• Documents
  • Authors
  • Tables
  • Log in
  • Sign up
  • MetaCart
  • DMCA
  • Donate

CiteSeerX logo

Advanced Search Include Citations
Advanced Search Include Citations

DMCA

Lightweight Arc-Consistency Algorithms (2003)

Cached

  • Download as a PDF

Download Links

  • [www.cs.ucc.ie]
  • [4c.ucc.ie]
  • [www.cs.ucc.ie]
  • [csweb.ucc.ie]
  • [4c.ucc.ie]
  • [www.cs.ucc.ie]
  • [4c.ucc.ie]
  • [www.cs.ucc.ie]

  • Save to List
  • Add to Collection
  • Correct Errors
  • Monitor Changes
by M. R. C. Van Dongen
Citations:6 - 2 self
  • Summary
  • Citations
  • Active Bibliography
  • Co-citation
  • Clustered Documents
  • Version History

BibTeX

@MISC{Dongen03lightweightarc-consistency,
    author = {M. R. C. Van Dongen},
    title = {Lightweight Arc-Consistency Algorithms},
    year = {2003}
}

Share

Facebook Twitter Reddit Bibsonomy

OpenURL

 

Abstract

Arc-consistency algorithms are the workhorse of many backtrack algorithms. Most research on arc-consistency algorithms is focusing on the design of algorithms that are optimal when it comes to worst case scenarios. This report will provide experimental evidence that, despite common belief to the contrary, the ability to deal efficiently with such worst case scenarios may not be a prerequisite for solving quickly. It will compare on the one hand AC-2001 , which has an optimal worst case time-complexity and is considered efficient, and on the other AC-3 d , which is not optimal when it comes to its worst case time-complexity, but which has a better space-complexity than AC-2001. Both algorithms will be compared for MAC search and for stand alone arc-consistency (the task of making a single CSP arc-consistent). For stand alone arc-consistency AC-3 d is the better algorithm when it comes to time but there is no clear winner when it comes to minimising the number of checks. For search the results are more interesting. MAC-2001 is by far the better algorithm when it comes to minimising the number of checks. However, MAC-3 d is considerably faster on average. For difficult random problems, that took between minutes and 1.5 hour to solve, MAC-3 d was about 1.5 times faster on average than MAC-2001. As soon as MAC-2001 starts to become successful in avoiding the duplication of many checks it begins to invest much more additional solution time. These observations suggest that being worst case optimal may come at a price of being less efficient on average in search and that algorithms like MAC-3 d are promising. Contents 1

Keyphrases

lightweight arc-consistency algorithm    arc-consistency algorithm    worst case optimal    optimal worst case time-complexity    clear winner    mac search    alone arc-consistency    arc-consistency ac-3    worst case scenario    worst case time-complexity    single csp arc-consistent    many check    many backtrack algorithm    additional solution time    difficult random problem    case scenario    hand ac-2001    experimental evidence    common belief   

Powered by: Apache Solr
  • About CiteSeerX
  • Submit and Index Documents
  • Privacy Policy
  • Help
  • Data
  • Source
  • Contact Us

Developed at and hosted by The College of Information Sciences and Technology

© 2007-2019 The Pennsylvania State University