Search in the patience game 'Black Hole'

AI Communications

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 211-226

  Gent, Ian P ^a   Jefferson, Chris ^b   Kelsey, Tom ^a   Lynce, Inês ^c   Miguel, Ian ^a   Nightingale, Peter ^a   Smith, Barbara M ^d   Tarim, S Armagan ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c INESC ID   (Portugal)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Constraint Programming; Empirical evaluation; Planning

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; INTEGER PROGRAMMING; ONLINE SEARCHING;

CONSTRAINT PROGRAMMING; EMPIRICAL EVALUATION; NATURAL PLANNING PROBLEM;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 34848819489     PISSN: 09217126     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. J. Allen, J. Hendler and A. Tate, Readings in Planning, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1990.
2. C. Ansótegui and F. Manyá, Mapping problems with finitedomain variables into problems with boolean variables, in: Seventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, May 2004.
3. A. Blum, and M. Fürst, Fast planning through planning graph analysis, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 95), 1995, pp. 1636-1642.
4. S. Fish, Freecell solver, Web Page, 2002.
5. M. Fox and D. Long, PDDL2.1: An extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains, 2001.
6. M. Fox and D. Long, Extending the exploitation of symmetries in planning, in: Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, M. Ghallab, J. Hertzberg and P. Traverso, eds, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 2002, pp. 83-91.
7. I.P. Gent, T. Kelsey, S. Linton, I. MacDonald, I. Miguel and B.M. Smith, Conditional symmetry breaking, in: van Beek [19], pp. 256-270.
8. I.P. Gent, I. McDonald and B.M. Smith, Conditional symmetry in the all-interval series problem, in: Proc. SymCon'03, 2003, pp. 55-65.
9. I.P. Gent and P. Prosser, SAT encodings of the stable maniage problem with ties and incomplete lists, in: Fifth International Symposium on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing, May 2002.
10. M. Helmert, Complexity results for standard benchmark domains in planning, Artificial Intelligence 1432 (2003), 219-262.
11. B. Hnich, B.M. Smith and T. Walsh, Models of permutation and injection problems, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21 (2004), 357-391.
12. J. Hoffmann and B. Nebel, The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through, heuristic search, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14 (2001), 253-302.
13. C. Jefferson, A. Miguel, I. Miguel and A. Tarim, Modelling and solving English peg solitaire, Computers and Opemtions Research 33 10 (2006), 2935-2959.
14. H. Kautz and B. Selman, Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - IJCAI 99, 1999.
15. M.W. Moskewicz, C.F. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik, Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver, in: DAC, ACM, 2001, pp. 530-535.
16. D. Parlett, The Penguin Book of Patience, Penguin, 1990.
17. L. Ryan, Efficient algorithms for clause-learning SAT solvers, Master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, February 2004.
18. B.M. Smith, Caching search states in permutation problems, in: van Beek [19], pp. 637-651.
19. P. van Beek, ed., Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2005, 11th International Conference, CP 2003, Sitges, Spain, October 2005, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3709, Springer, 2005.