Design and Analysis of Algorithm (18CS42)

Module-5 : Backtracking

1. Backtracking
Some problems can be solved, by exhaustive search. The exhaustive-search technique suggests
generating all candidate solutions and then identifying the one (or the ones) with a desired
property.
Backtracking is a more intelligent variation of this approach. The principal idea is to construct
solutions one component at a time and evaluate such partially constructed candidates as
follows. If a partially constructed solution can be developed further without violating the
problem’s constraints, it is done by taking the first remaining legitimate option for the next
component. If there is no legitimate option for the next component, no alternatives for any
remaining component need to be considered. In this case, the algorithm backtracks to replace
the last component of the partially constructed solution with its next option.
It is convenient to implement this kind of processing by constructing a tree of choices being
made, called the state-space tree. Its root represents an initial state before the search for a
solution begins. The nodes of the first level in the tree represent the choices made for the first
component of a solution; the nodes of the second level represent the choices for the second
component, and so on. A node in a state-space tree is said to be promising if it corresponds to
a partially constructed solution that may still lead to a complete solution; otherwise, it is called
non-promising. Leaves represent either non-promising dead ends or complete solutions found
by the algorithm.
In the majority of cases, a statespace tree for a backtracking algorithm is constructed in the
manner of depth-first search. If the current node is promising, its child is generated by adding
the first remaining legitimate option for the next component of a solution, and the processing
moves to this child. If the current node turns out to be non-promising, the algorithm backtracks
to the node’s parent to consider the next possible option for its last component; if there is no
such option, it backtracks one more level up the tree, and so on. Finally, if the algorithm reaches
a complete solution to the problem, it either stops (if just one solution is required) or continues
searching for other possible solutions.
1.1 General method (Textbook T2:7.1)

Page| 2
General Algorithm (Recursive)

General Algorithm (Iterative)

Page| 3
General Algorithm for backtracking (From textbook T1)

1.2 N-Queens problem (Textbook T1:12.1),

The problem is to place n queens on an n × n chessboard so that no two queens attack each
other by being in the same row or in the same column or on the same diagonal.
So let us consider the four-queens problem and solve it by the backtracking technique. Since
each of the four queens has to be placed in its own row, all we need to do is to assign a column
for each queen on the board presented in figure.

We start with the empty board and then place queen 1 in the first possible position of its row,
which is in column 1 of row 1. Then we place queen 2, after trying unsuccessfully columns 1
and 2, in the first acceptable position for it, which is square (2, 3), the square in row 2 and
column 3. This proves to be a dead end because there is no acceptable position for queen 3. So,
the algorithm backtracks and puts queen 2 in the next possible position at (2, 4). Then queen 3
is placed at (3, 2), which proves to be another dead end. The algorithm then backtracks all the
way to queen 1 and moves it to (1, 2). Queen 2 then goes to (2, 4), queen 3 to (3, 1), and queen
4 to (4, 3), which is a solution to the problem. The state-space tree of this search is shown in
figure.

Page| 4
Figure: State-space tree of solving the four-queens problem by backtracking. ×
denotes an unsuccessful attempt to place a queen in the indicated column. The numbers
above the nodes indicate the order in which the nodes are generated.

If other solutions need to be found, the algorithm can simply resume its operations at the leaf
at which it stopped. Alternatively, we can use the board’s symmetry for this purpose.

Finally, it should be pointed out that a single solution to the n-queens problem for any n ≥ 4
can be found in linear time.

Note: The algorithm NQueens() is not in the syllabus. It is given here for interested learners.
The algorithm is referred from textbook T2.

Page| 5
1.3 Sum of subsets problem
Problem definition: Find a subset of a given set A = {a1, . . . , an } of n positive integers whose
sum is equal to a given positive integer d.
For example, for A = {1, 2, 5, 6, 8} and d = 9, there are two solutions: {1, 2, 6} and {1, 8}.
Of course, some instances of this problem may have no solutions.
It is convenient to sort the set’s elements in increasing order. So, we will assume that

a1< a2 < . . . < an.

The state-space tree can be constructed as a binary tree like that in Figure shown below for the
instance A = {3, 5, 6, 7} and d = 15.
The number inside a node is the sum of the elements already included in the subsets represented
by the node. The inequality below a leaf indicates the reason for its termination.

Page| 6
The root of the tree represents the starting point, with no decisions about the given elements
made as yet. Its left and right children represent, respectively, inclusion and exclusion of a1 in
a set being sought.
Similarly, going to the left from a node of the first level corresponds to inclusion of a2 while
going to the right corresponds to its exclusion, and so on. Thus, a path from the root to a node
on the ith level of the tree indicates which of the first i numbers have been included in the subsets
represented by that node.
We record the value of s, the sum of these numbers, in the node. If s is equal to d, we have a
solution to the problem. We can either report this result and stop or, if all the solutions need to
be found, continue by backtracking to the node’s parent. If s is not equal to d, we can terminate
the node as non-promising if either of the following two inequalities holds:

Example: Apply backtracking to solve the following instance of the subset sum problem: A =
{1, 3, 4, 5} and d = 11.

1.4 Graph coloring

Page| 7
Page| 8
Page| 9
Analysis

Page| 10
1.5 Hamiltonian cycles

Page| 11
2. Branch and Bound
Recall that the central idea of backtracking, discussed in the previous section, is to cut off a
branch of the problem’s state-space tree as soon as we can deduce that it cannot lead to a
solution. This idea can be strengthened further if we deal with an optimization problem.
An optimization problem seeks to minimize or maximize some objective function (a tour
length, the value of items selected, the cost of an assignment, and the like), usually subject to

Page| 12
some constraints. An optimal solution is a feasible solution with the best value of the objective
function (e.g., the shortest Hamiltonian circuit or the most valuable subset of items that fit the
knapsack).
Compared to backtracking, branch-and-bound requires two additional items:
1. a way to provide, for every node of a state-space tree, a bound on the best value of the
objective function on any solution that can be obtained by adding further components
to the partially constructed solution represented by the node
2. the value of the best solution seen so far
In general, we terminate a search path at the current node in a state-space tree of a branchand-
bound algorithm for any one of the following three reasons:
1. The value of the node’s bound is not better than the value of the best solution seen so
far.
2. The node represents no feasible solutions because the constraints of the problem are
already violated.
3. The subset of feasible solutions represented by the node consists of a single point (and
hence no further choices can be made)—in this case, we compare the value of the
objective function for this feasible solution with that of the best solution seen so far and
update the latter with the former if the new solution is better.

2.1 Assignment Problem

Let us illustrate the branch-and-bound approach by applying it to the problem of assigning n
people to n jobs so that the total cost of the assignment is as small as possible.
An instance of the assignment problem is specified by an n × n cost matrix C so that we can
state the problem as follows: select one element in each row of the matrix so that no two
selected elements are in the same column and their sum is the smallest possible. We will
demonstrate how this problem can be solved using the branch-and-bound technique by
considering the small instance of the problem. Consider the data given below.

How can we find a lower bound on the cost of an optimal selection without actually solving the
problem?
We can do this by several methods. For example, it is clear that the cost of any solution,
including an optimal one, cannot be smaller than the sum of the smallest elements in each
of the matrix’s rows. For the instance here, this sum is 2 + 3+ 1+ 4 = 10. We can and will

Page| 13
apply the same thinking to partially constructed solutions. For example, for any legitimate
selection that selects 9 from the first row, the lower bound will be 9 + 3 + 1+ 4 = 17.
Rather than generating a single child of the last promising node as we did in backtracking, we
will generate all the children of the most promising node among non-terminated leaves in the
current tree. (Nonterminated, i.e., still promising, leaves are also called live.) How can we tell
which of the nodes is most promising? We can do this by comparing the lower bounds of the
live nodes. It is sensible to consider a node with the best bound as most promising, although
this does not, of course, preclude the possibility that an optimal solution will ultimately belong
to a different branch of the state-space tree. This variation of the strategy is called the best-first
branch-and-bound.
We start with the root that corresponds to no elements selected from the cost matrix. The lower-
bound value for the root, denoted lb, is 10. The nodes on the first level of the tree correspond
to selections of an element in the first row of the matrix, i.e., a job for person a.
See the figure given below.

Figure: Levels 0 and 1 of the state-space tree for the instance of the assignment
problem being solved with the best-first branch-and-bound algorithm. The number
above a node shows the order in which the node was generated. A node’s fields
indicate the job number assigned to person a and the lower bound value, lb, for this
node.

So we have four live leaves—nodes 1 through 4—that may contain an optimal solution. The
most promising of them is node 2 because it has the smallest lowerbound value. Following our
best-first search strategy, we branch out from that node first by considering the three different
ways of selecting an element from the second row and not in the second column - the three
different jobs that can be assigned to person b. See the figure given below (Fig
12.7).
Of the six live leaves—nodes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7—that may contain an optimal solution, we
again choose the one with the smallest lower bound, node 5. First, we consider selecting the
third column’s element from c’s row (i.e., assigning person c to job 3); this leaves us with no
choice but to select the element from the fourth column of d’s row (assigning person d to job
4). This yields leaf 8 (Figure 12.7), which corresponds to the feasible solution {a→2, b→1,
c→3, d →4} with the total cost of 13. Its sibling, node 9, corresponds to the feasible solution
{a→2, b→1, c→4, d →3} with the total cost of 25. Since its cost is larger than the cost of the
Page| 14
solution represented by leaf 8, node 9 is simply terminated. (Of course, if its cost were smaller
than 13, we would have to replace the information about the best solution seen so far with the
data provided by this node.)

Now, as we inspect each of the live leaves of the last state-space tree—nodes 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7
in Figure 12.7—we discover that their lower-bound values are not smaller than 13, the value
of the best selection seen so far (leaf 8). Hence, we terminate all of them and recognize the
solution represented by leaf 8 as the optimal solution to the problem.

2.2 Travelling Sales Person problem

We will be able to apply the branch-and-bound technique to instances of the traveling salesman
problem if we come up with a reasonable lower bound on tour lengths. One very simple lower
bound can be obtained by finding the smallest element in the intercity distance matrix D and
multiplying it by the number of cities n.
But there is a less obvious and more informative lower bound for instances with symmetric
matrix D, which does not require a lot of work to compute. We can compute a lower bound on
the length l of any tour as follows. For each city i, 1≤ i ≤ n, find the sum si of the distances from
city i to the two nearest cities; compute the sum s of these n numbers, divide the result by 2,
and, if all the distances are integers, round up the result to the nearest integer:

lb s/2 ... (1)

Page| 15
For example, for the instance in Figure 2.2a, formula (1) yields

Moreover, for any subset of tours that must include particular edges of a given graph, we can
modify lower bound (formula 1) accordingly. For example, for all the Hamiltonian circuits of
the graph in Figure 2.2a that must include edge (a, d), we get the following lower bound by
summing up the lengths of the two shortest edges incident with each of the vertices, with the
required inclusion of edges (a, d) and (d, a):

We now apply the branch-and-bound algorithm, with the bounding function given by formula-
1, to find the shortest Hamiltonian circuit for the graph in Figure 2.2a.
To reduce the amount of potential work, we take advantage of two observations.

1. First, without loss of generality, we can consider only tours that start at a.
2. Second, because our graph is undirected, we can generate only tours in which b is
visited before c. (Refer Note at the end of section 2.2 for more details)
In addition, after visiting n−1= 4 cities, a tour has no choice but to visit the remaining unvisited
city and return to the starting one. The state-space tree tracing the algorithm’s application is
given in Figure 2.2b.

Note: An inspection of graph with 4 nodes (figure given below) reveals three pairs of tours
that differ only by their direction. Hence, we could cut the number of vertex permutations by
half. We could, for example, choose any two intermediate vertices, say, b and c, and then
consider only permutations in which b precedes c. (This trick implicitly defines a tour’s
direction.)

Figure: Solution to a small instance of the traveling salesman problem by exhaustive search.

Page| 16
Figure 2.2 (a) Weighted graph. (b) State-space tree of the branch-and-bound algorithm to find
a shortest Hamiltonian circuit in this graph. The list of vertices in a node specifies a beginning
part of the Hamiltonian circuits represented by the node.

Discussion
The strengths and weaknesses of backtracking are applicable to branch-and-bound as well. The
state-space tree technique enables us to solve many large instances of difficult combinatorial
problems. As a rule, however, it is virtually impossible to predict which instances will be
solvable in a realistic amount of time and which will not.
In contrast to backtracking, solving a problem by branch-and-bound has both the challenge and
opportunity of choosing the order of node generation and finding a good bounding function.
Though the best-first rule we used above is a sensible approach, it may or may not lead to a
solution faster than other strategies. (Artificial intelligence researchers are particularly
interested in different strategies for developing state-space trees.)
Finding a good bounding function is usually not a simple task. On the one hand, we want this
function to be easy to compute. On the other hand, it cannot be too simplistic - otherwise, it
would fail in its principal task to prune as many branches of a state-space tree as soon as
possible. Striking a proper balance between these two competing requirements may require
intensive experimentation with a wide variety of instances of the problem in question.
Page| 17
3. 0/1 Knapsack problem
Note: For this topic as per the syllabus both textbooks T1 & T2 are suggested.
Here we discuss the concepts from T1 first and then that of from T2.
Topic form T1 (Levitin)
Let us now discuss how we can apply the branch-and-bound technique to solving the knapsack
problem. Given n items of known weights wi and values vi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, and a knapsack of
capacity W, find the most valuable subset of the items that fit in the knapsack.
,
0 1

It is convenient to order the items of a given instance in descending order by their value-
toweight ratios.

Each node on the ith level of state space tree, 0 ≤ i ≤ n, represents all the subsets of n items that
include a particular selection made from the first i ordered items. This particular selection is
uniquely determined by the path from the root to the node: a branch going to the left indicates
the inclusion of the next item, and a branch going to the right indicates its exclusion.
We record the total weight w and the total value v of this selection in the node, along with some
upper bound ub on the value of any subset that can be obtained by adding zero or more items
to this selection. A simple way to compute the upper bound ub is to add to v, the total value of
the items already selected, the product of the remaining capacity of the knapsack W − w and
the best per unit payoff among the remaining items, which is vi+1/wi+1:

ub = v + (W − w)(vi+1/wi+1).
Example: Consider the following problem. The items are already ordered in descending order
of their value-to-weight ratios.

Let us apply the branch-and-bound algorithm. At the root of the state-space tree (see Figure
12.8), no items have been selected as yet. Hence, both the total weight of the items already
selected w and their total value v are equal to 0. The value of the upper bound is 100.
Node 1, the left child of the root, represents the subsets that include item 1. The total weight
and value of the items already included are 4 and 40, respectively; the value of the upper bound
is 40 + (10 − 4) * 6 = 76.
Page| 18
Node 2 represents the subsets that do not include item 1. Accordingly, w = 0, v = 0, and ub = 0
+ (10 − 0) * 6 = 60. Since node 1 has a larger upper bound than the upper bound of node 2, it
is more promising for this maximization problem, and we branch from node 1 first. Its
children—nodes 3 and 4—represent subsets with item 1 and with and without item 2,
respectively. Since the total weight w of every subset represented by node 3 exceeds the
knapsack’s capacity, node 3 can be terminated immediately.
Node 4 has the same values of w and v as its parent; the upper bound ub is equal to 40 + (10 −
4) * 5 = 70. Selecting node 4 over node 2 for the next branching (Due to better ub), we get
nodes 5 and 6 by respectively including and excluding item 3. The total weights and values as
well as the upper bounds for these nodes are computed in the same way as for the preceding
nodes.
Branching from node 5 yields node 7, which represents no feasible solutions, and node 8, which
represents just a single subset {1, 3} of value 65. The remaining live nodes 2 and 6 have smaller
upper-bound values than the value of the solution represented by node 8. Hence, both can be
terminated making the subset {1, 3} of node 8 the optimal solution to the problem.

Solving the knapsack problem by a branch-and-bound algorithm has a rather unusual

characteristic. Typically, internal nodes of a state-space tree do not define a point of the
problem’s search space, because some of the solution’s components remain undefined. (See,
for example, the branch-and-bound tree for the assignment problem discussed in the preceding
subsection.) For the knapsack problem, however, every node of the tree represents a subset of

Page| 19
the items given. We can use this fact to update the information about the best subset seen so far
after generating each new node in the tree. If we had done this for the instance investigated
above, we could have terminated nodes 2 and 6 before node 8 was generated because they both
are inferior to the subset of value 65 of node 5.

Concepts form textbook T2 (Horowitz)

Let us understand some of the terminologies used in backtracking & branch and bound.

→ Live node - a node which has been generated and all of whose children are not yet been
generated.
→ E-node - is a live node whose children are currently being explored. In other words, an
Enode is a node currently being expanded.
→ Dead node - a node that is either not to be expanded further, or for which all of its children
have been generated
→ Bounding Function - will be used to kill live nodes without generating all their children.
→ Backtracking - is depth first node generation with bounding functions.
→ Branch-And-Bound is a method in which E-node remains E-node until it is dead.
→ Breadth-First-Search: Branch-and Bound with each new node placed in a queue. The front
of the queen becomes the new E-node.
→ Depth-Search (D-Search): New nodes are placed in to a stack. The last node added is the
first to be explored.

Page| 20
0/1 Knapsack problem - Branch and Bound based solution
As the technique discussed here is applicable for minimization problems, let us convert the
knapsack problem (maximizing the profit) into minimization problem by negating the objective
function

Page| 21
Page| 22
3.1 LC (Least Cost) Branch and Bound solution

Page| 23
Page| 24
3.2 FIFO Branch and Bound solution

Page| 25
Conclusion

4. NP-Complete and NP-Hard problems

4.1 Basic concepts
For many of the problems we know and study, the best algorithms for their solution have
computing times can be clustered into two groups;

1. Solutions are bounded by the polynomial- Examples include Binary search O(log n),
Linear search O(n), sorting algorithms like merge sort O(n log n), Bubble sort O(n 2) &
matrix multiplication O(n3) or in general O(nk) where k is a constant.

2. Solutions are bounded by a non-polynomial - Examples include travelling salesman

problem O(n22n) & knapsack problem O(2n/2). As the time increases exponentially, even
moderate size problems cannot be solved.

Page| 26
So far, no one has been able to device an algorithm which is bounded by the polynomial for the
problems belonging to the non-polynomial. However impossibility of such an algorithm is not
proved.

4.2 Non deterministic algorithms

We also need the idea of two models of computer (Turing machine): deterministic and
nondeterministic. A deterministic computer is the regular computer we always thinking of; a
nondeterministic computer is one that is just like we’re used to except that is has unlimited
parallelism, so that any time you come to a branch, you spawn a new “process” and examine
both sides.
When the result of every operation is uniquely defined then it is called deterministic
algorithm.
When the outcome is not uniquely defined but is limited to a specific set of possibilities, we
call it non deterministic algorithm.
We use new statements to specify such non deterministic h algorithms.

• choice(S) - arbitrarily choose one of the elements of set S

• failure - signals an unsuccessful completion
• success - signals a successful completion
The assignment X = choice(1:n) could result in X being assigned any value from the integer
range[1..n]. There is no rule specifying how this value is chosen.
“The nondeterministic algorithms terminates unsuccessfully iff there is no set of choices which
leads to the successful signal”.
Example-1: Searching an element x in a given set of elements A(1:n). We are required to
determine an index j such that A(j) = x or j = 0 if x is not present.
j := choice(1:n) if A(j) = x then
print(j); success endif
print(‘0’); failure

Example-2: Checking whether n integers are sorted or not procedure

NSORT(A,n);
//sort n positive integers// var
integer A(n), B(n), n, i, j;
begin
B := 0; //B is initialized to zero// for
i := 1 to n do
begin j := choice(1:n); if B(j)
<> 0 then failure;
B(j) := A(j);
end;

Page| 27
for i := 1 to n-1 do //verify order// if
B(i) > B(i+1) then failure;
print(B); success;
end.
“A nondeterministic machine does not make any copies of an algorithm every time a choice is
to be made. Instead it has the ability to correctly choose an element from the given set”.
A deterministic interpretation of the nondeterministic algorithm can be done by making
unbounded parallelism in the computation. Each time a choice is to be made, the algorithm
makes several copies of itself, one copy is made for each of the possible choices.

Decision vs Optimization algorithms

An optimization problem tries to find an optimal solution.
A decision problem tries to answer a yes/no question. Most of the problems can be specified in
decision and optimization versions.
For example, Traveling salesman problem can be stated as two ways •
Optimization - find hamiltonian cycle of minimum weight,
• Decision - is there a hamiltonian cycle of weight ≤ k? For graph coloring problem,
• Optimization – find the minimum number of colors needed to color the vertices of a
graph so that no two adjacent vertices are colored the same color
• Decision - whether there exists such a coloring of the graph’s vertices with no more
than m colors?
Many optimization problems can be recast in to decision problems with the property that the
decision algorithm can be solved in polynomial time if and only if the corresponding
optimization problem.
4.3 P, NP, NP-Complete and NP-Hard classes
NP stands for Non-deterministic Polynomial time.

Definition: P is a set of all decision problems solvable by a deterministic algorithm in

polynomial time.
Definition: NP is the set of all decision problems solvable by a nondeterministic algorithm in
polynomial time. This also implies P NP

Problems known to be in P are trivially in NP — the nondeterministic machine just never

troubles itself to fork another process, and acts just like a deterministic one. One example of a
problem not in P but in NP is Integer Factorization.

But there are some problems which are known to be in NP but don’t know if they’re in P. The
traditional example is the decision-problem version of the Travelling Salesman Problem
(decision-TSP). It’s not known whether decision-TSP is in P: there’s no known poly-time
solution, but there’s no proof such a solution doesn’t exist.

Page| 28
There are problems that are known to be neither in P nor NP; a simple example is to enumerate
all the bit vectors of length n. No matter what, that takes 2n steps.

Now, one more concept: given decision problems P and Q, if an algorithm can transform a
solution for P into a solution for Q in polynomial time, it’s said that Q is poly-time reducible
(or just reducible) to P.

The most famous unsolved problem in computer science is “whether P=NP or P≠NP? ”

Figure: Commonly believed Figure: Commonly believed relationship between P, NP,

NPrelationship between P and NP Complete and NP-hard problems

Definition: A decision problem D is said to be NP-complete if:

1. it belongs to class NP
2. every problem in NP is polynomially reducible to D
The fact that closely related decision problems are polynomially reducible to each other is not
very surprising. For example, Hamiltonian circuit problem is polynomially reducible to the
decision version of the traveling salesman problem.
NP-Complete problems have the property that it can be solved in polynomial time if all other
NP-Complete problems can be solved in polynomial time. i.e if anyone ever finds a poly-time
solution to one NP-complete problem, they’ve automatically got one for all the NP-complete
problems; that will also mean that P=NP.
Example for NP-complete is CNF-satisfiability problem. The CNF-satisfiability problem
deals with boolean expressions. This is given by Cook in 1971. The CNF-satisfiability problem
asks whether or not one can assign values true and false to variables of a given boolean
expression in its CNF form to make the entire expression true.
Over the years many problems in NP have been proved to be in P (like Primality Testing). Still,
there are many problems in NP not proved to be in P. i.e. the question still remains whether
P=NP? NP Complete Problems helps in solving this question. They are a subset of NP problems
with the property that all other NP problems can be reduced to any of them in polynomial time.
So, they are the hardest problems in NP, in terms of running time. If it can be showed that any
NP-Complete problem is in P, then all problems in NP will be in P (because of NP-Complete
definition), and hence P=NP=NPC.

Page| 29
NP Hard Problems - These problems need not have any bound on their running time. If any
NP-Complete Problem is polynomial time reducible to a problem X, that problem X belongs
to NP-Hard class. Hence, all NP-Complete problems are also NP-Hard. In other words if a NP-
Hard problem is non-deterministic polynomial time solvable, it is a NPComplete problem.
Example of a NP problem that is not NPC is Halting Problem.
If a NP-Hard problem can be solved in polynomial time then all NP-Complete can be solved in
polynomial time.
“All NP-Complete problems are NP-Hard but not all NP-Hard problems are not NPComplete.”
NP-Complete problems are subclass of NP-Hard
The more conventional optimization version of Traveling Salesman Problem for finding the
shortest route is NP-hard, not strictly NP-complete. *****

Page| 30