Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-6fdxz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T14:43:13.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lower Bounds for Insertion Methods for TSP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 September 2008

Yossi Azar
Yossi Azar
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that the random insertion method for the traveling salesman problem (TSP) may produce a tour Ω(log log n/log log log n) times longer than the optimal tour. The lower bound holds even in the Euclidean Plane. This is in contrast to the fact that the random insertion method performs extremely well in practice. In passing, we show that other insertion methods may produce tours Ω(log n/log log n) times longer than the optimal one. No non-constant lower bounds were previously known.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Combinatorics, Probability and Computing , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 285 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]Alon, N. and Azar, Y. (1993) On-line Steiner trees in the Euclidean plane. Discrete and Computational Geometry 10 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Bafna, V., Kalyanasundaram, B. and Pruhs, K. (manuscript) Not all insertion methods yield constant approximate tours in the Euclidean plane.Google Scholar
[3]Bentley, J. L. (1990) Experiments on Traveling Salesman Heuristics. Proc. 1st Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms, San-Francisco, California91–99.Google Scholar
[4]Bentley, J. L. and Saxe, J. B. (1980) An analysis of two heuristics for the Euclidean Traveling salesman. Proc. 18th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing, Monticello 41–49.Google Scholar
[5]Bollobás, B. and Meir, A. (1992) A traveling salesman problem in the k-dimensional unit cube. Operations Research Letters 11 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S. (1979) Computers and Intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness, Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
[7]Golden, B. L., Bodin, L. D., Doyle, T. and Stewart, W. (1980) Approximate traveling salesman algorithms. Oper. Res. 28 694–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Hurkens, C. (1992) Nasty TSP instances for Farthest Insertion. Proc. 2nd IPCO, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
[9]Imase, M. and Waxman, B. M. (1991) Dynamic Steiner tree problem. SIAM J. Disc Math. 4 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Lawler, E., Lenstra, J., Rinnooy Kan, A. and Shmoys, D. (1985) The Traveling Salesman Problem, Wiley.Google Scholar
[11]Meir, A. (1987) A geometric problem involving the nearest neighbor algorithm. Operations Research Letters 6 289–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Newman, D. J. (1982) A problem seminar 9 Problem 57, Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Rosenkrantz, D. J., Stearns, R. E. and Lewis, P. M. II (1977) An analysis of several heuristics for the traveling salesman problem. SI AM J. Computing 6 563–581.Google Scholar