Proceedings

Solving Quantum-Inspired Perfect Matching Problems via Tutte-Theorem-Based Hybrid Boolean Constraints

Download BibTeX Cite

Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Main Track. Pages 2039-2048.

https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2023/227

Abstract

Determining the satisfiability of Boolean constraint-satisfaction problems with different types of constraints, that is hybrid constraints, is a well-studied problem with important applications. We study a new application of hybrid Boolean constraints, which arises in quantum computing. The problem relates to constrained perfect matching in edge-colored graphs. While general-purpose hybrid constraint solvers can be powerful, we show that direct encodings of the constrained-matching problem as hybrid constraints scale poorly and special techniques are still needed. We propose a novel encoding based on Tutte's Theorem in graph theory as well as optimization techniques. Empirical results demonstrate that our encoding, in suitable languages with advanced SAT solvers, scales significantly better than a number of competing approaches on constrained-matching benchmarks. Our study identifies the necessity of designing problem-specific encodings when applying powerful general-purpose constraint solvers.

  1. [Aloul et al., 2006] Fadi A Aloul, Karem A Sakallah, and Igor L Markov. Efficient symmetry breaking for boolean satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 55(5):549-558, 2006.
  2. [Anderson, 1971] Ian Anderson. Perfect matchings of a graph. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 10(3):183-186, 1971.
  3. [Ballentine, 2014] Leslie E Ballentine. Quantum mechanics: a modern development. World Scientific Publishing Com- pany, 2014.
  4. [Bauer et al., 2007] Douglas Bauer, Haitze J Broersma, Au- rora Morgana, and E Schmeichel. Tutte sets in graphs i: Maximal tutte sets and d-graphs. Journal of graph theory, 55(4):343-358, 2007.
  5. [Bessiere et al., 2010] Christian Bessiere, George Katsire- los, Nina Narodytska, Claude-Guy Quimper, and Toby Walsh. Propagating conjunctions of alldifferent con- straints. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence, volume 24, pages 27-32, 2010.
  6. [Biere et al., 2009] Armin Biere, Marijn Heule, and Hans van Maaren. Handbook of satisfiability, volume 185. IOS press, 2009.
  7. [Bogdanov et al., 2011] Andrey Bogdanov, Dmitry Khovra- tovich, and Christian Rechberger. Biclique Cryptanalysis of the Full AES. In ASIACRYPT 2011, 2011.
  8. [Brailsford et al., 1999] Sally C Brailsford, Chris N Potts, and Barbara M Smith. Constraint satisfaction problems: Algorithms and applications. European journal of opera- tional research, 119(3):557-581, 1999.
  9. [Cervera-Lierta et al., 2021] Alba Cervera-Lierta, Mario Krenn, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Design of quantum optical experiments with logic artificial intelligence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13273, 2021.
  10. [Chandrasekaran et al., 2016] Karthekeyan Chandrasekaran, László A Végh, and Santosh S Vempala. The cutting plane method is polynomial for perfect matchings. Mathematics of Operations Research, 41(1):23-48, 2016.
  11. [Costa et al., 2009] M.-C. Costa, D. de Werra, C. Picouleau, and B. Ries. Graph Coloring with Cardinality Constraints on the Neighborhoods. Discrete Optimization, 6(4):362 - 369, 2009.
  12. [Devriendt et al., 2021] Jo Devriendt, Stephan Gocht, Emir Demirovic, Jakob Nordström, and Peter J Stuckey. Cut- ting to the core of pseudo-boolean optimization: Combin- ing core-guided search with cutting planes reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, volume 35, pages 3750-3758, 2021.
  13. [Dinur et al., 2005] Irit Dinur, Oded Regev, and Clifford Smyth. The Hardness of 3-Uniform Hypergraph Coloring. Combinatorica, 25(5):519-535, Sep 2005.
  14. [Duncan et al., 2020] Ross Duncan, Aleks Kissinger, Simon Perdrix, and John Van De Wetering. Graph-theoretic sim- plification of quantum circuits with the zx-calculus. Quan- tum, 4:279, 2020.
  15. [Edmonds, 1965] Jack Edmonds. Paths, trees, and flowers. Canadian Journal of mathematics, 17:449-467, 1965. [Eén and Sörensson, 2003] Niklas Eén and Niklas Sörensson. An Extensible SAT-Solver. In SAT, pages 502-518, 2003.
  16. [Feldman et al., 2005] J. Feldman, M. J. Wainwright, and D. R. Karger. Using Linear Programming to Decode Bi- nary Linear Codes. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(3):954-972, March 2005.
  17. [Fleury and Heisinger, 2020] Armin Biere Katalin Fazekas Mathias Fleury and Maximilian Heisinger. Cadical, kissat, paracooba, plingeling and treengeling entering the sat competition 2020. SAT COMPETITION, 50:2020, 2020.
  18. [Froleyks et al., 2021] Nils Froleyks, Marijn Heule, Markus Iser, Matti Järvisalo, and Martin Suda. Sat competition 2020. Artificial Intelligence, 301:103572, 2021.
  19. [Gaspers et al., 2012] Serge Gaspers, Eun Jung Kim, Sebas- tian Ordyniak, Saket Saurabh, and Stefan Szeider. Don't be strict in local search! In Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 26, pages 486- 492, 2012.
  20. [Gebser et al., 2007] Martin Gebser, Benjamin Kaufmann, André Neumann, and Torsten Schaub. clasp: A conflict- driven answer set solver. In International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 260-265. Springer, 2007.
  21. [Gebser et al., 2019] Martin Gebser, Roland Kaminski, Ben- jamin Kaufmann, and Torsten Schaub. Multi-shot asp solving with clingo. Theory and Practice of Logic Pro- gramming, 19(1):27-82, 2019.
  22. [Gong and Zhou, 2017] Weiwei Gong and Xu Zhou. A Survey of SAT Solver. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1836(1):020059, 2017.
  23. [Gu et al., 2019a] Xuemei Gu, Lijun Chen, Anton Zeilinger, and Mario Krenn. Quantum experiments and graphs. iii. high-dimensional and multiparticle entanglement. Physi- cal Review A, 99(3):032338, 2019.
  24. [Gu et al., 2019b] Xuemei Gu, Manuel Erhard, Anton Zeilinger, and Mario Krenn. Quantum experiments and graphs ii: Quantum interference, computation, and state generation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 116(10):4147-4155, 2019.
  25. [Hagberg and Conway, 2020] Aric Hagberg and Drew Con- way. Networkx: Network analysis with python. URL: https://networkx. github. io, 2020. Link
  26. [Jooya et al., 2016] Hossein Z Jooya, Kamran Reihani, and Shih-I Chu. A graph-theoretical representation of multi- photon resonance processes in superconducting quantum circuits. Scientific Reports, 6(1):1-10, 2016.
  27. [Krenn et al., 2017] Mario Krenn, Xuemei Gu, and Anton Zeilinger. Quantum experiments and graphs: Multiparty states as coherent superpositions of perfect matchings. Physical review letters, 119(24):240403, 2017.
  28. [Krenn et al., 2019] Mario Krenn, Xuemei Gu, and Daniel Soltész. Questions on the structure of perfect match- ings inspired by quantum physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06023, 2019.
  29. [Krenn et al., 2022] Mario Krenn, Jonas Landgraf, Thomas Foesel, and Florian Marquardt. Artificial intelligence and machine learning for quantum technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03836, 2022.
  30. [Kyrillidis et al., 2020] Anastasios Kyrillidis, Anshumali Shrivastava, Moshe Vardi, and Zhiwei Zhang. Fouriersat: A fourier expansion-based algebraic framework for solv- ing hybrid boolean constraints. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 1552-1560, 2020.
  31. [Kyrillidis et al., 2021a] Anastasios Kyrillidis, Anshumali Shrivastava, Moshe Y Vardi, and Zhiwei Zhang. Solv- ing hybrid boolean constraints in continuous space via multilinear fourier expansions. Artificial Intelligence, 299:103559, 2021.
  32. [Kyrillidis et al., 2021b] Anastasios Kyrillidis, Moshe Vardi, and Zhiwei Zhang. On continuous local bdd-based search for hybrid sat solving. In Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 3841- 3850, 2021.
  33. [Kyrillidis et al., 2022] Anastasios Kyrillidis, Moshe Y Vardi, and Zhiwei Zhang. Dpms: an add-based symbolic approach for generalized maxsat solving. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.03747, 2022.
  34. [Liang, 2018] Jia Hui Liang. Machine Learning for SAT Solvers. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, December 2018.
  35. [Lifschitz, 2019] Vladimir Lifschitz. Answer set program- ming. Springer Heidelberg, 2019.
  36. [Lonsing and Biere, 2010] Florian Lonsing and Armin Biere. Depqbf: A dependency-aware qbf solver. Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation, 7(2-3):71-76, 2010.
  37. [Martins et al., 2014] Ruben Martins, Vasco Manquinho, and Inês Lynce. Open-wbo: A modular maxsat solver,. In Carsten Sinz and Uwe Egly, editors, Theory and Appli- cations of Satisfiability Testing -SAT 2014, 2014.
  38. [Pan et al., 2012] Jian-Wei Pan, Zeng-Bing Chen, Chao- Yang Lu, Harald Weinfurter, Anton Zeilinger, and Marek Żukowski. Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry. Reviews of Modern Physics, 84(2):777, 2012.
  39. [Prestwich, 2009] Steven D Prestwich. Cnf encodings. Handbook of satisfiability, 185:75-97, 2009.
  40. [Razborov, 2004] Alexander A Razborov. Resolution lower bounds for perfect matching principles. Journal of Com- puter and System Sciences, 69(1):3-27, 2004.
  41. [Schrijver and others, 2003] Alexander Schrijver et al. Com- binatorial optimization: polyhedra and efficiency, vol- ume 24. Springer, 2003.
  42. [Soos et al., 2009] Mate Soos, Karsten Nohl, and Claude Castelluccia. Extending SAT Solvers to Cryptographic Problems. In SAT, pages 244-257, 2009.
  43. [Tseitin, 1983] Grigori S Tseitin. On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. In Automation of rea- soning, pages 466-483. Springer, 1983.
  44. [Vardi and Zhang, 2022] Moshe Y Vardi and Zhiwei Zhang. Quantum-inspired perfect matching under vertex-color constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.13063, 2022.
  45. [Vardi, 2014] Moshe Y. Vardi. Boolean satisfiability: theory and engineering. Commun. ACM, 57(3):5, 2014.
  46. [Walsh, 2006] Toby Walsh. General symmetry breaking constraints. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming-CP 2006: 12th International Conference, CP 2006, Nantes, France, September 25-29, 2006. Pro- ceedings 12, pages 650-664. Springer, 2006.
  47. [Yang and Meel, 2021] Jiong Yang and Kuldeep S Meel. En- gineering an efficient pb-xor solver. In 27th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Pro- gramming (CP 2021). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021.

References were extracted automatically from the PDF and may contain errors.

Welcome Future Conferences AI Journal Division IJCAI Proceedings About IJCAI IJCAI Awards