Advertisement

Abstract

Benders decomposition is a well-known procedure for solving a combinatorial optimization problem by defining it in terms of a master problem and a subproblem. Its effectiveness relies on the possibility of synthethising Benders cuts (or nogoods) that rule out not only one, but a large class of trial values for the master problem. In turns, this depends on the possibility of separating the subproblem into several subproblems, i.e., problems exhibiting strong intra-relationships and weak inter-relationships. The notion of separation is typically given informally, or relying on syntactical aspects. This paper formally addresses the notion of separability of the subproblem by giving a semantical definition and exploring it from the computational point of view. Several examples of separable problems are provided, including some proving that a semantical notion of separability is much more helpful than a syntactic one. We show that separability can be formally characterized as equivalence of logical formulae, and prove the undecidability of the problem of checking separability.

Keywords

Master Problem Secondary Variable Bender Decomposition Semantical Notion Alldifferent Constraint 
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.
    Benders, J.F.: Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Numerische Mathematik 4, 238–252 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cambazard, H., Jussien, N.: Integrating Benders decomposition within constraint programming. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 752–756. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crescenzi, P., Goldman, D., Papadimitriou, C.H., Piccolboni, A., Yannakakis, M.: On the complexity of protein folding. J. of Comp. Biology 5(3), 423–466 (1998)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Networks. In: Shapiro, S.C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hooker, J.: Logic-based methods for optimization: combining optimization and constraint satisfaction, ch. 19, pp. 389–422. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hooker, J.N., Ottosson, G.: Logic-based Benders decomposition. Mathematical Programming 96, 33–60 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jain, V., Grossmann, I.E.: Algorithms for hybrid MILP/CP models for a class of optimization problems. INFORMS Journal on Computing 13, 258–276 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lau, K.F., Dill, K.A.: A lattice statistical mechanics model of the conformational and sequence spaces of proteins. Macromolecules 22, 3986–3997 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Medcraft, P.S., Schiel, U., Baptista, C.S.: Database integration using mobile agents. In: Klusch, M., Omicini, A., Ossowski, S., Laamanen, H. (eds.) CIA 2003. LNCS, vol. 2782, pp. 160–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Puget, J.F.: A fast algorithm for the bound consistency of alldiff constraints. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 359–366 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Cadoli
    • 1
  • Fabio Patrizi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”Italy

Personalised recommendations