Felix Ulrich-Oltean

AI
3papers
19citations
Novelty50%
AI Score24

3 Papers

AIJul 18, 2023
Learning to Select SAT Encodings for Pseudo-Boolean and Linear Integer Constraints

Felix Ulrich-Oltean, Peter Nightingale, James Alfred Walker

Many constraint satisfaction and optimisation problems can be solved effectively by encoding them as instances of the Boolean Satisfiability problem (SAT). However, even the simplest types of constraints have many encodings in the literature with widely varying performance, and the problem of selecting suitable encodings for a given problem instance is not trivial. We explore the problem of selecting encodings for pseudo-Boolean and linear constraints using a supervised machine learning approach. We show that it is possible to select encodings effectively using a standard set of features for constraint problems; however we obtain better performance with a new set of features specifically designed for the pseudo-Boolean and linear constraints. In fact, we achieve good results when selecting encodings for unseen problem classes. Our results compare favourably to AutoFolio when using the same feature set. We discuss the relative importance of instance features to the task of selecting the best encodings, and compare several variations of the machine learning method.

AIFeb 26, 2022
TabID: Automatic Identification and Tabulation of Subproblems in Constraint Models

Özgür Akgün, Ian P. Gent, Christopher Jefferson et al.

The performance of a constraint model can often be improved by converting a subproblem into a single table constraint (referred to as tabulation). Finding subproblems to tabulate is traditionally a manual and time-intensive process, even for expert modellers. This paper presents TabID, an entirely automated method to identify promising subproblems for tabulation in constraint programming. We introduce a diverse set of heuristics designed to identify promising candidates for tabulation, aiming to improve solver performance. These heuristics are intended to encapsulate various factors that contribute to useful tabulation. We also present additional checks to limit the potential drawbacks of suboptimal tabulation. We comprehensively evaluate our approach using benchmark problems from existing literature that previously relied on manual identification by constraint programming experts of constraints to tabulate. We demonstrate that our automated identification and tabulation process achieves comparable, and in some cases improved results. We empirically evaluate the efficacy of our approach on a variety of solvers, including standard CP (Minion and Gecode), clause-learning CP (Chuffed and OR-Tools) and SAT solvers (Kissat). Our findings highlight the substantial potential of fully automated tabulation, suggesting its integration into automated model reformulation tools.

AIOct 15, 2021
SAT Encodings for Pseudo-Boolean Constraints Together With At-Most-One Constraints

Miquel Bofill, Jordi Coll, Peter Nightingale et al.

When solving a combinatorial problem using propositional satisfiability (SAT), the encoding of the problem is of vital importance. We study encodings of Pseudo-Boolean (PB) constraints, a common type of arithmetic constraint that appears in a wide variety of combinatorial problems such as timetabling, scheduling, and resource allocation. In some cases PB constraints occur together with at-most-one (AMO) constraints over subsets of their variables (forming PB(AMO) constraints). Recent work has shown that taking account of AMOs when encoding PB constraints using decision diagrams can produce a dramatic improvement in solver efficiency. In this paper we extend the approach to other state-of-the-art encodings of PB constraints, developing several new encodings for PB(AMO) constraints. Also, we present a more compact and efficient version of the popular Generalized Totalizer encoding, named Reduced Generalized Totalizer. This new encoding is also adapted for PB(AMO) constraints for a further gain. Our experiments show that the encodings of PB(AMO) constraints can be substantially smaller than those of PB constraints. PB(AMO) encodings allow many more instances to be solved within a time limit, and solving time is improved by more than one order of magnitude in some cases. We also observed that there is no single overall winner among the considered encodings, but efficiency of each encoding may depend on PB(AMO) characteristics such as the magnitude of coefficient values.