From 6c0419fac8965b908023e7e7ac40b58921becdb4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mario Surlemont <mario.surlemont@uni-duesseldorf.de>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:22:14 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Update todo.md
---
journal/todo.md | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/journal/todo.md b/journal/todo.md
index 57499ea..9dbf47f 100644
--- a/journal/todo.md
+++ b/journal/todo.md
@@ -47,8 +47,11 @@
- Refinde the concept how to test and which test results you want to include.
## literature
-* Read _Imposing Connectivity Constraints in Forest Planning Models_.
+* Read _Imposing Connectivity Constraints in Forest Planning Models_. ✔
- Check for different constraints which could strengthen the formulation. (with focus on symmetry breaking)
+ - They did not mention a symmetry breaker *but* they mentioned some other types of inequalities which could strengthen the formulation according to the connectivity specification.
+ - A thing which was interesting that for their specific problems (which were not really close to MCDS and had only connectivity in common) they achived a much stronger LP bound.
+ - They added cuts before an ILP solution was found and added cuts for LP solutions also.
* Read _An Efficient Branch and Cut Algorithm to Find Frequently Mutated Subnetworks in Cancer_ again with focus on symmetry breaking.
* Read through _An Integer Programming Approach for Fault-Tolerant Connected Dominating Sets*_ again and check for symmetry breaking or other constraints to tighten up the space of solutions.
--
GitLab