English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Many constraint satisfaction problems (csp's) are formulated with 0/1 variables. Sometimes this is a natural encoding, sometimes it is as a result of a reformulation of the problem, other times 0/1 variables make up only a part of the problem. Frequently we have constraints that restrict the sum of the values of variables. This can be encoded as a simple summation of the variables. However, since variables can only take 0/1 values we can also use an occurrence constraint, e.g. the number of occurrences of 1 must be k. Would this make a difference? Similarly, problems may use channelling constraints and encode these as a biconditional such as P ↔ Q (i.e. P if and only if Q). This can also be encoded in a number of ways. Might this make a difference as well? We attempt to answer these questions, using a variety of problems and two constraint programming toolkits. We show that even minor changes to the formulation of a constraint can have a profound effect on the run time of a constraint program and that these effects are not consistent across constraint programming toolkits. This leads us to a cautionary note for constraint programmers: take note of how you encode constraints, and don't assume computational behaviour is toolkit independent.

A Study of Encodings of Constraint Satisfaction Problems with 0/1 Variables