2020
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58942-4_10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

From MiniZinc to Optimization Modulo Theories, and Back

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The .FZN 1−GC and .FZN 1−GC files can then be further processed with a FlatZinc to SMT2 compiler using OptiMathSAT, specific syntax support for Z3 and OptiMathSAT, and OMT extensions [17,18]. Some information from our models is, however, not translated correctly to these files requiring postprocessing of the files with our own Python script.…”
Section: Overview On Model Variants Instance Data Formats and The Supporting Tool Chainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The .FZN 1−GC and .FZN 1−GC files can then be further processed with a FlatZinc to SMT2 compiler using OptiMathSAT, specific syntax support for Z3 and OptiMathSAT, and OMT extensions [17,18]. Some information from our models is, however, not translated correctly to these files requiring postprocessing of the files with our own Python script.…”
Section: Overview On Model Variants Instance Data Formats and The Supporting Tool Chainmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This library generates another variant of the models and instance data named .FZN 1−GC and .FZN 1−GC supporting global constraints. The .FZN 1−GC and .FZN 1−GC files can then be further processed with a FlatZinc to SMT2 compiler using OptiMathSAT, specific syntax support for Z3 and OptiMathSAT, and OMT extensions [18,17]. Some information from our models is, however, not translated correctly to these files requiring postprocessing of the files with our own Python script.…”
Section: Overview On Model and Data Variants And The Supporting Tool ...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second question relates to the constraint-based tools and techniques of choice. As shown in the literature, see, e.g., [3,7,10], there is some debate over using constraint-based technologies other than OMT solvers to tackle encodings involving a mixture of arithmetic constraints and cost functions. For this reason, here we compare the performances of two encodings, namely in the SMT-LIB [5] language and in the MiniZinc [1] language.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%