skip to main content
research-article

The Salesman’s Improved Paths through Forests

Published:05 June 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We give a new, strongly polynomial-time algorithm and improved analysis for the metric s-t path Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP). It finds a tour of cost less than 1.53 times the optimum of the subtour elimination linear program (LP), while known examples show that 1.5 is a lower bound for the integrality gap.

A key new idea is the deletion of some edges of the spanning trees used in the best-of-many Christofides-Serdyukov-algorithm, which is then accompanied by novel arguments of the analysis: edge-deletion disconnects the trees, and the arising forests are then partly reconnected by “parity correction.” We show that the arising “connectivity correction” can be achieved for a minor extra cost.

On the one hand, this algorithm and analysis extend previous tools such as the best-of-many Christofides-Serdyukov-algorithm. On the other hand, powerful new tools are solicited, such as a flow problem for analyzing the reconnection cost, and the construction of a set of more and more restrictive spanning trees, each of which can still be found by the greedy algorithm. We show that these trees, which are easy to compute, can replace the spanning trees of the best-of-many Christofides-Serdyukov-algorithm.

These new methods lead to improving the integrality ratio and approximation guarantee below 1.53, as was shown in the preliminary, shortened version of this article that appeared in FOCS 2016. The algorithm and analysis have been significantly simplified in the current article, while details and explanations have been added.

References

  1. Hyung-Chan An, Robert D. Kleinberg, and David B. Shmoys. 2015. Improving Christofides’ algorithm for the s-t path TSP. J. ACM 62, 5 (2015), 34:1--34:28. Preliminary version in STOC’12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Nicos Christofides. 1976. Worst Case Analysis of a New Heuristic for the Traveling Salesman Problem. Report 388. Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. William J. Cook. 2011. In Pursuit of the Traveling Salesman: Mathematics at the Limits of Computation. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. William H. Cunningham. 1986. On Bounds for the Metric TSP. Unpublished manuscript.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Dantzig, R. Fulkerson, and S. Johnson. 1954. Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman problem. Operations Research 2 (1954), 393--410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jack Edmonds and Ellis L. Johnson. 1973. Matching, Euler tours and the Chinese postman. Math. Program. 5, 1 (1973), 88--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. András Frank and Éva Tardos. 1987. An application of simultaneous Diophantine approximation in combinatorial optimization. Combinatorica 7, 1 (1987), 49--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Zhihan Gao. 2013. An LP-based 3/2-approximation algorithm for the s-t path graph traveling salesman problem. Oper. Res. Lett. 41, 6 (2013), 615--617. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Zhihan Gao. 2015. On the metric s-t path traveling salesman problem. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 29, 3 (2015), 1133--1149.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, and R. Endre Tarjan. 1976. The planar Hamiltonian circuit problem is NP-complete. SIAM J. Comput. 5, 4 (1976), 704--714.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Corinna Gottschalk and Jens Vygen. 2018. Better s-t-tours by Gao trees. Math. Program. 172, 1--2 (2018), 191--207. Preliminary version in IPCO’16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. M. Grötschel, L. Lovász, and A. Schrijver. 1981. The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization. Combinatorica 1, 2 (1981), 169--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. J. A. Hoogeveen. 1991. Analysis of Christofides’ heuristic: Some paths are more difficult than cycles. Operations Research Letters 10, 5 (1991), 291--295. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. D. S. Johnson and C. H. Papadimitriou. 1985. Performance guarantees for heuristics. In The Traveling Salesman Problem. Wiley, Chichester, 145--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Tobias Mömke and Ola Svensson. 2016. Removing and adding edges for the traveling salesman problem. J. ACM 63, 1 (2016), 2:1--2:28. Preliminary version in FOCS’11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Frans Schalekamp, András Sebő, Vera Traub, and Anke van Zuylen. 2018. Layers and matroids for the traveling salesman’s paths. Oper. Res. Lett. 46, 1 (2018), 60--63.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Alexander Schrijver. 2003. Combinatorial Optimization—Polyhedra and Efficiency. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. András Sebö. 2013. Eight-fifth approximation for the path TSP. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization IPCO 2013, Valparaíso, Chile, March 18--20, 2013 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 7801. Springer, 362--374. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. András Sebö and Anke van Zuylen. 2016. The salesman’s improved paths: A 3/2+1/34 approximation. In IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2016, 9--11 October 2016, Hyatt Regency, New Brunswick, New Jersey. IEEE Computer Society, 118--127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. András Sebő and Jens Vygen. 2014. Shorter tours by nicer ears: 7/5-approximation for the graph-TSP, 3/2 for the path version, and 4/3 for two-edge-connected subgraphs. Combinatorica 34, 5 (2014), 597--629. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Serdyukov. 1978. On some extremal walks in graphs. Upravlyaemye Sistemy 17 (1978), 76--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. David B. Shmoys and David P. Williamson. 1990. Analyzing the Held-Karp TSP bound: A monotonicity property with application. Inf. Process. Lett. 35, 6 (1990), 281--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Vera Traub and Jens Vygen. 2018. Approaching for the s-t-path TSP. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2018, New Orleans, LA, January 7--10, 2018. SIAM, 1854--1864. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Vera Traub and Jens Vygen. 2018. Beating the integrality ratio for s-t-tours in graphs. In 59th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2018, Paris, France, October 7--9, 2018. IEEE Computer Society, 766--777.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Vera Traub and Jens Vygen. 2019. An improved upper bound on the integrality ratio for the s-t-path TSP. Oper. Res. Lett. 47, 3 (2019), 225--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Jens Vygen. 2016. Reassembling trees for the traveling salesman. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 30, 2 (2016), 875--894.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. L. A. Wolsey. 1980. Heuristic analysis, linear programming and branch and bound. Mathematical Programming Study 13 (1980), 121--134.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Rico Zenklusen. 2019. A 1.5-approximation for path TSP. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2019, San Diego, California, January 6--9, 2019. SIAM, 1539--1549. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Salesman’s Improved Paths through Forests

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image Journal of the ACM
              Journal of the ACM  Volume 66, Issue 4
              Networking, Computational Complexity, Design and Analysis of Algorithms, Real Computation, Algorithms, Online Algorithms and Computer-aided Verification
              August 2019
              299 pages
              ISSN:0004-5411
              EISSN:1557-735X
              DOI:10.1145/3338848
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2019 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 5 June 2019
              • Revised: 1 April 2019
              • Accepted: 1 April 2019
              • Received: 1 August 2018
              Published in jacm Volume 66, Issue 4

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format