. Probabilistic inference algorithms for belief updating, finding the most probable explanation, the maximum a posteriori hypothesis, and the maximum expected utility are reformulated within the bucket elimination framework. This emphasizes the principles common to many of the algorithms appearing in the probabilistic inference literature and clarifies the relationship of such algorithms to nonserial dynamic programming algorithms. A general method for combining conditioning and bucket elimination is also presented. For all the algorithms, bounds on complexity are given as a function of the problem's structure. 1. Overview Bucket elimination is a unifying algorithmic framework that generalizes dynamic programming to accommodate algorithms for many complex problemsolving and reasoning activities, including directional resolution for propositional satisfiability (Davis and Putnam, 1960), adaptive consistency for constraint satisfaction (Dechter and Pearl, 1987), Fourier and Gaussian el...

Bucket elimination is an algorithmic framework that generalizes dynamic programming to accommodate many problem-solving and reasoning tasks. Algorithms such as directional-resolution for propositional satisfiability, adaptive-consistency for constraint satisfaction, Fourier and Gaussian elimination for solving linear equalities and inequalities, and dynamic programming for combinatorial optimization, can all be accommodated within the bucket elimination framework. Many probabilistic inference tasks can likewise be expressed as bucket-elimination algorithms. These include: belief updating, finding the most probable explanation, and expected utility maximization. These algorithms share the same performance guarantees; all are time and space exponential in the inducedwidth of the problem's interaction graph. While elimination strategies have extensive demands on memory, a contrasting class of algorithms called "conditioning search" require only linear space. Algorithms in this class split a problem into subproblems by instantiating a subset of variables, called a conditioning set, or a cutset. Typical examples of conditioning search algorithms are: backtracking (in constraint satisfaction), and branch and bound (for combinatorial optimization). The paper presents the bucket-elimination framework as a unifying theme across probabilistic and deterministic reasoning tasks and show how conditioning search can be augmented to systematically trade space for time.

this paper are (i) a construction by which, for a given bounded treewidth, a general MS graph property P is transformed to an MS binary tree property r(P), and a general labeled graph G with a suitable tree-decomposition is transformed to a labeled binary tree T(G) in time linear in the number of vertices of G and in such a way that P holds for G if and only if r(P) holds for T(G). This allows us, using techniques developed by Doner [20] and Thatcher and Wright [42], to compile a tree automaton which decides the MS-problem r(P) on the tree T(G) (and thus also P on the graph G) in linear time, and (ii) a procedure whereby such an automaton for a MS formula with free variables is modified to solve a related EMS problem involving counting

Abstract not found

This is the nineteenth edition of a (usually) quarterly column that covers new developments in the theory of NP-completeness. The presentation is modeled on that used by M. R. Garey and myself in our book ‘‘Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness,’ ’ W. H. Freeman & Co., New York, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘[G&J]’’; previous columns will be referred to by their dates). A background equivalent to that provided by [G&J] is assumed, and, when appropriate, cross-references will be given to that book and the list of problems (NP-complete and harder) presented there. Readers who have results they would like mentioned (NP-hardness, PSPACE-hardness, polynomial-time-solvability, etc.) or open problems they would like publicized, should

This paper gives an overview of several results and techniques for graphs algorithms that compute the treewidth of a graph or that solve otherwise intractable problems when restricted graphs with bounded treewidth more efficiently. Also, several results on graph minors are reviewed.

The Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP) consists of assigning n facilities to n locations so as to minimize the total weighted cost of interactions between facilities. The QAP arises in many diverse settings, is known to be NP-hard, and can be solved to optimality only for fairly small size instances (typically, n < 25). Neighborhood search algorithms are the most popular heuristic algorithms to solve larger size instances of the QAP. The most extensively used neighborhood structure for the QAP is the 2-exchange neighborhood. This neighborhood is obtained by swapping the locations of two facilities and thus has size O(n²). Previous efforts to explore larger size neighborhoods (such as 3-exchange or 4-exchange neighborhoods) were not very successful, as it took too long to evaluate the larger set of neighbors. In this paper, we propose very largescale neighborhood (VLSN) search algorithms where the size of the neighborhood is very large and we propose a novel search procedure to heuristically enumerate good neighbors. Our search procedure relies on the concept of improvement graph which allows us to evaluate neighbors much faster than the existing methods. We present extensive computational results of our algorithms on standard benchmark instances. These investigations reveal that very large-scale neighborhood search algorithms give consistently better solutions compared the popular 2-exchange neighborhood algorithms considering both the solution time and solution accuracy.

Local consistency has proven to be an important concept in the theory and practice of constraint networks. In this paper, we present a new definition of local consistency, called relational consistency. The new definition is relation-based, in contrast with the previous definition of local consistency, which we characterize as variable-based. We show the conceptual power of the new definition by showing how it unifies known elimination operators such as resolution in theorem proving, joins in relational databases, and variable elimination for solving linear inequalities. Algorithms for enforcing various levels of relational consistency are introduced and analyzed. We also show the usefulness of the new definition in characterizing relationships between properties of constraint networks and the level of local consistency needed to ensure global consistency.

The parameterized computational complexity of a collection of well-known problems including: Bandwidth, Precedence constrained k-processor scheduling, Longest Common Subsequence, DNA physical mapping (or Intervalizing colored graphs), Perfect phylogeny (or Triangulating colored graphs), Colored cutwidth, and Feasible register assignment is explored. It is shown that these problems are hard for various levels of the W hierarchy. In the case of Precedence constrained k-processor scheduling the results can be interpreted as providing substantial new complexity lower bounds on the outcome of [OPEN 8] of the Garey and Johnson list. We also obtain the conjectured "third strike" against Perfect phylogeny.

In this paper we propose a family of algorithms combining tree-clustering with conditioning that trade space for time. Such algorithms are useful for reasoning in probabilistic and deterministic networks as well as for accomplishing optimization tasks. By analyzing the problem structure it will be possible to select from a spectrum the algorithm that best meets a given time-space specification. 1 INTRODUCTION Topology-based algorithms for constraint satisfaction and probabilistic reasoning fall into two distinct classes. One class is centered on tree-clustering, the other on cycle-cutset decomposition. Tree-clustering involves transforming the original problem into a treelike problem that can then be solved by a specialized tree-solving algorithm [ Mackworth and Freuder, 1985; Pearl, 1986 ] . The tree-clustering algorithm is time and space exponential in the induced width (also called tree width) of the problem's graph. The transforming algorithm identifies subproblems that together ...