Cart (Loading....) | Create Account
Close category search window
 

Negative thinking in branch-and-bound: the case of unate covering

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

5 Author(s)
Goldberg, E.I. ; Cadence Berkeley Labs., Berkeley, CA, USA ; Carloni, L.P. ; Villa, T. ; Brayton, R.K.
more authors

We introduce a new technique for solving some discrete optimization problems exactly. The motivation is that when searching the space of solutions by a standard branch-and-bound (B&B) technique, often a good solution is reached quickly and then improved only a few times before the optimum is found: hence, most of the solution space is explored to certify optimality, with no improvement in the cost function. This suggests that more powerful lower bounding would speed up the search dramatically. More radically, it would be desirable to modify the search strategy with the goal of proving that the given subproblem cannot yield a solution better than the current best one (negative thinking), instead of branching further in search for a better solution (positive thinking). For illustration we applied our approach to the unate covering problem. The algorithm starts in the positive-thinking mode by a standard B&B procedure that generates recursively smaller subproblems. If the current subproblem is “deep” enough, the algorithm switches to the negative thinking mode where it tries to prove that solving the subproblem does not improve the solution. The latter is achieved by a new search procedure invoked when the difference between the upper and lower bound is “small”. Such a procedure is complete: either it yields a lower bound that matches the current upper bound, or it yields a new solution better than the current one. We implemented our new search procedure on top of ESPRESSO and SCHERZO, two state-of-art covering solvers used for computer-aided design applications, showing that in both cases we obtain new search engines (respectively, AURA and AURA II) much more efficient than the original ones

Published in:

Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on  (Volume:19 ,  Issue: 3 )

Date of Publication:

Mar 2000

Need Help?


IEEE Advancing Technology for Humanity About IEEE Xplore | Contact | Help | Terms of Use | Nondiscrimination Policy | Site Map | Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest professional association for the advancement of technology.
© Copyright 2014 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.