1 / 17

More solution methods for the TSP

More solution methods for the TSP. 1. If we use the assignment problem relaxation, how can we find subtours? Answer: Use a subtour constraint generator. 2. Is there an LP for the minimum spanning tree? Answer: Yes! 3. Then do we have another TSP formulation? Answer: Yes!.

fia
Download Presentation

More solution methods for the TSP

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. More solution methods for the TSP 1. If we use the assignment problem relaxation,how can we find subtours?Answer: Use a subtour constraint generator. 2. Is there an LP for the minimum spanning tree?Answer: Yes! 3. Then do we have another TSP formulation?Answer: Yes!

  2. We’ll use this example today (Winston). • Looks like subtours are likely!

  3. Solve the assignment problem relaxation • min 1.4 x1,2 + 3.6 x1,3 + 6.4 x1,4 + 7 x1,5 + 7.6 x1,6+ 2.2 x2,3 + 6.7 x2,4 + 6.1 x2,5 + 7.2 x2,6 + 8.2 x3,4+ 5.8 x3,5 + 7.8 x3,6 + 5.8 x4,5 + 3.6 x4,6 + 3 x5,6, • Degrees1: x1,2 + x1,3 + x1,4 + x1,5 + x1,6 = 2, • Degrees2: x1,2 + x2,3 + x2,4 + x2,5 + x2,6 = 2, • Degrees3: x1,3 + x2,3 + x3,4 + x3,5 + x3,6 = 2, • Degrees4: x1,4 + x2,4 + x3,4 + x4,5 + x4,6 = 2, • Degrees5: x1,5 + x2,5 + x3,5 + x4,5 + x5,6 = 2, • Degrees6: x1,6 + x2,6 + x3,6 + x4,6 + x5,6 = 2. • Solution arcs: (1,2), (1,3), (2,3), (4,5), (4,6), (5,6). • Where are the subtours?We could find them by inspection,but we need something we can program.

  4. Let’s write a math model to find subtours! • The problem with subtours is that our salesmancan flow in & out of each city, but not from city 1 to each city. • If the subtours were pipes, and we tried to flow from node 1 to node 5, we would have flow of zero. • This shows the subtour! • Let’s use a max flow model, from node 1 to each node i. • If flow from node 1 to i is zero, then we have a subtour.

  5. Formulation for the max flow problem • Indices: i, j, k = nodes. Source node is s. Terminal node is t. • Parameters: cij= pipe capacity between node i and node j. • Dec. variables:zij= flow between nodesi and j. • Model: 1) maximise i zsi • 2) i zij – k zjk = 0 for each node j, • 3) j zsj = i zit, • 4) zij cij, • 5) zij  0. • Explanation: 1) Maximise total flow. • 2) Flow in = flow out for each node. • 3) Flow out of the source s = flow into the terminal t. • 4) Flow on each pipe is less than capacity. • 5) Flows cannot be negative. • As easy to solve as the shortest path problem. They’re dual to each other.

  6. How do we find subtours with a max flow model? • Underscore xij to show it’s fixed. It’s a parameter in the max flow model. • In the max flow model, set link capacity to be the TSP solution, xij. • Indices: i, j, k = nodes. Source node is 1. Terminal node is t. • Parameters: xij= pipe capacity between node i and node j. • Dec. variables:zij= flow between nodesi and j. • For each node t = 2,…, n, maximise the flow from 1 to t: • 1. maximise i z1i • 2. i zij – k zjk = 0 for each node j, • 3. j z1j = i zit, • 4. – xij zij xij, • We allow back flows in the symmetric TSP, so zij could be < 0 (row 4). • The source is node 1. Solve the model n – 1 times, one for each node t.

  7. Example: arcs (1,2), (1,3), (2,3), (4,5), (4,6), (5,6). • maximize flow from node 1 to node 2:max z1,2 + z1,3, • Conserveflow3: z1,3 + z2,3 = 0, • Conserveflow4: – z4,5 – z4,6 = 0, • Conserveflow5: z4,5 – z5,6 = 0, • Conserveflow6: z4,6 + z5,6 = 0. • For xij = 0, we require zij = 0. For xij > 0, we allow –1 ≤ zij ≤ 1. • Solution z1,2 = 1, z1,3 = 1, z2,3 = –1, z4,5= –1, z4,6 = 1, z5,6= –1. • Some are negative! Just flow in the opposite direction, from 6 to 5. • Objective value 2, which means that node 2 has degree 2.No surprise, since the traveler can go from node 1 to node 2.Note that there is no way to flow from 1,2,3 to 4,5,6.

  8. Same thing will happen for node 3. • Same objective.Add the row for 2, drop the row for 3. • maximize flow from node 1 to node 3:max z1,2 + z1,3, • Conserveflow2: z1,2 - z2,3 = 0, • Conserveflow4: - z4,5 - z4,6 = 0, • Conserveflow5: z4,5 - z5,6 = 0, • Conserveflow6: z4,6 + z5,6 = 0. • For xij = 0, we require zij = 0. For xij > 0, we allow –1 ≤ zij ≤ 1. • Similar soln, z1,2 = 1, z1,3 = 1, z2,3=1, z4,5= –1, z4,6 = 1, z5,6= –1. • Objective value 2, which means that node 3 has degree 2.No surprise, since the traveler can go from node 1 to node 3. • But what will happen with node 4? 

  9. What about node 4? • maximize flow from node 1 to node 4:max z1,2 + z1,3, • dual price • Conserveflow2: z1,2 - z2,3 = 0, 1, • Conserveflow3: z1,3 + z2,3 = 0, 1, • Conserveflow5: z4,5 – z5,6 = 0, 0, • Conserveflow6: z4,6 + z5,6 = 0, 0. • For xij = 0, we require zij = 0. For xij > 0, we allow –1 ≤ zij ≤ 1. • Solution : z1,2 = –1, z1,3 = 1, z2,3=–1, z4,5 = –1, z4,6 = 1, z5,6 = –1. • Optimal value: Zero flow! So nodes 1 and 4 are in different subtours. • The dual prices tell us what to do.We could increase flow from node 1 to 4, with more capacity at 2 & 3.So create a subtour-breaking constraint with nodes 1, 2 and 3:x1,2 + x1,3 + x2,3 ≤ 2. 

  10. The subtour constraint generator. • We start with no subtours, then find subtours, and add them to set R. • Step 0. Set R = empty. • Step 1. Solve the TSP only for subtours in set R. Get solution xij.1. min ij>i cij xij,2. j<i xji+ j>i xij = 2 for all i,3. i,jS xij  |S| – 1, for each subset S in R,4. xij  {0, 1} for all i, j. • Step 2. For each node t = 2, …, n, solve a max flow to find subtours:5. Maximise Flowt = maximise i z1i,6. i zij – k zjk = 0 for each node j, (dual price λj)7. j z1j = i zit,8. – xij zij xij. • Step 3. If Flowt < 2, then for λj > 0, add node j to a subtour set in R.Go back to Step 1. AMPL code attached. 

  11. Typical solution process in AMPL • ampl: commands tsp2.run; Get started. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 19.6 First solution to TSP. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 0 Max flow – subtour! • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 22.4 Second solution to TSP. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • CPLEX 8.1.0: optimal solution; objective 2 Max flow – no subtour. • ampl: Done!

  12. Comments on the subtour generator • The subtour generator algorithm is usedin the best known TSP algorithms. • A typical algorithm does the following:(1) use a heuristic to find a good upper bound,(2) use the Held-Karp relaxation to get a good lower bound,(3) then run the subtour generator algorithm to find optimality. • This works because finding subtours with the max flow problem is easy.Simplex is not needed for the max flow problem. • Question: If finding subtours is easy,and “no subtours” is the same as a tree or 1-tree,why can’t we use simplex for the min spanning tree?Answer: we can! 

  13. Converting max flow to MST • Let’s look at the max flow problem.We solved it for each node t.We could subscript the zij with the node t. • Indices: i, j, k = nodes. Source node is 1. Terminal node is t. • Parameters: xij= pipe capacity between node i and node j. • Dec. variables:ztij= flow between nodesi and j in problem t. • Max flow from 1 to t: 1. maximise i zt,i,t 2. i zt,i,j – k zt,j,k = 0 for all j, t, 3. j zt,1,j = i zt,i,t, for each node t, 4. – xi,j zt,i,j xi,j, for all i, j, t. • The variables mean the flow from each node across an arc. • R. Kipp Martin showed how to convert this to an MST formulation. 

  14. An LP formulation for the min spanning tree • Indices: i, j, k = nodes. • Variables:xij = 1 if arc i, j is in the tree, else 0. • zt,i,j= flow from node t to node i through j. • 1. Minimise tree length: min ij>i cij xij, • 2. Capacity from t to i: Σj:j>izt,i,j + Σj:j<izt,i,j ≤ 1, for all t, i, • 3. Upper bounds: zt,i,j ≤ 1, all t, i, j, and zi,i,j = 0, • 4. Capacity from i to j: xi,j = zt,i,j + zt,j,i, for all t, i, j, • 5. Use n – 1 arcs: ijxij = n – 1. • 6. Nonnegativity: xi,j, zt,i,j ≥ 0. • This formulation is naturally integer.We can easily modify it to be a formulation for the TSP.Unfortunately, the n3 variables is probably unrealistic. • Ref: Martin, R. Kipp, “Using Separation Algorithms to Generate MixedInteger Model Reformulations,” Operations Res. Letters, 10 (1991) 119-128. Kipp Martin

  15. Parts of the MST model.It’s huge, n3 variables,but naturally integer. • min 1.4 x0,1 + 3.6 x0,2 + 6.4 x0,3 + … + 3.6 x3,5 + 3 x4,5, • x0,1 + x0,2 + x0,3 + … + x3,4 + x3,5 + x4,5 = 5, • x0,1 - z0,1,0 = 0, • x0,2 - z0,2,0 = 0, • …, • x1,2 - z0,1,2 - z0,2,1 = 0, • x1,3 - z0,1,3 - z0,3,1 = 0, • …, • x0,1 - z1,0,1 = 0, • x0,2 - z1,0,2 - z1,2,0 = 0, • …, • x0,1 - z5,0,1 - z5,1,0 = 0, • x0,2 - z5,0,2 - z5,2,0 = 0, • …, • x3,5 - z5,3,5 = 0, • x4,5 - z5,4,5 = 0, • z0,1,0 + z0,1,2 + z0,1,3 + z0,1,4 + z0,1,5 ≤ 1, • z0,2,0 + z0,2,1 + z0,2,3 + z0,2,4 + z0,2,5 ≤ 1, • z0,3,0 + z0,3,1 + z0,3,2 + z0,3,4 + z0,3,5 ≤ 1, • …, • z3,4,0 + z3,4,1 + z3,4,2 + z3,4,3 + z3,4,5 ≤ 1, • z3,5,0 + z3,5,1 + z3,5,2 + z3,5,3 + z3,5,4 ≤ 1, • z4,5,0 + z4,5,1 + z4,5,2 + z4,5,3 + z4,5,4 ≤ 1. Solution arcs: (1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 5), (4, 6), (5, 6).

  16. Converting Martin’s MST model to a TSP • Just copy node 1 to node n+1, and add degree = 2 constraints. • This is as tight as the DFJ formulation with all subtour breaking rows! • 1. Minimise tree length: min ij>i cij xij, • 2. Capacity from t to i: Σj:j>izt,i,j + Σj:j<izt,i,j ≤ 1, for all t, i. • 3. Upper bounds: zt,i,j ≤ 1, all t, i, j, and zi,i,j = 0. • 4. Capacity from i to j: xi,j = zt,i,j + zt,j,i, for all t, i, j, • 5. Use n arcs: ijxij = n, • 6. Degree 2, except 1 & n+1: j<i xji+ j>i xij = 2 for all i1, i  n+1. • 7. Nonnegativity: xi,j, zt,i,j {0,1}. Not naturally integer! • Solution possibilities? • Relax row 6 & solve with column generation. Subproblem is the MST.When done with column generation, solve the master as IP.We have a good upper bound & a good lower bound!

  17. Another hint for the TSP homework • We want to solve min cx, Ax≥ b, x{0,1}, but it has too many variables. • Suppose we have a feasible solution, x. Then cx is an upper bound. • Suppose we solve min cx, Ax ≥ b, x ≥ 0, and we get solution x*. The cx* is a lower bound.Consider the reduced cost of xi, rc(xi* ), where xi = 0.If rc(xi*) + cx* > cx, then we know xi = 0 in the optimal solution. • The reduced cost of a variable is the amount the objective will be hurtif it is forced into the solution. • If the LP objective would be hurt so much that the lower boundwould actually become worse than your current upper bound,then you know that the variable cannot be optimal.

More Related