Using a theorem prover for reasoning on constraint problems

Applied Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 21, Issue 4-5, 2007, Pages 383-404

  Cadoli, Marco ^a   Mancini, Toni ^a  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SYSTEMS PROGRAMMING; CONSTRAINT THEORY; FORMAL LOGIC; PROBLEM SOLVING; PROTEIN FOLDING;

AUTOMATED THEOREM PROVING (ATP); CONSTRAINT PROBLEMS; GRAPH COLORING; TRANSFORMED CONSTRAINT PROGRAMS;

THEOREM PROVING;

EID: 34248531696     PISSN: 08839514     EISSN: 10876545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08839510701252650     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. 2000. Proc. of AAAI 2000, Austin, Texas, USA. AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
2. Bibel, W. 1988. Constraint satisfaction From a deductive viewpoint. Artif. Intell. 35:401-413.
3. Cadoli, M. and T. Mancini. 2003. Detecting and breaking symmetries on specifications. In Proc. of Sym-Con, in conj. with CP 2003, pages 13-26, Kinsale, Ireland.
4. Cadoli, M. and T. Mancini. 2004a. Automated reformulation of specifications by safe delay of constraints. In Proc. of KR 2004, pages 388-398, Whistler, BC, Canada. AAAI Press/The MIT Press.
5. Cadoli, M. and T. Mancini. 2004b. Exploiting functional dependencies in declarative problem specifications. In Prof. of JELIA 2004, LNAI, Volume 3229, 628-640. Springer, New York, USA.
6. Cadoli, M. and T. Mancini. 2006. Automated reformulation of specifications by safe delay of constraints. Artif. Intell. 170 (8-9):779-801.
7. Cadoli, M. and A. Schaerf. 2005. Compiling problem specifications into SAT. Artif. Intell. 162:89-120.
8. Castillo, E., A. J. Conejo, P. Pedregal, R. Garca, and N. Alguacil. 2001. Building and Solving Mathematical Programming Models in Engineering and Science. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
9. Crawford, J. M., M. L. Ginsberg, E. M. Luks, and A. Roy. 1996. Symmetry-breaking predicates for search problems. In Proc. of KR'96, pages 148-159, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Morgan Kaufmann.
10. Crescenzi, P., D. Goldman, C. H. Papadimitriou, A. Piccolboni, and M. Yannakakis. 1998. On the complexity of protein folding. J. of Comp. Biology 5(3):423-466.
11. Dechter, R. 1992. Constraint networks (survey). In: Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd ed., 276-285. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.
12. Fagin, R. 1974. Generalized first-order spectra and polynomial-time recognizable sets. In: Complexity of Computation, ed. R. M. Karp, 43-74. American Mathematical Society.
13. Flener, P., A. Frisch, B. Hnich, Z. Kiziltan, I. Miguel, J. Pearson, and T. Walsh. 2002. Breaking row and column symmetries in matrix models. In Proc. of CP 2002 LNCS, Volume 2470, page 462. Springer, New York, USA.
14. Fourer, R., D. M. Gay, and B. W. Kernigham. 1993. AMPL: A Modeling Language for Mathematical Programming. Ind. Thomson Publ.
15. Frisch, A., I. Miguel, and T. Walsh. 2002. CGRASS: A system for transforming constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. of ERCIM 2002 LNAI, Volume 2627, 15-30. Springer, New York, USA.
16. Garey, M. R. and D. S. Johnson. 1979. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co.
17. Giunchiglia, E., and R. Sebastiani. 2000. Applying the Davis-Putnam procedure to non-clausal formulas. In Proc. of AI*IA'99 LNAI, Volume 1792, 84-94. Springer, New York, USA.
18. Giunchiglia, F. and T. Walsh. 1992. A theory of abstraction. Artif. Intell. 57:323-389.
19. Kolaitis, P. G. 2003. Constraint satisfaction, databases, and logic. In Proc. of IJCAI 2003, pages 1587-1595, Acapulco, Mexico: Morgan Kaufmann.
20. Lau, K. F. and K. A. Dill. 1989. A lattice statistical mechanics model of the conformational and sequence spaces of proteins. Macromolecules 22:3986-3997.
21. Leone, N., G. Pfeifer, W. Faber, T. Eiter, G. Gottlob, S. Perri, and F. Scarcello. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. on Camp. Logic
22. Li, C. M. Integrating equivalency reasoning into Davis-Putnam procedure. In Proc. of AAAI 2000, pages 291-296.
23. Mancini, T. and M. Cadoli. 2005. Detecting and breaking symmetries by reasoning on problem specifications. In Proc. of SARA 2005, LNAI, Volume 3607, pages 165-181. Springer, New York, USA.
24. McCune, W. 2001, MACE 2.0 Reference Manual and Guide. Technical Report ANL/MCS-TM-249, Argonne Nat. Lab., Mathematics and Computer Science Division, May 2001. Available at http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/AR/mace/.
25. McCune, M. 2003. Otter 3.3 Reference Manual Technical Report ANL/MCS-TM-263, Argonne Nat. Lab., Mathematics and Computer Science Division, August 2003. Available at http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/AR/otter/.
26. Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Math. and Artif. Intell. 25(3,4):241-273.
27. Papadimitriou, C. H. 1994. Computational Complexity. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publ. Co.
28. Riazanov, A. and A. Voronkov. 1999. Vampire. In Proc. of CADE' 99 LNCS, Volume 1632, pages 292-296. Springer, New York, USA.
29. Smith, B. M., K. Stcrgiou, and T. Walsh. 2000. Using auxiliary variables and implied constraints to model non-binaiy problems. In Proc. of AAAI 2000, pages 182-187.
30. Van Hentenryck, P. 1999. The OPL Optimization Programming Language Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.