Dekker1/dekker-phd-thesis
Archived
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Half Reification

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Jip J. Dekker 2021-05-27 17:13:54 +10:00
parent 9e7118dd6a
commit 83c77ab568
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 517DF4A00618C9C3
1 changed files with 289 additions and 52 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

293
chapters/4_half_reif.tex
View File

@ -1,26 +1,117 @@
%************************************************
\chapter{Context Analysis and Half Reification}\label{ch:half-reif}
\chapter{Half Reification}\label{ch:half-reif}
%************************************************
In this chapter we study the usage of \gls{half-reif}. When a constraint \mzninline{pred(...)} is reified a
The complex expressions language used in \cmls{}, such as \minizinc{}, often
require the use of \gls{reification} in the flattening process to reach a
solver level constraint model. If the Boolean expression \mzninline{pred(...)}
is seen in a non-root context, then a new Boolean \variable{} \mzninline{b} is
introduced to replace the expression. The flattener then enforces a
\constraint{} \mzninline{pred_reif(...,b)}, which binds the \variable{} to be
the \emph{truth-value} of the expression (\ie\ \mzninline{b <-> pred(...)}).
A weakness of reification is that each reified version of a constraint requires
further implementation to create, and indeed most solvers do not provide any
reified versions of their \gls{global} \constraints{}.
\begin{example}\label{ex:hr-alldiff}
Consider the complex constraint
\begin{mzn}
constraint i <= 4 -> all_different([i,x-i,x]);
\end{mzn}
The usual flattened form would be
\begin{mzn}
constraint int_le_reif(i, 4, b1); % b1 holds iff i <= 4
constraint int_minus(x, i, t1); % t1 = x - i
constraint all_different_reif([i,t1,x], b2);
constraint bool_clause([b2], [b1]) % b1 implies b2
\end{mzn}
but no solver we are aware of implements the third primitive
constraint.\footnote{Although there are versions of soft
\mzninline{all_different}, they do not define this form.}
\end{example}
Reified \gls{global} \constraints{} are not implemented because a reified constraint
\mzninline{b <-> pred(...)} must also implement a propagator for \mzninline{not
pred(...)} (in the case that \mzninline{b = false}). While for some global
\constraints{}, \eg\ \mzninline{all_different}, this may be reasonable to
implement, for most, such as \texttt{cumulative}, the task seems to be very
difficult.
Another weakness of the reification is that it may keep track of more
information than is required. In a typical solver, the first reified constraint
\mzninline{b1 <-> i <= 4} will wake up whenever the upper bound of \texttt{i}
changes in order to check whether it should set \texttt{b1} to
\mzninline{true}. But setting \mzninline{b1} to \mzninline{true} will
\emph{never} cause any further propagation. There is no reason to check this.
This is particularly important when the target solver is a mixed integer
programming solver. In order to linearise a reified linear constraint we need
to create two linear \constraints{}, but if we are only interested in half of the
behaviour we can manage this with one linear constraint.
\begin{example}
Consider the constraint \mzninline{b1 <-> i <= 4}, where \texttt{i} can take
values in the domain \mzninline{0..10} then its linearisation is
\begin{mzn}
constraint i <= 10 - 6 * b1; % b1 -> i <= 4
constraint i >= 5 - 5 * b1; % not b1 -> i >= 5
\end{mzn}
But in the system of \constraints{} where this constraint occurs knowing that
\texttt{b1} is 0 will never cause the system to fail, hence we do not need to
keep track of it. We can simply use the second constraint in the
linearisation, which always allows that \texttt{b1} takes the value 0.
\end{example}
The simple flattening used above treats partial functions in the following
manner. Application of a partial function to a value for which it is not defined
gives value \undefined, and this \undefined\ function percolates up through
every expression to the top level conjunction, making the model unsatisfiable.
For the example
In this chapter we study the usage of \gls{half-reif}. \gls{half-reif} follows
from the notion that in many cases it might be sufficient to use the logical
implication of an expression, \mzninline{b -> pred(...)}, instead of the
logical equivalence, \mzninline{b <-> pred(...)}. Flattening with
half-reification is an approach that improves upon all these weaknesses of
flattening with \emph{full} reification.
\begin{itemize}
\item Half reified \constraints{} add no burden to the solver writer; if they
have a propagator for constraint \mzninline{pred(....)} then they can
straightforwardly construct a half reified propagator for \mzninline{b ->
pred(...)}.
\item Flattening with \gls{half-reif} can produce smaller linear models when
used with a mixed integer programming solver.
\item Half reified \constraints{} \mzninline{b -> pred(...)} can implement fully
reified \constraints{} without any loss of propagation strength (assuming
reified \constraints{} are negatable). \jip{TODO:\ should this still be here?}
\item Flattening with half reification can naturally produce the relational
semantics when flattening partial functions in positive contexts.
\item Half reified constraints add no burden to the solver writer; if they
have a propagator for constraint \mzninline{pred(....)} then they can
straightforwardly construct a half reified propagator for \mzninline{b
-> pred(...)}.
\item Half reified constraints \mzninline{b -> pred(...)} can implement fully
reified constraints without any loss of propagation strength (assuming
reified constraints are negatable).
\jip{TODO:\ should this still be here?}
\item Flattening with half reification can produce more efficient propagation
when flattening complex constraints.
\item Flattening with half reification can produce smaller linear models when
used with a mixed integer programming solver.
when flattening complex \constraints{}. \jip{TODO:\ should this still be
here?}
\end{itemize}
The remainder of the chapter is organised as follows.
\Cref{sec:half-propagation} discusses the propagation of half-reified
\constraints{}. \Cref{sec:half-decomposition} discusses the decomposition of
half-reified constraint. \Cref{sec:half-context} introduces the notion of
context analysis: a way to determine if half-reification can be used for a
certain expression. Finally, \cref{sec:half-flattening} explains how this
information can be used during the flattening process.
\section{Propagation and Half Reification}%
\label{sec:half-propagation}
@ -41,13 +132,13 @@ the propagator, and hence make its propagation faster.
When full reification is applicable (where we are not using half reified
predicates) an alternative to half reification is to implement full reification
\mzninline{x <-> pred(...)} by two half reified propagators \mzninline{x ->
pred(...)}, \mzninline{y \half \neg pred(...)}, \mzninline{x <-> not y}. This
does not lose propagation strength. For Booleans appearing in a positive context
we can make the propagator \mzninline{y -> not pred(...)} run at the lowest
priority, since it will never cause failure. Similarly in negative contexts we
can make the propagator \mzninline{b -> pred(...)} run at the lowest priority.
This means that Boolean variables are still fixed at the same time, but there is
less overhead.
pred(...)}, \mzninline{y \half \neg pred(...)}, \mzninline{x <-> not y}. This
does not lose propagation strength. For Booleans appearing in a positive
context we can make the propagator \mzninline{y -> not pred(...)} run at the
lowest priority, since it will never cause failure. Similarly in negative
contexts we can make the propagator \mzninline{b -> pred(...)} run at the
lowest priority. This means that Boolean variables are still fixed at the same
time, but there is less overhead.
\section{Decomposition and Half Reification}%
\label{sec:half-decomposition}
@ -55,6 +146,98 @@ less overhead.
\section{Context Analysis}%
\label{sec:half-context}
\Gls{half-reif} can be used instead of full \gls{reification} when the
\gls{reification} can never be forced to be false. We see this in, for example,
a disjunction \(a \lor b\). No matter the value of \(a\), setting the value of
\(b\) to be true can never make the overall expression false. At any \(b\) is thus
never forced to be false. This requirement follows from the difference between
implication and logical equivalences. Setting the left hand side of a
implication to false, does not influence the value on the right hand side. So
if we know that this is never required in the overall expression, then using an
implication instead of a logical equivalence, \ie a \gls{half-reif} instead of
a full \gls{reification}, does not change the meaning of the constraint.
This property can be extended to include non-Boolean expressions. Since Boolean
expressions in \minizinc{} can be used in, for example, integer expressions, we
can apply similar reasoning to these types of expressions. For example the left
hand side of the constraint
%
\begin{mzn}
constraint count(x in arr)(x = 5) > 5;
\end{mzn}
%
is an integer expression that contains the Boolean expression \mzninline{x =
5}. Since the increasing left hand side of the constraint will only ever help
satisfy the constraint, the expression \mzninline{x = 5} will never forced to
be false. This means that we can half-reify the expression.
To systematically analyse whether Booelean expressions can be half-reified, we
introduce extra distinctions in the context of expressions. Before, we would
merely distinguish between \rootc{} context and \emph{non-root} context. Now,
we will categorise the latter into:
\begin{description}
\item[\posc{} context] when an expression must reach \emph{at least} a
certain value to satisfy its enclosing constraint. The expression is never
forced to take a lower value.
\item[\negc{} context] when an expression can reach \emph{at most} a certain
value to satisfy its enclosing constraint. The expression is never forced
to take a higher value.
\item[\mixc{} context] when an expression must take an \emph{exact value}, be
within a \emph{specified range} or when during flattening it cannot be
determined whether the expression must be increased or decreased to satisfy
the enclosing constraint.
\end{description}
As previously explained, \gls{half-reif} can be used for expressions in \posc{}
context. Although expressions in a \negc{} context cannot be directly
half-reified, the negation of a expression in a \negc{} context can be
half-reified. Consider, for example, the constraint
%
\begin{mzn}
constraint b \/ not (x = 5);
\end{mzn}
%
The expression \mzninline{x = 5} is in a \negc{} context. Although a
\gls{half-reif} cannot be used directly, in some cases the solver can negate
the expression which are then placed in a \posc{} context. Our example can be
transformed into:
%
\begin{mzn}
constraint b \/ x != 5;
\end{mzn}
%
The transformed expression, \mzninline{x != 5}, is now in a \posc{} context. We
can also speak of this process as ``pushing the negation inwards''.
Expressions in a \mixc{} context are in a position where \gls{half-reif} is
impossible. Only full \gls{reification} can be used for expressions in that are
in this context. This occurs, for example, when using an exclusive or
expression in a constraint. The value that one side must take directly depends
on the value that the other side takes. Each side can thus be forced to be true
or false. The \mixc{} context can also be used as a ``fall back'' context; if
it cannot be determined if an expression is in a \posc{} or \negc{} context,
then it is always safe to say the expression is in a \mixc{} context.
When taking into account the possible undefinedness of an expression, every
expression in a \minizinc{} model has two different contexts: the context in
which the expression itself occurs, its \emph{value context}, and the context
in which the partiality of the expression is captured, its \emph{partiality
context}. As described in \cref{subsec:back-mzn-partial}, \minizinc{} uses
relational semantics of partial values. This means that if a function does not
have a result, then its nearest enclosing Boolean expression is set to false.
In practice, this means that a condition that tests if the function will return
a value is added to the nearest enclosing Boolean expression. The
\emph{partiality} context is the context in which this condition is placed.
We now specify two context transformations that will be used in further
algorithms to transition between different contexts: \changepos{} and
\changeneg{}. The transformations have the following behaviour:
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\(
\begin{array}{lcl}
@ -75,19 +258,73 @@ less overhead.
\)
\end{tabular}
\begin{itemize}
\item What (again) are the contexts?
\item Why are they important
\item When can we use half-reification
\item How does the analysis work?
\end{itemize}
\jip{TODO:\ Insert algorithm that attaches the context to the different expressions}
\section{Flattening and Half Reification}%
\label{sec:half-flattening}
During the flattening process the contexts assigned to the different
expressions can be used directly to determine if and how a expression has to be
reified. The flattening with \gls{half-reif} does, however, interact with some
of the optimisations used during the flattening process. Most importantly,
\gls{half-reif} has to be considered when using \gls{cse}.
When using full \gls{reification}, all \glspl{reification} are stored in the
\gls{cse} table. This ensure that if we see the same expression is reified
twice, then the resulting \variable{} would be reusing. This avoids that the
solver has to enforce the same functional relationship twice.
If the flattener uses \gls{half-reif}, in addition to full \gls{reification},
then \gls{cse} needs to ensure not just that the expressions are equivalent,
but also that the context of the two expressions are compatible. For example,
if an expression was first found in a \posc{} context and later found in a
\mixc{} context, then the resulting \gls{half-reification} from the first
cannot be used for the second expression. In general:
\begin{itemize}
\item cse
\item chain compression
\item The flattening result of a \posc{} context, a \gls{half-reif}, can only
be reused if the same expression is again found in \posc{} context.
\item The flattening result of a \negc{} context, a \gls{half-reif} with a
negation pushed inwards, can only be reused if the same expression is again
found in \negc{} context.
\item The flattening result of a \mixc{} context, a \gls{reification}, can be
reused in \posc{}, \negc{}, and \mixc{} context. Since we assume that the
result of a flattening an expression in \negc{} context pushes the negation
inwards, the \gls{reification} does, however, need to be negated.
\item If the expression was already flattened in \rootc{} context, then any
repeated usage of the expression can be assumed to take the value
\mzninline{true} (or \mzninline{false} in \negc{} context).
\end{itemize}
When considering these compatibility rules, the result of flattening would be
highly dependent on the order in which expressions are seen by the flattener.
It would always be better to encounter the expression in a context that results
in a reusable expression, \eg{} \mixc{}, before seeing the same expression in
another context, \eg{} \posc{}. This avoids creating both a full
\gls{reification} and a \gls{half-reif} of the same expression.
In the \microzinc{} interpreter, this problem is resolved by only keeping the
result of the \emph{most compatible} context. If an expression is found another
time in another context that is compatible with more contexts, then only the
result of evaluating this context is kept in the \gls{cse} table. Every usage
of the less compatible, is replaced by the newly created version. Because of
dependency tracking of the constraints that define variables, we can be sure
that all \variables{} and \constraints{} created in defining the earlier
version are correctly removed.
In addition, if the same expression is found in both \posc{} and \negc{}
context, then we would create both the \gls{half-reif} of the expression and
its negation. The propagation of these two \glspl{half-reif} would be
equivalent to propagating the full \gls{reification} of the same expression. It
is therefore better to actually create the full \gls{reification} as it would
be able to be reused during flattening.
This problem is solved by introducing a canonical form for expressions where
negations can be pushed inwards. In this form an expression and its negation
should map to the same value in the \gls{cse} table, although in different
contexts. As we discussed before, \negc{}