1 / 34

A Partition-Based Heuristic for Translational Box Covering

A Partition-Based Heuristic for Translational Box Covering Ben England and Karen Daniels Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Lowell supported in part by NSF and DARPA under grant DMS-0310589 Sensor coverage: Repair work: collection of pieces cover a hole

omer
Download Presentation

A Partition-Based Heuristic for Translational Box Covering

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. A Partition-Based Heuristic for Translational Box Covering Ben England and Karen Daniels Department of Computer Science University of Massachusetts Lowell supported in part by NSF and DARPA under grant DMS-0310589

  2. Sensor coverage: Repair work: collection of pieces cover a hole Motivation for 2D Polygonal Covering NP-hard problem Supported under NSF/DARPA CARGO program

  3. Box Covering • Goal: Translate a collection of boxes (orthotopes) Q = {Q1, Q2 , ... , QN} to cover another box P in 2d, 3d, … • Motivation: Boxes can form enclosures for general shapes. 2d views of 3d covering 1st published results in > 2d Partial cover (red part uncovered) Full cover 40 covering shapes 20 covering shapes d = dimension NP-hard problem With Masters student B. England Supported under NSF/DARPA CARGO program

  4. covering . . . . . . . . . . • Survey of non-algorithmic results [Tot04] • Thin coverings of the plane with congruent convex shapes • Translational covering of arbitrary polygonal shapes [Dan01,Dan03] • Translational B-spline covering [Nea06] • Volume condition for translational covering of a cube by a sequence of convex shapes (arbitrary dimension) [Gro85] • Volume condition for on-line algorithm for translational covering of a cube by a sequence of convex shapes (arbitrary dimension) [Las97] Selected Prior Covering Work covering combinatorial covering geometric covering VERTEX-COVER, SET-COVER (including [Gri99]), EDGE-COVER, VLSI logic minimization, facility location translational covering P: finite point sets P: shapes Q: identical Q: nonconvex Q: convex . . . decomposition: 1D interval covered by annuli using approximation algorithm [Hoc87] BOX-COVER [Fow81] NP-complete partition: decomposition with covering • NP-hardness proofs for 4 polygon covering problems [Cul88] • Approximation algorithms for some orthogonal covering problems [Ber92] • Approximation algorithm to cover orthogonal polygon (with holes) with minimum number of rectangles [Kum03] • Clique-based Integer Programming (IP) model for covering orthogonal polygon with minimum number of rectangles [Hei05] • Polynomial-time results for restricted orthogonal polygon covering and horizontally convex polygons Polynomial-time algorithms for triangulation [Cha91] and some tilings

  5. Box Covering Outline • Set covering approach • Key volume expressions • Partition-based heuristic • Experimental highlights • Dimension-independent volume test • Computational considerations • Execution time dominated by 1-OPT • Alternatives to 1-OPT • 1-OPT preprocessing • Monotonicity across calls to Lagrangian heuristic • Conclusion and future work Lagrangian heuristic comes from Lagrangian relaxation of IP model. 1-OPT heuristic swaps groups for cover shape that best improves objective function until no improvement.

  6. g12 = {2,4} g11 = {1,3} g22 = {3,4} g21 = {1,2} g32 = {2} g31 = {1} g34 = {4} g33 = {3} C1 = {g11,g12} C2 = {g21,g22} C3 = {g31,g32,g33,g34} Problem: choose just one part group gjk from the set of part groups Cj for each cover shape Qj such that every part of P is in one of the chosen part groups. Solution: {g11,g21,g34} Set Covering Approach Applied to Box Covering parts IP model, maximizing number of parts covered, treated with Lagrangian Heuristic + 1-OPT Based on Daniels and Grinde, IIE Transactions, 1999

  7. Key Volume Expressions quantized volume effective volume quantized effective volume volume d = a generic part of P

  8. Heuristic: Uniform refinement scheme, unlike general polygonal approach of [Dan03], which subdivides one triangle during each iteration of repeat loop. d = dimension j = total number of parts of P d = a generic part of P N = number of covering shapes LGC_Cover( ) = modified Lagrangian Heuristic + 1-OPT

  9. Minkowski sum of two sets A and B is Experimental Highlights 2D Validation Experiment: • 20 instances with square P and N = 2…6 rectangular covering shapes • OrthotopeCover( ) outperforms polygonal solver of Daniels, et al. [CCCG2003] by at least 2 orders of magnitude • Simpler geometric operations (no Minkowski sum) • Volume tests that do not generalize to arbitrary polygons Example: 4 identical square covering shapes Daniels, et al. [CCCG2003]: Current paper: 167 triangular parts 4 square parts 94 triangle vertices 5 square vertices 888 groups 80 groups 875 seconds 0.2 seconds 450 MHz CPU Sun SPARC Ultra 60TM with 512 MB memory cover shape volume= = 1.21

  10. Experimental Highlights Results in 3d and 4d: d = dimension N = number of covering shapes 3 GHz 64-bit Intel PentiumTM D CPU with 2 GB memory csv = cover shape volume j = total number of parts of P maximum aspect ratio of a covering shape = 4

  11. 2d views of 3d covering using OpenGL Experimental Highlights More results in 3d: 1 GHz Intel PentiumTM 4 CPU with 1/2 GB memory

  12. Problem Instance “Hardness” Characterization N = number of covering shapes d = dimension d = a generic part of P j = total number of parts of P Quantized Effective Volume Ratio Dimension-independent Volume Margin

  13. Effectiveness of Y ~10 instances for each parameter combination tp = total points. r = correlation coefficient between Y and % coverage 1 GHz Intel PentiumTM 4 CPU with 1/2 GB memory

  14. d # jN #calls %savings instances saved 47.2 3 17 8192 2.8 12-18 128-4096 2.3 12-16 58.8 3 13 test added Heuristic: Effectiveness of Y # calls saved = average per instance % savings = average relative % savings of LCG_Cover( ) calls 100% coverage was reached by original & revised heuristic in all these cases. 3 GHz 64-bit Intel PentiumTM D CPU with 2 GB memory

  15. Computational Considerations • Execution Time • OrthotopeCover( ) dominated by LGC_Cover( ) • LGC_Cover( ) dominated by deterministic 1-OPT • 1-OPT attempts to increase lower bound on Lagrangian dual • Unlike polygonal heuristic in which group maintenance dominates • Alternatives to 1-OPT • 2-OPT too expensive • Randomization: • Simulated annealing’s random swaps inferior to 1-OPT • Random group sampling weakens 1-OPT • 1-OPT Preprocessing • 1-OPT really behaves like a greedy global improvement strategy • 1-OPT preprocessing yields improvement in: • 75% of 2d instances • 87% of 3d instances • 64% of 4d instances Test suite = subset of 30 of our randomly generated instances: 10 2d, 10 3d, 10 4d 3 GHz 64-bit Intel PentiumTM D CPU with 2 GB memory 1-OPT heuristic swaps groups for cover shape that best improves objective function until no improvement.

  16. Computational Considerations • Monotonicity across calls to LGC_Cover( ) Lagrangian heuristic • No theoretical guarantee that number of parts covered increases. • Number of parts doubles before each LGC_Cover( ) call. • LGC_Cover( ) is only a heuristic. • Success depends on N, d, thickness of cover, richness of group structure and strength of LGC_Cover( ). • Group structure is rich. • 1-OPT helps LGC_Cover( ) cover increasing number of parts. • Sample progression for 2d, N = 6, csv = 1.25: • 504 of 512 parts covered (98.4%) • 1014 of 1024 parts covered (99.%) • 2039 of 2048 parts covered (99.6%) • 4096 of 4096 parts covered (100%) monotonically increasing Test suite = subset of 30 of our randomly generated instances: 10 2d, 10 3d, 10 4d 3 GHz 64-bit Intel PentiumTM D CPU with 2 GB memory 1-OPT heuristic swaps groups for cover shape that best improves objective function until no improvement.

  17. Conclusion & Future Work • Partition-based, translational, box covering heuristic has dimension as an input. • Set covering approach uses uniform refinement. • First 3d, 4d heuristic results for our translational box covering problem • Found covers for some instances with as many as 50 covering shapes. • Box covering heuristic outperforms general, polygonal heuristic in 2d rectangular experiment. • Dimension-independent volume margin avoids many refinement steps. • Computational considerations • Execution time is dominated by deterministic 1-OPT improvement heuristic. • 1-OPT outperforms 2-OPT, simulated annealing and randomized 1-OPT. • 1-OPT preprocessing improves results. • Monotonicity across calls to Lagrangian heuristic occurs often in practice, although not theoretically guaranteed. • Future work: • Use boxes as enclosures for more general shapes to: • improve 2d general covering heuristic • treat 3d general covering • Allow rotations

  18. References Acknowledgement: Thanks to Michelle Daniels for comments.

  19. For More Information • Email kdaniels@cs.uml.edu • Web sites: • Thanks for your attention! • Questions? http://www.cs.uml.edu/~kdaniels/covering/covering.htm http://www.cs.uml.edu/~bengland/cg/orthotope_cover/ 19

  20. BACKUP SLIDES (from CCCG 2003, etc.)

  21. Translational 2D Polygon Covering P2 P2 P1 Q3 P1 Q2 Q2 Q1 Sample P and Q Translated Q Covers P Q1 Q3 2D Polygonal Covering [CCCG 2001,CCCG2003] Supported under NSF/DARPA CARGO program • Input: • Covering polygons Q = {Q1, Q2 , ... , Qm} • Target polygons (or point-sets) P = {P1, P2 , ... , Pn} • Output: • Translations g = {g1, g2 , ... , gm} such that With graduate students R. Inkulu, A. Mathur, C.Neacsu, & UNH professor R. Grinde

  22. 2D B-Spline Covering [CORS/INFORMS2004, UMass Lowell Student Research Symposium 2004, Computers Graphics Forum, 2006] Supported under NSF/DARPA CARGO program motivated by 3D CAD NP-hard problem With graduate student C. Neacsu

  23. Covering Web Sitehttp://www.cs.uml.edu/~kdaniels/covering/covering.htm With graduate student C. Neacsu and undergraduate A. Hussin

  24. Combinatorial Covering Procedure: LAGRANGIAN-COVER IP Model exactly 1 group chosen for each Qj value of 1 contributed to objective function for each triangle covered by a Qj, where that triangle is in a group chosen for that Qj Variables: Parameters:

  25. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Combinatorial Covering Procedure: LAGRANGIAN-COVER IP Parameters Triangles: Groups: Qj’s: b11=1 b12=0 b21=0b22=1 b31=1b32=1 G1 Q1 G2 Q2 a11=1 a12=1 a13=1 a21=1a22=1a23=1 a31=1a32=0a33=0 a41=1a42=0a43=0 a51=0a52=1a53=0 G3 G3

  26. exactly 1 group for each Qj Combinatorial Covering Procedure: LAGRANGIAN-COVER IP Constraints k=2 k=1 k=3 b11=1 b12=0 b21=0b22=1 b31=1b32=1 j=1 j=2 Variables: Parameters:

  27. j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1 j=2 j=2 j=2 j=2 j=2 Combinatorial Covering Procedure: LAGRANGIAN-COVER IP Constraints value of 1 contributed to objective function for each triangle covered by a Qj, where that triangle is in a group chosen for that Qj k=3 k=1 k=2 b11=1 b12=0 b21=0b22=1 b31=1b32=1 a11=1 a12=1 a13=1 a21=1a22=1a23=1 a31=1a32=0a33=0 a41=1a42=0a43=0 a51=0a52=1a53=0 Variables: Parameters:

  28. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Combinatorial Covering Procedure: LAGRANGIAN-COVER IP Variables Triangles: Groups: Qj’s: Group choices: G1 for Q1 G2 for Q2 G1 Q1 g11=1 g12=0g21=0g22=1g31=0g32=0 G2 Q2 t1 , t2=1multiply covered G3 t1=1 t2=1t3=1t4=1 t5=1

  29. Lagrangian Relaxation exactly 1 group chosen for each Qj value of 1 contributed to objective function for each triangle covered by a Qj, where that triangle is in a group chosen for that Qj bring into objective function Variables: Parameters:

  30. 1 Lagrangian Relaxation maximize Lagrange Multipliers 2 3 4 removing constraints minimize 2 l>=0 and subtracting term < 0 3 Lagrangian Relaxation LR(l) 1 Lower bounds come from any feasible solution to 1 4 Lagrangian Dual: min LR(l), subject to l >= 0

  31. Lagrangian Relaxation Lagrangian Relaxation LR(l) LR(l) is separable SP1 SP2 Solve: if (1-li) >=0 then set ti=1 else set ti=0 Solve: Redistribute: Solve j sub-subproblems - compute gkj coefficients - set to 1 gkjwith largest coefficient For candidate l values, solve SP1, SP2

  32. Lagrangian Relaxation 1 • Generating lower bound for : • SP2 solution yields gkj values feasible for • Modify ti values accordingly • Result is feasible for 1 1 1

  33. Lagrangian Relaxation SP2 SP1 • SP1, SP2 have integrality property • Solutions unchanged when variable integrality not enforced • Optimal value of Lagrangian Dual no better than Linear Programming relaxation of • Use as a heuristic: • Upper bound for • Lower bound for by generating feasible solution to • Fast, predictable execution time • Optimization software libraries not required 1 1 1 1

  34. Lagrangian Relaxation • Search l space using subgradient optimization • Initialize lis (e.g. 0) • Solve SP1 and SP2 • Update upper bound using sum of SP1, SP2 solutions • Generate feasible solution • Improve feasible solution using local exchange heuristic • Update lower bound using feasible solution • Calculate subgradients • Calculate step size • Take a step in subgradient direction • Update lis Iterate until stopping criteria satisfied

More Related