# Code

A bunch of code.
// load parameters
// ...
// A new model instance
Model model = new Model("Aircraft landing");
// Variables declaration
IntVar[] planes = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.mapToObj(i -> model.intVar("plane #" + i, LT[i][0], LT[i][2], false))
.toArray(IntVar[]::new);
IntVar[] earliness = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.mapToObj(i -> model.intVar("earliness #" + i, 0, LT[i][1] - LT[i][0], false))
.toArray(IntVar[]::new);
IntVar[] tardiness = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.mapToObj(i -> model.intVar("tardiness #" + i, 0, LT[i][2] - LT[i][1], false))
.toArray(IntVar[]::new);

IntVar tot_dev = model.intVar("tot_dev", 0, IntVar.MAX_INT_BOUND);

// Constraint posting
// one plane per runway at a time:
model.allDifferent(planes).post();
// for each plane 'i'
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++){
// maintain earliness
// and tardiness
tardiness[i].eq((planes[i].sub(LT[i][1])).max(0)).post();
// disjunctions: 'i' lands before 'j' or 'j' lands before 'i'
for(int j = i+1; j < N; j++){
Constraint iBeforej = model.arithm(planes[i], "<=", planes[j], "-", ST[i][j]);
Constraint jBeforei = model.arithm(planes[j], "<=", planes[i], "-", ST[j][i]);
}
}
// prepare coefficients of the scalar product
int[] cs = new int[N*2];
for(int i = 0 ; i < N; i++){
cs[i] = PC[i][0];
cs[i + N] = PC[i][1];
}
model.scalar(ArrayUtils.append(earliness, tardiness), cs, "=", tot_dev).post();


Note that all variables could be bounded, since no constraint makes holes in the domain. However, turning them into enumerated ones will be required to design an efficient search strategy.

The objective variable, ‘tot_dev’ is declared with an arbitrary large upper bound. Instead of using Integer.MAX\_VALUE, we call IntVar.MAX\_INT\_BOUND a pre-defined parameter not too big to limit overflow. A better solution would be to compute the real bounds of the variable, based on LT and PC. In our case $[\![0,117790]\!]$ is the smallest interval that eliminates no solution.

The alldifferent constraint (line 23) is redundant with disjunction constraints (lines 31-35). But it provides stronger filtering.

The declaration of the disjunction (line 34) does not require to post the constraint. Calling method like ‘addClause*’ add clauses to a specific clause store which acts as specific singleton constraint. The code can however replaced by :

model.or(iBeforej,jBeforei).post();


In that case, the logical expression will be transformed into a sum constraint. Yet, $\frac{N \times (N-1}{2}$ constraints will be added to the solver.

## A search strategy

Intuitively, a good strategy to solve the problem is to select first the variable whom distance to the target landing time and the closest possible landing time is the biggest. It tends to avoid letting a plane with already late (resp. early) being even more late (resp. early).

Then, for a given plane, we want to minimize the distance to the target landing time. So we simply choose the value in its domain closest to the target landing time.

First, we map each plane with its target landing time:

Map<IntVar, Integer> map =
IntStream.range(0, N)
.boxed()
.collect(Collectors.toMap(i -> planes[i], i -> LT[i][1]));


Then, for a given plane, a function is created to look for the possible landing time closest to the target landing time:

private static int closest(IntVar var, Map<IntVar, Integer> map) {
int target = map.get(var);
if (var.contains(target)) {
return target;
} else {
int p = var.previousValue(target);
int n = var.nextValue(target);
return Math.abs(target - p) < Math.abs(n - target) ? p : n;
}
}


Note that, var.previousValue(target) can return Integer.MIN\_VALUE which indicates that there is no value before target in the domain of var (same goes with var.nextValue(target) and Integer.MAX\_VALUE). That’s why the absolute difference is computed, and the minimum is returned.

Finally, the search strategy is defined:

solver.setSearch(Search.intVarSearch(
variables -> Arrays.stream(variables)
.filter(v -> !v.isInstantiated())
.min((v1, v2) -> closest(v2, map) - closest(v1, map))
.orElse(null),
var -> closest(var, map),
DecisionOperator.int_eq,
planes
));


Lines 2-7: non-instantiated variables are filtered and the more distant to the target landing time is returned. Note that if all variables are instantiated, null is expected to indicate that the strategy runs dry. Line 8: the closest possible landing time for a given variable is returned. Line 9: the decision is based on the assignment operator. Left decision branch is assignment, right decision branch (refutation) is value removal. That is why the domain of planes must be enumerated. Line 10: the scope variables is defined.

The three instructions (Lines2-10) are input in SearchStrategyFactory.intVarSearch(VariableSelector<IntVar>,IntValueSelector,IntVar...) which builds in return a integer variable search strategy.

## The resolution objective

The objective is to minimize ‘tot_dev’.

// Find a solution that minimizes 'tot_dev'
Solution best = solver.findOptimalSolution(tot_dev, false);


This method attempts to find the optimal solution.

If one wants to interact with each solution without using the unfold resolution process, she/he can plug a solution monitor to the solver. Such monitor implements an one-method interface called on each solution:

solver.plugMonitor((IMonitorSolution) () -> {
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
System.out.printf("%s lands at %d (%d)\n",
planes[i].getName(),
planes[i].getValue(),
planes[i].getValue() - LT[i][1]);
}
System.out.printf("Deviation cost: %d\n", tot_dev.getValue());
});


We print here the real landing time and the distance to the target landing time for each plane and the total deviation cost.

## The entire code

// number of planes
int N = 10;
// Times per plane:
// {earliest landing time, target landing time, latest landing time}
int[][] LT = {
{129, 155, 559},
{195, 258, 744},
{89, 98, 510},
{96, 106, 521},
{110, 123, 555},
{120, 135, 576},
{124, 138, 577},
{126, 140, 573},
{135, 150, 591},
{160, 180, 657}};
// penalty cost penalty cost per unit of time per plane:
// {for landing before target, after target}
int[][] PC = {
{10, 10},
{10, 10},
{30, 30},
{30, 30},
{30, 30},
{30, 30},
{30, 30},
{30, 30},
{30, 30},
{30, 30}};
// Separation time required after i lands before j can land
int[][] ST = {
{99999, 3, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15},
{3, 99999, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15},
{15, 15, 99999, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 99999, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 8, 99999, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 8, 8, 99999, 8, 8, 8, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 8, 8, 8, 99999, 8, 8, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 999999, 8, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 99999, 8},
{15, 15, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 99999}};

Model model = new Model("Aircraft landing");
// Variables declaration
IntVar[] planes = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.mapToObj(i -> model.intVar("plane #" + i, LT[i][0], LT[i][2], false))
.toArray(IntVar[]::new);
IntVar[] earliness = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.mapToObj(i -> model.intVar("earliness #" + i, 0, LT[i][1] - LT[i][0], false))
.toArray(IntVar[]::new);
IntVar[] tardiness = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.mapToObj(i -> model.intVar("tardiness #" + i, 0, LT[i][2] - LT[i][1], false))
.toArray(IntVar[]::new);
IntVar tot_dev = model.intVar("tot_dev", 0, IntVar.MAX_INT_BOUND);
// Constraint posting
// one plane per runway at a time:
model.allDifferent(planes).post();
// for each plane 'i'
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
// maintain earliness
// and tardiness
tardiness[i].eq((planes[i].sub(LT[i][1])).max(0)).post();
// disjunctions: 'i' lands before 'j' or 'j' lands before 'i'
for (int j = i + 1; j < N; j++) {
Constraint iBeforej = model.arithm(planes[i], "<=", planes[j], "-", ST[i][j]);
Constraint jBeforei = model.arithm(planes[j], "<=", planes[i], "-", ST[j][i]);
model.addClausesBoolNot(iBeforej.reify(), jBeforei.reify()); // no need to post
}
}
// prepare coefficients of the scalar product
int[] cs = new int[N * 2];
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
cs[i] = PC[i][0];
cs[i + N] = PC[i][1];
}
model.scalar(ArrayUtils.append(earliness, tardiness), cs, "=", tot_dev).post();
// Resolution process
Solver solver = model.getSolver();
solver.plugMonitor((IMonitorSolution) () -> {
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
System.out.printf("%s lands at %d (%d)\n",
planes[i].getName(),
planes[i].getValue(),
planes[i].getValue() - LT[i][1]);
}
System.out.printf("Deviation cost: %d\n", tot_dev.getValue());
});
Map<IntVar, Integer> map = IntStream
.range(0, N)
.boxed()
.collect(Collectors.toMap(i -> planes[i], i -> LT[i][1]));
solver.setSearch(Search.intVarSearch(
variables -> Arrays.stream(variables)
.filter(v -> !v.isInstantiated())
.min((v1, v2) -> closest(v2, map) - closest(v1, map))
.orElse(null),
var -> closest(var, map),
DecisionOperatorFactory.makeIntEq(),
planes
));
solver.showShortStatistics();
solver.findOptimalSolution(tot_dev, false);


The best solution found is:

plane #0 lands at 165 (10)
plane #1 lands at 258 (0)
plane #2 lands at 98 (0)
plane #3 lands at 106 (0)
plane #4 lands at 118 (-5)
plane #5 lands at 134 (-1)
plane #6 lands at 126 (-12)
plane #7 lands at 142 (2)
plane #8 lands at 150 (0)
plane #9 lands at 180 (0)
Deviation cost: 700
Model[Aircraft landing], 7 Solutions, Minimize tot_dev = 700, Resolution time 0,326s, 906 Nodes (2 781,1 n/s), 1756 Backtracks, 883 Fails, 0 Restarts
Model[Aircraft landing], 7 Solutions, Minimize tot_dev = 700, Resolution time 12,608s, 246096 Nodes (19 519,6 n/s), 492179 Backtracks, 246083 Fails, 0 Restarts


The second to last line of the console sums up the resolution statistics when the last solution was found :

• this is the twelfth solution, its cost is 700 (‘tot_dev’), it took 326ms and 906 nodes were opened to find it.

The last line of the console sums up to resolution statistics of the entire resolution, including optimality proof:

• 7 solutions were found, 12,608s seconds and 246096 nodes were needed to explore the entire search space and prove the optimality of the last solution found.

If the plane selection is turned upside down (less late (early) plane is selected first) the resolution statistics change a bit:

Model[Aircraft landing], 12 Solutions, Minimize tot_dev = 700, Resolution time 0,514s, 2147 Nodes (4 180,8 n/s), 4222 Backtracks, 2119 Fails, 0 Restarts
Model[Aircraft landing], 12 Solutions, Minimize tot_dev = 700, Resolution time 4,505s, 71596 Nodes (15 892,4 n/s), 143169 Backtracks, 71573 Fails, 0 Restarts


We can see that more intermediate solutions were found (12 vs. 7) and that it took more time to find the best solution (514ms and 2147 nodes vs. 326ms and 906 nodes) but the optimality is proven faster (4,505s and 71596 nodes vs. 12,608s and 246096 nodes).

This demonstrates that a strategy that is quick to produce the best solution may be unable to prove its optimality efficiently.

## Things to remember

• A good estimation of the variables domain is important to limit overflow and reduce the induce search space.
• Redundant constraints can reduce the search space too, but can also slow down the propagation loop. Their benefit should be evaluated.
• Most of the time adding clauses instead of logical constraints limits the memory footprint and provide an equivalent filtering quality.
• A decision, result of a search strategy, is a combination of a variable, a value and an operator.
• Monitors can be plugged to the solver to interact with the search, specifically on solution.
• Accurate search strategy design is the key to efficient resolution.