DOCSLIB.ORG

A Branch-And-Price Algorithm for Bin Packing Problem

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Branch-And-Price Algorithm for Bin Packing Problem A BRANCH-AND-PRICE ALGORITHM FOR BIN PACKING PROBLEM MASOUD ATAEI A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN APPLIED AND INDUSTRIAL MATHEMATICS YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO August 2015 © Masoud Ataei, 2015 Abstract Bin Packing Problem examines the minimum number of identical bins needed to pack a set of items of various sizes. Employing branch-and-bound and column generation usually requires designation of the problem-specific branching rules compatible with the nature of the pricing sub-problem of column generation, or alternatively it requires determination of the k-best solutions of knapsack problem at level kth of the tree. Instead, we present a new approach to deal with the pricing sub-problem of column generation which handles two- dimensional knapsack problems. Furthermore, a set of new upper bounds for Bin Packing Problem is introduced in this work which employs solutions of the continuous relaxation of the set-covering formulation of Bin Packing Problem. These high quality upper bounds are computed inexpensively and dominate the ones generated by state-of-the-art methods. Keywords: Bin Packing Problem, Branch-and-Bound, Column Generation. ii To my parents iii Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep sense of appreciation to my supervisor, Dr. Michael Chen. Had it not been for his invaluable guidance and tremendous support, I would not be able to surmount all obstacles laid in the path of research. His flexibility and dedication allowed me to explore different areas of Operational Research that caught my interest while keeping in sight my road map and final goals. Not only had I the opportunity to pursue my interests in mathematics during the time of working with Dr. Chen, but also I learned how to follow my heart when making vital decisions in life and free myself from those pressures which mechanize the mind and make for routine thinking as founding president of York University, Murray G. Ross once envisaged. Furthermore, I would like to thank Dr. Murat Kristal for taking time, to be part of the supervisory committee, and for advising me on my research. I am also grateful to Professor Jeff Edmonds for agreeing to be on my examining committee. Throughout my study at York University, I benefited a lot from professors and friends who were always helpful. I especially want to thank Dr. Vladimir Vinogradov for his unconditional generosity and help. My sincere thanks also to Mourad Amara who applied his editorial talents to my thesis and made it look better. I am also thankful to Primrose Miranda for her administrative support during the whole period of my study. Last but not least, I want to thank my parents from whom I learned the alphabet of love and to whom I am indebted for all the achievements I have in life. Even though the words are not enough when it comes to expressing appreciations for love, I want to give my special thanks to my mother who made lots of sacrifices to be with me in Canada and support me thoroughly during the time I was working on my thesis. Also, my deepest gratitude to my father both as a person I always admired in my life and as a university professor who unfailingly helped and encouraged me to realize the true nature of doing research. My thanks finally go to my beloved sister, Minoo, for her whole-hearted love and encouragement during the years of my schooling. iv Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………………………....ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………...…….………………………….iii Acknowledgments …………………………………………………………………………………..…….……iv Table of Contents………………..…………………………………………….……………………………..….v List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………...………………………vii List of Figures……..……………………………………………….………………………..……...…………viii 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Thesis outline .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 Problem formulation ................................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Compact formulation of BPP .............................................................................................................. 7 2.2.2 Set-covering formulation of BPP ........................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Column generation.................................................................................................................................... 11 2.4 Round up properties of set-covering formulation of BPP ......................................................................... 14 2.4.1 Round-up property (RUP) ................................................................................................................. 14 2.4.2 Integer round up property (IRUP) ..................................................................................................... 14 2.4.3 Modified integer round up property (MIRUP) .................................................................................. 14 2.5 Round up solutions ................................................................................................................................... 15 2.6 Branch-and-price ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.6.1 Branching Strategies .......................................................................................................................... 16 2.6.1.1 Finding the k-best solutions of knapsack problem ..................................................................... 16 2.6.1.2 Implicit methods in exclusion of the forbidden patterns from search domain ........................... 17 2.6.2 Search strategies ................................................................................................................................ 19 2.6.3. Termination conditions ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.6.4 Primal approximations, heuristics, and meta-heuristics .................................................................... 21 2.6.4.1 Approximations .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.6.4.2 Heuristics and meta-heuristics ................................................................................................... 24 2.6.5 Algorithms for solving pricing sub-problem (one-dimensional knapsack problem) ......................... 26 2.7 Benchmark instances ................................................................................................................................ 28 3 Solving the master problem by column generation ..................................................................................... 30 3.1 Restricted master problem (RMP) ............................................................................................................ 31 3.2 Revised simplex method ........................................................................................................................... 38 3.3 Computational results ............................................................................................................................... 42 4 An upper bound for BPP using solutions of the continuous relaxation of set-covering formulation of BPP (SCCUB) .................................................................................................................................................... 46 v 4.1. SCCUB procedure ................................................................................................................................... 46 4.2 Computational results ............................................................................................................................... 50 5 Upper bounds for BPP using solutions of the continuous relaxation of set-covering formulation with an elimination operator -p (SCCUB-p) ................................................................................................................ 65 5.1. Procedure SCCUB-p ................................................................................................................................ 65 5.2 Computational results ............................................................................................................................... 68 6 Upper bounding technique for BPP using solutions of the continuous relaxation of set-covering formulation with an elimination operator- p and a dual BPP approach (SCCUB-p-d) ............................. 80 6.1 Maximum cardinality bin packing problem .............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Branch-And-Price Approach with Milp Formulation to Modularity Density Maximization on Graphs
    A BRANCH-AND-PRICE APPROACH WITH MILP FORMULATION TO MODULARITY DENSITY MAXIMIZATION ON GRAPHS KEISUKE SATO Signalling and Transport Information Technology Division, Railway Technical Research Institute. 2-8-38 Hikari-cho, Kokubunji-shi, Tokyo 185-8540, Japan YOICHI IZUNAGA Information Systems Research Division, The Institute of Behavioral Sciences. 2-9 Ichigayahonmura-cho, Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo 162-0845, Japan Abstract. For clustering of an undirected graph, this paper presents an exact algorithm for the maximization of modularity density, a more complicated criterion to overcome drawbacks of the well-known modularity. The problem can be interpreted as the set-partitioning problem, which reminds us of its integer linear programming (ILP) formulation. We provide a branch-and-price framework for solving this ILP, or column generation combined with branch-and-bound. Above all, we formulate the column gen- eration subproblem to be solved repeatedly as a simpler mixed integer linear programming (MILP) problem. Acceleration tech- niques called the set-packing relaxation and the multiple-cutting- planes-at-a-time combined with the MILP formulation enable us to optimize the modularity density for famous test instances in- cluding ones with over 100 vertices in around four minutes by a PC. Our solution method is deterministic and the computation time is not affected by any stochastic behavior. For one of them, column generation at the root node of the branch-and-bound tree arXiv:1705.02961v3 [cs.SI] 27 Jun 2017 provides a fractional upper bound solution and our algorithm finds an integral optimal solution after branching. E-mail addresses: (Keisuke Sato) [email protected], (Yoichi Izunaga) [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9. Coping with NP-Completeness
    Chapter 9 Coping with NP-completeness You are the junior member of a seasoned project team. Your current task is to write code for solving a simple-looking problem involving graphs and numbers. What are you supposed to do? If you are very lucky, your problem will be among the half-dozen problems concerning graphs with weights (shortest path, minimum spanning tree, maximum flow, etc.), that we have solved in this book. Even if this is the case, recognizing such a problem in its natural habitat—grungy and obscured by reality and context—requires practice and skill. It is more likely that you will need to reduce your problem to one of these lucky ones—or to solve it using dynamic programming or linear programming. But chances are that nothing like this will happen. The world of search problems is a bleak landscape. There are a few spots of light—brilliant algorithmic ideas—each illuminating a small area around it (the problems that reduce to it; two of these areas, linear and dynamic programming, are in fact decently large). But the remaining vast expanse is pitch dark: NP- complete. What are you to do? You can start by proving that your problem is actually NP-complete. Often a proof by generalization (recall the discussion on page 270 and Exercise 8.10) is all that you need; and sometimes a simple reduction from 3SAT or ZOE is not too difficult to find. This sounds like a theoretical exercise, but, if carried out successfully, it does bring some tangible rewards: now your status in the team has been elevated, you are no longer the kid who can't do, and you have become the noble knight with the impossible quest.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 561, Lecture 24 Outline All-Pairs Shortest Paths Example
    Outline CS 561, Lecture 24 • All Pairs Shortest Paths Jared Saia • TSP Approximation Algorithm University of New Mexico 1 All-Pairs Shortest Paths Example • For the single-source shortest paths problem, we wanted to find the shortest path from a source vertex s to all the other vertices in the graph • We will now generalize this problem further to that of finding • For any vertex v, we have dist(v, v) = 0 and pred(v, v) = the shortest path from every possible source to every possible NULL destination • If the shortest path from u to v is only one edge long, then • In particular, for every pair of vertices u and v, we need to dist(u, v) = w(u → v) and pred(u, v) = u compute the following information: • If there’s no shortest path from u to v, then dist(u, v) = ∞ – dist(u, v) is the length of the shortest path (if any) from and pred(u, v) = NULL u to v – pred(u, v) is the second-to-last vertex (if any) on the short- est path (if any) from u to v 2 3 APSP Lots of Single Sources • The output of our shortest path algorithm will be a pair of |V | × |V | arrays encoding all |V |2 distances and predecessors. • Many maps contain such a distance matric - to find the • Most obvious solution to APSP is to just run SSSP algorithm distance from (say) Albuquerque to (say) Ruidoso, you look |V | times, once for every possible source vertex in the row labeled “Albuquerque” and the column labeled • Specifically, to fill in the subarray dist(s, ∗), we invoke either “Ruidoso” Dijkstra’s or Bellman-Ford starting at the source vertex s • In this class, we’ll focus
    [Show full text]
  • Optimal Placement by Branch-And-Price
    Optimal Placement by Branch-and-Price Pradeep Ramachandaran1 Ameya R. Agnihotri2 Satoshi Ono2;3;4 Purushothaman Damodaran1 Krishnaswami Srihari1 Patrick H. Madden2;4 SUNY Binghamton SSIE1 and CSD2 FAIS3 University of Kitakyushu4 Abstract— Circuit placement has a large impact on all aspects groups of up to 36 elements. The B&P approach is based of performance; speed, power consumption, reliability, and cost on column generation techniques and B&B. B&P has been are all affected by the physical locations of interconnected applied to solve large instances of well known NP-Complete transistors. The placement problem is NP-Complete for even simple metrics. problems such as the Vehicle Routing Problem [7]. In this paper, we apply techniques developed by the Operations We have tested our approach on benchmarks with known Research (OR) community to the placement problem. Using optimal configurations, and also on problems extracted from an Integer Programming (IP) formulation and by applying a the “final” placements of a number of recent tools (Feng Shui “branch-and-price” approach, we are able to optimally solve 2.0, Dragon 3.01, and mPL 3.0). We find that suboptimality is placement problems that are an order of magnitude larger than those addressed by traditional methods. Our results show that rampant: for optimization windows of nine elements, roughly suboptimality is rampant on the small scale, and that there is half of the test cases are suboptimal. As we scale towards merit in increasing the size of optimization windows used in detail windows with thirtysix elements, we find that roughly 85% of placement.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximability Preserving Reduction Giorgio Ausiello, Vangelis Paschos
    Approximability preserving reduction Giorgio Ausiello, Vangelis Paschos To cite this version: Giorgio Ausiello, Vangelis Paschos. Approximability preserving reduction. 2005. hal-00958028 HAL Id: hal-00958028 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00958028 Preprint submitted on 11 Mar 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Laboratoire d'Analyse et Modélisation de Systèmes pour l'Aide à la Décision CNRS UMR 7024 CAHIER DU LAMSADE 227 Septembre 2005 Approximability preserving reductions Giorgio AUSIELLO, Vangelis Th. PASCHOS Approximability preserving reductions∗ Giorgio Ausiello1 Vangelis Th. Paschos2 1 Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” [email protected] 2 LAMSADE, CNRS UMR 7024 and Université Paris-Dauphine [email protected] September 15, 2005 Abstract We present in this paper a “tour d’horizon” of the most important approximation-pre- serving reductions that have strongly influenced research about structure in approximability classes. 1 Introduction The technique of transforming a problem into another in such a way that the solution of the latter entails, somehow, the solution of the former, is a classical mathematical technique that has found wide application in computer science since the seminal works of Cook [10] and Karp [19] who introduced particular kinds of transformations (called reductions) with the aim of study- ing the computational complexity of combinatorial decision problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Admm for Multiaffine Constrained Optimization Wenbo Gao†, Donald
    ADMM FOR MULTIAFFINE CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION WENBO GAOy, DONALD GOLDFARBy, AND FRANK E. CURTISz Abstract. We propose an expansion of the scope of the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). Specifically, we show that ADMM, when employed to solve problems with multiaffine constraints that satisfy certain easily verifiable assumptions, converges to the set of constrained stationary points if the penalty parameter in the augmented Lagrangian is sufficiently large. When the Kurdyka-Lojasiewicz (K-L)property holds, this is strengthened to convergence to a single con- strained stationary point. Our analysis applies under assumptions that we have endeavored to make as weak as possible. It applies to problems that involve nonconvex and/or nonsmooth objective terms, in addition to the multiaffine constraints that can involve multiple (three or more) blocks of variables. To illustrate the applicability of our results, we describe examples including nonnega- tive matrix factorization, sparse learning, risk parity portfolio selection, nonconvex formulations of convex problems, and neural network training. In each case, our ADMM approach encounters only subproblems that have closed-form solutions. 1. Introduction The alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) is an iterative method that was initially proposed for solving linearly-constrained separable optimization problems having the form: ( inf f(x) + g(y) (P 0) x;y Ax + By − b = 0: The augmented Lagrangian L of the problem (P 0), for some penalty parameter ρ > 0, is defined to be ρ L(x; y; w) = f(x) + g(y) + hw; Ax + By − bi + kAx + By − bk2: 2 In iteration k, with the iterate (xk; yk; wk), ADMM takes the following steps: (1) Minimize L(x; yk; wk) with respect to x to obtain xk+1.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation Algorithms
    Lecture 21 Approximation Algorithms 21.1 Overview Suppose we are given an NP-complete problem to solve. Even though (assuming P = NP) we 6 can’t hope for a polynomial-time algorithm that always gets the best solution, can we develop polynomial-time algorithms that always produce a “pretty good” solution? In this lecture we consider such approximation algorithms, for several important problems. Specific topics in this lecture include: 2-approximation for vertex cover via greedy matchings. • 2-approximation for vertex cover via LP rounding. • Greedy O(log n) approximation for set-cover. • Approximation algorithms for MAX-SAT. • 21.2 Introduction Suppose we are given a problem for which (perhaps because it is NP-complete) we can’t hope for a fast algorithm that always gets the best solution. Can we hope for a fast algorithm that guarantees to get at least a “pretty good” solution? E.g., can we guarantee to find a solution that’s within 10% of optimal? If not that, then how about within a factor of 2 of optimal? Or, anything non-trivial? As seen in the last two lectures, the class of NP-complete problems are all equivalent in the sense that a polynomial-time algorithm to solve any one of them would imply a polynomial-time algorithm to solve all of them (and, moreover, to solve any problem in NP). However, the difficulty of getting a good approximation to these problems varies quite a bit. In this lecture we will examine several important NP-complete problems and look at to what extent we can guarantee to get approximately optimal solutions, and by what algorithms.
    [Show full text]
  • Branch-And-Bound Experiments in Convex Nonlinear Integer Programming
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) More Branch-and-Bound Experiments in Convex Nonlinear Integer Programming Pierre Bonami · Jon Lee · Sven Leyffer · Andreas W¨achter September 29, 2011 Abstract Branch-and-Bound (B&B) is perhaps the most fundamental algorithm for the global solution of convex Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) prob- lems. It is well-known that carrying out branching in a non-simplistic manner can greatly enhance the practicality of B&B in the context of Mixed-Integer Linear Pro- gramming (MILP). No detailed study of branching has heretofore been carried out for MINLP, In this paper, we study and identify useful sophisticated branching methods for MINLP. 1 Introduction Branch-and-Bound (B&B) was proposed by Land and Doig [26] as a solution method for MILP (Mixed-Integer Linear Programming) problems, though the term was actually coined by Little et al. [32], shortly thereafter. Early work was summarized in [27]. Dakin [14] modified the branching to how we commonly know it now and proposed its extension to convex MINLPs (Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Programming problems); that is, MINLP problems for which the continuous relaxation is a convex program. Though a very useful backbone for ever-more-sophisticated algorithms (e.g., Branch- and-Cut, Branch-and-Price, etc.), the basic B&B algorithm is very elementary. How- Pierre Bonami LIF, Universit´ede Marseille, 163 Av de Luminy, 13288 Marseille, France E-mail: [email protected] Jon Lee Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University
    [Show full text]
  • Branch and Price for Chance Constrained Bin Packing
    Branch and Price for Chance Constrained Bin Packing Zheng Zhang Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China, [email protected] Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, [email protected] Brian Denton Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, [email protected] Xiaolan Xie Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China, [email protected] Center for Biomedical and Healthcare Engineering, Ecole Nationale Superi´euredes Mines, Saint Etienne 42023, France, [email protected] This article considers two versions of the stochastic bin packing problem with chance constraints. In the first version, we formulate the problem as a two-stage stochastic integer program that considers item-to- bin allocation decisions in the context of chance constraints on total item size within the bins. Next, we describe a distributionally robust formulation of the problem that assumes the item sizes are ambiguous. We present a branch-and-price approach based on a column generation reformulation that is tailored to these two model formulations. We further enhance this approach using antisymmetry branching and subproblem reformulations of the stochastic integer programming model based on conditional value at risk (CVaR) and probabilistic covers. For the distributionally robust formulation we derive a closed form expression for the chance constraints; furthermore, we show that under mild assumptions the robust model can be reformulated as a mixed integer program with significantly fewer integer variables compared to the stochastic integer program. We implement a series of numerical experiments based on real data in the context of an application to surgery scheduling in hospitals to demonstrate the performance of the methods for practical applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Optimization Algorithms for Networked Systems
    Distributed Optimization Algorithms for Networked Systems by Nikolaos Chatzipanagiotis Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science Duke University Date: Approved: Michael M. Zavlanos, Supervisor Wilkins Aquino Henri Gavin Alejandro Ribeiro Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2015 Abstract Distributed Optimization Algorithms for Networked Systems by Nikolaos Chatzipanagiotis Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science Duke University Date: Approved: Michael M. Zavlanos, Supervisor Wilkins Aquino Henri Gavin Alejandro Ribeiro An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2015 Copyright c 2015 by Nikolaos Chatzipanagiotis All rights reserved except the rights granted by the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Licence Abstract Distributed optimization methods allow us to decompose certain optimization prob- lems into smaller, more manageable subproblems that are solved iteratively and in parallel. For this reason, they are widely used to solve large-scale problems arising in areas as diverse as wireless communications, optimal control, machine learning, artificial intelligence, computational biology, finance and statistics, to name a few. Moreover, distributed algorithms avoid the cost and fragility associated with cen- tralized coordination, and provide better privacy for the autonomous decision mak- ers. These are desirable properties, especially in applications involving networked robotics, communication or sensor networks, and power distribution systems. In this thesis we propose the Accelerated Distributed Augmented Lagrangians (ADAL) algorithm, a novel decomposition method for convex optimization prob- lems.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation Algorithms for Optimization of Combinatorial Dynamical Systems
    1 Approximation Algorithms for Optimization of Combinatorial Dynamical Systems Insoon Yang, Samuel A. Burden, Ram Rajagopal, S. Shankar Sastry, and Claire J. Tomlin Abstract This paper considers an optimization problem for a dynamical system whose evolution depends on a collection of binary decision variables. We develop scalable approximation algorithms with provable suboptimality bounds to provide computationally tractable solution methods even when the dimension of the system and the number of the binary variables are large. The proposed method employs a linear approximation of the objective function such that the approximate problem is defined over the feasible space of the binary decision variables, which is a discrete set. To define such a linear approximation, we propose two different variation methods: one uses continuous relaxation of the discrete space and the other uses convex combinations of the vector field and running payoff. The approximate problem is a 0–1 linear program, which can be solved by existing polynomial-time exact or approximation algorithms, and does not require the solution of the dynamical system. Furthermore, we characterize a sufficient condition ensuring the approximate solution has a provable suboptimality bound. We show that this condition can be interpreted as the concavity of the objective function. The performance and utility of the proposed algorithms are demonstrated with the ON/OFF control problems of interdependent refrigeration systems. I. INTRODUCTION The dynamics of critical infrastructures and their system elements—for instance, electric grid infrastructure and their electric load elements—are interdependent, meaning that the state of each infrastructure or its system elements influences and is influenced by the state of the others [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Scribe Notes 2 from 2018
    Advanced Algorithms 25 September 2018 Lecture 2: Approximation Algorithms II Lecturer: Mohsen Ghaffari Scribe: Davin Choo 1 Approximation schemes Previously, we described simple greedy algorithms that approximate the optimum for minimum set cover, maximal matching and vertex cover. We now formalize the notion of efficient (1 + )-approximation algorithms for minimization problems, a la [Vaz13]. Let I be an instance from the problem class of interest (e.g. minimum set cover). Denote jIj as the size of the problem (in bits), and jIuj as the size of the problem (in unary). For example, if the input is n just a number x (of at most n bits), then jIj = log2(x) = O(n) while jIuj = O(2 ). This distinction of \size of input" will be important later when we discuss the knapsack problem. Definition 1 (Polynomial time approximation algorithm (PTAS)). For cost metric c, an algorithm A is a PTAS if for each fixed > 0, c(A(I)) ≤ (1 + ) · c(OP T (I)) and A runs in poly(jIj). By definition, the runtime for PTAS may depend arbitrarily on . A stricter related definition is that of fully polynomial time approximation algorithms (FPTAS). Assuming P 6= NP, FPTAS is the best one can hope for on NP-hard optimization problems. Definition 2 (Fully polynomial time approximation algorithm (FPTAS)). For cost metric c, an algo- 1 rithm A is a FPTAS if for each fixed > 0, c(A(I)) ≤ (1 + ) · c(OP T (I)) and A runs in poly(jIj; ). As before, (1−)-approximation, PTAS and FPTAS for maximization problems are defined similarly.
    [Show full text]