Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#9923 closed enhancement (fixed)
Minimum Feedback Arc/Vertex set through constraint generation
Reported by: | ncohen | Owned by: | jason, ncohen, rlm |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.6.2 |
Component: | graph theory | Keywords: | |
Cc: | abmasse, mvngu | Merged in: | sage-4.6.2.alpha3 |
Authors: | Nathann Cohen | Reviewers: | Robert Miller |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Because of the friend who made me work on Feedback Arc Set and is already the cause of #9911, I implemented another LP formulation of this problem using constraint generation. The performances are....... IMPROVED :-)
If you have any question while reviewing this, please do not hesitate. As usual, I tried my best to make the code understandable :-)
Requires :
Apply only : trac_9923-python.patch.
The other version is written in Cython, but I thought it better to have a more readable code if the difference in performances is not needed. It is nice to keep the Cython version somewhere, just in case it would be needed in the future.
Nathann
Attachments (2)
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc abmasse added
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc mvngu added
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Summary changed from Minimum Feedback Arc/Edge set through constraint generation to Minimum Feedback Arc/Vertex set through constraint generation
comment:7 follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 9 years ago by
Nathann,
Can you say more about the difference between the two patches? Why should we merge the slower patch? I'm a bit confused over this....
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to Needs rebasing
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 7 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
Hello Robert !!!
Can you say more about the difference between the two patches? Why should we merge the slower patch? I'm a bit confused over this....
Of course ! I should have been way more explicit when I replaced the former patch by the new one ^^;
This patch is about finding a smallest (cardinality) subset of vertices (or edges, but let's just talk about vertices) in a digraph whose removal makes it acyclic. It is solved by a LP in a following way : give me the set of vertices you have now, and I will tell you if you did not forget any circuit. If you forgot a circuit, I give it to you (the LP), and you compute again a *smallest set of vertices such that each circuit your know is cut by at least a vertex*.
The LP solver does not know the whole graph. Is just knows a small list of circuits. With this information, it computes a possible set of vertices, and cycles are added if the given set is not sufficient.
So, there are three parts in this method : the first one is a loop doing what I said just above : getting the current solution, checking whether is it acyclic, adding a constraint (the cycle) if it is not. The second one is the LP itself, of course (knowing a list of circuits, find the set -- the hard part), and a routine checking whether the digraph without the vertices returned by the solver is acyclic.
In the first patch, everything was written in Cython. I was worried it wouldn't be as clear as Python, plus it was again defining a function somewhere, this function being called dy digraph.py, and most importantly, I thought it would be easier/faster to review this way ^^;
. Besides, I was redefining a function checking whether the graph is acyclic in a funny way : optimised for my use, while the standard one present in Sage was still using NetworkX. In #10432, the method checking whether the digraph is acyclic has been rewritten in Cython, so even though my version was a tad more optimised for my use, it is still way faster than using NetworkX.
With the new patch, the loop (is this set good?) is in Python, the LP is still solved by C libraries, and the routine checking the solution is in Cython (not so bad) because of #10432. My tricks avoided to make a copy of the graph at each loop, which is clearly nice, but I wondered whether this was reason enough to keep a looong copy of the routine optimised for my needs, and Cython code instead of Python when it is not really needed (this part is not really bad. The only problem is the graph copy).
Considering this version is already infinitely better than what we already have, I thought it would not be so bad to waste a few milliseconds, when the size of the problems we solve now would have made any computer crash out of memory previously.
(patch updated, still being debated) :-)
Nathann
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by
Thanks for explaining Nathann, that greatly clarifies things.
comment:11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
comment:12 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Robert Miller
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
- Work issues Needs rebasing deleted
Ran tests with the following applied:
rlmill@geom:/scratch/rlmill/sage-4.6.1.rc0/devel/sage-main$ hg qap trac_9911.patch 9911_fix.patch trac_10435.patch trac_10432.patch trac_9923-python.patch
Looks good!
comment:13 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.6.2.alpha3
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Rebased on top of #9911 and its dependencies.
Nathann