Cardinality Networks: A theoretical and empirical study

Constraints

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 195-221

  AsÍn, Roberto ^a   Nieuwenhuis, Robert ^a   Oliveras, Albert ^a   RodrÍguez Carbonell, Enric ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cardinality constraints; SAT; SAT encodings

Indexed keywords

ARC CONSISTENCY; AUXILIARY VARIABLES; CARDINALITIES; CARDINALITY CONSTRAINTS; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; ENCODINGS; RECURSIVE DEFINITIONS; SAT; SINGLE VARIABLE; SORTING NETWORK; UNIT PROPAGATION;

ENCODING (SYMBOLS);

EID: 79960050788     PISSN: 13837133     EISSN: 15729354     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10601-010-9105-0     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Anbulagan, & Grastien, A. (2009). Importance of variables semantic in CNF encoding of cardinality constraints. In V. Bulitko, & J. C. Beck (Eds.), Eighth symposium on abstraction, reformulation, and approximation, SARA'09. Menlo Park: AAAI.
2. Bailleux, O., & Boufkhad, Y. (2003). Efficient CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints. In F. Rossi (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming, 9th international conference, CP'03. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2833, pp. 108-122). New York: Springer.
3. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., & Roussel, O. (2006). A translation of pseudo Boolean constraints to SAT. Journal on Satisf iability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, JSAT, 2(1-4), 191-200.
4. Bailleux, O., Boufkhad, Y., & Roussel, O. (2009). New encodings of pseudo-Boolean constraints into CNF. In O. Kullmann (Ed.), 12th international conference on theory and applications of satisf iability testing, SAT'09. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5584, pp. 181-194). New York: Springer.
5. Batcher, K. E. (1968). Sorting networks and their applications. In AFIPS spring joint computing conference (pp. 307-314).
6. Biere, A. (2010). Lingeling, Plingeling, PicoSAT and PrecoSAT at SAT Race 2010. Technical report, Institute for Formal Models and Verification, Johannes Kepler University, Altenbergerstr. 69, 4040 Linz, Austria, 2010. Technical report 10/1, August 2010, FMV Reports Series.
7. Büttner, M., & Rintanen, J. (2005). Satisfiability planning with constraints on the number of actions. In S. Biundo, K. L. Myers, & K. Rajan (Eds.), 15th international conference on automated planning and scheduling, ICAPS'05 (pp. 292-299). Menlo Park: AAAI.
8. Davis, M., Logemann, G., & Loveland, D. (1962). A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM, CACM, 5(7), 394-397.
9. Eén, N., & Biere, A. (2005). Effective preprocessing in SAT through variable and clause elimination. In F. Bacchus, & T. Walsh (Eds.), 8th international conference on theory and applications of satisf iability testing, SAT'05. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3569, pp. 61-75). New York: Springer. (Pubitemid 41425497)
10. Eén, N., & Sörensson, N. (2006). Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT. Journal on Satisf iability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 2, 1-26.
11. Marques-Silva, J., & Planes, J. (2008). Algorithms for maximum satisfiability using unsatisfiable cores. In 2008 conference on design, automation and test in Europe conference, DATE'08 (pp. 408-413). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.
12. Marques-Silva, J. P., & Lynce, I. (2007). Towards robust cnf encodings of cardinality constraints. In C. Bessiere (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming, 13th international conference, CP'07. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4741, pp. 483-497). New York: Springer.
13. Nieuwenhuis, R., Oliveras, A., & Tinelli, C. (2006). Solving SAT and SATmodulo theories: From an abstract Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure to DPLL(T). Journal of the ACM, JACM, 53(6), 937-977. (Pubitemid 46276962)
14. Sinz, C. (2005). Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints. In P. v. Beek (Ed.), Principles and practice of constraint programming, 11th international conference, CP'05. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3709, pp. 827-831). New York: Springer.
15. Warners, J. P. (1998). A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into conjunctive normal form. Information Processing Letters, 68(2), 63-69. (Pubitemid 128398287)