Constraint satisfaction techniques in planning and scheduling | Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Constraint satisfaction techniques in planning and scheduling

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last few years constraint satisfaction, planning, and scheduling have received increased attention, and substantial effort has been invested in exploiting constraint satisfaction techniques when solving real life planning and scheduling problems. Constraint satisfaction is the process of finding a solution to a set of constraints. Planning is the process of finding a sequence of actions that transfer the world from some initial state to a desired state. Scheduling is the problem of assigning a set of tasks to a set of resources subject to a set of constraints. In this paper, we introduce the main definitions and techniques of constraint satisfaction, planning and scheduling from the Artificial Intelligence point of view.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apt K.R. (2003). Principles of constraint programming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baptiste P., Laborie P., Le Pape C., Nuijten W. (2006). Constraint-based scheduling and planning. In Handbook of Constraint Programming (pp. 761–799). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

  • Baptiste, P., & Le Pape, C. (1996). Edge-finding constraint propagation algorithms for disjunctive and cumulative scheduling. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop of the UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group, Liverpool, UK.

  • Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., & Nuijten, W. (1995). Constraint-based optimization and approximation for job-shop scheduling. In Proceedings of the AAAI-SIGMAN Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, IJCAI-95, Montreal, Canada.

  • Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., & Nuijten, W. (2001). Constraint-based scheduling. Springer.

  • Barták, R. (1998). On-line guide to constraint programming. http://kti.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/constraints/index.html.

  • Barták, R. (2000). Toward mixed planning and scheduling. In Proceedings of CPDC’00 Workshop (Invited Talk), Stenungsund, Sweden.

  • Barták R. (2005). Constraint satisfaction for planning and scheduling. In: Vlahavas, I. and Vrakas, D. (eds) Intelligent techniques for planning, pp 320–353. Idea Group, Hershey, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Barták, R., & Toropila, D. (2008). Reformulating constraint models for classical planning. In Proceedings of the 21st International Florida AI Research Society Conference (FLAIRS 2008), Florida, USA, pp. 525–530.

  • Bitner J.R. and Reingold E.M. (1975). Backtracking programming techniques. Communications of the ACM 18: 651–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum A. and Furst M. (1997). Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90: 281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechter R. (2003). Constraint processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dechter R., Meiri I. and Pearl J. (1991). Temporal constraint network. Artificial Intelligence 49: 61–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelkamp, S., Jabar, S., & Nazih, M. (2006). Large-scale optimal PDDL3 planning with MIPS-XXL. In 5th International Planning Competition Booklet (IPC-2006), Lake District, England, pp. 28–30.

  • Frost, D., & Dechter, R. (1994). Dead-end driven learning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, USA, pp. 294–300.

  • Garrido, A., Salido, M. A., & Barber, F. (2000). Scheduling in a planning environment. In Proceedings of ECAI-2000 Workshop on New Results in Planning, Scheduling and Design (PUK-2000), Berlin, Germany, pp. 36–43.

  • Gaschnig, J. (1977). A general backtrack algorithm that eliminates most redundant tests. In Procceedings of IJCAI, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 457.

  • Gaschnig, J. (1979). Performance measurement and analysis of certain search algorithms. Technical Report CMU-CS-79-124, Carnegie-Mellon University.

  • Gerevini A., Saetti A. and Serina I. (2006). An approach to temporal planning and scheduling in domains with predictable exogenous events. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 25: 187–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerevini, A., & Serina, I. (2000). Fast plan adaptation through planning graphs: Local and systematic search techniques. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, Breckenridge, CO, USA, pp. 112–121.

  • Ghallab M., Nau D. and Traverso P. (2004). Automated planning: Theory and practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham R.L., Lawler E.L., Lenstra J.K. and Rinnooy-Kan A.H.G. (1979). Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 5: 287–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halsey, K., Long, D., & Foz, M. (2004). CRIKEY—A temporal planner looking at the integration of planning and scheduling. In Proceedings on the ICAPS 2004 Workshop on Integrating Planning and Scheduling, Whistler, Canada, pp. 46–52.

  • Haralick R. and Elliot G. (1980). Increasing tree efficiency for constraint satisfaction problems. Artificial Intelligence 14: 263–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In Proceedings of ECAI, Vienna, Austria, pp. 359–363.

  • Laborie P. (2003). Algorithms for propagating resource constraints in AI planning and scheduling: Existing approaches and new results. Artificial Intelligence 143: 151–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung J.Y.T. (2004). Handbook of scheduling: Algorithms, models and performance analysis. Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Lhomme, O. (1993). Consistency techniques for numeric CSPs. In Proceedings of 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambéry, France, pp. 232–238.

  • Lopez, A., & Bacchus, F. (2003). Generalizing GraphPlan by formulating planning as a CSP. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Acapulco, Mexico, pp. 954–960.

  • McGann, C., Py, F., Rajan, K., Ryan, J., & Henthorn, R. (2008). Adaptive control for autonomous underwater vehicles. In Proceedings of AAAI’08, Chicago, USA, pp. 1319–1324.

  • Michalewicz Z. and Fogel D.B. (2000). How to solve it: Modern heuristics. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscettola, N. (1993). HSTS: Integrating planning and scheduling. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-93-05, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Muscettola N., Nayak P., Pell B. and Williams B. (1998). Remote agent: To boldly go where no AI system has gone before. Artificial Intelligence 103: 5–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Planken, L., de Weerdt, M., & Van der Krogt, R. (2008). P 3 C: A new algorithm for the simple temporal problem. In Proceedings of ICAPS-2008, Sydney, Australia, pp. 256–263.

  • Prosser P. (1993). Hybrid algorithm for the constraint satisfaction problem. Computational Intelligence 9: 268–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter R. (2001). Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamic systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi F., Walsh T. and Van Beek P. (2006). Handbook of constraint programming. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruml, W., Do, M. B., & Fromherz, M. (2005). On-line planning and scheduling for high-speed manufacturing. In Proceedings of ICAPS’05, Monterey, USA, pp. 30–39.

  • Ruttkay, Z. (1998). Constraint satisfaction—A survey. CWI Quarterly, 11(2&3), 123–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith D.E., Frank J. and Jonsson A.K. (2000). Bridging the gap between planning and scheduling. Knowledge Enginering Review 15: 47–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. F., & Cheng, Ch.-Ch. (1993). Slack-based heuristics for constraint satisfaction scheduling. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Washington, USA, pp. 139–144.

  • Smith, S. F., Lassila, O., & Becker, M. (1996). Configurable, mixed-initiative systems for planning and scheduling. In A. Tate (Ed.), Advanced planning (pp. 235–241). AAAI Press.

  • Srivastava, B., & Kambhampati, S. (1999a). Efficient planning through separate resource scheduling. AAAI Spring Symposium on Search Techniques for Problem Solving under Uncertainty and Incomplete Information, Orlando, USA.

  • Srivastava, B., & Kambhampati, S. (1999b). Scaling up planning by teasing out resource scheduling. In Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Planning: Recent Advances in AI Planning, Durham, UK, pp. 172–186.

  • Torres P. and Lopez P. (2000). On Not-First/Not-Last conditions in disjunctive scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research 127: 332–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang E. (1993). Foundation of constraint satisfaction. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van Beek, P., & Chen, X. (1999). CPlan: A constraint programming approach to planning. In Proceedings of AAAI-99, Orlando, USA, pp. 585–590.

  • Vidal, V., & Geffner, H. (2004). Branching and pruning: An optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming. In Proceedings of AAAI-04, San Jose, USA, pp. 570–577.

  • Vidal V. and Geffner H. (2006). Branching and prunning: An optimal temporal pocl planner based on constraint programming. Artificial Intelligence 170: 298–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilím, P. (2004). O(n log n) Filtering algorithms for unary resource constraint. In Proceedings of CPAIOR, Nice, France, pp. 335–347.

  • Vilím P., Barták R. and Cepek O. (2005). Extension of O(n log n) filtering algorithms for the unary resource constraint to optional activities. Constraints 10(4): 403–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Roman Barták

  2. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Miguel A. Salido

  3. University of Padova, Padua, Italy

    Francesca Rossi

Authors
  1. Roman Barták
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel A. Salido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesca Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel A. Salido.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barták, R., Salido, M.A. & Rossi, F. Constraint satisfaction techniques in planning and scheduling. J Intell Manuf 21, 5–15 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0203-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0203-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation