Download Integrated Logistics PROBE

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Integrated Logistics PROBE
Princeton University, 10/31-11/1
Presentation Outline
 Defining
Logistics
 Applications and Key Problems
 Facility Location
 Known
Results
 Open Problems
 Hierarchical
 Known
Network Design
Results
 Open Problems
Defining Logistics
 Given
service demands, must satisfy
 “transporting products” from A to B
 Goal is to minimize service cost
 Aggregation problems
Facility Location Problems

Open facilities
 Each demand near
to some facility
 Minimize sum or
max distances
 Some restriction on
facilities to open
 NP Hard (1.46)
Hierarchical Aggregation

More than one level
of “cluster”
 Basically building a
tree or forest
 Solve FL over and
over… but don’t
want to pay much!
App: Trucking Service
App: Trucking Service
 Talk
by Ted Gifford
 Schneider
Logistics
 Multi-Billion
dollar industry
 Solve FL problems
 Difficult
to determine costs, constraints
 Often solve problems exactly (IP)
 Usually ~500-1000 nodes
Open Problems: Trucking
 Often
multi-commodity FL
 Hierarchical, but typically only 3-4 levels
 Need extremely accurate solutions
 “average
case” bounds?
App: Databases
App: Databases
 Talk
 U.
by Sudipto Guha
Penn, AT&T research
 Distributed
databases
 Determining
 Database
 Many
data placement on network
Clustering
models, measures
 Many different heuristics!
Open Problems: Databases
 Databases
can be VERY large
 “polynomial-time”
not good enough
 Streaming/sampling based approaches
 Data
may change with time
 Need
 No
fast “update” algorithm
clear measure of quality
 “quick
and dirty” may be best
App: Genetics
App: Genetics
 Talk
by Kamesh Munagala
 Stanford
 Finding
University, Strand Genomics
patterns in DNA/proteins
 Known
DNA code, but proteins mysterious
 Can scan protein content of cells fast
 Scan is not very accurate though
 Find patterns in healthy vs. tumor cells
Open Problems: Genetics
 Huge
amounts of data!
 Also,
 Try
not very accurate, many “mistakes”
to find separating dimension
 Potentially
 Really
 Find
many clusterings, find “best”
two-step problem
best “dimension” of exp. combinations
 Cluster it, see if it separates
Results: Facility Location
 Talk
by David Shmoys
 Cornell
University
 Three
main
paradigms
 Linear
Program
Rounding
 Primal-Dual Method
 Local Search
Results: Facility Location
 Talk
by Kamal Jain
 Microsoft
 Talk
Research
by Mohammad Mahdian
 MIT
 Best
approximation: 1.52
based “greedy” algorithm
 Solve LP to find “worst-case” approx
 Primal-dual
Results: Facility Location
 Talk
by Martin Pal
 Cornell
University
 Problem
of FL with hard capacities
 O(1) via local search
 Open: O(1) via primal-dual or LP?
 What
is LP gap?
 Often good to have “lower bound”
Results: Facility Location
 Talk
by Ramgopal Mettu
 Dartmouth
 FAST
University
approximations for k-median
 O(nk)
constant approx
 Repeated sampling approach
 Compared
 Slightly
to DB clustering heuristics
slower, much more accurate
Open Problems: FL
 Eliminate
the gap!
 1.52
vs. 1.46, VERY close
 Analysis of Mahdian is tight
 Maybe time to revisit lower bound?
 K-Median
 Local
 Load
Problem
search gives 3, improve?
Balanced Problem
 Exact
on the lower bounds?
Results: Network Design

Talk by Adam Meyerson


CMU
O(log n) for single-sink
 O(log n log log n) for
one function
 O(1) for one sink, one
function
Results: Network Design
 Talk
by Kunal Talwar
 UC
Berkeley
 Improved
 LP
O(1) for one sink, function
rounding
Results: Network Design
 Connected
 Talks

by Anupam Gupta
Lucent Research, CMU
 Chaitanya

Facility Location
Swamy
Cornell University
 Give
9-approx for the problem
 Greedy,
primal-dual approaches
Results: Network Design
 Talk
by Amitabh Sinha
 CMU
 Combining
 O(log
 O(1)
Buy-at-bulk with FL
n) immediate, but what about O(1)?
for one cable type, small constant
 O(1) in general
 What about capacitated? K-med?
Open Problems: ND
 Multi-commodity,
 No
 O(1)
 LP
 O(1)
multiple function
nontrivial approximations known!
for single sink?
gap not even known!
for single function?
 Cannot
 Make
depend on tree embedding
the constants reasonable!
 Euclidean problem: easier?
Conclusions
 Many
applications and open problems!
 Must get in touch with DB community…
 Workshop was a success, but…
 Need
more OR participation
 Too short notice for faculty?
 Plan
another workshop, late March
 Hope
to have some more solutions!
Thanks to Princeton
Local Arrangements by Moses Charikar + Mitra Kelly