Advertisement

Variable Ordering for the Application of BDDs to the Maximum Independent Set Problem

  • David Bergman
  • Andre A. Cire
  • Willem-Jan van Hoeve
  • John N. Hooker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7298)

Abstract

The ordering of variables can have a significant effect on the size of the reduced binary decision diagram (BDD) that represents the set of solutions to a combinatorial optimization problem. It also influences the quality of the objective function bound provided by a limited-width relaxation of the BDD. We investigate these effects for the maximum independent set problem. By identifying variable orderings for the BDD, we show that the width of an exact BDD can be given a theoretical upper bound for certain classes of graphs. In addition, we draw an interesting connection between the Fibonacci numbers and the width of exact BDDs for general graphs. We propose variable ordering heuristics inspired by these results, as well as a k-layer look-ahead heuristic applicable to any problem domain. We find experimentally that orderings that result in smaller exact BDDs have a strong tendency to produce tighter bounds in relaxation BDDs.

Keywords

Variable Ordering Fibonacci Number Binary Decision Diagram Constraint Optimization Problem Postoptimality Analysis 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Akers, S.B.: Binary decision diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-27, 509–516 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersen, H.R., Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N., Tiedemann, P.: A Constraint Store Based on Multivalued Decision Diagrams. In: Bessière, C. (ed.) CP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4741, pp. 118–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker, B., Behle, M., Eisenbrand, F., Wimmer, R.: BDDs in a Branch and Cut Framework. In: Nikoletseas, S.E. (ed.) WEA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3503, pp. 452–463. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behle, M., Eisenbrand, F.: 0/1 vertex and facet enumeration with bdds. In: ALENEX. SIAM (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergman, D., van Hoeve, W.-J., Hooker, J.N.: Manipulating MDD Relaxations for Combinatorial Optimization. In: Achterberg, T., Beck, J.C. (eds.) CPAIOR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6697, pp. 20–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bollig, Wegener: Improving the variable ordering of OBDDs is NP-complete. IEEETC: IEEE Transactions on Computers 45 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryant, R.E.: Graph-based algorithms for boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers C-35, 677–691 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calkin, N.J., Wilf, H.S.: The number of independent sets in a grid graph. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 11(1), 54–60 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyer, M.E., Frieze, A.M., Jerrum, M.: On counting independent sets in sparse graphs. SIAM J. Comput. 31(5), 1527–1541 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ebendt, R., Gunther, W., Drechsler, R.: An improved branch and bound algorithm for exact BDD minimization. IEEE Trans. on CAD of Integrated Circuits and Systems 22(12), 1657–1663 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forbes, F., Ycart, B.: Counting stable sets on cartesian products of graphs. Discrete Mathematics 186(1-3), 105–116 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N.: Postoptimality analysis for integer programming using binary decision diagrams. Presented at GICOLAG Workshop (Global Optimization: Integrating Convexity, Optimization, Logic Programming, and Computational Algebraic Geometry), Vienna. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N.: Cost-bounded binary decision diagrams for 0-1 programming. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hadzic, T., Hooker, J.N., O’Sullivan, B., Tiedemann, P.: Approximate Compilation of Constraints into Multivalued Decision Diagrams. In: Stuckey, P.J. (ed.) CP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5202, pp. 448–462. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoda, S., van Hoeve, W.-J., Hooker, J.N.: A Systematic Approach to MDD-Based Constraint Programming. In: Cohen, D. (ed.) CP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6308, pp. 266–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jordan, C.: Sur les assemblages de lignes. J. Reine Angew Math. 70, 185–190 (1869)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, C.Y.: Representation of switching circuits by binary-decision programs. Bell Systems Technical Journal 38, 985–999 (1959)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhao, Y.: The number of independent sets in a regular graph. Combinatorics, Probability & Computing 19(2), 315–320 (2010)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Bergman
    • 1
  • Andre A. Cire
    • 1
  • Willem-Jan van Hoeve
    • 1
  • John N. Hooker
    • 1
  1. 1.Tepper School of BusinessCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper