Efficient and optimal hybrid decomposition strategies;Strategies hybrides pour des decompositions optimales et ecaces

JFPC 2009 - Actes des Cinquiemes Journees Francophones de Programmation par Contraintes

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 35-44

  Jegou, Philippe ^a   Ndiaye, Samba Ndojh ^b   Terrioux, Cyril ^a  

^a AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875085695     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. I. Adler, G. Gottlob, and M. Grohe. Hypertree width and related hypergraph invariants. Eur. J. Comb., 28(8) :2167{2181, 2007.
2. C. Bessiere, P. Meseguer, E. C. Freuder, and J. Larrosa. On forward checking for non-binary constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence, 141 :205{224, 2002.
3. R. Dechter. Constraint processing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2003.
4. R. Dechter. Tractable Structures for Constraint Satisfaction Problems, pages 209{244. Chapter in the Handbook of Constraint Programming F. Rossi, T. Walsh and P. van Beek, 2006.
5. R. Dechter, L. Otten, and R. Marinescu. On the Practical Significance of Hypertree vs. Tree Width. In ECAI, pages 913{914, 2008.
6. R. Dechter and J. Pearl. Tree-Clustering for Constraint Networks. Artificial Intelligence, 38 :353{366, 1989.
7. A. Dermaku, T. Ganzow, G. Gottlob, B. MacMahan, N. Musliu, and M. Samer. Heuristic Methods for Hypertree Decompositions. In MICAI 2008, 2008.
8. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. On Tractable Queries and Constraints. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS-99), pages 21{32, 1999.
9. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. A Comparison of Structural CSP Decomposition Methods. Artificial Intelligence, 124 :343{282, 2000.
10. G. Gottlob, N. Leone, and F. Scarcello. Robbers, marshals, and guards : game theoretic and logical characterizations of hypertree width. Journal of Computer and System Sciences (JCSS), 66(4) :775{808, 2003.
11. G. Gottlob and M. Samer. A backtracking-based algorithm for hypertree decomposition. ACM Journal of Experimental Algorithmics, 13, 2008.
12. M. Grohe and D. Marx. Constraint solving via fractional edge covers. In SODA, pages 289{298, 2006.
13. R. Haralick and G. Elliot. Increasing tree search efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence, 14 :263{313, 1980.
14. P. Jegou, S. N. Ndiaye, and C. Terrioux. Computing and exploiting tree-decompositions for solving constraint networks. In CP, pages 777{781, 2005.
15. P. Jegou, S.N. Ndiaye, and C. Terrioux. A New Evaluation of Forward Checking and its Consequences on Efficiency of Tools for Decomposition of CSPs. In ICTAI, pages 486{490, 2008.
16. P. Jegou and C. Terrioux. Hybrid backtracking bounded by tree-decomposition of constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 146 :43{75, 2003.
17. K. Kask, R. Dechter, J. Larrosa, and A. Dechter. Unifying tree decompositions for reasoning in graphical models. Artificial Intelligence, 166 :165{ 193, 2005.
18. N. Robertson and P.D. Seymour. Graph minors II : Algorithmic aspects of treewidth. Algorithms, 7 :309{322, 1986.
19. D. Sabin and E. Freuder. Contradicting Conventional Wisdom in Constraint Satisfaction. In Proc. of ECAI, pages 125{129, 1994.
20. R. Tarjan and M. Yannakakis. Simple lineartime algorithms to test chordality of graphs, test acyclicity of hypergraphs, and selectively reduce acyclic hypergraphs. SIAM Journal on Computing, 13 (3) :566{579, 1984.