Memetic Computing

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 97–108 | Cite as

A survivable design of last mile communication networks using multi-objective genetic algorithms

Regular Research Paper

Abstract

In this paper, we are interested in the survivable network design problem (SNDP) for last mile communication networks called (L-SNDP). Given a connected, weighted, undirected graph \(\mathrm{{G}} = (\mathrm{V, E})\); a set of infrastructure nodes and a set of customers C including two customer types where customers in the subset C1 require a single connection (type-1) and customers in the subset C2 need to be redundantly connected (type-2). The aim is to seek a sub-graph of G with the smallest weight in which all customers are connected to infrastructure nodes and the connections are protected against failures. This is a NP-hard problem and it has been solved only with the objective of minimizing the network cost. In this paper, we introduce a new multi-objective approach to solve L-SNDP called ML-SNDP. These objectives are to minimize the network cost (total cost) and to minimize the maximal amount of sharing links between connections. Results of computational experiments reported show the efficiency of our proposal.

Keywords

Survivable network design Multi-objective genetic algorithm 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the project “Advanced methods in Evolutionary Computation in approximating solutions for combinatorial optimization problems”, Grant no. 102.01-2015.12, funded by National Foundation for Science and Technology Development, Vietnam.

References

  1. 1.
    Kerivin H, Mahjoub AR (2005) Design of survivable networks: a survey. Networks 46(1):1–21MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wagner D, Raidl GR, Pferschy U, Mutzel P, Bachhiesl P (2007) A multi-commodity flow approach for the design of the last mile in real-world fiber optic networks. In: Waldmann KH, Stocker UM (eds) Operations research proceedings 2006, pp 197–202Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leitner M, Raidl GR (2008) Lagrangian decomposition, meta-heuristics, and hybrid approaches for the design of the last mile in fiber optic networks. In: Blesa MJ et al. (eds) Hybrid meta-heuristics, vol 5296. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 158–174Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leitner M, Raidl GR (2010) Branch-and-cut and price for capacitated connected facility location. Technical report TR-186-1-10-01, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leitner M, Raidl GR (2010) Strong lower bounds for a survivable network design problem. In: International symposium on combinatorial optimization, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp 295–302Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    IBM ILOG (2006) CPLEX optimizer performance benchmarks 10.0. http://www.ilog.com
  7. 7.
    Wagner D, Pferschy U, Mutzel P, Raidl GR, Bachhiesl P (2007) A directed cut model for the design of the last mile in real-world fiber optic networks. In: Proceedings of the international network optimization conference 2007, Spa, Belgium, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bucsics T, Raidl G (2007) Metaheuristic approaches for designing survivable fiber-optic networks. In: Institute for computer graphics and algorithms of the Vienna University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ljubic I, Weiskircher R, Pferschy U, Klau G, Mutzel P, Fischetti M (2006) An algorithmic framework for the exact solution of the prize-collecting Steiner tree problem. Math Program Ser B 105(2–3):427–449MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Da Cunha AS, Lucena A, Maculan N, Resende MGC (2009) A relax-and-cut algorithm for the prize-collecting Steiner problem in graph. Discrete Appl Math 157(6):1198–1217MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lucena A, Resende MGC (2004) Strong lower bounds for the prize collecting Steiner problem in graphs. Discrete Appl Math 141(1–3):277–294MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canuto SA, Resende MGC, Ribeiro CC (2001) Local search with perturbations for the prize-collecting Steiner tree problem in graphs. Networks 38:50–58MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chapovska O, Punnen AP (2006) Variations of the prize-collecting Steiner tree problem. Networks 47(4):199–205MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uchoa E (2006) Reduction tests for the prize-collecting Steiner problem. Op Res Lett 34(4):437–444MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fortz B, Labbe M (2006) Polyhedral approaches to the design of survivable networks. In: Resende MGC, Pardolas PM (eds) Handbook of optimization in telecommunications. Springer, Berlin, pp 367–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoer M (1992) Design of survivable networks. LNCS 1531. Springer, HeidelbergMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leitner M (2010) Solving two network design problems by mixed integer programming and hybrid optimization methods. Ph.D. thesis, Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Computer Graphics and Algorithms, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bachhiesl P (2005) The OPT- and the SST-problems for real world access network design basic definitions and test instances. Working report 01/2005, Carinthia Tech Institute, Department of Telematics and Network Engineering, Klagenfurt, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vo TK, Nguyen MT, Huynh BTT (2012) Heuristic algorithms for solving survivability problem in the design of last mile communication network. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian conference on intelligent information and database systems, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, pp 519–528Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen MT, Vo KT, Huynh BTT (2012) Heuristic Algorithms for Solving the Survivable Problem in the Design of Last Mile Communication Networks. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE—RIVF international conference on computing and communication technologies, Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, pp 219–224Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huynh Thi Thanh Binh, Nguyen Thai Duong (2015) Heuristic and genetic algorithms for solving survivability problem in the design of last mile communication networks. Soft Computing 19:2619–2632Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suurballe JW, Tarjan RE (1984) A quick method for finding shortest pairs of disjoint paths. Networks 14:325–336MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coello CAC, Sierra MR (2003) A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm based on coevolutionary concepts. In: The 2003 congress on evolutionary computation, vol 1, pp 482–489Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Binh HTT, Bui LT, Ha NST, Ishibuchi H (2014) A multi-objective approach for solving the survivable network design problem with simultaneous unicast and anycast flows. Appl Soft Comput 24:1145–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Farnsworth M, Benkhelifa E, Tiwari A, Zhu M, Moniri M (2011) An efficient evolutionary multi-objective framework for MEMS design optimisation: validation, comparison and analysis. Memet Comput 3(3):175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joshi R, Deshpande B (2014) Empirical and analytical study of many-objective optimization problems: analysing distribution of nondominated solutions and population size for scalability of randomized heuristics. Memet Comput 6(2):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Le Quy Don Technical UniversityHanoiVietnam
  2. 2.Hanoi University of Science and TechnologyHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations