Scribd
Upload
10 views13 pages

Lecture 29

Uploaded by

f20212599
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
10 views13 pages

Lecture 29

Uploaded by

f20212599
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

BITS, PILANI – K. K.

BIRLA GOA CAMPUS

Design & Analysis of Algorithms


(CS F364)

Lecture No. 29

1
TSP with triangle inequality
Approx-TSP Tour
Input: A complete graph G (V, E)
Output: A Hamiltonian cycle
1. Select a “root” vertex r ∈V [G].
2. Use MST-Prim (G, c, r) to compute a minimum
spanning tree from r.
3. Let L to be the sequence of vertices visited in a
preorder tree walk of T.
4. Return the Hamiltonian cycle H that visits the vertices in
the order L.
TSP with triangle inequality
Theorem:
APPROX-TSP-TOUR is a polynomial-time 2-approximation
algorithm for the TSP problem with triangle inequality.
Theorem: There exists a 1.5-approximation algorithm
for TSP with triangle inequality. Christofides Algorithm
Theorem:
NNA is an O(log n)-approximation algorithm
Exercise:
NNA is not an O(1)-approximation algorithm.
General TSP (without triangle inequality)

Suppose we drop the assumption that the cost function c


satisfies the triangle inequality.
Then good approximate tours cannot be found in
polynomial time unless P = NP.
Theorem:
If P ≠ NP, then for any constant ρ ≥ 1, there is no
polynomial-time approximation algorithm with
approximation ratio ρ for the general traveling-salesman
problem.
General TSP (without triangle inequality)
Proof:
The proof is by contradiction.
Suppose to the contrary that for some number ρ ≥ 1,
there is a polynomial-time ρ -approximation algorithm A.
Without loss of generality, we assume that ρ is an integer,
by rounding it up if necessary.
We shall show how to use A to solve instances of the
hamiltonian-cycle problem in polynomial time.
Since the hamiltonian-cycle problem is NP-complete,
solving it in polynomial time implies that P = NP.
General TSP (without triangle inequality)
Let G = (V, E) be an instance of the hamiltonian-cycle
problem.
We wish to determine efficiently whether G contains a
hamiltonian cycle by making use of the hypothesized
approximation algorithm A.
We turn G into an instance of the traveling-salesman
problem as follows.
Let G' = (V, E') be the complete graph on V; that is,
E' = {(u, v): u, v V and u ≠ v}.
Assign an integer cost to each edge in E' as follows:
General TSP (without triangle inequality)
We can construct G' and c from a representation of G in
time polynomial in |V| and |E|.
Now, consider the traveling-salesman problem (G', c).
Observe:
• If the original graph G has a hamiltonian cycle H, then the
cost function c assigns to each edge of H a cost of 1, and
so (G', c) contains a tour of cost |V|.
• On the other hand, if G does not contain a hamiltonian cycle,
then any tour of G' must use some edge not in E. But any
tour that uses an edge not in E has a cost of at least
General TSP (without triangle inequality)
Now suppose we apply the approximation algorithm A
to the traveling-salesman problem (G', c)
• Because A is guaranteed to return a tour of cost no
more than ρ times the cost of an optimal tour, if G
contains a hamiltonian cycle, then A must return it.
• If G has no hamiltonian cycle, then A returns a tour
of cost more than ρ|V|.
Therefore, we can use A to solve the hamiltonian-cycle
problem in polynomial time.
0-1 Knapsack
Approximation Algorithm
Let’s try the basic greedy algorithm:
Greedy Algorithm
𝒗𝒊
1. Sort items in non-increasing order of
𝒘𝒊
2. Greedily pick items in above order
0-1 Knapsack
Unfortunately, this algorithm is arbitrarily bad.
Consider the following input as a counterexample
• An item with size 1 and profit 2
• An item with size W and profit W
Our greedy algorithm will only pick the small item,
making this a pretty bad approximation algorithm.
0-1 Knapsack
We make the following small adjustment to our greedy
algorithm
Greedy Algorithm Modified
𝒗𝒊
1. Sort items in non-increasing order of
𝒘𝒊
2. Greedily add items until we hit an item (say kth
item) that is too big, that is σ𝑘𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 ≥ W
3. Pick the better of {1, 2,….,k-1} and {k}
0-1 Knapsack
Theorem:
Greedy Algorithm Modified is a 2-approximation algorithm
for the 0-1 knapsack problem
Proof:

Let x* be an optimum solution for the 0-1 Knapsack instance.


Since every solution that is feasible for the 0-1 Knapsack instance is also
feasible for the respective Fractional Knapsack instance we have that

val (x*) ≤ val (z*)


where z* is the optimum solution for Fractional Knapsack.
0-1 Knapsack
Note that z* = (1, . . . ,1, α, 0, . . . ,0), where α ∈ [0,1) is
at the break item k.
The solutions x and y are
x = (1, . . . ,1,0,0, . . . ,0) and y = (0, . . . ,0,1,0, . . . ,0)
We have
val (x*) ≤ val (z*) = val(x) +αvk ≤ val(x) + val(y)
≤ 2 max {val(x), val(y)}
which implies the approximation ratio of 2

You might also like