a randomly chosen, conflicted variable from VARIABLES[csp]
value ← the value v for var that minimize CONFLICTS(var,v,current,csp)
set var = value in current
return failure
AI 1
* Pag.50
Min-conflicts example 1
h=5 h=3 h=1
Use of min-conflicts heuristic in
hill-climbing.
AI 1
* Pag.51
Min-conflicts example 2
A two-step solution for an 8-queens problem using
min-conflicts heuristic.
At each stage a queen is chosen for reassignment in its
column.
The algorithm moves the queen to the min-conflict square
breaking ties randomly.
AI 1
* Pag.52
Advantages of local search
The runtime of min-conflicts is roughly
independent of problem size.
– Solving the millions-queen problem in roughly 50
steps.
Local search can be used in an online
setting.
– Backtrack search requires more time
AI 1
* Pag.53
Problem structure
How can the problem structure help to find a solution quickly?
Subproblem identification is important:
– Coloring Tasmania and mainland are independent subproblems
– Identifiable as connected components of constrained graph.
Improves performance
AI 1
* Pag.54
Problem structure
Suppose each problem has c variables out of a total of n.
Worst case solution cost is O(n/c dc), i.e. linear in n
– Instead of O(d n), exponential in n
E.g. n= 80, c= 20, d=2
– 280 = 4 billion years at 1 million nodes/sec.
– 4 * 220= .4 second at 1 million nodes/sec
AI 1
* Pag.55
Tree-structured CSPs
Theorem: if the constraint graph has no loops
then CSP can be solved in O(nd 2) time
Compare difference with general CSP, where
worst case is O(d n)
AI 1
* Pag.56
Tree-structured CSPs
In most cases subproblems of a CSP are connected as a tree
Any tree-structured CSP can be solved in time linear in the
number of variables.
– Choose a variable as root, order variables from root to leaves such that every node’s
parent precedes it in the ordering. (label var from X1 to Xn)
– For j from n down to 2, apply REMOVE-INCONSISTENT-VALUES(Parent(Xj),Xj)
– For j from 1 to n assign Xj consistently with Parent(Xj )
AI 1
* Pag.57
Nearly tree-structured CSPs
Can more general constraint graphs be reduced to
trees?
Two approaches:
– Remove certain nodes
– Collapse certain nodes
AI 1
* Pag.58
Nearly tree-structured CSPs
Idea: assign values to some variables so that the remaining
variables form a tree.
Assume that we assign {SA=x} ← cycle cutset
– And remove any values from the other variables that are inconsistent.
– The selected value for SA could be the wrong one so we have to try all
of them
AI 1
* Pag.59
Nearly tree-structured CSPs
This approach is worthwhile if cycle cutset is small.
Finding the smallest cycle cutset is NP-hard
– Approximation algorithms exist
This approach is called cutset conditioning.
AI 1
* Pag.60
Nearly tree-structured CSPs
Tree decomposition of the
constraint graph in a set of
connected subproblems.
Each subproblem is solved
independently
Resulting solutions are
combined.
Necessary requirements:
– Every variable appears in ar least one
of the subproblems.
– If two variables are connected in the
original problem, they must appear
together in at least one subproblem.
– If a variable appears in two
subproblems, it must appear in each
node on the path.
AI 1
* Pag.61
Summary
CSPs are a special kind of problem: states defined by values of
a fixed set of variables, goal test defined by constraints on
variable values
Backtracking=depth-first search with one variable assigned per
node
Variable ordering and value selection heuristics help
significantly
Forward checking prevents assignments that lead to failure.
Constraint propagation does additional work to constrain values
and detect inconsistencies.
The CSP representation allows analysis of problem structure.
Tree structured CSPs can be solved in linear time.
Iterative min-conflicts is usually effective in practice.
AI 1
* Pag.62
Taak 2: CSP and sudoku
[Link]
Variabelen?
– 81 vakjes
Domeinen?
– Tussen 1-9
Constraints?
– Tussen elke twee
variabelen in dezelfde
rij, kolom en 3x3 group.
AI 1
* Pag.63
Taak 2: CSP and sudoku
DEEL 1
– CSP oplossen met
forward checking en
MGU heuristiek.
DEEL 2
– Local search op basis
van Evolutionary
transition algorithm
(ETA).
Schrijf verslag.
AI 1
* Pag.64