Upload
dawn
View
57
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Maximum Flow by Incremental Breadth First Search. Sagi Hed Tel Aviv University. Joint work with:Haim KaplanRobert E. Tarjan Tel Aviv University Princeton University & HP Labs Renato F. WerneckAndrew V. Goldberg Microsoft ResearchMicrosoft Research. s. Maximum Flow. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
s Maximum Flow byIncremental
Breadth First Search
Joint work with: Haim Kaplan Robert E. TarjanTel Aviv University Princeton University & HP LabsRenato F. Werneck Andrew V. GoldbergMicrosoft Research Microsoft Research
Sagi HedTel Aviv University
Maximum Flow• Input: graph G=(V,E), vertices s, t є V and capacity
assignment c(e) for e є E• Output: flow function f satisfying -
conservation: for every v≠s,t Σ(u,v)єE f(u,v) = Σ(v,u)єE f(v,u)capacity: for every e f(e) ≤ c(e)
with maximal |f|=sum of flow out of s (into t)• Well studied problem• Equivalent to the Minimum s-t Cut problem• Solution methods:
Augmenting Path (and blocking flow), Network Simplex, Push-Relabel
Push-Relabel• A different approach –
Push vs. augment path, pre-flow vs. flow[Goldberg, Tarjan 88]
• Some Push-Relabel bounds: O(mn2) Any active vertex selectionO(n3) FIFO active vertex selectionO(n2m½) Highest label active vertex
selectionO(mn log(n2/m))with dynamic trees
• Push-Relabel considered the most efficient general-purpose solution in practice[Cherkassky, Goldberg 97]
Maximum Flowin Computer Vision
• Minimum s-t cut very useful in the field of computer vision
• Applications in image segmentation, stereo image processing, video transitioning…
• Typical Process –• 2D or 3D images are converted to input graphs,
where each vertex corresponds to a pixel• Minimum s-t cut on these graphs provides
information on the original image(s)
Maximum Flowin Computer Vision
• These graphs have specific structure
• Regular low degree grids• Arc capacities: different models for grid arcs and s-t arcs
BKBoykov and Kolmogorov developed an algorithm (BK) which is
the fastest in practice on the vision instances[Boykov, Kolmogorov 04]
• Used as the standard min-cut algorithm in computer vision • Usually outperforms Push-Relabel implementation by large
factors
Problem: BK has no known polynomial time guarantee…Best bound is O(mnF) for integral capacities (F is the maximal flow value)
• Indeed on some instances, BK performs poorly and is outperformed by Push-Relabel implementation
Our ContributionIBFS
We develop the IBFS algorithm –Incremental Breadth First Search
• Has many similarities to BK and to Dinitz• However, performs shortest path or nearly
shortest path augmentations• Competative in practice to BK
Usually outperforms BK by small factors• Has a polynomial worst case time guarantee
O(mn2)
BK Overview
• Grows trees S, T in the residual graph bi-directionally• We maintain a list of active nodes, from which the
trees can grow
s t
S T
active nodes
s
BK Overview
• When the trees meet, we augment flow• After an augmentation, we try to rebuild the trees
s t
S T
s
active nodes
BK Drill Down
• Initially: S={s}, T={t}, active node list = {s,t}• Iterates between 3 phases:
Growth, Augmentation, Adoption
s
s t
S T
BK Drill Down
Growth:Iterate through active node list and grow S,TAdd new vertices to the back of the active list (FIFO)
s t
S Tts
s
BK Drill Down
Augment:• Discover other tree during growth => augment flow• Saturated tree arcs create orphan sub-trees
S T
s t
Orphan
Orphan
s
BK Drill Down
Adoption: (symmetric for S and T)• Iterate over orphans and check potential parents• If an orphan finds a parent its entire subtree is
reattached
t
v
s
BK Drill Down
Adoption:• Checking a potential parent u: traverse the path from
u to the root, no orphans on the path
t
v
s
BK Drill Down
Adoption: Orphan v does not reconnect -• Remove v from tree and make children orphans• Make potential parents active• Make v inactive
t
v
s
BK Drill DownContinue Growth, Augmentation, Adoption• The trees are no longer neccesarily BFS trees• Augmenting paths are no longer neccesarily shortest• Growth alternates between S and T
s t
S T
s
BK Drill Down
Termination:• No more active nodes (either in S or in T)• Maximum flow value is the total augmented flow
s t
S T
s
IBFS Overview• We maintain S, T as BFS trees with heights ≈ Ds , Dt
• Active nodes are on level Ds or Dt only• Augment on shortest (Ds+Dt+1) paths only (later
nearly shortest paths)
s t
S TDs Dt
s
IBFS Overview
• Vertex v has label ds(v) ≤ Ds+1 and a label dt(v) ≤ Dt+1
• ds(v) and dt(v), are the level of the tree v is in • ds(v) is meaningful if v ϵ S, dt(v) is meaningful if v ϵ T
s t
S TDs Dt
s
IBFS Drill Down
• Initially: S={s}, T={t}, active node list = {s,t}• ds(s)=0, dt(t)=0, Ds=0, Dt=0• As in BK, iterates between 3 phases:
Growth, Augmentation, Adoption
s t
S T
s
IBFS Drill DownGrowth:• Grow one complete level at a time, Ds++ or Dt++• If u grows v, ds(v) = ds(u)+1 / dt(v) = dt(u)+1• Can alternate forward/backward passes arbitrarily
s t
S Tts
ds=0 ds=1 ds=2 dt=2 dt=1 dt=0
s
IBFS Drill DownAugment:As in BK,• Discover other tree during growth => augment flow• Saturated tree arcs create orphan sub-trees
S T
s t
Orphan
Orphan
ds=0 ds=1 ds=2 dt=2 dt=1 dt=0
s
IBFS Drill DownAdoption: (symmetric for S and T)• Iterate over orphans and check potential parents• If orphan v finds a parent u with dt(u)=dt(v)-1
v’s subtree reconnects
t
v
dt=2 dt=1 dt=0
s
IBFS Drill DownAdoption: Orphan v does not reconnect at same level –• Relabel(v): dt(v)=min{dt(u)|uϵT, (u,v) residual}+1
parent(v) = argmin{...}• Make children orphans• Make v inactive
t
v
v
dt=2 dt=1 dt=0
s
IBFS Drill DownAdoption: (symmetric for S and T)Remove v from T, if Relabel(v) does not find a parent
or Relabel(v) finds a parent u such that –forward pass: dt(u) ≥ Dt
backward pass: dt(u) ≥ Dt+1
t
v
dt=1 dt=0dt=Dt=2
v
s
IBFS Drill DownAdoption: (symmetric for S and T)• Orphan v may reconnect to an orphan subtree
(its own or another)• If neccesary processed as an orphan again later
t
v
dt=2 dt=1 dt=0
v
s
IBFS Drill DownContinue Growth, Augmentation, Adoption• The trees are always maintained as BFS trees• Shortest augmenting paths = Ds+Dt+1 (proof soon)• Alternate between forward/backward passes
s t
S T
s
impossibleDs Dt
IBFS Drill Down
Termination:• Empty level (either in S or in T)• Maximum flow value is the total augmented flow
s t
S T
s
IBFS vs. Dinitz
• Basically a form of Dinitz• Bi-directional rather than uni-directional• Auxilary network for next passes prepared
while processing current pass.Network not rebuilt from scratch every pass!
s
IBFS Drill Down
Current Arc (time efficiency only)• Remeber where the last orphan parent scan stopped• When v is added to the tree, current arc = first arc• current_arc(v) ϵ {first_arc(v), (parent(v),v)}
=> can be implemented with a bit
s
s
S
Current Arc
IBFS CorrectnessLemma 1: (symmetric for forward / backward passes) If (u,v) is residual• During a forward pass –
u in S, v not in S, ds(u) ≤ Ds => u active (ds(u)=Ds)• After we increase Ds until the next forward pass –
u in S, v not in S => ds(u)=Ds
s
S
v
s
uu vu
Ds
IBFS CorrectnessBy Lemma 1, when the algorithm terminates there are
no more residual augmenting paths=> the flow is maximal
s
s t
S T
IBFS Time BoundDefinition: u,v in S, (u,v) is admissible:
(u,v) is residual and ds(v) = ds(u)+1
Algorithm Invariants: (symmetric for ds and dt) 1. Tree arcs are admissible2. current arc of u precedes the first admissible arc to u3. ds is a valid labeling: (u,v) residual => ds(v) ≤ ds(u)+14. ds(v) never decreases
s
s
IBFS Time BoundAlgorithm Invariants Proof:• By induction on the algorithm steps.• Valid ds labeling (invariant 3):
Growth step:By Lemma 1, there are no connections from lower
levelsAugmentation:
New residual arcs do not violate,by inductive assumption of admissible tree arcs
Adoption:Orphan relabel does not break valid labeling(as in push-relabel)
s
IBFS Time BoundConclusions from Algorithm Invariants:
(not directly needed for analysis)• S and T are BFS trees:
ds(v) = the distance from s to v in the residual graphdt(v) = the distance from v to t in the residual graph
• We always augment on shortest paths in the residual graph
s
IBFS Time BoundLemma 2: (symmetric for S and T)After an orphan relabel on v in S, ds(v) increases.If v is removed from S, then we consider the increased
label the next time v is added to S.
Lemma 2 Proof:• Easy, except to avoid
pathalogical case of adoption/growth
s
s
v
ds=2ds=1ds=0
IBFS Time BoundLemma 2 Proof:Let U ≡ {u | u in S and (u,v) is residual}Let ds’(v)=ds(v) at time of relabel(v)
• By valid labeling and current arc invariants –If new_parent(v) ϵ U=> ds(new_parent(v)) ≥ d’s(v)=> ds(v) = ds(new_parent(v))+1 ≥ d’s(v)+1
• By non-decreasing labels invariant, this is true at any future time
s
IBFS Time BoundLemma 3:IBFS runs in O(n2m) time
Lemma 3 Proof: (symmetric for S and T)Note there are ≤ n-1 different values for ds(v)• Growth
We charge the scan of arc (u,v) to ds(u)Each label charged by arc (u,v) at most once(u becomes inactive)Total: O(nm)
s
IBFS Time BoundLemma 3 Proof continued: (symmetric for S and T)• Adoption
We charge the scan of arc (u,v) (v orphan) to ds(v)Each label charged by arc (u,v) at most twice –• Once during scanning for a parent with label ds(v)-1
(due to remembering the current arc)• Once during orphan relabel (by Lemma 2)Total: O(nm)
s
IBFS Time BoundLemma 3 Proof continued: (symmetric for S and T)• Augmentation
Let (u,v) be an arc saturated in the augmentation.• If (u,v) is a tree arc, we create an orphan – no more than
charges made for adoption => O(nm)• If (u,v) is not a tree arc (u ϵ S, v ϵ T), we charge ds(u)
Each label is charged by arc (u,v) at most once(u becomes inactive) => O(nm)
Each augmentation takes O(n) timeTotal: O(n2m) □
s
IBFS VariantsNearly Shortest Path• Vertices at level Ds in S and Dt in T are activated together• We grow both trees at the same time, intermittently• Augmenting paths are shortest or “shortest+1”• More similar to BK
s
S Ts t
ds=0 ds=1 ds=Ds=2 dt=Dt=2 dt=1 dt=0
Ds+Dt+2
IBFS VariantsNearly Shortest Path• Passes are both forward and reverse at the same time• Correctness and running time are proved in the same
way after applying the above rule• Proves best in practice• Used in our implementation and experiments
s
IBFS Experiments
• Ran on 37 computer vision instances, different families27 public benchmark [http://vision.csd.uwo.ca/maxflow-data/]10 our own creation [http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~sagihed/ibfs/]
• BK implementation available publicly [http://vision.csd.uwo.ca/code/]
• We compare to a modified version of BK, with the same low level optimizations as our own (≈ 20% faster)
• IBFS wins on 35 out of 372 different capacity versions of the instance “bone”
• Factors are mostly modest. For few they are large.
s
IBFS Experimentss
digged
hessi1a
housean
thra
bone_subx1
00
liver100
babyfa
ce100
bone100
bunny-med
camel-m
ed
gargo
yle-m
ed
kz2-ve
nus0.1
1
10
100
1000
IBFSBK
Running Time (seconds)
IBFS Experiments
• 4 operations counted:• Pushes – sum of augmentation lengths• Growth arc scans – number of arcs scanned during growth• Orphan arc scans – number of arcs scanned during adoption• Orphan traversal to root (BK) – number of arcs traverse to
check the root of the potential parent’s tree• Growth and Orphan arc scans access arcs sequentially in
memory• Pushes and Orphan traversal to root access arcs non-
sequentially in memory
s
Operation Counts
IBFS ExperimentsOT Orphans Growth Pushes
Speedup Instance BK BK IBFS BK IBFS BK IBFS
38.4 7.7 87.8 7.7 6.7 160.0 16.9 3 digged
126.5 43.9 601.7 25.4 7.3 353.2 108.4 1.11 hessi1a
43.7 13.3 129.6 10.2 6.3 122.2 33.0 1.24 house
83.3 27.3 348.3 17.3 6.8 153.0 53.5 1.07 anthra
23.0 6.8 30.1 8.8 6.8 10.9 2.8 1.17 bone_subx100
66.5 13.6 56.0 12.3 6.9 23.2 7.5 2.15 liver100
39.5 9.5 46.3 10.7 6.6 12.7 4.5 1.76 babyface100
7.0 5.1 35.6 8.1 6.9 2.0 0.5 0.79 bone100
0.6 0.4 0.6 6.2 6.2 0.5 0.3 1.23 bunny-med
61.2 13.0 92.4 9.4 6.8 74.0 20.4 1.54 camel-med
250.5 20.7 121.6 12.1 8.7 337.2 22.7 6.16 gargoyle-med
8.1 13.5 18.0 11.2 8.8 6.2 3.3 1.39 kz2-venus
s
Operation Counts (per vertex)
IBFS Experiments
• On non computer-vision graph families [http://www.avglab.com/andrew/CATS/maxflow_synthetic.htm]IBFS outperforms BK, some by large factors
• On these, standard Push-Relabel implementation outperforms both IBFS and BK.
s
Summary• BK works well on computer vision problems in
practice, but does not provide a polynomial run time guarantee
• IBFS works as well in practice and provides a polynomial run time guarantee
• IBFS operates similarly to BK, and can also be viewed as a bi-directional version of Dinitz where the auxiliary network is constantly recovered rather than rebuilt.
Open Question
• Can you find a maximum-flow algorithm with a polynomial time bound, which is competitive in practice with both Push-Relabel and BK on all graph families?
THANK YOU!
s