Preflow-push with excess scaling: Difference between revisions
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
The [[Preflow-push#Complexity|complexity considerations]] for the [[Preflow-push|generic preflow-push algorithm]] yield <math>\mathcal{O}(n^2)</math> relabel steps and <math>\mathcal{O}(n\!\cdot\!m)</math> saturating push steps and forward steps of the current arcs of all nodes in total. Hence, it suffices to show that there are <math>\mathcal{O}(n^2)</math> non-saturating push steps in each scaling phase. To see that, we consider the following '''potential function''': | The [[Preflow-push#Complexity|complexity considerations]] for the [[Preflow-push|generic preflow-push algorithm]] yield <math>\mathcal{O}(n^2)</math> relabel steps and <math>\mathcal{O}(n\!\cdot\!m)</math> saturating push steps and forward steps of the current arcs of all nodes in total. Hence, it suffices to show that there are <math>\mathcal{O}(n^2)</math> non-saturating push steps in each scaling phase. To see that, we consider the following '''potential function''': | ||
:<math>\Phi:=\sum_{v\in V\setminus\{s,t\}}e(v)\cdot d(v)/\Delta</math>. | :<math>\Phi:=\sum_{v\in V\setminus\{s,t\}}e(v)\cdot d(v)/\Delta</math>. | ||
Since <math>e_f(v)\leq\Delta</math>, all relabel steps together cannot increase this value by more than <math>2n^2</math> (cf. [[Preflow-push#Complexity|here]]). Each push step - saturating or not - decreases this value because excess is always sent from a node with a higher <math>d</math>-label to a node with a lower <math>d</math>-label. Therefore, we may safely ignore saturating push steps. | Since <math>e_f(v)\leq\Delta</math>, all relabel steps together cannot increase this value by more than <math>2n^2</math> (cf. [[Preflow-push#Complexity|here]]). Each push step - saturating or not - decreases this value because excess is always sent from a node with a higher <math>d</math>-label to a node with a (one unit) lower <math>d</math>-label. Therefore, we may safely ignore saturating push steps. | ||
Now, a non-saturating push sends at least <math>\Delta/2</math> units of excess. | Now, a non-saturating push sends at least <math>\Delta/2</math> units of excess. |
Revision as of 18:15, 10 November 2014
Abstract view
Algorithmic problem: max-flow problem (standard version)
Type of algorithm: a specialization of the generic preflow-push algorithm:
- An additional nonnegative integral number [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta/2 }[/math] is maintained, which is initialized so as to be at least as large as the largest upper bound of any arc (but not more than the next higher power of 2 for complexity reasons).
- In each iteration, an active node [math]\displaystyle{ v }[/math] may only be chosen if kit has large excess, that is, [math]\displaystyle{ e_f(v)\geq\Delta/2 }[/math].
- If there are active nodes but none with large excess, we reset [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta:=\Delta/2 }[/math] (integral division) until there is an active node with large excess.
Note: At any time, it is [math]\displaystyle{ e_f(v)\leq\Delta }[/math] for every node [math]\displaystyle{ v\in V\setminus\{s,t\} }[/math].
Remarks:
- A sequence of iterations between two successive changes of [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta }[/math] is usually called a scaling phase.
- It is quite common in the literature to define an outer loop in which each iteration performs one scaling phase, and an inner loop performs the push-relabel steps. The break condition is usually [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta=0 }[/math]. Clearly, when this condition is fulfilled, the break condition of the generic preflow-push algorithm is fulfilled as well.
Complexity
Statement: The asymptotic complexity is in [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{O}(n\!\cdot\!m+n^2\!\cdot\!\log U) }[/math], where [math]\displaystyle{ n=|V| }[/math], [math]\displaystyle{ m=|A| }[/math], and [math]\displaystyle{ U=\max\{u(a)|a\in A\} }[/math].
Proof: The complexity considerations for the generic preflow-push algorithm yield [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{O}(n^2) }[/math] relabel steps and [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{O}(n\!\cdot\!m) }[/math] saturating push steps and forward steps of the current arcs of all nodes in total. Hence, it suffices to show that there are [math]\displaystyle{ \mathcal{O}(n^2) }[/math] non-saturating push steps in each scaling phase. To see that, we consider the following potential function:
- [math]\displaystyle{ \Phi:=\sum_{v\in V\setminus\{s,t\}}e(v)\cdot d(v)/\Delta }[/math].
Since [math]\displaystyle{ e_f(v)\leq\Delta }[/math], all relabel steps together cannot increase this value by more than [math]\displaystyle{ 2n^2 }[/math] (cf. here). Each push step - saturating or not - decreases this value because excess is always sent from a node with a higher [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-label to a node with a (one unit) lower [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-label. Therefore, we may safely ignore saturating push steps.
Now, a non-saturating push sends at least [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta/2 }[/math] units of excess.
Remark: potential functions