As constraint programming (CP) solvers are increasingly used in critical applications, there is a growing need for certification of solver claims of infeasibility and optimality. Recent work has demonstrated that certification is feasible for CP solvers using a multi-stage proof-generation framework; however, the underlying proof system was informal, and verification relied on translation into an external proof format, impacting the trustworthiness. We address these issues by formalising a rigorous, solver-agnostic framework for certifying CP solver claims. We present a formal definition of DRCP, a proof system for CP over integer domains that captures core solver operations, including conflict analysis and heterogeneous propagation, by modular inference rules with precise semantics. We also develop FznDrcpCheck, a formally verified proof checker in Rocq that validates DRCP proofs directly against FlatZinc models. Our evaluation shows that our framework enables practical certification across various benchmarks with negligible overhead during solving and modest proof-checking costs.

Cumulative constraints are central in scheduling with constraint programming, yet propagation is typically performed per constraint, missing multi-resource interactions and causing severe slowdowns on some benchmarks. I present a preprocessing method for inferring additional cumulative constraints that capture such interactions without search-time probing. This approach interprets cumulative constraints as linear inequalities over occupancy vectors and generates valid inequalities by (i) discovering covers, the sets of tasks that cannot run in parallel, (ii) strengthening the cover inequalities for the discovered sets with lifting, and (iii) injecting the resulting constraints back into the scheduling problem instance. Experiments on standard RCPSP and RCPSP/max test suites show that these inferred constraints improve search performance and tighten objective bounds on favorable instances, while exhibiting more stable performance on unfavorable instances than the prior work. Additionally, these experiments discover 25 new lower bounds and five new best solutions; seven of the lower bounds are obtained directly from the inferred constraints.

People want to rely on optimization algorithms for complex decisions but verifying the optimality of the solutions can then become a valid concern, particularly for critical decisions taken by non-experts in optimization. One example is the shortest-path problem on a network, occurring in many contexts from transportation to logistics to telecommunications. While the standard shortest-path problem is both solvable in polynomial time and certifiable by duality, introducing side constraints makes solving and certifying the solutions much harder. We propose a proof system for constrained shortest-path problems, which gives a set of logical rules to derive new facts about feasible solutions. The key trait of the proposed proof system is that it specifically includes high-level graph concepts within its reasoning steps (such as connectivity or path structure), in contrast to, e.g., using linear combinations of model constraints. Thus, using our proof system, we can provide a step-by-step, human-auditable explanation showing that the path given by an external solver cannot be improved. Additionally, to maximize the advantages of this setup, we propose a proof search procedure that specifically aims to find small proofs of this form using a procedure similar to A* search. We evaluate our proof system on constrained shortest path instances generated from real-world road networks and experimentally show that we may indeed derive more interpretable proofs compared to an integer programming approach, in some cases leading to much smaller proofs.

Pseudo-Boolean proof logging has been used successfully to provide certificates of optimality from a variety of constraint- and satisifability-style solvers that combine reasoning with a backtracking or clause-learning search. Another paradigm, occurring in dynamic programming and decision diagram solving, instead reasons about partial states and possible transitions between them. We describe a framework for generating clean and efficient pseudo-Boolean proofs for these kinds of algorithm, and use it to produce certifying algorithms for knapsack, longest path, and interval scheduling. Because we use a common proof system, we can also reason about hybrid solving algorithms: we demonstrate this by providing proof logging for a dynamic programming based knapsack propagator inside a constraint programming solver.