1 / 17

Exact algorithms for the minimum latency problem

Exact algorithms for the minimum latency problem. 吳邦一 黃正男 詹富傑 樹德科大 資工系. P2. 10. 100. 6. P1. 5. Routing in a network. Which is better, P1 or P2?. P2. 10. 100. 6. P1. 5. Routing in a network. Routing in a network. System ’ s aspect Minimize the total length

wilsonelizabeth
Télécharger la présentation

Exact algorithms for the minimum latency problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exact algorithms for the minimum latency problem 吳邦一 黃正男 詹富傑 樹德科大 資工系

  2. P2 10 100 6 P1 5 Routing in a network Which is better, P1 or P2?

  3. P2 10 100 6 P1 5 Routing in a network

  4. Routing in a network • System’s aspect • Minimize the total length • Traveling salesperson problem • Customers’ aspect • Minimize the total delay • The minimum latency problem

  5. Complexity and approximability • Polynomial-time solvable • Path, unweighted tree, tree of diameter 3, tree with constant leaves • NP-hard even for weighted tree • Approximation ratios • (STOC 94)144 → 21.5 → 10.8 → 3.59 (FOCS 03)

  6. Our result • Exact algorithms using a technique combining the advantages of both Dynamic Programming and Branch-and-Bound • Experimental results on random and real data

  7. Dynamic programming • Solution space: all permutations • (n-1)! (except the starting node) • Configuration (S,r) of a subtour P • S: the visited node, i.e., V(P) • r: the last node of P • Only one subtour for each configuration is needed, the best one but not the shortest one. • Only O(n2^n) configurations

  8. Dynamic programming Configurations for k visited nodes Configurations for k+1 visited nodes

  9. Branch-and-bound • A tree searching algorithm • A lower bound function for each subtour • A global upper bound for the optimal (a feasible solution) • A subtour with lower bound >= UB is useless subtour P All possible successive nodes extend P by one node

  10. Dynamic programming with pruning Configurations for k visited nodes If lower bound <UB, keep If lower bound >=UB, discard Configurations for k+1 visited nodes

  11. What we need • A global UB • A greedy method • A lower bound function • A series of lower bound functions Bk(P) • Preprocessing time: O(nk+1) • For each subtour: O(kn) time • Trade-off between quality and time • A data structure to store the configurations

  12. Configurations for k visited nodes If lower bound <UB, keep If lower bound >=UB, discard Configurations for k+1 visited nodes How to search a configuration How to search?

  13. In a traditional DP • Encoding each configuration into an integer • Using a BIG array • O(1) for searching but the whole array needs to be scanned. It’s just what we want to avoid • An AVL tree is employed.

  14. Experiments: random data

  15. Experiments: real dataTSPLIB Perform much better than on random data

  16. Discussion • A good modification for DP and B&B • Using a good data structure such as the AVL tree is very important. • For small j>i, DPP(j) is better than DPP(i) when n is sufficiently large. • Theoretically, we have more precise lower bound functions. But it suffers from a long computation time and therefore has a worse performance. • In fact, we have tried several other lower bound functions. Some of them eliminate much more subtours than B1 but has a worse performance

  17. Thank you

More Related