Next: Symmetry
Up: Pseudo-Boolean and Cardinality Constraints
Previous: Pseudo-Boolean constraints and extended
|
|
p-simulation |
|
unit |
|
|
rep. eff. |
hierarchy |
inference
|
propagation |
learning |
SAT |
1 |
EEE |
resolution |
watched literals |
relevance |
cardinality |
exp |
P?E |
not unique |
watched literals |
relevance |
PB |
exp |
P?E |
uniquely defined |
watched literals |
+ strengthening |
symmetry |
|
|
|
|
|
QPROP |
|
|
|
|
|
As before, a few notes are in order:
- While both cardinality and pseudo-Boolean representations can be exponentially
more efficient than their Boolean counterpart, it is not clear how often
compressions of this magnitude will occur in practice.
- The entries in the -simulation column indicate that the pigeonhole problem is easy, clique coloring remains hard, and the complexity of parity
problems is unknown if no new variables are introduced.
- The cardinality entry for ``inference'' is intended to reflect
the fact that the natural resolvent of two cardinality constraints
need not be one.
- Pseudo-Boolean systems can use existing learning techniques, augmented
with the strengthening idea.
Next: Symmetry
Up: Pseudo-Boolean and Cardinality Constraints
Previous: Pseudo-Boolean constraints and extended
Matt Ginsberg
2004-02-19