Document Open Access Logo

Boosting Decision Diagram-Based Branch-And-Bound by Pre-Solving with Aggregate Dynamic Programming

Authors Vianney Coppé , Xavier Gillard , Pierre Schaus

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.87 MB
  • 17 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Vianney Coppé
  • UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Xavier Gillard
  • UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
Pierre Schaus
  • UCLouvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Cite AsGet BibTex

Vianney Coppé, Xavier Gillard, and Pierre Schaus. Boosting Decision Diagram-Based Branch-And-Bound by Pre-Solving with Aggregate Dynamic Programming. In 29th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 280, pp. 13:1-13:17, Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)


Discrete optimization problems expressible as dynamic programs can be solved by branch-and-bound with decision diagrams. This approach dynamically compiles bounded-width decision diagrams to derive both lower and upper bounds on unexplored parts of the search space, until they are all enumerated or discarded. Assuming a minimization problem, relaxed decision diagrams provide lower bounds through state merging while restricted decision diagrams obtain upper bounds by excluding states to limit their size. As the selection of states to merge or delete is done locally, it is very myopic to the global problem structure. In this paper, we propose a novel way to proceed that is based on pre-solving a so-called aggregate version of the problem with a limited number of states. The compiled decision diagram of this aggregate problem is tractable and can fit in memory. It can then be exploited by the original branch-and-bound to generate additional pruning and guide the compilation of restricted decision diagrams toward good solutions. The results of the numerical study we conducted on three combinatorial optimization problems show a clear improvement in the performance of DD-based solvers when blended with the proposed techniques. These results also suggest an approach where the aggregate dynamic programming model could be used in replacement of the relaxed decision diagrams altogether.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Mathematics of computing → Combinatorial optimization
  • Discrete Optimization
  • Decision Diagrams
  • Aggregate Dynamic Programming


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Henrik Reif Andersen, Tarik Hadzic, John N Hooker, and Peter Tiedemann. A constraint store based on multivalued decision diagrams. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pages 118-132. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  2. Sven Axsäter. State aggregation in dynamic programming—an application to scheduling of independent jobs on parallel processors. Operations Research Letters, 2(4):171-176, 1983. Google Scholar
  3. James C Bean, John R Birge, and Robert L Smith. Aggregation in dynamic programming. Operations Research, 35(2):215-220, 1987. Google Scholar
  4. Richard Bellman. The theory of dynamic programming. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 60(6):503-515, November 1954. URL:
  5. David Bergman and Andre A. Cire. On finding the optimal bdd relaxation. In Domenico Salvagnin and Michele Lombardi, editors, Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming, volume 10335 of LNCS, pages 41-50. Springer, 2017. Google Scholar
  6. David Bergman, Andre A Cire, Ashish Sabharwal, Horst Samulowitz, Vijay Saraswat, and Willem-Jan van Hoeve. Parallel combinatorial optimization with decision diagrams. In Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming: 11th International Conference, CPAIOR 2014, Cork, Ireland, May 19-23, 2014. Proceedings 11, pages 351-367. Springer, 2014. Google Scholar
  7. David Bergman, Andre A Cire, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and John N Hooker. Variable ordering for the application of bdds to the maximum independent set problem. In International conference on integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and operations research (OR) techniques in constraint programming, pages 34-49. Springer, 2012. Google Scholar
  8. David Bergman, Andre A Cire, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and John N Hooker. Optimization bounds from binary decision diagrams. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 26(2):253-268, 2014. Google Scholar
  9. David Bergman, Andre A Cire, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and John N Hooker. Discrete optimization with decision diagrams. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 28(1):47-66, 2016. Google Scholar
  10. David Bergman, Andre A Cire, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, and Tallys Yunes. Bdd-based heuristics for binary optimization. Journal of Heuristics, 20(2):211-234, 2014. Google Scholar
  11. Quentin Cappart, David Bergman, Louis-Martin Rousseau, Isabeau Prémont-Schwarz, and Augustin Parjadis. Improving variable orderings of approximate decision diagrams using reinforcement learning. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 34(5):2552-2570, 2022. Google Scholar
  12. Quentin Cappart, Emmanuel Goutierre, David Bergman, and Louis-Martin Rousseau. Improving optimization bounds using machine learning: Decision diagrams meet deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 1443-1451, 2019. Google Scholar
  13. Margarita P Castro, Andre A Cire, and J Christopher Beck. An mdd-based lagrangian approach to the multicommodity pickup-and-delivery tsp. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 32(2):263-278, 2020. Google Scholar
  14. Margarita P Castro, Chiara Piacentini, Andre Augusto Cire, and J Christopher Beck. Solving delete free planning with relaxed decision diagram based heuristics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67:607-651, 2020. Google Scholar
  15. Edmund M Clarke, Orna Grumberg, and David E Long. Model checking and abstraction. ACM transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 16(5):1512-1542, 1994. Google Scholar
  16. Vianney Coppé, Xavier Gillard, and Pierre Schaus. Decision diagram-based branch-and-bound with caching for dominance and suboptimality detection, 2023. URL:
  17. Maria Garcia de la Banda, Peter J Stuckey, and Geoffrey Chu. Solving talent scheduling with dynamic programming. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 23(1):120-137, 2011. Google Scholar
  18. Xavier Gillard. Discrete optimization with decision diagrams: design of a generic solver, improved bounding techniques, and discovery of good feasible solutions with large neighborhood search. PhD thesis, UCL-Université Catholique de Louvain, 2022. Google Scholar
  19. Xavier Gillard, Vianney Coppé, Pierre Schaus, and André Augusto Cire. Improving the filtering of branch-and-bound mdd solver. In International Conference on Integration of Constraint Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Operations Research, pages 231-247. Springer, 2021. Google Scholar
  20. Xavier Gillard and Pierre Schaus. Large neighborhood search with decision diagrams. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2022. Google Scholar
  21. Xavier Gillard, Pierre Schaus, and Vianney Coppé. Ddo, a generic and efficient framework for mdd-based optimization. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pages 5243-5245, 2021. Google Scholar
  22. Jaime E Gonzalez, Andre A Cire, Andrea Lodi, and Louis-Martin Rousseau. Integrated integer programming and decision diagram search tree with an application to the maximum independent set problem. Constraints, pages 1-24, 2020. Google Scholar
  23. John N. Hooker. Improved job sequencing bounds from decision diagrams. In Thomas Schiex and Simon de Givry, editors, Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, volume 11802 of LNCS, pages 268-283. Springer, 2019. Google Scholar
  24. Matthias Horn, Johannes Maschler, Günther R Raidl, and Elina Rönnberg. A^*-based construction of decision diagrams for a prize-collecting scheduling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 126:105125, 2021. Google Scholar
  25. Alan J. Hu. Techniques for efficient formal verification using binary decision diagrams. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science, 1995. Google Scholar
  26. Anthony Karahalios and Willem-Jan van Hoeve. Variable ordering for decision diagrams: A portfolio approach. Constraints, 27(1):116-133, 2022. Google Scholar
  27. C.-Y. Lee. Representation of switching circuits by binary-decision programs. The Bell System Technical Journal, 38(4):985-999, 1959. Google Scholar
  28. Alexander Lieder, Dirk Briskorn, and Raik Stolletz. A dynamic programming approach for the aircraft landing problem with aircraft classes. European Journal of Operational Research, 243(1):61-69, 2015. Google Scholar
  29. Shin-ichi Minato. Binary decision diagrams and applications for VLSI CAD, volume 342. Springer Science & Business Media, 1995. Google Scholar
  30. Isaac Rudich, Quentin Cappart, and Louis-Martin Rousseau. Peel-And-Bound: Generating Stronger Relaxed Bounds with Multivalued Decision Diagrams. In Christine Solnon, editor, 28th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2022), volume 235 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 35:1-35:20. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2022. Google Scholar
  31. Christian Tjandraatmadja. Decision Diagram Relaxations for Integer Programming. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business, 2018. Google Scholar
  32. Christian Tjandraatmadja and Willem-Jan van Hoeve. Target cuts from relaxed decision diagrams. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 31(2):285-301, 2019. URL:
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail