In the field of Explainable Constraint Solving, it is common to explain to a user why a problem is unsatisfiable. A recently proposed method for this is to compute a sequence of explanation steps. Such a step-wise explanation shows individual reasoning steps involving constraints from the original specification, that in the end explain a conflict. However, computing a step-wise explanation is computationally expensive, limiting the scope of problems for which it can be used. We investigate how we can use proofs generated by a constraint solver as a starting point for computing step-wise explanations, instead of computing them step-by-step. More specifically, we define a framework of abstract proofs, in which \textit{both} proofs and step-wise explanations can be represented. We then propose several methods for converting a proof to a step-wise explanation sequence, with special attention to trimming and simplification techniques to keep the sequence and its individual steps small. Our results show our method significantly speeds up the generation of step-wise explanation sequences, while the resulting step-wise explanation has a quality similar to the current state-of-the-art.

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.

Conflict‑Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) is central to the success of SAT solvers, and its adaptation to Constraint Programming (CP) through Lazy Clause Generation (LCG) has been a major breakthrough for CP solving. A core requirement of LCG is to maintain both a CP and SAT view of the problem. Because maintaining a full SAT encoding is impractical, solvers rely on partial and solver‑specific encodings - an approach that has evolved as folklore rather than formal design. We present the first systematic analysis of how leading LCG solvers maintain their SAT encodings, based on source‑code inspection and developer correspondence. Our analysis reveals substantial differences in explanation lifting, backwards explanations, linking clauses, and nogood minimisation, all driven by the need to preserve a SAT view. To overcome these compromises, we propose a native CDCL framework for CP. We replace SAT literals with atomic constraints, enabling conflict analysis, nogood learning, and nogood propagation directly at the CP level. This results in cleaner algorithmic design, eliminates SAT‑specific complications, and allows us to introduce extended nogood propagation, a generalisation of SAT‑based clause propagation, as well as CPIP nogoods, a generalisation of SAT-based learned nogoods. Our implementation of the framework in Pumpkin demonstrates competitive performance in the MiniZinc Challenge 2025. Additionally, we empirically show that extended nogood propagation combined with CPIP nogoods can significantly reduce failures, especially on problems with constraints that reason over domain holes. Overall, our framework provides a principled and semantically rich generalisation of CDCL for CP.