Funding: Peter Nightingale: EPSRC grant EP/W001977/1 Felix Ulrich-Oltean: EPSRC grant EP/W001977/1.

The performance of a constraint model can often be improved by converting a subproblem into a single table constraint (referred to as tabulation). Finding subproblems to tabulate is traditionally a manual and time-intensive process, even for expert modellers. This paper presents TabID, an entirely automated method to identify promising subproblems for tabulation in constraint programming. We introduce a diverse set of heuristics designed to identify promising candidates for tabulation, aiming to improve solver performance. These heuristics are intended to encapsulate various factors that contribute to useful tabulation. We also present additional checks to limit the potential drawbacks of suboptimal tabulation. We comprehensively evaluate our approach using benchmark problems from existing literature that previously relied on manual identification by constraint programming experts of constraints to tabulate. We demonstrate that our automated identification and tabulation process achieves comparable, and in some cases improved results. We empirically evaluate the efficacy of our approach on a variety of solvers, including standard CP (Minion and Gecode), clause-learning CP (Chuffed and OR-Tools) and SAT solvers (Kissat). Our findings highlight the substantial potential of fully automated tabulation, suggesting its integration into automated model reformulation tools.

Encoding to SAT and applying a state-of-the-art SAT solver can be a highly effective way of solving constraint problems. For many types of constraints there exist several alternative SAT encodings; and the choice of encoding can significantly affect SAT solver performance for any given problem. Previous work has shown that machine learning (ML) can be used to select SAT encodings for some constraint types, making a choice for each relevant constraint type in a problem instance. The state-of-the-art approach achieves good performance by first building a small portfolio of configurations, then selecting a configuration for a given problem instance using an ML model. The approach necessitates generating training data for every combination of encodings for the constraint types, thus it scales exponentially as more constraint types are added. In this work, we select potentially different encodings for each individual constraint in a problem instance. We are able to match the state-of-the-art performance while avoiding any limitation on the number of constraint types considered. To achieve this we are proposing new individual constraint features, we present a novel method for generating training data, and we have developed a new machine learning pipeline involving both unsupervised and supervised learning.

When solving a combinatorial problem using propositional satisfiability (SAT), the encoding of the constraints is of vital importance. Pseudo-Boolean (PB) constraints appear frequently in a wide variety of problems. When PB constraints occur together with at-most-one (AMO) constraints over the same variables, they can be combined into PB(AMO) constraints. In this paper we present new encodings for PB(AMO) constraints. Our experiments show that these encodings can be substantially smaller than those of PB constraints and allow many more instances to be solved within a time limit. We also observed that there is no single overall winner among the considered encodings, but efficiency of each encoding may depend on PB(AMO) characteristics such as the magnitude of coefficient values.

Combinatorial optimisation has numerous practical applications, such as planning, logistics, or circuit design. Problems such as these can be solved by approaches such as Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) or Constraint Programming (CP). Solver performance is affected significantly by the model chosen to represent a given problem, which has led to the study of model reformulation. One such method is tabulation: rewriting the expression of some of the model constraints in terms of a single “table” constraint. Successfully applying this process means identifying expressions amenable to trans- formation, which has typically been done manually. Recent work introduced an automatic tabulation using a set of hand-designed heuristics to identify constraints to tabulate. However, the performance of these heuristics varies across problem classes and solvers. Recent work has shown learning techniques to be increasingly useful in the context of automatic model reformulation. The goal of this study is to understand whether it is possible to improve the performance of such heuristics, by learning a model to predict whether or not to activate them for a given instance. Experimental results suggest that a random forest classifier is the most robust choice, improving the performance of four different SAT and CP solvers.

In several real-world problems, it is often the case that the goal is to optimise several objective functions. However, usually there is not a single optimal objective vector. Instead, there are many optimal objective vectors known as Pareto-optima. Finding all Pareto-optima is computationally expensive and the number of Pareto-optima can be too large for a user to analyse. A compromise can be made by defining an optimisation criterion that integrates all objective functions. In this paper we propose several SAT-based algorithms to solve multi-objective optimisation problems using the leximax criterion. The leximax criterion is used to obtain a Pareto-optimal solution with a small trade-off between the objective functions, which is suitable in problems where there is an absence of priorities between the objective functions. Experimental results on the Multi-Objective Package Upgradeability Optimisation problem show that the SAT-based algorithms are able to outperform the Integer Linear Programming (ILP) approach when using non-commercial ILP solvers. Additionally, experimental results on selected instances from the MaxSAT evaluation adapted to the multi-objective domain show that our approach outperforms the ILP approach using commercial solvers.