1: \documentclass{llncs}

2: 

3: \usepackage{times,epsfig,amssymb,latexsym,lscape}

4: 

5: \newcommand{\at}{\hbox{{\it atomic}}}

6: \newcommand{\fs}{\hbox{{\it feasible}}}

7: \newcommand{\upb}{\hbox{{\it getUpperBound}}}

8: \newcommand{\MS}{\hbox{{\it MS}}}

9: \newcommand{\lb}{\hbox{{\it lb}}}

10: \newcommand{\rb}{\hbox{{\it rb}}}

11: \newcommand{\diffdiag}{\hbox{{\it diffdiag}}}

12: \newcommand{\lt}{\hbox{{\it lt}}}

13: \newcommand{\allEq}{\hbox{{\it allEq }}}

14: 

15: \newcommand{\A}{\mathcal{A}}

16: \newcommand{\C}{\mathcal{C}}

17: \newcommand{\E}{\mathcal{E}}

18: \newcommand{\D}{\mathcal{D}}

19: \newcommand{\F}{\mathcal{F}}

20: \newcommand{\R}{\mathcal{R}}

21: \newcommand{\N}{\mathcal{N}}

22: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathcal{Z}}

23: \newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}

24: \newcommand{\pp}{^{\prime\prime}}

25: \newcommand{\T}{\mathcal{T}}

26: \newcommand{\V}{\mathcal{V}}

27: \newcommand{\X}{\mathcal{X}}

28: 

29: \title{Using propagation for solving complex arithmetic constraints}

30: \author{M.H. van Emden \and B. Moa}

31: 

32: \institute{Department of Computer Science, \\University of Victoria,

33: Victoria, Canada \\

34: \email{\{vanemden, bmoa\}@cs.uvic.ca},\\ WWW home page:

35: \texttt{http://www.cs.uvic.ca/\homedir vanemden/ }\\

36: April 4, 2003; as submitted to CP'03

37: }

38: 

39: %\date{}

40: \pagestyle{headings}

41: \setcounter{page}{1}

42: \begin{document}

43: \maketitle

44: 

45: \begin{abstract}

46: Solving a system of nonlinear inequalities is an important problem for

47: which conventional numerical analysis has no satisfactory method.  With

48: a box-consistency algorithm one can compute a cover for the solution set

49: to arbitrarily close approximation.  Because of difficulties in the use

50: of propagation for complex arithmetic expressions, box consistency is

51: computed with interval arithmetic.  In this paper we present theorems

52: that support a simple modification of propagation that allows complex

53: arithmetic expressions to be handled efficiently. The version of box

54: consistency that is obtained in this way is stronger than when interval

55: arithmetic is used.

56: 

57: \end{abstract}

58: 

59: \section{Introduction}

60: One of the most important applications of constraint programming is

61: to solve a system of numeric inequalities:

62: 

63: \begin{equation}

64: \label{nonLinSys}

65: \begin{array}{ccccccccc}

66: g_1(x_1&,& x_2 &,& \ldots &,& x_m)  & \leq & 0     \\

67: g_2(x_1 &,& x_2 &,& \ldots &,& x_m) & \leq & 0     \\

68: \multicolumn{9}{c}{\dotfill}            \\

69: g_k(x_1 &,& x_2 &,& \ldots &,& x_m) & \leq & 0     \\

70: \end{array}

71: \end{equation}

72: 

73: Such  systems often appear as conditions in optimization problems.

74: Inequalities are regarded as intractable in conventional numerical

75: analysis.  The Kuhn-Tucker conditions allow these to be converted

76: to equalities.  The continuation method \cite{mrgn87a} is a fairly,

77: but not totally, dependable method for solving such

78: equalities. Moreover, it is restricted to polynomials.

79: 

80: An important contribution of constraint programming is the

81: box-consistency method \cite{bmcv94,vhlmyd97}, which improves on the

82: continuation method in several ways.  It applies not only to polynomials

83: $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ but to any functions that can be defined by an

84: expression that can be evaluated in interval arithmetic. It computes a

85: cover for the set of solutions and can make it fit arbitrarily closely.

86: In this way, all solutions are found and are approximated as closely as

87: required. The performance of the box-consistency method compares

88: favorably with that of the continuation method \cite{vhlmyd97}.

89: 

90: \section{Preliminaries}

91: In this section we provide background by reviewing some basic concepts.

92: 

93: \subsection{Constraint satisfaction problems}

94: 

95: In a {\em constraint satisfaction problem (CSP)} one has a set of

96: {\em constraints}, each of which is an instance of a formula.  Each of the

97: variables in the formula is associated with a {\em domain}, which is

98: the set of values that are possible for the variable concerned. A {\em

99: solution} is a choice of a domain element for each variable that makes

100: all constraints true.

101: 

102: With each type of constraint, there is an associated {\em domain

103: reduction operator}\/; DRO for short.  This operator may remove from the domains

104: of each of the variables in the constraint certain values that do not

105: satisfy the constraint, given that the other variables of the

106: constraint are restricted to their associated domains.

107: Any DRO is contracting, monotonic, and idempotent.

108: 

109: When the DROs of the constraints are applied in a ``fair'' order,

110: the domains converge

111: to a limit or one of the domains becomes empty.

112: A sequence of DROs activations is fair if every one of them occurs

113: an infinite number of times \cite{vnmd97,aptEssence}.

114: The resulting cartesian product of the domains becomes the

115: greatest common fixpoint of the DROs \cite{vnmd97,aptEssence}.

116: If one of the domains becomes empty,

117: it follows that no solutions exist within the initial

118: domains.  This, or any variant that leads to the same result, is called

119: a {\em constraint propagation algorithm}.

120: 

121: In practice, we are restricted to the domains that are representable in

122: a computer. As there are only a finite number of these,

123: constraint propagation terminates.

124: 

125: %A {\em constraint system} has the following components.

126: %\begin{enumerate}

127: %\item

128: %A set $\T = \{T_1, \ldots, T_m\}$ of sets called {\em types}.

129: %

130: %\item

131: %A set $\X = \{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$ of {\em variables}.

132: %

133: %\item

134: %A {\em typing function} $\tau$: $\X \rightarrow \T$ such that for all

135: %$i\in\{1, \ldots, n\}$, $x_i$ is of type $\tau(x_i)\in \T$.

136: %

137: %\item

138: %A set of {\em constraints} $\C = \{C_1, \ldots, C_m\}$.  Each

139: %constraint is an atomic formula of first order predicate logic.

140: %

141: %\item

142: %A finite sequence of {\em domains} $\D = \langle D_1, \ldots, D_n

143: %\rangle$, where $D_i \subseteq \tau(x_i)$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$.

144: %

145: %\end{enumerate}

146: 

147: %With each constraint $C$, we associate a so-called {\em Domain

148: %Reduction Operator} (DRO for short) that reduces the domain of each

149: %variable involved in $C$ by eliminating values that do not satisfy

150: %$C$.  That is, DRO contracts domains by removing inconsistent values.

151: 

152: \subsection{Constraint propagation}

153: A {\em Generic Propagation Algorithm} (GPA in the sequel) is a fair

154: sequence of DROs. A GPA maintains a pool of DROs, called {\em active set},

155: that still need to be applied. No order is specified for applying

156: these operators. Even though many variants of GPA exist

157: (see Apt~\cite{aptEssence} and Bartak~\cite{rthpra01}), they are all similar to

158: the pseudo-code given in Figure~\ref{lGPA}. Notice that the active

159: set $A$ is initialized to contain all constraints.

160: 

161: \begin{figure}

162: \begin{tabbing}

163: put all constraints into the active set $A$\\

164: while \=( $A \neq \emptyset$) $\{$\\

165:          \>choose a constraint $C$ from the active set $A$\\

166:          \>apply the DRO associated with $C$\\

167:          \> if one of the domains has become empty then stop\\

168:          \>add to $A$ all constraints involving variables whose

169:            domains have changed, if any\\

170:          \>remove $C$ from $A$\\

171: $\}$

172: \end{tabbing}

173: \caption{

174: \label{lGPA}

175: A pseudo-code for GPA.

176: }

177: \end{figure}

178: 

179: \subsection{Interval constraint satisfaction problems}

180: The constraint programming paradigm is very general. It applies to

181: domains as different as booleans, integers, finite symbolic domains,

182: and reals.  In this paper we consider {\em interval CSPs}, which are

183: CSPs where there is only one type and it is equal to the set

184: $\mathcal{R}$ of real numbers.  In such CSPs domains are restricted to

185: intervals, as reviewed below.

186: 

187: \subsection{Intervals}

188: A {\em floating-point number} is any element of $F \cup \{-\infty,

189: +\infty\}$,

190: where $F$ is a finite set of reals. A {\em floating-point interval} is

191: a closed connected set of reals, where the bounds, in so far as they exist,

192: are floating-point numbers. When we write ``interval'' without

193: qualification,

194: we mean a floating-point interval.

195: A {\em canonical interval} is a non-empty interval that does not properly

196: contain an interval. For every finite non-empty interval $X$, $lb(X)$ and

197: $rb(X)$ denote the left and right bound of $X$ respectively.

198: For an unbounded $X$, the left or right bound is defined as $-\infty$

199: or $+\infty$, or both.

200: Thus,

201: $ X = [lb(X), rb(X)]$ is a convenient notation for all non-empty intervals,

202: bounded or not.

203: 

204: If a real $x$ is not a floating-point number, then there is a unique

205: canonical interval containing it. Otherwise, there are three. Either way,

206: there is a unique least canonical interval containing $x$, and it is

207: denoted $\overline{x}$.

208: 

209: A {\em box} is a cartesian product of intervals.

210: 

211: \subsection{Box consistency}

212: 

213: In \cite{vhlmyd97}, box consistency is computed by a relaxation

214: algorithm implemented in interval arithmetic.  The algorithm takes as

215: input certain intervals $X_1, \ldots, X_m$ for the variables $x_1,

216: \ldots, x_m$.  It uses each of the functions $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ in the

217: way that is explained by a generic instance that we temporarily call

218: $g$.  We assume that the function $g$ is defined by an expression $E$

219: containing no variables other than $x_1, \ldots, x_n$.  We call the

220: algorithm in \cite{vhlmyd97} a {\em relaxation algorithm} because it

221: improves the intervals for the variables one at a time while keeping

222: the intervals for all the other variables fixed.

223: This is similar to the relaxation algorithms of numerical analysis.

224: 

225: For simplicity of

226: notation, let us assume that the interval for $x_1$ is to be improved

227: on the basis of the fixed intervals $X_2, \ldots, X_m$ for the

228: variables $x_2, \ldots, x_m$.  This is done by means of a function

229: $g_{X_2, \ldots, X_m}(x)$ that is defined by evaluating in interval

230: arithmetic the expression $E$ with $\overline{x}$ substituted for $x_1$

231: and $X_2, \ldots, X_m$ substituted for $x_2, \ldots, x_m$,

232: respectively.  Thus, $g_{X_2, \ldots, X_m}$ maps a real to an

233: interval.

234: 

235: To improve the interval $X_1 = [\lb(X_1),\rb(X_1)]$

236: for $x_1$, suppose that for some $a < \rb(X_1)$ we have

237: that

238: \begin{equation}

239: \label{trial}

240: \lb(g_{X_2, \ldots, X_m}([a,\rb(X_1)])) > 0.

241: \end{equation}

242: In that case the interval for $x_1$ can be improved from

243: $X_1$ to $[\lb(X_1),a]$.

244: 

245: A bisection algorithm is used to find the least floating-point $a$ for

246: which (\ref{trial}) holds, for fixed intervals $X_2, \ldots, X_m$.  A

247: similar bisection is used to improve the lower bound of $X_1$ using $g$

248: and the fixed intervals $X_2, \ldots, X_m$.  This exhausts what can be

249: done with $g$ and $X_2, \ldots, X_m$.  In general, repeating this

250: process with the other arguments and with the other functions among

251: $\{g_1,\ldots,g_k\}$ causes reductions of $X_2, \ldots, X_m$ and

252: further reductions of $X_1$.

253: 

254: If one of the intervals becomes empty, it is shown that no solution

255: exists within the original intervals $X_1, \ldots, X_m$. Otherwise, the

256: box-consistency algorithm terminates with no interval reduction possible.

257: Let us call the resulting state of the domains

258: {\em functional box consistency}, to

259: distinguish it from the type of box consistency described below.

260: 

261: As the criterion for $a$ being an improved upper bound for $X_1$ is

262: (\ref{trial})

263: with the left-hand side

264: evaluated in interval arithmetic, this box consistency algorithm can be

265: improved by means of interval constraints, as was pointed out in

266: \cite{vnmdn01b}.  Here it was proposed that instead of such interval

267: arithmetic evaluation, one applies propagation to the interval

268: CSP containing as constraints

269: \begin{eqnarray}

270: g(x_1,\ldots,x_m) & \leq & 0       \nonumber         \\

271: x_1 & > & a                                \\

272: x_2 \in X_2, \ldots, x_m \in X_m & & \nonumber

273: \end{eqnarray}

274: The result is called {\em relational box consistency}. In \cite{vnmdn01b}

275: it is shown that the resulting intervals are contained in those obtained by

276: functional box consistency.

277: 

278: 

279: To apply propagation, one needs to decompose the arbitrarily complex

280: expression for $g$ into multiple primitive arithmetic constraints

281: ($x+y=z$, $x \times y=z$, as well as those involving trigonometric or logarithmic

282: constraints), as

283: explained in section~\ref{arch}, so that the corresponding efficient

284: DROs can be applied. In this way the structure of $E$

285: is lost. As a result, GPA

286: will activate DROs that have no effect,

287: even though, on eventual termination of GPA, the result is the correct one:

288: the unique and consistent state, or failure.

289: 

290: This problem was addressed in \cite{bggp99,vnmdn01b}. The remedy

291: described there is to create a tree data structure for $E$ and perform

292: propagation based on the tree structure. Such a {\em structured

293: propagation} algorithm avoids superfluous activations of DROs by

294: following the tree from the bottom to the top and then from the top to

295: the bottom and to repeat these two traversals as a cycle.

296: 

297: In this paper we show that by a simple modification of the GPA one can

298: get the effect of an optimized version of a structured propagation

299: algorithm, yet without maintaining a tree data structure.  The downward

300: part of this algorithm is enhanced by the absence of multiple occurrences

301: of variables.  In interval arithmetic this would be an unacceptable

302: limitation. However constraint programming allows us to translate

303: multiple occurrences to equality constraints.  This may be a welcome

304: improvement compared to the usual way of representing a system such as

305: in Equation~\ref{nonLinSys}.

306: 

307: In section~\ref{arch}, we describe our translation of a system such as

308: in Equation~\ref{nonLinSys} to a CSP consisting of primitive

309: constraints.

310: 

311: \section{Generating a CSP from a system of nonlinear numerical

312: inequalities}

313: \label{arch}

314: 

315: The functions $g_1, \ldots, g_k$ in Equation~\ref{nonLinSys}

316: are defined by expressions that can be evaluated in interval arithmetic

317: and hence can be translated to CSPs containing only primitive

318: constraints.  Any of these expressions may have multiple occurrences of

319: some of the variables.  As there are certain advantages in avoiding

320: multiple occurrences of variables in the same expression, we rewrite

321: without loss of generality the system in Equation~\ref{nonLinSys} to

322: the system shown in Figure~\ref{singleSys}.

323: 

324: \begin{figure}

325: \begin{displaymath}

326: \begin{array}{ccccccccc}

327: g_1(x_1&,& x_2 &,& \ldots &,& x_m) & \leq &0     \\

328: g_2(x_1 &,& x_2 &,& \ldots &,& x_m) & \leq & 0     \\

329: \multicolumn{9}{c}{\dotfill}            \\

330: g_k(x_1 &,& x_2 &,& \ldots &,& x_m) & \leq & 0     \\

331: 

332: \allEq(v_{1,1}&,& v_{1,2}&,& \ldots&,& v_{1,{n_1}}) &&  \\

333: \multicolumn{7}{c}{\dotfill}            \\

334: \allEq(v_{p,1}&,& v_{p,2}&,& \ldots&,& v_{p,{n_p}}) &&  \\

335: \end{array}

336: \end{displaymath}

337: \caption{

338: \label{singleSys}

339: A system of non-linear inequalities without multiple occurrences.

340: The variables $\{x_1,\ldots,x_m\}$ are partitioned into equivalence

341: classes

342: $V_1,\ldots,V_p$ where

343: $V_j$ is a subset $\{v_{j,1}, \ldots, v_{j,{n_j}}\}$

344: of $\{x_1,\ldots,x_m\}$,

345: for $j \in \{1,\ldots, p\}$.

346: }

347: \end{figure}

348: 

349: In Figure~\ref{singleSys}, the expressions for the functions $g_1,

350: \ldots, g_k$ have no multiple occurrences of variables.  As a result,

351: they have up to $m$ rather than $n$ variables, where $m \geq n$.  This

352: special form is obtained by associating with each of the variables

353: $x_j$ in Equation~\ref{nonLinSys} an equivalence class of the variables

354: in Figure~\ref{singleSys}.  In each expression each occurrence of a

355: variable is replaced by a different element of the corresponding

356: equivalence class. This can be done by making each equivalence class as

357: large as the largest number of multiple occurrences.

358: The predicate $\allEq$ is true if and only if all its real-valued

359: arguments are equal.

360: 

361: An advantage of this translation is that evaluation in interval

362: arithmetic of each expression gives the best possible result, namely

363: the range of the function values. At the same time, the $\allEq$

364: constraint is easy to enforce by making all intervals of the variables

365: in the constraint equal to their common intersection.  This takes

366: information into account from all $k$ expressions.  If the system in

367: its original form~\ref{nonLinSys}, with multiple occurrences, would be

368: translated to a CSP, then only multiple occurrences in a single

369: expression would be exploited at one time.

370: 

371: The translation of a complex arithmetic expression to a CSP containing

372: primitive arithmetic constraints is an obvious variant of the procedure

373: that has been familiar since FORTRAN compilers parsed a complex arithmetic

374: expression and generated code from the parse.  The CSP variant of this

375: procedure is at least as old as BNR Prolog \cite{BNR88},

376: which was first implemented

377: in the late 1980s. For a formal description of the translation

378: we refer to

379: \cite{vnmdn01b}.  We give a brief informal description here.

380: 

381: For the purpose of the translation, one regards an

382: expression as a tree with operators as internal

383: nodes and constants or variables as external nodes. We associate with

384: each internal node a unique variable.  Each internal node now generates

385: a primitive constraint. For example, if an internal node has ``$/$'' as

386: an operator, $x$ as a variable, and $y$ and $z$ as variables associated

387: with left and right child nodes, respectively, then the ternary

388: constraint $x \times z=y$ is generated.

389: 

390: In this way, each expression generates a primitive constraint for each

391: internal node.  Let $v$ be the variable associated with the root. As

392: this represents the value of the entire expression, the primitive

393: constraint $v \leq 0$ is generated as well. Because of the absence of

394: multiple occurrences, the partial CSP generated is an acyclic CSP for

395: which local consistency implies global consistency \cite{hyvo94}.

396: 

397: Finally, as the $\allEq$ constraints in Figure~\ref{singleSys} do not

398: contain expressions, they need no translation to more primitive

399: constraints: they have the obvious, optimal, and efficient domain

400: reduction operator described earlier.

401: 

402: This completes our description of how to translate a system as in

403: Equation~\ref{nonLinSys} to a CSP. To solve it

404: by propagation, we must first

405: consider propagation in a CSP consisting only of primitive constraints

406: generated from the tree of a single expression together with the

407: inequality constraint involving the root variable. This we do in the

408: next section.

409: 

410: Before proceeding thus, we point out that

411: translating the system (\ref{singleSys}) to a CSP in the way just described

412: enhances the opportunities for parallelism in propagation beyond those

413: already present in the system (\ref{nonLinSys}).

414: To investigate these would take us beyond the limits of this paper.

415: However, it will be useful here to highlight the structure that gives rise

416: to these opportunities by means of a hardware metaphor.

417: 

418: In the first place it is important to note that the sets of

419: constraints arising from the same expression

420: form a cluster for the purposes of propagation. For example, with the

421: exception of the root, the internal variables only have unique

422: occurrences.

423: As a result, when the DRO of a constraint is activated, it usually causes

424: constraints generated by the same expression to be added to the active

425: set. However, the external variables may occur in all of these clusters.

426: 

427: For the purposes of a parallel algorithm it is useful to imagine the

428: clusters arising from each of the expression as hardware ``cards'', each

429: connected to a ``bus'', where the lines of the bus represent the external

430: variables in common to several expressions.

431: %In figure~\ref{archfig} we have

432: %sketched such a hardware architecture.

433: %

434: %\begin{figure}[!htbp]

435: %\begin{center}

436: %\epsfxsize=5in

437: %\leavevmode

438: %\epsfbox{arch.eps}

439: %\caption{

440: %\label{archfig}

441: %A hardware architecture for CSP (2).

442: %}

443: %\end{center}

444: %\end{figure}

445: %

446: %The cards have been given a triangular

447: %form to symbolize the fact that they have the structure of expression

448: %trees.

449: Whenever two external variables belong to the same equivalence

450: class, they are connected by a ``jumper'' in the hardware model.

451: 

452: The hardware architecture suggests a parallel process for each card

453: that asynchronously executes DROs of constraints only involving

454: internal variables. The processes synchronize when they access one of

455: the bus variables. The DROs of $\allEq$ constraints can also be

456: executed by a parallel process dedicated to each.

457: 

458: \section{Modifying propagation for evaluating an expression}

459: 

460: We first show that, regardless of efficiency,

461: GPA can be used to evaluate a single expression.

462: Suppose that we have an expression $E$ in variables $x_1,\ldots,x_n$.

463: Let $y$ be the variable at the root of the tree representing

464: the value of $E$.

465: Let $C$ be the CSP generated by $E$ as described before.

466: 

467: \begin{theorem}\label{basic}

468: Suppose the domains of $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are the intervals

469: $X_1,\ldots,X_n$.  Suppose the domains of $y$ and the other internal

470: variables are $[-\infty,+\infty]$.  Applying the GPA to $C$ results in

471: the domain of $y$ being the same interval as the one obtained by

472: evaluating $E$ in interval arithmetic with $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ substituted

473: for $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, respectively.

474: 

475: \end{theorem}

476: 

477: {\em Proof.}

478: According to \cite{vnmd97,aptEssence}, every fair

479: sequence of DROs in GPA converges to the same limit

480: for the domains of the variables. There

481: is a finite sequence $s$ of DROs that mimics the evaluation of $E$ in

482: interval arithmetic. At the end of this, $y$ has the value computed by

483: interval arithmetic and GPA terminates.

484: 

485: \paragraph{}

486: Theorem~\ref{basic} is useful in showing that, in the absence of

487: information about the value of the expression, propagation does the

488: equivalent of interval arithmetic.  But the GPA does it in a wasteful

489: way. GPA does not specify the order of applying the DROs other than

490: that their sequence should be a fair one.  In a typical random fair

491: sequence,

492: many DROs will not have any effect.  This inefficient

493: behavior is the motivation for our modifications

494: to GPA presented here.

495: 

496: \begin{theorem}

497: \label{modEval}

498: Suppose we modify GPA so that the active set is initialized to contain

499: instead of all constraints only those containing at most one internal

500: variable. Suppose also that the active set is a queue in which the

501: constraints are initially ordered according to the level they occupy in

502: the expression tree, with those that are further away from the root

503: placed nearer to the front of the queue.  Then GPA terminates after

504: activating the DRO of every constraint at most once.  On termination,

505: $y$ has as domain the value that the expression has in interval

506: arithmetic.

507: 

508: \end{theorem}

509: 

510: Thus we see that GPA has exactly the right behavior for the evaluation

511: of an expression if only we initialize the active set with the right

512: selection of constraints. We call this {\em propagation with selective

513: initialization (PSI)}. In the sequel, the constraints that have at most

514: one internal variable are referred to as {\em peripheral constraints}.

515: 

516: \section{Selective initialization for obtaining box consistency}

517: 

518: Propagation, whether modified or not, obtains results that are at least

519: as strong, and typically stronger than, box consistency as described in

520: \cite{vhlmyd97}.  This can already be demonstrated when considering a

521: single expression $E$ in variables $x_1, \ldots, x_m$ with intervals

522: $X_1, \ldots, X_m$ as domains.  A step towards box consistency is to

523: reduce the interval for each of the variables separately. To simplify

524: notation we do this for $x_1$, keeping the interval domains $X_2,

525: \ldots, X_m$ for $x_2, \ldots, x_m$ fixed.  Suppose that for some $a <

526: \lb(X_1)$ we have that $\lb(g_1([a,\rb(X_1)],X_2, \ldots, X_m)) > 0$.

527: In that case the interval for $x_1$ can be improved from $X_1$ to

528: $[\lb(X_1),a]$.

529: 

530: Suppose that instead of such an interval arithmetic evaluation, one

531: applies propagation to the interval constraint system containing as

532: constraints $x_1 > a$, $x_2 \in X_2, \ldots, x_m \in X_m$, as well as

533: all the ones obtained by translating the expression tree of $E$ to

534: primitive constraints.

535: 

536: \begin{theorem} \label{unModBox}

537: Suppose that $\lb(E([a,\rb(X_1)],X_2, \ldots, x_m \in X_m) >0$.

538: When GPA is applied to this CSP, failure results.

539: 

540: \end{theorem}

541: 

542: {\em Proof.} Consider any fair sequence that starts with a segment $s$

543: mimicking the interval arithmetic evaluation of $E$.  At the end of

544: $s$, the interval for $y$ has a positive lower bound, by the

545: assumption.  The fair sequence can be continued by applying the DRO for

546: $y \leq 0$.  This yields failure.

547: 

548: This proves the theorem.

549: If we use GPA in this

550: way for box consistency instead of interval arithmetic, we never obtain

551: a worse result and we typically obtain a better result.

552: 

553: However, unmodified GPA will obtain the better result in an inefficient

554: way.

555: 

556: Our next result is a modification of GPA that obtains the better result

557: in a more efficient way.

558: 

559: \paragraph{}

560: 

561: Suppose we have a CSP $S$ generated by an expression $E$. Let

562: $y$ be the variable at the root of the tree representing $E$. Suppose

563: we apply GPA to $S$. After the termination of GPA, we have the following

564: theorem.

565: 

566: \begin{theorem}

567: \label{modSolve}

568: Suppose the domain for $y$ is changed to a proper subset of it.

569: Suppose the unique

570: constraint containing $y$ is placed in the active set as only element.

571: Then

572: GPA terminates with the same result as when the active set would have

573: been initialized to contain all constraints.

574: \end{theorem}

575: 

576: \begin{proof}

577: Let $s$ be any fair sequence of DROs. If $s$ starts with the unique

578: constraint containing $y$, then the theorem follows. If $s$ starts with

579: a different constraint $c$, then applying the DRO associated with $c$

580: does not affect any domain (DROs are idempotent and the DRO of $c$ is

581: already in its fixpoint). Thus, removing $c$ from $s$ does not affect the

582: fixpoint of $s$.  We keep removing the first element of

583: $s$ until we reach the unique constraint containing $y$. The new $s'$

584: formed starts with the unique constraint containing $y$ and has the

585: same fixpoint as $s$. Thus, Theorem~\ref{modSolve} is proved.

586: \end{proof}

587: 

588: This theorem shows that a complex constraint of the form $E(x_1,

589: \ldots, x_n) \leq 0$ can be made

590: relationally box consistent by using a modification of GPA that is

591: more efficient without affecting the quality of the result.

592: 

593: The result obtained from

594: Theorem~\ref{modSolve} is usually better than

595: backward evaluation \cite{bggp99}. The following

596: example illustrates that.

597: 

598: Let us consider the following system.

599: \begin{eqnarray}

600: x_1 / x_2 & \leq & 0 \nonumber \\

601:  x_1 \in [-1,1] & & x_2 \in [-1,1] \nonumber

602: \end{eqnarray}

603: Using the decomposition described in section~\ref{arch},

604: we generate the following CSP.

605: \begin{eqnarray}

606: y & \leq & 0 \nonumber\\

607: x_1 / x_2 & = &y \nonumber\\

608:  x_1 \in [-1,1], & x_2 \in [-1,1], & y \in [-\infty,+\infty] \nonumber

609: \end{eqnarray}

610: 

611: Applying the GPA described in Theorem~\ref{modSolve} gives the

612: fixpoint $[-1,1] \times [-1,1] \times [-\infty,-1]$. The result

613: obtained from interval arithmetic backward evaluation is $[-1,1] \times

614: [-1,1] \times [-\infty, 0]$.

615: 

616: Pseudo-code for the PSI algorithm is given in Figure~\ref{PSIAlg}.

617: 

618: \begin{figure}

619: \begin{tabbing}

620: put only \textbf{peripheral} constraints into the active set $A$\\

621: while \=( $A \neq \emptyset$) $\{$\\

622:          \>choose a constraint $C$ from the active set $A$\\

623:          \>apply the DRO associated with $C$\\

624:          \> if one of the domains is empty then stop\\

625:          \>add to $A$ all constraints involving variables whose

626: 	   domains have changed, if any\\

627:          \>remove $C$ from $A$\\

628: $\}$

629: \end{tabbing}

630: \caption{

631: \label{PSIAlg}

632: Pseudo-code for Propagation by Selective Initialization.

633: }

634: \end{figure}

635: 

636: In certain situations (fully described in \cite{mdmo03}),

637: Theorem~\ref{modSolveStrong}, stated below, can be used instead

638: of Theorem~\ref{modSolve}.

639: 

640: In addition to the assumptions of  Theorem~\ref{modSolve},

641: we suppose that the expression $E$ has no multiple occurrences

642: of any variable.

643: 

644: \begin{theorem}

645: \label{modSolveStrong}

646: Suppose the domain for $y$ is changed to a proper subset of it.

647: Suppose the unique constraint containing $y$ is placed in the active

648: set as only element.  Then GPA terminates after having activated the

649: DRO of each constraint at most once.

650: 

651: Moreover, the result is the same as when the active set would have been

652: initialized to contain all constraints.

653: \end{theorem}

654: 

655: This theorem is based on the fact that once the fixpoint is obtained,

656: reducing the domain of one variable may cause the other domains

657: to be reduced but not itself. As shown in

658: \cite{mdmo03}, this is true when DROs

659: have certain properties. For example, one could allow domains

660: to be the union of disjoint intervals, as in

661: the systems of Hyv{\"o}nen or Havens \cite{hyvo94,hssjv92}.

662: But when DROs are those described in this paper, reducing the domain of a

663: variable can affect its own domain as shown in the example above. Even

664: though $[-1,1] \times [-1,1] \times [-\infty,+\infty]$ is a fixpoint

665: of the CSP

666: \begin{eqnarray}

667: x_1 / x_2 & = &y \nonumber\\

668:  x_1 \in [-1,1], & x_2 \in [-1,1], & y \in [-\infty,+\infty] \nonumber

669: \end{eqnarray}

670: reducing the domain of $y$ to $[-\infty,0]$ leads to a further

671: reduced domain of $y$ that is equal to $[-\infty,-1]$.

672: 

673: \section{Conclusion}

674: In this paper, we presented a slight modification to propagation to

675: get the same or better results than structured

676: propagation. Such a modification is used in a box-consistency

677: algorithm to solve systems of non-linear inequalities but

678: it can also be used when solving other CSPs obtained by translating complex

679: expressions.

680: In fact, most CSPs of practical importance seem to be derived from complex

681: expressions.

682: 

683: \section*{Acknowledgments}

684: We acknowledge generous support by the

685: University of Victoria, the Natural Science and Engineering Research

686: Council NSERC, the Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica CWI, and the

687: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWO.

688: %\bibliography{sample}

689: %\bibliographystyle{plain}

690: %\bibliography{article,book,collection,proceedings,techreport,thesis,unpublished,misc}

691: 

692: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

693: 

694: \bibitem{aptEssence}

695: K.R. Apt.

696: \newblock The essence of constraint propagation.

697: \newblock {\em Theoretical Computer Science}, 221(1-2):179--210, 1999.

698: 

699: \bibitem{rthpra01}

700: Roman Bartak.

701: \newblock Theory and practice of constraint propagation.

702: \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Constraint Programming in

703:   Decision and Control (CPDC 2001)}, pages 7--14. J. Figwer(Editor), 2001.

704: 

705: \bibitem{bmcv94}

706: F.~Benhamou, D.~McAllester, and P.~Van Hentenryck.

707: \newblock {CLP}({I}ntervals) revisited.

708: \newblock In {\em Logic Programming: Proc. 1994 International Symposium}, pages

709:   124--138, 1994.

710: 

711: \bibitem{bggp99}

712: Fr\'ed\'eric Benhamou, Fr\'ed\'eric Goualard, Laurent Granvilliers, and

713:   Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Puget.

714: \newblock Revising hull and box consistency.

715: \newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Logic

716:   Programming}, pages 230--244. MIT Press, 1999.

717: 

718: \bibitem{BNR88}

719: BNR.

720: \newblock {BNR} {P}rolog user guide and reference manual.

721: \newblock Version 3.1 for Macintosh, 1988.

722: 

723: \bibitem{hssjv92}

724: W.S. Havens, S.~Sidebottom, G.~Sidebottom, J.~Jones, and R.~Ovans.

725: \newblock Echidna: A constraint logic programming shell.

726: \newblock Technical report, Simon Fraser University, Canada, 1992.

727: 

728: \bibitem{vhlmyd97}

729: Pascal~Van Hentenryck, Laurent Michel, and Yves Deville.

730: \newblock {\em Numerica: A Modeling Language for Global Optimization}.

731: \newblock MIT Press, 1997.

732: 

733: \bibitem{hyvo94}

734: E.~Hyv\"onen.

735: \newblock Constraint reasoning based on interval arithmetic: The tolerance

736:   propagation approach.

737: \newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 58:71--112, 1992.

738: 

739: \bibitem{mrgn87a}

740: A.P. Morgan.

741: \newblock {\em Solving Polynomial Systems Using Continuation for Scientific and

742:   Engineering Problems}.

743: \newblock Prentice-Hall, 1987.

744: 

745: \bibitem{vnmd97}

746: M.H. van Emden.

747: \newblock Value constraints in the {CLP} {S}cheme.

748: \newblock {\em Constraints}, 2:163--183, 1997.

749: 

750: \bibitem{vnmdn01b}

751: M.H. van Emden.

752: \newblock Computing functional and relational box consistency by structured

753:   propagation in atomic constraint systems.

754: \newblock In {\em Proc. 6th Annual Workshop of the ERCIM Working Group on

755:   Constraints; deposited at CoRR}, 2001.

756: 

757: \bibitem{mdmo03}

758: M.H. van Emden and B.~Moa.

759: \newblock Enhancing constraint propagation by selective initialization.

760: \newblock In preparation, 2003.

761: 

762: \end{thebibliography}

763: \end{document}

764: