Advertisement

On Applying Cutting Planes in DLL-Based Algorithms for Pseudo-Boolean Optimization

  • Vasco Manquinho
  • João Marques-Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3569)

Abstract

The utilization of cutting planes is a key technique in Integer Linear Programming (ILP). However, cutting planes have seldom been applied in Pseudo-Boolean Optimization (PBO) algorithms derived from the Davis-Logemann-Loveland (DLL) procedure for Propositional Satisfiability (SAT). This paper proposes the utilization of cutting planes in a DLL-style PBO algorithm, which incorporates the most effective techniques for PBO. We propose the utilization of cutting planes both during preprocessing and during the search process. Moreover, we also establish conditions that enable clause learning and non-chronological backtracking in the presence of conflicts involving constraints generated by cutting plane techniques. The experimental results, obtained on a large number of classes of instances, indicate that the integration of cutting planes with backtrack search is an extremely effective technique for PBO.

Keywords

Integer Linear Program Cutting Plane Linear Programming Relaxation Simplex Tableau Backtrack Search 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Manquinho, V., Marques-Silva, J.: On applying cutting planes in dll-based algorithms for pseudo-boolean optimization. Technical Report RT/003/05-CDIL, INESC-ID (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manquinho, V., Marques-Silva, J.P.: Effective lower bounding techniques for pseudo-boolean optimization. In: Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coudert, O.: On Solving Covering Problems. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 197–202 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chai, D., Kuehlmann, A.: A Fast Pseudo-Boolean Constraint Solver. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 830–835 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nemhauser, G.L., Wolsey, L.A.: Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1988)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomory, R.: Outline of an algorithm for integer solutions to linear programs. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 64, 275–278 (1958)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, J.: Branch-and-cut algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems. In: Handbook of Applied Optimization, pp. 65–77. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aloul, F., Ramani, A., Markov, I., Sakallah, K.: Generic ILP versus specialized 0-1 ILP: An update. In: International Conference on Computer Aided Design, pp. 450–457 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barth, P.: A Davis-Putnam Enumeration Algorithm for Linear Pseudo-Boolean Optimization. Technical Report MPI-I-95-2-003, Max Plank Institute for Computer Science (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bixby, R.E.: Progress in linear programming. ORSA Journal on computing 6, 15–22 (1994)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liao, S., Devadas, S.: Solving Covering Problems Using LPR-Based Lower Bounds. In: Design Automation Conference, pp. 117–120 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chvátal, V.: Edmonds polytopes and a hierarchy of combinatorial problems. Discrete Mathematics 4, 305–337 (1973)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Balas, E., Ceria, S., Cornuéjols, G., Natraj, N.: Gomory cuts revisited. Operations Research Letters 19, 1–9 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ceria, S., Cornuéjols, G., Dawande, M.: Combining and strengthening Gomory cuts. In: Balas, E., Clausen, J. (eds.) IPCO 1995. LNCS, vol. 920, pp. 438–451. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gomory, R.: An algorithm for integer solutions to linear programs. In: Graves, R., Wolfe, P. (eds.) Recent Advances in Mathematical Programming, pp. 269–302. McGraw-Hill, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marques-Silva, J.P., Sakallah, K.A.: GRASP: A new search algorithm for satisfiability. In: International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, pp. 220–227 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhu, Z.: Synthesis for mixed ptl/cmos circuit, http://www-unix.ecs.umass.edu/~zzhu/
  18. 18.
    Yang, S.: Logic Synthesis and Optimization Benchmarks User Guide. Microelectronics Center of North Carolina (1991)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pizzuti, C.: Computing Prime Implicants by Integer Programming. In: IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 332–336 (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasco Manquinho
    • 1
  • João Marques-Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.IST/INESC-IDTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations