<XML><RECORDS><RECORD><REFERENCE_TYPE>31</REFERENCE_TYPE><REFNUM>6477</REFNUM><AUTHORS><AUTHOR>Prosser,P.</AUTHOR><AUTHOR>Selensky,E.</AUTHOR></AUTHORS><YEAR>2002</YEAR><TITLE>A Study of Encodings of Constraint Satisfaction Problems with 0/1 Variables</TITLE><PLACE_PUBLISHED> ERCIM workshop on Constraint Solving and Constraint Logic Programming </PLACE_PUBLISHED><PUBLISHER>N/A</PUBLISHER><LABEL>Prosser:2002:6477</LABEL><ABSTRACT>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 $P \leftrightarrow Q$ (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. </ABSTRACT><NOTES>to appear</NOTES></RECORD></RECORDS></XML>