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 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.

This paper introduces a novel constraint learning mechanism for Constraint Programming (CP) solvers that integrates cutting planes reasoning into the conflict analysis procedure. Drawing inspiration from Lazy Clause Generation (LCG), our approach, named Lazy Linear Generation (LLG), can generate linear integer inequalities to prune the search space, rather than propositional clauses as in LCG. This combines the strengths of constraint programming (strong propagation through global constraints) with cutting-planes reasoning. We present linear constraint explanations for various arithmetic constraints and the element constraint. An experimental evaluation shows that the improved generality of linear constraints has a practical impact on a CP solver by reducing the number of encountered conflicts in 45% of our benchmark instances. Our analysis and prototype implementation show promising results and are an important step towards a new paradigm to make constraint programming solvers more effective.

Proof logging is used to increase trust in the optimality and unsatisfiability claims of solvers. However, to this date, no constraint programming solver can practically produce proofs without significantly impacting performance, which hinders mainstream adoption. We address this issue by introducing a novel proof generation framework, together with a CP proof format and proof checker. Our approach is to divide the proof generation into three steps. At runtime, we require the CP solver to only produce a proof sketch, which we call a scaffold. After the solving is done, our proof processor trims and expands the scaffold into a full CP proof, which is subsequently verified. Our framework is agnostic to the solver and the verification approach. Through MiniZinc benchmarks, we demonstrate that with our framework, the overhead of logging during solving is often less than 10%, significantly lower than other approaches, and that our proof processing step can reduce the overall size of the proof by orders of magnitude and by extension the proof checking time. Our results demonstrate that proof logging has the potential to become an integral part of the CP community.