Minimum Cost Network Flow Algorithms
The minimal cost network flow model is defined along with optimality criteria and three efficient procedures for obtaining an optimal solution. Primal and dual network simplex methods are specializations of well-known algorithms for linear programs. The primal procedure maintains primal feasibility at each iteration and seeks to simultaneously achieve dual feasibility, The dual procedure maintains dual feasibility and moves toward primal feasibility. All operations for both algorithms can be performed on a graphical structure called a tree. The scaling push-relabel method is designed exclusively for optimization problems on a network. Neither primal nor dual feasibility is achieved until the final iteration.
KeywordsNetworks-graphs flow algorithms integer programming algorithms linear programming algorithms linear programming simplex algorithms
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- R. Ahuja, T. Magnanti, and J. Orlin. Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, 1993.Google Scholar
- D. Bertsekas and P. Tseng. RELAXT-III: A new and improved version of the RELAX code, lab. for information and decision systems report p-1990. Technical report, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
- D. Bertsekas and P. Tseng, RELAX-IV: A faster version of the RELAX code for solving minimum cost flow problems. Technical report, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
- A. Charnes and W. Cooper. Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming: Volume I. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1967.Google Scholar
- G. Dantzig. Application of the simplex method to a transportation problem. In T. Koopmans, editor, Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation, pages 359–373. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1951.Google Scholar
- A. Goldberg. An efficient implementation of a scaling minimum cost flow algorithm,. Technical Report STAT-CS-92-1439, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
- A. Goldberg and M. Kharitonov. On implementing scaling push-relabel algorithms for the minimum-cost flow problem. In D. Johnson and C. McGeoch, editors, Network Flows and Matching: First DIMACS Implementation Challenge, pages 157–198. AMS, Providence, RI, 1993.Google Scholar
- J. Kennington and R. Mohamed. An efficient dual simplex optimizer for generalized networks. In R. Barr, R. Helgason, and J. Kennington, editors, Interfaces in Computer Science and Operations Research, pages 153–182. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA 02061, 1997.Google Scholar
- J. Kennington and J. Whitler, Simplex versus cost scaling algorithms for pure networks: An empirical analysis. Technical Report 96-CSE-8, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, 1998.Google Scholar
- H. Röck. Scaling techniques for minimal cost network flows. In U. Pape, editor, Discrete Structures and Algorithms, pages 181–191. Carl Hanser, Munich, 1980.Google Scholar