Skip to main content
Log in

Theoretical insights and algorithmic tools for decision diagram-based optimization

Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of decision diagrams has recently emerged as a viable general solution approach for solving discrete optimization problems. The decision diagram data structure is used to explicitly represent, either exactly or approximately, the set of feasible solutions to a given problem. Techniques based on decision diagrams have been successfully used on a diverse set of applications, ranging from scheduling to combinatorial optimization, and have often outperformed commercial state-of-the-art constraint programming and integer programming technology. Lacking, however, is a thorough theoretical investigation into the quality of approximate decision diagrams, as well as the development of structured techniques for tightening relaxation bounds provided by approximate decision diagrams, analogously to how cutting-planes are used in integer programming. This paper provides an analysis of the strength of approximate decision diagrams, as well as the description of several bound-tightening procedures for problems with linear objective functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Given scalars a and b, a threshold Boolean function evaluates to 1 if a xb and 0 otherwise.

References

  1. Andersen, H.R., Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N., & Tiedemann, P. (2007). A constraint store based on multivalued decision diagrams. In Bessière, C. (Ed.) Principles and practice of constraint programming (CP 2007). Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 4741 pp. 118–132): Springer.

  2. Becker, B., Behle, M., Eisenbrand, F., & Wimmer, R. (2005). BDDS in a branch and cut framework. In Nikoletseas, S. (Ed.) Experimental and efficient algorithms, proceedings of the 4th international workshop on efficient and experimental algorithms (WEA 05). Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 3503 pp. 452–463): Springer.

  3. Behle, M. (2007). On threshold BDDs and the optimal variable ordering problem. In COCOA’07: Proceedings Of the 1st international conference on combinatorial optimization and applications (pp. 124–135). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  4. Bergman, D., Cire, A.A., & van Hoeve, W.J. (2014). MDD Propagation for sequence constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 50, 697–722.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergman, D., Cire, A.A., van Hoeve, W.J., & Hooker, J.N. (2014). Optimization bounds from binary decision diagrams. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 26(2), 253–268.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergman, D., Cire, A.A., van Hoeve, W.J., & Hooker, J.N. (2015). Discrete optimization with decision diagrams. INFORMS Journal on Computing. to appear.

  7. Bergman, D., Cire, A.A., van Hoeve, W.J.J., & Yunes, T.H. (2014). BDD-Based heuristics for binary optimization. Journal of Heuristics, 20(2), 211–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bergman, D., Ciré, A.A., Sabharwal, A., Samulowitz, H., Saraswat, V.A., & van Hoeve, W.J. (2014). Parallel combinatorial optimization with decision diagrams. In Simonis, H. (Ed.) Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming - 11th International Conference, CPAIOR 2014, Cork, Ireland, May 19-23, 2014. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07046-9_25, (Vol. 8451 pp. 351–367) Springer.

  9. Bergman, D., Cire, A.A., & van Hoeve, W.J. (2015). Lagrangian bounds from decision diagrams. Constraints, 20(3), 346–361.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bergman, D., van Hoeve, W.J., & Hooker, J.N. (2011). Manipulating MDD relaxations for combinatorial optimization. In Achterberg, T., & Beck, J.C. (Eds.) CPAIOR. Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 6697 pp. 20–35): Springer.

  11. Bergman, D. (2013). New techniques for discrete optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.

  12. Bryant, R.E. (1986). Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-35, 677–691.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheng, K.C., & Yap, R.H. (2010). An mdd-based generalized arc consistency algorithm for positive and negative table constraints and some global constraints. Constraints, 15(2), 265–304.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Cire, A.A., & van Hoeve, W.J. (2012). MDD Propagation for disjunctive scheduling. In Proceedings of the twenty-second international conference on automated planing and scheduling (ICAPS) (pp. 1–1): AAAI Press.

  15. Cire, A.A., & van Hoeve, W.J. (2013). Multivalued decision diagrams for sequencing problems. Operations Research, 61(6), 1411–1428.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Eppstein, D. (1998). Finding the k shortest paths. SIAM J. Comput., 28(2), 652–673.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gopalan, P., Klivans, A., Meka, R., Stefankovic, D., Vempala, S., & Vigoda, E. (2011). An fptas for #knapsack and related counting problems. In IEEE 52nd annual symposium on Foundations of computer science (FOCS), 2011 (pp. 817–826).

  18. Hadzic, T., & Hooker, J.N. (2007). Cost-bounded binary decision diagrams for 0-1 programming. In Loute, E., & Wolsey, L. (Eds.) Proceedings of the international workshop on integration of artificial intelligence and operations research techniques in constraint programming for combinatorial optimization problems (CPAIOR 2007). Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 4510 pp. 84–98): Springer.

  19. Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N., O’Sullivan, B., & Tiedemann, P. (2008). Approximate compilation of constraints into multivalued decision diagrams. In Stuckey, P.J. (Ed.) Principles and practice of constraint programming (CP 2008). Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 5202 pp. 448–462): Springer.

  20. Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N., & Tiedemann, P. (2008). Propagating separable equalities in an MDD store. In Perron, L., & Trick, M.A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the international workshop on integration of artificial intelligence and operations research techniques in constraint programming for combintaorial optimization problems (CPAIOR 2008). Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 5015 pp. 318–322): Springer.

  21. Hoda, S., Hoeve, W.J.V., & Hooker, J.N. (2010). A systematic approach to MDD-based constraint programming. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on principles and practices of constraint programming. Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 6308 pp. 266–280): Springer.

  22. Hooker, J.N. (2013). Decision diagrams and dynamic programming. In Gomes, C.P., & Sellmann, M. (Eds.) CPAIOR. Lecture notes in computer science, (Vol. 7874 pp. 94–110): Springer.

  23. Hosaka, K., Takenaga, Y., Kaneda, T., & Yajima, S. (1997). Size of ordered binary decision diagrams representing threshold functions. Theoretical Computer Science, 180(1-2), 47–60.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Lokshtanov, D. (2009). New methods in parameterized algorithms and complexity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bergen.

  25. Rothvoß, T. (2011). Some 0/1 polytopes need exponential size extended formulations. arXiv:1105.0036.

  26. Rothvoß, T. (2014). The matching polytope has exponential extension complexity. In Proceedings of the 46th annual ACM symposium on theory of computing (pp. 263–272). New York, NY, USA: STOC ’14, ACM.

  27. Wegener, I. (2000). Branching programs and binary decision diagrams: theory and applications. SIAM monographs on discrete mathematics and applications. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We greatly appreciated the input of all the anonymous reviewers. This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), in the form of a Discovery Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Bergman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bergman, D., Cire, A.A. Theoretical insights and algorithmic tools for decision diagram-based optimization. Constraints 21, 533–556 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-016-9239-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10601-016-9239-9

Keywords

Navigation