A SAT Approach to Branchwidth

  • Neha Lodha
  • Sebastian Ordyniak
  • Stefan Szeider
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9710)


Branch decomposition is a prominent method for structurally decomposing a graph, hypergraph or CNF formula. The width of a branch decomposition provides a measure of how well the object is decomposed. For many applications it is crucial to compute a branch decomposition whose width is as small as possible. We propose a SAT approach to finding branch decompositions of small width. The core of our approach is an efficient SAT encoding which determines with a single SAT-call whether a given hypergraph admits a branch decomposition of certain width. For our encoding we developed a novel partition-based characterization of branch decomposition. The encoding size imposes a limit on the size of the given hypergraph. In order to break through this barrier and to scale the SAT approach to larger instances, we developed a new heuristic approach where the SAT encoding is used to locally improve a given candidate decomposition until a fixed-point is reached. This new method scales now to instances with several thousands of vertices and edges.



We thank Illya Hicks for providing us the code of his branchwidth heuristics and acknowledge support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, projects W1255-N23 and P-27721).


  1. 1.
    Adler, I., Bui-Xuan, B.-M., Rabinovich, Y., Renault, G., Telle, J.A., Vatshelle, M.: On the boolean-width of a graph: structure and applications. In: Thilikos, D.M. (ed.) WG 2010. LNCS, vol. 6410, pp. 159–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alekhnovich, M., Razborov, A.A.: Satisfiability, branch-width and Tseitin tautologies. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2002), pp. 593–603 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bacchus, F., Dalmao, S., Pitassi, T.: Algorithms and complexity results for #SAT and Bayesian inference. In: 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2003), pp. 340–351 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berg, J., Järvisalo, M.: SAT-based approaches to treewidth computation: an evaluation. In: 26th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2014, Limassol, Cyprus, 10–12 November 2014, pp. 328–335. IEEE Computer Society (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bodlander, H.: TreewidthLIB a benchmark for algorithms for treewidth and related graph problems.
  6. 6.
    Cook, W., Seymour, P.: Tour merging via branch-decomposition. INFORMS J. Comput. 15(3), 233–248 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cornuéjols, G.: Combinatorial Optimization: Packing and Covering. Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diestel, R.: Graph Theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 173, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fomin, F.V., Mazoit, F., Todinca, I.: Computing branchwidth via efficient triangulations and blocks. Discr. Appl. Math. 157(12), 2726–2736 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grohe, M.: Logic, graphs, and algorithms. In: Flum, J., Grädel, E., Wilke, T. (eds.) Logic and Automata: History and Perspectives. Texts in Logic and Games, vol. 2, pp. 357–422. Amsterdam University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heule, M.J.H., Szeider, S.: A SAT approach to clique-width. In: Järvisalo, M., Van Gelder, A. (eds.) SAT 2013. LNCS, vol. 7962, pp. 318–334. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hicks, I.V.: Graphs, branchwidth, and tangles! Oh my! Networks 45(2), 55–60 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hicks, I.V.: Branchwidth heuristics. Congr. Numer. 159, 31–50 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hliněný, P., Oum, S.: Finding branch-decompositions and rank-decompositions. SIAM J. Comput. 38(3), 1012–1032 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kask, K., Gelfand, A., Otten, L., Dechter, R.: Pushing the power of stochastic greedy ordering schemes for inference in graphical models. In: Burgard, W., Roth, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2011, San Francisco, California, USA, 7–11 August 2011. AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Overwijk, A., Penninkx, E., Bodlaender, H.L.: A local search algorithm for branchwidth. In: Černá, I., Gyimóthy, T., Hromkovič, J., Jefferey, K., Králović, R., Vukolić, M., Wolf, S. (eds.) SOFSEM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6543, pp. 444–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertson, N., Seymour, P.D.: Graph minors X. Obstructions to tree-decomposition. J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 52(2), 153–190 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Samer, M., Veith, H.: Encoding treewidth into SAT. In: Kullmann, O. (ed.) SAT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5584, pp. 45–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seymour, P.D., Thomas, R.: Call routing and the ratcatcher. Combinatorica 14(2), 217–241 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ulusal, E.: Integer Programming Models for the Branchwidth Problem. Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University, May 2008Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weisstein, E.: MathWorld online mathematics resource.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neha Lodha
    • 1
  • Sebastian Ordyniak
    • 1
  • Stefan Szeider
    • 1
  1. 1.Algorithms and Complexity GroupTU WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations