Computational Optimization and Applications

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 649–680 | Cite as

Branch and cut algorithms for detecting critical nodes in undirected graphs

Article

Abstract

In this paper we deal with the critical node problem, where a given number of nodes has to be removed from an undirected graph in order to maximize the disconnections between the node pairs of the graph. We propose an integer linear programming model with a non-polynomial number of constraints but whose linear relaxation can be solved in polynomial time. We derive different valid inequalities and some theoretical results about them. We also propose an alternative model based on a quadratic reformulation of the problem. Finally, we perform many computational experiments and analyze the corresponding results.

Keywords

Critical node problem Branch and cut Valid inequalities Reformulation-linearization technique 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees, whose constructive comments helped to improve the initial version of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Anstreicher, K.M.: Semidefinite programming versus the reformulation-linearization technique for nonconvex quadratically constrained quadratic programming. J. Glob. Optim. 43, 471–484 (2009) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arulselvan, A., Commander, C.W., Elefteriadou, L., Pardalos, P.M.: Detecting critical nodes in sparse graphs. Comput. Oper. Res. 36, 2193–2200 (2009) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boginski, V., Commander, C.W.: Identifying critical nodes in protein–protein interaction networks. In: Butenko, S., Art Chaovalitwongse, W., Pardalos, P.M. (eds.) Clustering Challenges in Biological Networks, pp. 153–167. World Scientific, Singapore (2009) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borchers, B.: CSDP, a C library for semidefinite programming. Optim. Methods Softw. 11, 613–623 (1999) MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christof, T.: PORTA—a Polyhedron Representation Transformation Algorithm. Free software. Revised by A. Löbel Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dinh, T.N., Xuan, Y., Thai, M.T., Park, E.K., Znati, T.: On approximation of new optimization methods for assessing network vulnerability. In: Proceedings of the 29th IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM), pp. 105–118 (2010) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dreier, D.: Barabasi graph generator v1.4. http://www.cs.ucr.edu/ddreier
  8. 8.
    Fan, N., Pardalos, P.M.: Robust optimization of graph partitioning and critical node detection in analyzing networks. In: COCOA, 2010, pp. 170–183 (2010) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Korte, B., Vygen, J.: Combinatorial Optimization: Theory and Algorithms. Springer, Berlin (2000) MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lovász, L.: Graph theory and integer programming. Ann. Discrete Math. 4, 141–158 (1979) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Matisziw, T.C., Murray, A.T.: Modeling s-t path availability to support disaster vulnerability assessment of network infrastructure. Comput. Oper. Res. 36, 16–26 (2009) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myung, Y.-S., Kim, H.-J.: A cutting plane algorithm for computing k-edge survivability of a network. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156(3), 579–589 (2004) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sherali, H.D., Adams, W.P.: A hierarchy of relaxations between the continuous and convex hull representations for zero-one programming problems. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 3, 411–430 (1990) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherali, H.D., Fraticelli, B.M.: Enhancing RLT relaxations via a new class of semidefinite cuts. J. Glob. Optim. 22, 233–261 (2002) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sherali, H.D., Tuncbilek, C.H.: A global optimization algorithm for polynomial programming problems using a reformulation-linearization technique. J. Glob. Optim. 2, 101–112 (1992) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sherali, H.D., Tuncbilek, C.H.: A reformulation-convexification approach for solving nonconvex quadratic programming problems. J. Glob. Optim. 7, 1–31 (1995) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sherali, H.D., Dalkiran, E., Desai, J.: Enhancing RLT-based relaxations for polynomial programming problems via a new class of ν-semidefinite cuts. Comput. Optim. Appl. (2011). doi:10.1007/s10589-011-9425-z Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith, J.C., Lim, C.: Algorithms for discrete and continuous multicommodity flow network interdiction problems. IIE Trans. 39, 15–26 (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wollmer, R.: Removing arcs from a network. Oper. Res. 12, 934–940 (1964) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wood, R.K.: Deterministic network interdiction. Math. Comput. Model. 17, 1–18 (1993) MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Di Summa
    • 1
  • Andrea Grosso
    • 2
  • Marco Locatelli
    • 3
  1. 1.Dipartimento di MatematicaUniversità degli Studi di PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Ingegneria InformaticaUniversità di ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations