A New Look at BDDs for Pseudo-Boolean Constraints

Pseudo-Boolean constraints are omnipresent in practical applications, and thus a significant effort has been devoted to the development of good SAT encoding techniques for them. Some of these encodings first construct a Binary Decision Diagram (BDD) for the constraint, and then encode the BDD into a propositional formula. These BDD-based approaches have some important advantages, such as not being dependent on the size of the coefficients, or being able to share the same BDD for representing many constraints. We first focus on the size of the resulting BDDs, which was considered to be an open problem in our research community. We report on previous work where it was proved that there are Pseudo-Boolean constraints for which no polynomial BDD exists. We also give an alternative and simpler proof assuming that NP is different from Co-NP. More interestingly, here we also show how to overcome the possible exponential blowup of BDDs by coefficient decomposition. This allows us to give the first polynomial generalized arc-consistent ROBDD-based encoding for Pseudo-Boolean constraints. Finally, we focus on practical issues: we show how to efficiently construct such ROBDDs, how to encode them into SAT with only 2 clauses per node, and present experimental results that confirm that our approach is competitive with other encodings and state-of-the-art Pseudo-Boolean solvers.

[1]  Daniel Le Berre,et al.  The Sat4j library, release 2.2 , 2010, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[2]  Tevfik Bultan,et al.  Construction of Efficient BDDs for Bounded Arithmetic Constraints , 2003, TACAS.

[3]  Toby Walsh,et al.  Circuit Complexity and Decompositions of Global Constraints , 2009, IJCAI.

[4]  Olivier Roussel,et al.  A Translation of Pseudo Boolean Constraints to SAT , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[5]  Janez Demsar,et al.  Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets , 2006, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[6]  Peter J. Stuckey,et al.  Why Cumulative Decomposition Is Not as Bad as It Sounds , 2009, CP.

[7]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  On Using Cutting Planes in Pseudo-Boolean Optimization , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[8]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  BDDs for Pseudo-Boolean Constraints - Revisited , 2011, SAT.

[9]  G. Hommel,et al.  Improvements of General Multiple Test Procedures for Redundant Systems of Hypotheses , 1988 .

[10]  Armin Biere Lingeling, Plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010 , 2010 .

[11]  Albert Oliveras,et al.  The Barcelogic SMT Solver , 2008, CAV.

[12]  Shuvendu K. Lahiri,et al.  Deciding CLU Logic Formulas via Boolean and Pseudo-Boolean Encodings , 2002 .

[13]  Valentin Christian,et al.  Towards Solving a System of Pseudo Boolean Constraints with Binary Decision Diagrams , 2008 .

[14]  Sofia Cassel,et al.  Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation , 2012 .

[15]  Vasco M. Manquinho,et al.  Improving Unsatisfiability-Based Algorithms for Boolean Optimization , 2010, SAT.

[16]  Olivier Roussel,et al.  New Encodings of Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into CNF , 2009, SAT.

[17]  Niklas Sörensson,et al.  Translating Pseudo-Boolean Constraints into SAT , 2006, J. Satisf. Boolean Model. Comput..

[18]  Jan-Georg Smaus,et al.  On Boolean Functions Encodable as a Single Linear Pseudo-Boolean Constraint , 2007, CPAIOR.

[19]  Joost P. Warners,et al.  A Linear-Time Transformation of Linear Inequalities into Conjunctive Normal Form , 1998, Inf. Process. Lett..

[20]  S. García,et al.  An Extension on "Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets" for all Pairwise Comparisons , 2008 .

[21]  K. Sakallah,et al.  Generic ILP versus specialized 0-1 ILP: an update , 2002, ICCAD 2002.

[22]  Risto Miikkulainen,et al.  Latent class models for algorithm portfolio methods , 2010, AAAI 2010.