On Integrality Ratios for Asymmetric TSP in the Sherali-Adams Hierarchy

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Abstract

We study the ATSP (Asymmetric Traveling Salesman Problem), and our focus is on negative results in the framework of the Sherali-Adams (SA) Lift and Project method. Our main result pertains to the standard LP (linear programming) relaxation of ATSP, due to Dantzig, Fulkerson, and Johnson. For any fixed integer t≥0t\geq 0 and small εε, 0<ε≪10<ε\ll{1}, there exists a digraph GG on ν=ν(t,ε)=O(t/ε)ν=ν(t,ε)=O(t/ε) vertices such that the integrality ratio for level~tt of the SA system starting with the standard LP on GG is ≥1+1−ε2t+3≈43,65,87,…\ge 1+\frac{1-ε}{2t+3} \approx \frac43, \frac65, \frac87, \dots. Thus, in terms of the input size, the result holds for any t=0,1,…,Θ(ν)t = 0,1,\dots,Θ(ν) levels. Our key contribution is to identify a structural property of digraphs that allows us to construct fractional feasible solutions for any level~tt of the SA system starting from the standard~LP. Our hard instances are simple and satisfy the structural property. There is a further relaxation of the standard LP called the balanced LP, and our methods simplify considerably when the starting LP for the SA system is the balanced~LP; in particular, the relevant structural property (of digraphs) simplifies such that it is satisfied by the digraphs given by the well-known construction of Charikar, Goemans and Karloff (CGK). Consequently, the CGK digraphs serve as hard instances, and we obtain an integrality ratio of 1+1−εt+11 +\frac{1-ε}{t+1} for any level~tt of the SA system, where 0<ε≪10<ε\ll{1} and the number of vertices is ν(t,ε)=O((t/ε)(t/ε))ν(t,ε)=O((t/ε)^{(t/ε)}). Also, our results for the standard~LP extend to the Path-ATSP (find a min cost Hamiltonian dipath from a given source vertex to a given sink vertex).

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.