Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

24 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- A Statistical Analysis of Bubble Sort in terms of Serial anA and Parallel Computation
- Chapter 5 Exercise Answers
- optimization
- Hungarian(Bipartite)
- 8. Tutorial 8 (Pit Optimiser )
- Choi S.-comparison of a Branch-And-bound Heuristic
- Analysis
- IJESP4-2-4Amendola
- 1-26-17 6 1 1
- AMpc
- Optimal Pipelines Sizing for Distribution Systems With Draw-Off Stations, 2002
- Algorithms Ch3
- Mb00 48operaton Research
- Push Pull
- Qa Panchtantra Case
- Asymptotic Notation
- Unit1 Lecture Notes
- f 030101030037
- ACO, Its Modification and Variants
- GATE Data Structure & Algorithm Book

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

Truncated Branch-and-Bound:

A Case Study on the Asymmetric TSP

Weixiong Zhang

Computer Science Department

University of California, Los Angeles

Los Angeles, CA 90024

zhang@cs.ucla.edu

ABSTRACT We further extend the idea of adapting BnB for ap-

proximate solutions to large combinatorial optimization

Branch-and-bound (BnB) is a general problem problems, and compare it to other approximation al-

solving paradigm, especially useful for nd- gorithms. In particular, we present an approximation

ing optimal solutions to most NP-hard com- method based on BnB, called truncated BnB, on the

binatorial problems. In fact, BnB can also asymmetric traveling salesman problem. Given n cities

be adapted as an ecient approximation al- f1; 2; :::; ng and a cost matrix (ci;j ) that denes the cost

gorithm, providing a promising new alterna- between each pair of cities, the traveling salesman prob-

tive in practice. We show this by an ap- lem (TSP) is to nd a minimum-cost tour that visits

proximation scheme for the asymmetric trav- each city once and returns to the starting city. When

eling salesman problem (ATSP). Our method the cost from city i to city j is not necessarily equal to

is BnB truncated at dierent stopping points, that from city j to city i, the problem is the asymmetric

depending upon the total computation avail- TSP (ATSP). We choose the ATSP as our benchmark

able. Experiments indicate that this method problem because it is an important problem, and many

is superior to a local search algorithm that is NP-complete problems can be formulated as ATSPs,

the best existing approximation algorithm for such as vehicle routing, workshop scheduling, computer

the ATSP. wiring, etc [14]. Although we present the approxima-

tion method on the ATSP, our algorithm can be simply

applied to other problems as well.

1 Introduction and Overview We empirically compare our approximation method to

Many practical problems, such as planning and schedul- a local search algorithm of [9], the best existing ap-

ing, are computationally intractable, meaning that they proximation algorithm for the ATSP we found in the

cannot be solved exactly with limited computation time literature. Given a non-optimal complete tour, a local

and memory. In reality, we often do not need opti- search algorithm repeatedly improves the tour by local

mal solutions, but rather good ones that can be found perturbations [16, 9, 8]. In our experiments, we consid-

quickly. Therefore, approximation algorithms are of ered many ATSPs with dierent cost matrix structures.

considerable practical importance. The cost matrices we used include random matrices,

matrices with the triangle inequality, random matrices

Branch-and-bound (BnB) [15, 2, 13] is a general with ci;j from f0; 1; :::; i j g, matrices converted from

problem-solving paradigm for nding optimal solutions no-wait workshop scheduling for 4 machines, which is

to NP-complete [6] combinatorial optimization prob- known to be NP-complete [20], and matrices from real

lems. Although it was originally developed for optimal problems [18]. Our empirical results indicate that the

solutions, it can, in fact, be adapted for nding approx- average tour quality from our method is better than

imate solutions as well. The idea, which is well-known that from the local search algorithm, with less or com-

in operations research, is to terminate the execution of parable computation time. Thus, the new approxima-

BnB whenever the limits of computational resources are tion algorithm provides a promising alternative in prac-

met. The previous research on this idea is very prelim- tice.

inary. It has only been applied to job-shop scheduling Section 2 discusses the approximation algorithm for the

problems with two machines and up to 50 jobs [1, 12], ATSP, and Section 3 presents the experimental results.

and simulated on a tree model [7]. Our discussion is in Section 4, and conclusions appear

The research was supported by NSF Grant #IRI-

in Section 5. For interested readers, the detailed de-

9119825, a grant from Rockwell International, and a GTE scription and experimental results of the local search

fellowship.

algorithm of [9] can be found in [25]. 1 4

2 32

5 6

E={(3,2)}

I={} I={(2,3)}

2.1 Introduction: Branch-and-Bound 1 4

A B

2 3 1 4

Since our new approximation method is based on 2 54 3

the branch-and-bound (BnB) subtour elimination al-

6 3

6 5

gorithm [2] for optimally solving the ATSP, we rst E={(3,2),(6,2)} E={(3,2),(3,6)}

describe this algorithm. I={(2,3)} I={(2,3),(6,2)}

signment problem as a lower-bound function. Given n 2 3 6 6 2 3

cities and a cost matrix (ci;j ), the assignment problem 4 1 5

5

4 1 5

3

(AP) [17] is to assign to each city i another city j , with

ci;j as the cost of this assignment, such that the to-

tal cost of all assignments is minimized. The AP is a Figure 1: BnB subtour elimination on the ATSP.

generalization of the ATSP without the restriction of

a single tour, allowing collections of disjoint subtours.

Specically, the solution of the AP is a permutation of The process of subproblem selection and decomposi-

the n cities which is either a complete tour, or a collec- tion repeats until all active subproblems have AP costs

tion of subtours, and can be computed in O(n3) time greater than or equal to the cost of the best tour ob-

[17]. If the AP solution happens to be a complete tour, tained so far, or no active subproblems remain. More

it is the solution to the ATSP as well. specically, with an active list A, containing all active

subproblems, a variable BT , representing the best tour

Figure 1 is a simple example of BnB subtour elimina- obtained so far, and its cost U , the process of BnB

tion. The edge costs and the calculation of the AP costs subtour elimination is as follows.

are not shown. The AP solution to the original ATSP

contains two subtours that are in the oval at the root of 1. (Initialization) Set the active list A = fX0 g, the

the tree. Assume that the cost of the AP solution is 2, best tour BT = ;, and its cost U = 1, where X0

as shown in the black box. The subtour 2 3 2 is cho- is the original problem to be solved.

sen to be eliminated. The problem is then decomposed

into two subproblems, subproblem A with cost 4, and 2. (Subproblem selection) If A = ;, stop. BT is an

subproblem B with cost 3. The lowest-cost subproblem, optimal tour with cost U .

B , is selected for decomposition next. By breaking the Otherwise, select an X 2 A, and remove it from

subtour 2 3 6 2, subproblem B produces subprob- A.

lems C and D. D is the next lowest-cost subproblem 3. (Lower-bounding) Let AP be the assignment prob-

among all undecomposed ones, A, C and D. The AP lem of X , and ApT be its solution, whose cost is

solution to D is a complete tour. The algorithm termi- C.

nates with the complete tour in node D, and its cost 3, If C U , go to 2. (This subproblem is pruned.)

since subproblems A and C have costs greater than 3, If C < U and ApT is a single tour, BT = ApT ,

and hence cannot generate a better solution than the U = C , and go to 2. (This is a better tour.)

one in node D (explained below). Otherwise, go to 4.

BnB subtour elimination rst solves the AP for all n 4. (Decomposition) Expand X , generating subprob-

cities. If the solution is not a single tour, then the prob- lems X1 ; X2; :::; Xt, with the costs of their AP so-

lem is decomposed into subproblems by excluding dif- lutions C1; C2; :::; Ct, respectively.

ferent arcs in a subtour, which eliminates the subtour. A = A [ fXi jCi < U; i = 1; 2; :::;tg. Go to 2.

A subproblem has some excluded arcs that are forbid-

den from its solution, and some included arcs that must The original problem has empty excluded and included

be present in its solution, and is used to decompose the sets. A newly generated subproblem rst inherits its ex-

problem space into mutually exclusive components. A cluded and included sets from its parent, and adds one

subproblem is then selected from all subproblems that new excluded arc to its excluded set, and new included

have been generated but not decomposed, which are arcs, if any, to its included set. Since a subproblem

called active subproblems. If the AP solution to this has more excluded and included arcs, and thus is more

selected subproblem is a complete tour, and its cost is constrained than its parent, less choices of arcs are left

less than the cost of the current best tour found, then for the AP to the subproblem than for the AP to its

the current best tour is replaced by the AP solution to parent. Therefore, the AP cost is monotonically nonde-

this subproblem, and another subproblem is selected. creasing, in the sense that the AP costs of subproblems

along a path starting at the root can only increase.

(j)

Two common strategies can be used to select a subprob- i

lem from all active ones. The best-rst strategy chooses

a subproblem with the minimum AP cost among all ac- (i) j

tive subproblems. The depth-rst strategy selects a sub-

problem which was most recently generated, and has a Figure 2: An (i; j )-patching operation.

minimum AP cost among its siblings. One important

feature of the best-rst strategy is that all subproblems

selected have costs less than or equal to the cost of the tree links between a node and its children represent the

optimal solution to the entire problem. The best-rst decomposition of the parent, and leaf nodes are sub-

strategy generates the fewest subproblems, among all problems whose AP solutions are complete tours.

strategies using the same monotonic cost function [4].

To this end, it needs to store all active subproblems in

A, whose size is usually exponential in the maximum 2.2 Truncated BnB for Approximate

search depth. Because of this exponential space require- Solutions

ment, the best-rst strategy is only applicable to small The BnB subtour elimination algorithm can also be

problems in practice. In contrast, the depth-rst strat- augmented by an upper-bound function. This func-

egy only maintains the subproblems on the path from tion is applied to a subproblem whose AP solution is

original problem to the subproblem that is now being not a single tour, and constructs a single tour based on

considered, plus their immediate siblings, and thus the the subproblem. The tour cost thus obtained is greater

space used is only linear in the maximum search depth. than or equal to the cost of an optimal tour for the sub-

It may, however, decompose subproblems whose costs problem, and thus gives an upper bound on the optimal

are greater than the cost of the solution to the initial tour cost to this subproblem.

problem.

Which subtour to eliminate, and how to expand a prob- Karp and Steele's patching algorithm [10, 11] can serve

lem constitute the decomposition rule. One such rule is as an upper-bound function. This algorithm also uses

due to Carpaneto and Toth [3]. A subtour is chosen the AP algorithm, plus a post-processing operation.

such that the number of newly generated subproblems Let i and j be two cities that appear in two disjoint

is as small as possible, in order to reduce the total num- subtours, as shown in Figure 2. The (i; j )-patching op-

ber of subproblems generated. Since excluding one arc eration joins the subtours into one by inserting the arcs

of a subtour is sucient for eliminating the subtour, a (i; (j )) and (j; (i)) and deleting the arcs (i; (i)) and

subtour with the minimum number of free arcs, ones (j; (j )), where (i) is the successor of i in the subtour.

neither included nor excluded in the corresponding AP This operation changes the total cost by

solution, is selected for elimination. Subproblems are (; i; j ) = ci; (j ) + cj; (i) ci; (i) cj; (j ):

generated in such a way that they are mutually exclu-

sive, so that there are no duplicate subproblems. Let I (; i; j ) is called the cost of the (i; j )-patching oper-

be the included set and E the excluded set of the sub- ation. Using this operation, the patching algorithm

problem to be expanded, and let X = fx1; x2; :::; xtg works as follows. First solve the AP of the n cities,

be the arcs that are neither included nor excluded from resulting in a permutation . If is a single tour, it is

the subproblem. The k-th newly generated subproblem also a solution to the ATSP. If is not a single tour,

then has included set Ik and excluded set Ek satisfying select two subtours with the largest numbers of arcs,

and join them by an (i; j )-patching operation that has

Ek = E [ fxk g; minimum cost. Recursively apply the above process to

Ik = I [ fx1; x2; :::; xk 1g; the remaining subtours until becomes a tour. This al-

for k = 1; 2; :::; t, where [ stands for the set union oper- gorithm has the same complexity as the AP algorithm,

ation. Since xk is an excluded arc of the k-th subprob- which is O(n3 ).

lem, xk 2 Ek , and it is an included arc of the k + 1-st By applying an upper-bound function to every gener-

subproblem, xk 2 Ik+1 , a tour obtained from the k-th ated internal node of search tree, best-rst search al-

subproblem does not contain arc xk , but a tour ob- ways has a feasible solution available. The quality of the

tained from the k + 1-st subproblem must have arc xk . best solution obtained so far increases with the num-

Thus a tour from the k-th subproblem cannot be gen- ber of nodes generated up to that point. Moreover, the

erated from the k + 1-st one, and vice versa. In other upper-bound function signicantly impacts depth-rst

words, all generated subproblems are mutually exclu- BnB. Although depth-rst search may nd feasible so-

sive. Therefore, the state space of the ATSP under lutions during the search without an upper-bound func-

Carpaneto and Toth's decomposition rule can be rep- tion, the quality of the best solution found so far can

resented by a search tree, in which the root represents be improved by the upper-bound function. In addition,

the initial problem, non-root nodes are subproblems, an upper bound on a node can reduce the overall up-

per bound for searching the subproblem space, which in has the minimum AP cost as the next current problem,

turn reduces the number of subproblems decomposed. and repeats the above process. Overall, this algorithm

One common feature of best-rst search and depth-rst searches along one particular path from the root of the

search augmented by an upper-bound function is that search tree to a leaf node. This stopping criterion is

there exists a feasible solution at any point during the also called nonbacktrack BnB and was implemented on

search. Therefore, when augmented by an upper-bound two-machine scheduling problems [1, 12].

function, BnB is an anytime algorithm, meaning that

it can stop at any time and provide a solution whose

quality improves with the total amount of computa-

3 Experimental Results

tion time used. The BnB subtour elimination algorithm We compared TBnB with the local search algorithm

augmented by the patching algorithm is an anytime al- of [9], the best existing approximation algorithm for

gorithm for the ATSP. the ATSP we found in literature. The local search al-

Our approximation scheme is very simple. It executes gorithm repeatedly improves a given initial tour, which

the BnB subtour elimination algorithm, augmented by may not be optimal, by local perturbations. As a start-

the patching algorithm which is applied to a generated ing point, we rst examined all polynomial-time tour

subproblem whose AP solution is not a complete tour, construction algorithms we found in the literature, in-

and terminates after an optimal tour is found, or when cluding nearest neighbor [5, 8], nearest insertion [5, 8],

the total available computation time runs out. The best greedy [5, 8], repeated assignment [5] and Karp and

tour thus obtained is then used as an approximate solu- Steele's patching algorithm [10, 11]. The best algo-

tion. Since this method is simply BnB subtour elimina- rithm was then used to build the initial tour for the

tion, truncated at dierent stopping points depending local search1 , so that our experimental comparison was

upon the total available computation, we call this ap- set on a fair basis. From our experiments, the best

proximation scheme truncated BnB, or TBnB for short. polynomial-time initial tour construction algorithm was

The patching algorithm and the original BnB subtour the patching algorithm.

elimination algorithm are special cases of TBnB. If the We used the following dierent cost matrix structures:

algorithm stops without decomposing the original prob- (a) random matrices with ci;j from f0; 1; 2; :::231 1g;

lem only after applying the patching algorithm, it de- (b) matrices with the triangle inequality; (c) random

generates to the patching algorithm. If the algorithm matrices with ci;j from f0; 1; :::; i j g, which are known

terminates after all subproblems whose AP costs are to be more dicult for many methods based on AP

less than the current best tour cost are decomposed, algorithms [19]; (d) matrices converted from no-wait

it becomes the original BnB subtour elimination algo- workshop scheduling for 4 machines; and (e) matri-

rithm. If the algorithm stops in the middle of these ces from some actual problems encountered in industry

two extreme cases, it provides a tour whose cost lies in [18]. We use a large cost range for the rst structure be-

between the tour cost from the patching algorithm on cause there exists an average-case complexity transition

the original problem, and the optimal tour cost. The for BnB subtour elimination [23, 24, 25]. In particular,

tour cost decreases with the total computation time, the ATSP is relatively easy to solve when the range r of

and converges to the optimal tour cost if the total com- intercity costs is small, with respect to the number of

putation time is unconstrained. cities n. Since r n, the problem instances we chose

We use the depth-rst search strategy, and choose a are also relatively dicult for our new approximation

particular stopping point to implement TBnB. It rst method, since it is based on BnB subtour elimination.

solves the AP of the n cities. If the solution is a tour, For problems with cost matrices satisfying the triangle

it terminates with this tour as the nal solution, which inequality, we rst generated random matrices as above,

is optimal. If the solution is a set of subtours, it con- and then used a closure algorithm to enforce the trian-

structs a complete tour by the patching algorithm, and gle inequality, ci;j ci;k + ck;j , for all i; j; k 2 (ci;j ).

takes its cost as an upper bound . It then generates For the ATSPs with ci;j in f0; 1; :::; i j g, we chose

all children of the current subproblem using Carpaneto ci;j independently and uniformly from f0; 1; :::;i j g.

and Toth's decomposition rule. It ignores those children For the ATSPs corresponding to no-wait scheduling, we

whose AP costs are greater than or equal to , since so- rst generated random scheduling problems, by setting

lutions from them will not be better than the best tour the required processing time of a job on a machine to

obtained so far. The remaining newly generated child be an integer31independently and uniformly chosen from

problems (not all active subproblems) constitute a set f0; 1; 2; :::; 2 1g, and then converted the scheduling

R. If R is empty, it stops with the best tour obtained so problems into ATSPs using the method suggested in

far as an approximate solution. If the AP solution of a [22].

problem in R is a complete tour, it terminates with this

tour. If none of the AP solutions of the subproblems in 1

Detailed descriptions of our experiments on the

R is a complete tour, it takes the subproblem in R which polynomial-time tour construction algorithms and the local

search algorithm are in [25].

We implemented the initial tour construction algo- Both algorithms were also tested on constructed ATSPs

rithms, local search algorithm, and our new approxima- that are dicult for the local search algorithm [21]. For

tion method in C and ran them on a Sun4/sparc-460 an ATSP with n = 6k cities, there is an optimal tour

with 32 Mbytes of memory. The problems were in the with cost 0, and (k 1)! local optimums that have arbi-

range of 100 to 1000 cities, in 100 city increments. For trarily large costs. Not surprisingly, the local search al-

100-city to 500-city instances, all results are averages of gorithm stops at a local minimum which is not a global

1000 trials each, and for 600- to 1000-cities, the results optimal, while TBnB nds the optimal tour by expand-

are averages of 100 trials each. ing only the original problem and generating four sub-

Figure 3 summarizes our results. Since the local search problems.

algorithm and TBnB use the patching algorithm as

starting point, we also include the performance of the

patching algorithm for comparison. The horizontal axes

4 Discussion

of the gures are the numbers of cities. For the gures The good performance of TBnB is due primarily to

in the left column, the vertical axes are the relative er- the AP lower-bound function. As observed in pre-

rors of tour costs with respect to the AP lower bounds, vious research [2] and in our experiments, the AP

which is less than the actual relative errors. For the lower-bound function is very eective. In our exper-

gures in the right column, the vertical axes are the iments on the random ATSP with the elements of

CPU times of the algorithms. The relative tour error cost matrices independently and uniformly chosen from

of TBnB is less than 1:5% for 100-city problems, and f0; 1; 2; :::; 231 1g, the AP cost is 99.090% of the ATSP

decreases to less than 0:15% for 1000-city instances on cost on the average for 100-city instances, 99.816% for

all cost matrices. On random matrices and matrices 500-city instances, and 99.916% for 1000-city instances.

with ci;j chosen from f0; 1; :::;i j g, the relative tour

errors of TBnB are signicantly smaller than those of The eciency of TBnB is also due to the ATSP search

the local search, and the execution time of TBnB is tree under BnB subtour elimination, which has inter-

competitive. On matrices with the triangle inequality, nal nodes whose AP solutions are not complete tours.

TBnB signicantly outperforms the local search, both Thus BnB searches the space of all city permutations,

in terms of tour quality and execution time. For the while the local search explores only the space of cyclic

ATSP from no-wait workshop scheduling, the relative city permutations. In addition, by the patching algo-

tour errors of both TBnB and local search are less than rithm, TBnB considers only those subproblems whose

0:03% in all cases. Meanwhile, TBnB takes much less AP costs are less than the initial upper bound, which

CPU time than the local search. The cost matrices decreases during the search. Thus the subproblems ex-

from no-wait scheduling problems are also subject to plored by TBnB have small AP costs, and the nal tour

the triangle inequality [9]. This suggests that TBnB cost can be signicantly smaller than the initial upper

is a better approximation algorithm when the triangle bound.

inequality is satised. To reiterate, the tour quality can be continuously im-

We also examined TBnB on two particular problems proved by TBnB if it keeps backtracking when more

from industry [18], a 23-city and a 43-city ATSP. These computation time is available.

two problems have AP costs 85 and 43, but optimal The average complexity of TBnB is determined by the

ATSP costs 259 and 5620, respectively. The BnB sub- average depth of the leaf nodes in the search tree. In

tour elimination algorithm is not ecient on these prob- our experiments, the average depth of leaf nodes was

lems. Although the fast algorithm in [19] nds an ap- less than ln(n) on average for all cost matrices used.

proximate tour of cost 5625 to the 43-city ATSP al- The AP of the initial problem can be solved in O(n3 )

most immediately, it cannot optimally solve this prob- time, and the AP of an internal tree node can be incre-

lem [18]. For the 43-city problem, our implementation mentally solved in O(n2) time [17]. Since a tree node

of BnB subtour elimination with Carpaneto and Toth's has at most n children, the average3complexity of TBnB

decomposition rules and the depth-rst strategy does appears to be approximately O(n ln(n)) from our ex-

not nd an optimal tour after generating 30 million sub- periments.

problems, and a best-rst strategy runs out of memory

on a 32 Mbyte machine. TBnB nds an optimal tour of

cost 259 on the 23-city problem, while the local search

stops at a non-optimal tour of cost 262. For the 43-city

5 Conclusions

ATSP, TBnB nds a tour of cost 5623 in 1 second of Branch-and-bound (BnB) is not only a general

CPU time by expanding 54 subproblems and generat- problem-solving technique for optimally solving most

ing 173 subproblems. This result is slightly better than NP-hard combinatorial problems, but can also be

the tour of cost 5627 from the local search algorithm, adapted to an ecient approximation algorithm. We

also with 1 second of CPU time. presented such an algorithm for the asymmetric travel-

ing salesman problem (ATSP). Our experiments indi-

error relative to AP (%) CPU time (s)

9.0

patch matrix with 140 TBnB

matrix with

31 31

7.0 c(i,j) from {0,1,2,...,2 -1} c(i,j) from {0,1,2,...,2 -1}

100

5.0 full local search

full local search 60

3.0

200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000

# of cities CPU time (sec.) # of cities

error relative to AP (%)

5.0 matrix with 250 matrix with TBnB

4.0 c(i,j) from {0,1,...,i*j} c(i,j) from {0,1,...,i*j}

200

patch full local search

3.0 150

2.0 100

full local search patch

1.0 50

TBnB

0 0

200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000

# of cities # of cities

error relative to AP (%) CPU time (sec.)

patch 120

1.2 matrix with triangle inequality

matrix with triangle inequality

80 full local search

0.8

TBnB

0.4 40

full local search patch

TBnB

0 0

200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000

error relative to AP (%) # of cities CPU time (sec.) # of cities

patch 800 full local search

0.04

nowait scheduling

0.03 600 nowait scheduling

full local search

0.02 400

TBnB

0.01 200

patch

TBnB

0 0

200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000

# of cities # of cities

cate that the new algorithm is superior to a local search [11] Karp, R.M., and J.M. Steele, \Probabilistic anal-

algorithm, which is the best existing approximation al- ysis of heuristic," in The Traveling Salesman Prob-

gorithm for the ATSP. lem, E.L. Lawler, et al. (eds.) John Wiley & Sons,

We are extending the idea of developing new approx- 1985, pp.181-205.

imation algorithms using BnB, to other NP-complete [12] Kohler, W.H., and K. Steiglitz, \Enumerative and

combinatorial problems, including the symmetric TSP iterative computational approaches," in Computer

and scheduling problems. and Job-Shop Scheduling Theory, E.G. Coman, Jr.

(ed.) John Wiley & Sons, 1976.

Acknowledgements [13] Kumar, V., \Search, branch-and-bound," in En-

cyclopedia of Articial Intelligence, 2nd Ed, S.C.

I gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Shapiro (ed.) Wiley-Interscience, 1992, pp.1468-72.

Richard Karp, David Johnson, Donald Miller, Joseph [14] Lawler, E.L., J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G Rinnooy Kan,

Pekny and Bruno Repetto, comments from David John- and D.B. Shmoys, The Traveling Salesman Prob-

son and Donald Miller on an early draft. Special thanks lem, (eds.) John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

are due to my advisor, Rich Korf, for support, discus- [15] Lawler, E.L., and D.E. Wood, \Branch-and-bound

sions, comments and many draft readings. methods: A survey," Operations Research, 14

(1966) 699-719.

References [16] S. Lin, and B.W. Kernighan, \An eective heuris-

tic algorithm for the traveling salesman problem,"

[1] Ashour, S., \An experimental investigation and Operations Research, 21 (1973) pp.498-516.

comparative evaluation of ow-shop scheduling [17] Martello, S., and P. Toth, \Linear assignment

techniques," Operations Research, 18 (1970) 541-9. problems," Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 31

[2] Balas, E., and P. Toth, \Branch and bound (1987) 259-82.

methods," The Traveling Salesman Problems, E.L.

Lawler, et al. (eds.) John Wiley and Sons, 1985, [18] Miller, D.L., personal communications, 1992.

pp.361-401. [19] Miller, D.L., and J.F. Pekny, \Exact solution

[3] Carpaneto, G., and P. Toth, \Some new branch- of large asymmetric traveling salesman problems,"

ing and bounding criteria for the asymmetric trav- Science, 251 (1991) 754-61.

eling salesman problem," Management Science, 26 [20] Papadimitriou, C.H., and P.C. Kanellakis, \Flow-

(1980) 736-43. shop scheduling with limited temporary storage," J.

[4] Dechter, R., and J. Pearl, \Generalized best-rst ACM, 27 (1980) 533-49.

search strategies and the optimality of A ," J. of [21] Papadimitriou, C.H., and K. Steiglitz, \Some ex-

ACM, 32 (1985) 505-36. amples of dicult traveling salesman problems,"

[5] Frieze, A., G. Galbiati, and F. Maoli, \On the Operations Research, 26 (1978) 434-443.

worst-case performance of some algorithms for the [22] Reddi, S.S., and C.V. Ramamoorthy, \On the ow-

asymmetric traveling salesman problem," Network, shop sequencing problem with no wait in process,"

12 (1982) 23-39. Operational Research Quarterly, 23 (1972) 323-31.

[6] Garey, M.R., and D.S. Johnson, Computers and [23] Zhang, W., and R. Korf, \An average-case analysis

Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP- of branch-and-bound with applications: Summary

Completeness, Freeman, 1979 of results," Proc. 10-th National Conf. on Articial

[7] Ibaraki, T., S. Muro, T. Murakami, and T. Intelligence, AAAI-92, San Jose, CA, July 12-17,

Hasegawa \Using branch-and-bound algorithms to 1992, pp.545-50.

obtain suboptimal solutions," Zeitchrift fur Opera- [24] Zhang, W., and R. Korf, \Performance of linear-

tions Research, 27 (1983) 177-202. space branch-and-bound algorithms," submitted to

[8] Johnson, D.S., \Local optimization and the trav- Articial Intelligence, 1992.

eling salesman problem," Proc 17th Intern. Collo- [25] Zhang, W., and R. Korf, \On the asymmetric trav-

quium on Automata, Languages and Programming, eling salesman problem under subtour elimination

England, July 16-20, 1990. and local search," Manuscript in preparation.

[9] Kanellakis, P.C., and C.H. Papadimitriou, \Local

search for the asymmetric traveling salesman prob-

lem," Operations Research, 28 (1980) 1086-99.

[10] Karp, R.M., \A patching algorithm for the non-

symmetric Traveling-Salesman Problem," SIAM J.

Comput. 8 (1979) 561-73.

- A Statistical Analysis of Bubble Sort in terms of Serial anA and Parallel ComputationHochgeladen vonijcsn
- Chapter 5 Exercise AnswersHochgeladen voncoco
- optimizationHochgeladen vonVaidish Sumaria
- Hungarian(Bipartite)Hochgeladen vonkalikinkar
- 8. Tutorial 8 (Pit Optimiser )Hochgeladen vonTakbir Halim
- Choi S.-comparison of a Branch-And-bound HeuristicHochgeladen vonGastonVertiz
- AnalysisHochgeladen vonjuniorkid
- IJESP4-2-4AmendolaHochgeladen vonShahid Ullah
- 1-26-17 6 1 1Hochgeladen vonapi-296523603
- AMpcHochgeladen vonstathiss11
- Optimal Pipelines Sizing for Distribution Systems With Draw-Off Stations, 2002Hochgeladen vonjoreli
- Algorithms Ch3Hochgeladen vonrezatemp1358
- Mb00 48operaton ResearchHochgeladen vonDevendra Kachhi
- Push PullHochgeladen vonCatarina Oliveira
- Qa Panchtantra CaseHochgeladen vonKhushbu Chinoy
- Asymptotic NotationHochgeladen vonPrashanth Simha
- Unit1 Lecture NotesHochgeladen vonsignalhuckster
- f 030101030037Hochgeladen vontheijes
- ACO, Its Modification and VariantsHochgeladen vonseventhsensegroup
- GATE Data Structure & Algorithm BookHochgeladen vonMims12
- Contingency-Constrained PMU Placement in Power NetworksHochgeladen vonxuanvinhspktvl
- 1-s2.0-S0925527399000511-mainHochgeladen vonKetut Edy Setiawan
- paper4Hochgeladen vonSurya
- Ahmad i 2017Hochgeladen vonsaleh
- chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-540-78773-0_67Hochgeladen vonKianna Wan
- Route Planning for Agricultural Tasks a General Approach for Fleets OfHochgeladen vonAnonymous 3LGI6CE
- Cf Smoljanovic MmHochgeladen vonJuniorMendoza97
- 2013 Yousefikia Mamdoohi Moridpour Noruzoliaee MahpourHochgeladen vonKeith Anshilo Diaz
- Algoritma perputaran air.pdfHochgeladen vonmedya ratna
- Argumentative SpeechHochgeladen vonHazel Luna

- Ns Crypto Lab FinalHochgeladen vonNaga Kalyan
- Chomsky Normal FormHochgeladen vonGopal K Verma
- The strong metric dimension of some generalized Petersen graphsHochgeladen vonJozef Kratica
- Sp12 Midterm1 SolutionsHochgeladen vonANUBHAV JAIN
- ERM Study ScheduleHochgeladen vonAnonymous guNi9L
- All Questions IndexHochgeladen vonVidwan Raj
- Local KMS activation server for Windows 7, Windows 8 Professional and Enterprise, Office 2Hochgeladen vonVimukthi Twk
- INVERSE HEAT TRANSFER- OZISIKHochgeladen vonzaid5085
- Genetic Evolution of TIC-TAC-ToEHochgeladen vonEshan Goyal
- Joachims ECML 98Hochgeladen vonMauricio Martis
- OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT WILLIAM STEVENSON 9eHochgeladen vonSagar Murty
- Dr. Tarun Rawat Optimum FilterHochgeladen vonkvk808
- Prevention of ARP Spoofing using Cryptographic TechniquesHochgeladen vonChir123
- Add Maths 2016Hochgeladen vonYuvaraj Tan Hong Leong
- Ma6452 Scad MsmHochgeladen vonPrasath Murugesan
- Comparison of Clustering Algorithms ReportHochgeladen vonsan343
- Data Acquisition Analysis Using the Fourier TransformHochgeladen vonssener
- TOC_Questions_012210030237_1Hochgeladen vonPrabhu Dhandapani
- Linear Actuator - PID ControlHochgeladen vonEdwin Bardales
- 132905 Eve Voronax Tutor BetaHochgeladen vonMohammad Yazdi
- ACTSC-612-A31Hochgeladen vonR Nurul QA
- Data Structures Chaper1 QuestionsHochgeladen vonYahya Said
- ExperimentHochgeladen vonNeetesh Kumar
- Syllabus IBAHochgeladen vonK.m.khizir Ahmed
- Fast and Adaptive Blind Audio Source Separation Using Recursive Levenberg-Marquardt Synchrosqueezing_Fourer_2018Hochgeladen vonYanquiel Mansfarroll Gonzalez
- Chap 002Hochgeladen vonMar Jinita
- Chap 1 - Introduction AIHochgeladen vonZul Hilmi
- 03-2 - Histogram processingHochgeladen vonMallappa Patil
- AnovaHochgeladen vonapplesby
- Inventory ControlHochgeladen vondiikn290