Submodularity and its application to some global constraints

Article

Abstract

Submodularity defines a general framework rich of important theoretical properties while accommodating numerous applications. Although the notion has been present in the literature of Combinatorial Optimization for several decades, it has been overlooked in the analysis of global constraints. The current work illustrates the potential of submodularity as a powerful tool for such an analysis. In particular, we show that the cumulative constraint, when all tasks are identical, has the submodular/supermodular representation property, i.e., it can be represented by a submodular/supermodular system of linear inequalities. Motivated by that representation, we show that the system of any two (global) constraints not necessarily of the same type, each bearing the above-mentioned property, has an integral relaxation given by the conjunction of the linear inequalities representing each individual constraint. This result is obtained through the use of the celebrated polymatroid intersection theorem.

Keywords

Submodular system G-polymatroid Global constraint Cumulative 

Mathematics Subject Classification 2010

90C10 90C90 68T99 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Appa, G., Magos, D., Mourtos, I.: On the system of two all_different predicates. Inf. Process. Lett. 94, 99–105 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aron, I.D., Leventhal, D.H., Sellmann, M.: A totally unimodular description of the consistent value polytope for binary constraint programming. In: Beck, J. C., Smith, B. M. (eds.) Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, Third International Conference, CPAIOR 2006, Cork, Ireland, May 31 - June 2, 2006, Proceedings, volume 3990 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p 2006Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergman, D., Hooker, J.N.: Graph coloring inequalities from all-different systems. Constraints 19(4), 404–433 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edmonds, J.: Submodular functions, matroids and certain polyhedra. In: Guy, R., Hanani, H., Sauer, N., Schonheim, J. (eds.) Combinatorial Structures and their Applications, pp 69–87. Gordon and Beach, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edmonds, J., Giles, R.: A min-max relation for submodular functions in graphs. In: Hammer, P., Johnson, E., Korte, B. H., Newhauser, G. (eds.) Studies in Integer Programming (Workshop on Integer Programming, Bonn 1975), pp. 185–204. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1977)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Focacci, F., Lodi, A., Milano, M.: Mathematical programming techniques in constraint programming A short overview. J. Heuristics 8(1), 7–17 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank, A., Tardos, E.: Generalized polymatroids. Math. Program. 42, 489–563 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hooker, J.: Logic-based Methods for Optimization: Combining Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction. Wiley-Interscience series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. John Wiley & Sons (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hooker, J.: Integrated methods for optimization, volume 100 of International series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hooker, J.N.: A search-infer-and-relax framework for integrating solution methods. In: Barták, R., Milano, M. (eds.) Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, Second International Conference, CPAIOR 2005, Prague, Czech Republic, May 30 - June 1, 2005 Proceedings, volume 3524 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hooker, J.N., Lama, M.A.O.: Mixed logical-linear programming. Discret. Appl. Math. 96-97, 395–442 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hooker, J.N., Yan, H.: A relaxation of the cumulative constraint. In: Hentenryck, P. V. (ed.) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2002, 8th International Conference, CP 2002, Ithaca, NY, USA, September 9-13, 2002, Proceedings, volume 2470 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 686–690. Springer (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaya, L.G., Hooker, J.N.: Domain reduction for the circuit constraint. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2005, 11th International Conference, CP 2005, Sitges, Spain, October 1-5, 2005, Proceedings, volume 3709 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p 846. Springer (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Magos, D.: The constraint of difference and total dual integrality. In: Ketikidis, P. H., Margaritis, K. G., Vlahavas, I. P., Chatzigeorgiou, A., Eleftherakis, G., Stamelos, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics, PCI Thessaloniki, Greece - September 19 - 21, 2013, pp. 188–194, ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Magos, D., Mourtos, I.: On the facial structure of the alldifferent system. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 25(1), 130–158 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Magos, D., Mourtos, I., Appa, G.: A polyhedral approach to the alldifferent system. Math Program. 132(1-2), 209–260 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Queyranne, M.: An introduction to set functions and optimization. Slides of IMA Seminar. Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, University of Minnesota Available online at https://www.ima.umn.edu/optimization/seminar/queyranne.pdf (2002)
  18. 18.
    Refalo, P.: Linear formulation of constraint programming models and hybrid solvers. In: Dechter, R. (ed.) Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP 2000, 6th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-21, 2000, Proceedings, volume 1894 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 369–383. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schrijver, A.: Theory of linear and integer programming. John Willey & Sons, New York (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schrijver, A.: Combinatorial Optimization, polyhedra and efficiency. Springer, Berlin (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sellmann, M., Mercier, L., Leventhal, D.: The linear programming polytope of binary constraint problems with bounded tree-width. In: Hentenryck, P. V., Wolsey, L. (eds.) Integration of AI and OR techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization problems. 4th International Conference CPAIOR 2007, volume 4510 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 275–287. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams, H.P., Yan, H.: Representations of the all_different predicate of constraint satisfaction in integer programming. INFORMS J. on Computing 13(2), 96–103 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yan, H., Hooker, J.: Tight representation of logical constraints as cardinality rules. Math. Program. 85, 363–377 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yunes, T.H.: On the sum constraint: Relaxation and applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP ’02, pp 80–92. Springer-Verlag (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yunes, T.H., Aron, I.D., Hooker, J.N.: An integrated solver for optimization problems. Oper. Res. 58(2), 342–356 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Informatics, Technological Educational Institute of AthensEgaleoGreece
  2. 2.Department of Management Science & TechnologyAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations