Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics Second Edition Methologies and Traditional Applications Volume 1 Teofilo F Gonzalez (Editor)

Handbook of Approximation Algorithms
and Metaheuristics Second Edition

Methologies and Traditional
Applications Volume 1 Teofilo F
Gonzalez(Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-approximation-algorithms-and-metaheur
istics-second-edition-methologies-and-traditional-applications-volume-1-teofilo-f-gonz
alezeditor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and

Metaheuristics, Second Edition: Contemporary and
Emerging Applications, Volume 2 Teofilo F
Gonzalez(Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-approximation-
algorithms-and-metaheuristics-second-edition-contemporary-and-
emerging-applications-volume-2-teofilo-f-gonzalezeditor/
Advances in Metaheuristics Algorithms Methods and

Applications Erik Cuevas
https://textbookfull.com/product/advances-in-metaheuristics-
algorithms-methods-and-applications-erik-cuevas/
Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms and

Metaheuristics: Applications in Engineering 1st Edition
Kaushik Kumar
https://textbookfull.com/product/optimization-using-evolutionary-
algorithms-and-metaheuristics-applications-in-engineering-1st-
edition-kaushik-kumar/
Handbook of Research on Food Science and Technology:

Volume 1: Food Technology and Chemistry 1st Edition
Monica Chavez-Gonzalez (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-food-
science-and-technology-volume-1-food-technology-and-
chemistry-1st-edition-monica-chavez-gonzalez-editor/
Handbook of natural fibres Volume 2 Processing and
applications Second Edition Koz■owski
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-natural-fibres-
volume-2-processing-and-applications-second-edition-kozlowski/
Spanish Society 1348 1700 2nd Edition Teofilo F. Ruiz
https://textbookfull.com/product/spanish-society-1348-1700-2nd-
edition-teofilo-f-ruiz/
Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis: Volume 2:

Radioanalytical Applications 4th Edition Michael F.
L'Annunziata (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-radioactivity-
analysis-volume-2-radioanalytical-applications-4th-edition-
michael-f-lannunziata-editor/
Handbook of Technical Textiles Volume 1 Second Edition

Technical Textile Processes Anand
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-technical-textiles-
volume-1-second-edition-technical-textile-processes-anand/
Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis: Radiation Physics

and Detectors: Volume 1: Radiation Physics and
Detectors 4th Edition Michael F. L'Annunziata (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-radioactivity-
analysis-radiation-physics-and-detectors-volume-1-radiation-
physics-and-detectors-4th-edition-michael-f-lannunziata-editor/
Methodologies and Traditional
Applications
Volume I
Chapman & Hall/CRC
Computer and Information Science Series
Series Editor: Sartaj Sahni
Computer-Aided Graphing and Simulation Tools for AutoCAD Users

P. A. Simionescu
Integration of Services into Workflow Applications
Paweł Czarnul
Handbook of Graph Theory, Combinatorial Optimization, and Algorithms
Krishnaiyan “KT” Thulasiraman, Subramanian Arumugam, Andreas Brandstädt, and Takao Nishizeki
From Action Systems to Distributed Systems
The Refinement Approach
Luigia Petre and Emil Sekerinski
Trustworthy Cyber-Physical Systems Engineering
Alexander Romanovsky and Fuyuki Ishikawa
X-Machines for Agent-Based Modeling
FLAME Perspectives
Mariam Kiran
From Internet of Things to Smart Cities
Enabling Technologies
Hongjian Sun, Chao Wang, and Bashar I. Ahmad
Evolutionary Multi-Objective System Design
Theory and Applications
Nadia Nedjah, Luiza De Macedo Mourelle, and Heitor Silverio Lopes
Networks of the Future
Architectures, Technologies, and Implementations
Mahmoud Elkhodr, Qusay F. Hassan, and Seyed Shahrestani
Computer Simulation
A Foundational Approach Using Python
Yahya E. Osais
Internet of Things
Challenges, Advances, and Applications
Qusay F. Hassan, Atta ur Rehman Khan, and Sajjad A. Madani
Handbook of Data Structures and Applications, Second Edition
Dinesh P. Mehta and Sartaj Sahni
Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics, Second Edition
Methodologies and Traditional Applications, Volume 1
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics, Second Edition
Contemporary and Emerging Applications, Volume 2
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
For more information about this series please visit:

https://www.crcpress.com/Chapman--HallCRC-Computer-and-Information-Science-Series/book-series/CHCOMINFSCI
Handbook of Approximation
Algorithms and Metaheuristics,
Second Edition
Methodologies and Traditional Applications
Volume I
Edited by
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
M2Z R M I ^ M ]2:2R M U U2\ H H T

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed on acid-free paper
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-7011-8 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to
publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials
or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material repro-
duced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any
copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any
form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming,
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.
com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a
not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a
photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifica-
tion and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
To my wife Dorothy, and our children:
Jeanmarie, Alexis, Julia, Teofilo, and Paolo.
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
1 Introduction, Overview, and Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
SECTION I Basic Methodologies

2 Basic Methodologies and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
3 Restriction Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
4 Greedy Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Samir Khuller, Balaji Raghavachari, and Neal E. Young
5 Recursive Greedy Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Guy Even
6 Local Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Dror Rawitz
7 LP Rounding and Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Daya Ram Gaur and Ramesh Krishnamurti
8 Polynomial Time Approximation Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Hadas Shachnai and Tami Tamir
9 Rounding, Interval Partitioning and Separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Sartaj Sahni
10 Asymptotic Polynomial Time Approximation Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
Rajeev Motwani, Liadan O’Callaghan, and An Zhu
11 Randomized Approximation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Sotiris Nikoletseas and Paul Spirakis
vii
viii Contents
12 Distributed Approximation Algorithms via LP-Duality

and Randomization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Devdatt Dubhashi, Fabrizio Grandoni, and Alessandro Panconesi
13 Empirical Analysis of Randomised Algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Holger H. Hoos and Thomas Stützle
14 Reductions That Preserve Approximability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Giorgio Ausiello and Vangelis Th. Paschos
15 Differential Ratio Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Giorgio Ausiello and Vangelis Th. Paschos
SECTION II Local Search, Neural Networks, and Metaheuristics

16 Local Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
Roberto Solis-Oba and Nasim Samei
17 Stochastic Local Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Holger H. Hoos and Thomas Stützle
18 Very Large-Scale Neighborhood Search: Theory, Algorithms,
and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
Ravindra K. Ahuja, Özlem Ergun, James B. Orlin,
and Abraham P. Punnen
19 Reactive Search: Machine Learning for Memory-Based Heuristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
Roberto Battiti and Mauro Brunato
20 Neural Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
Bhaskar DasGupta, Derong Liu, and Hava T. Siegelmann
21 Principles and Strategies of Tabu Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
Fred Glover, Manuel Laguna, and Rafael Martí
22 Evolutionary Computation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
Guillermo Leguizamón, Christian Blum, and Enrique Alba
23 An Introduction to Ant Colony Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Marco Dorigo and Krzysztof Socha
SECTION III Multiobjective Optimization, Sensitivity

Analysis, and Stability
24 Stochastic Local Search Algorithms for Multiobjective
Combinatorial Optimization: A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Luís Paquete and Thomas Stützle
25 Reoptimization of Hard Optimization Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
Hans-Joachim Böckenhauer, Juraj Hromkovič, and Dennis Komm
Contents ix
26 Sensitivity Analysis in Combinatorial Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

David Fernández-Baca and Balaji Venkatachalam
27 Stability of Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
Hans-Joachim Böckenhauer, Juraj Hromkovič, and Sebastian Seibert
SECTION IV Traditional Applications

28 Performance Guarantees for One Dimensional Bin Packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
János Csirik and György Dósa
29 Variants of Classical One Dimensional Bin Packing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
János Csirik and Csanád Imreh
30 Variable Sized Bin Packing and Bin Covering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
János Csirik
31 Multidimensional Packing Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
Leah Epstein and Rob van Stee
32 Practical Algorithms for Two-Dimensional Packing of Rectangles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
Shinji Imahori, Mutsunori Yagiura, and Hiroshi Nagamochi
33 Practical Algorithms for Two-Dimensional Packing
of General Shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
Yannan Hu, Hideki Hashimoto, Shinji Imahori, and Mutsunori Yagiura
34 Prize Collecting Traveling Salesman and Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611
Giorgio Ausiello, Vincenzo Bonifaci, Stefano Leonardi,
and Alberto Marchetti-Spaccamela
35 A Development and Deployment Framework for Distributed
Branch-and-Bound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 629
Peter Cappello and Christopher James Coakley
36 Approximations for Steiner Minimum Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641
Ding-Zhu Du and Weili Wu
37 Practical Approximations of Steiner Trees in Uniform
Orientation Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657
Andrew B. Kahng, Ion Măndoiu, and Alexander Zelikovsky
38 Algorithms for Chromatic Sums, Multicoloring, and
Scheduling Dependent Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671
Magnús M. Halldórsson and Guy Kortsarz
39 Approximation Algorithms and Heuristics
for Classical Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685
Jeremy Frank, Minh Do, and J. Benton
40 Generalized Assignment Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 713
Wei Wu, Mutsunori Yagiura, and Toshihide Ibaraki
x Contents
41 Linear Ordering Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737

Celso S. Sakuraba and Mutsunori Yagiura
42 Submodular Functions Maximization Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
Niv Buchbinder and Moran Feldman
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 789
Preface
More than half a century ago the research community began analyzing formally the quality of the
solutions generated by heuristics. The heuristics with guaranteed performance bounds eventually became
known as approximation algorithms. The idea behind approximation algorithms was to develop proce-
dures to generate provable near-optimal solutions to optimization problems that could not be solved
efficiently by the computational techniques available at that time. With the advent of the theory of
NP-completeness in the early 1970s, approximation algorithms became more prominent as the need to
generate near optimal solutions for NP-hard optimization problems became the most important avenue
for dealing with computational intractability. As it was established in the 1970s, for some problems one
could generate near optimal solutions quickly, while for other problems it was established that generat-
ing provably good suboptimal solutions was as difficult as generating optimal ones. Other approaches
based on probabilistic analysis and randomized algorithms became popular in the 1980s. The intro-
duction of new techniques to solve linear programming problems started a new wave for developing
approximation algorithms that matured and saw tremendous growth in the 1990s. To deal with the inap-
proximable problems, in a practical sense, there were a few techniques introduced in the 1980s and 1990s.
These methodologies have been referred to as metaheuristics and may be viewed as problem indepen-
dent methodologies that can be applied to sets of problems. There has been a tremendous amount of
research in metaheuristics during the past three decades. During the last 25 years or so, approximation
algorithms have attracted considerably more attention. This was a result of a stronger inapproximability
methodology that could be applied to a wider range of problems and the development of new approxi-
mation algorithms. In the last decade there has been an explosion of new applications arising from most
disciplines.
As we have witnessed, there has been tremendous growth in areas of approximation algorithms
and metaheuristics. The second edition of this handbook includes new chapters, updated chapters and
chapters with traditional content that did not warrant an update. For this second edition we have par-
titioned the handbook into two volumes. Volume 1 covers methodologies and traditional applications.
Volume 2 covers contemporary and emerging applications. More specifically volume 1 discusses the dif-
ferent methodologies to design approximation algorithms and metaheuristics, as well as the application of
these methodologies to traditional combinatorial optimization problems. Volume 2 discusses application
of these methodologies to classical problems in computational geometry and graphs theory, as well as in
large-scale and emerging application areas. Chapter 1 in both of these volumes presents an overview of
approximation algorithms and metaheuristics as well as as an overview of both volumes of this handbook.
It has been a decade since the first edition and our authors have experienced all sorts of different tran-
sitions. Several authors expanded their families while writing chapters for the first edition. The babies
born at that time are now more than ten years old! A few of the authors and the editor have now retired
from their day to day obligations, but continue to be active in research. A couple of the authors became
presidents of universities while others now hold prestigious chaired positions or high level positions at
their institutions. But sadly, Rajeev Motwani and Ivan Stojmenovic, well-known researchers and authors
xi
xii Preface
of first edition chapters, passed away. Since their chapters did not changed significantly, they remain as
co-authors of their chapters. Also, Imreh Csanád, a new author for the second edition, passed away in
2017. They are all missed greatly by their families, friends, and the entire research community.
We have collected in this volume a large amount of material with the goal of making it as complete as
possible. We apologize in advance for any omissions and would like to invite all of you to propose new
chapters for future editions of this handbook. Our research area will continue to grow and we are confi-
dent that the following words from an old song “The best is yet to come, you ain’t seen nothing yet. . .”
applies to our research area. We look forward to the next decade in which new challenges and opportuni-
ties await the new, as well as the established, researchers. We look forward to working on problems arising
in new emerging applications and editing the third edition of this handbook.
I like to acknowledge the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) for providing me the time
and support needed to develop the first and second editions of this handbook for the past 12 years. I also
want to thank my wife, Dorothy, our daughters, Jeanmarie, Alexis and Julia, and our sons, Teofilo and
Paolo for their moral support, love, encouragement, understanding, and patience, throughout the project
and my tenure at UCSB.
Teofilo F Gonzalez
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
University of California, Santa Barbara
Contributors
Ravindra K. Ahuja Mauro Brunato

Optym, Gainesville, Florida Department of Computer Science and
Telecommunications
Enrique Alba University of Trento
Departamento de Lenguajes y Ciencias Trento, Italy
de la Computación
University of Málaga Niv Buchbinder
Málaga, Spain School of Mathematical Sciences
Tel Aviv University
Giorgio Ausiello Tel Aviv, Israel
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
Peter Cappello
Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”
Department of Computer Science
Roma, Italy
University of California
Roberto Battiti Santa Barbara, California
Department of Computer Science and Christopher James Coakley
Telecommunications Department of Computer Science
University of Trento University of California
Trento, Italy Santa Barbara, California
J. Benton János Csirik

NASA Ames Research Center Department of Computer Science
Moffett Field, California University of Szeged
Szeged, Hungary
Christian Blum
Bhaskar DasGupta
ALBCOM, Dept. Llenguatges
i Sistemes Informátics
University of Illinois at Chicago
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
Chicago, Illinois
Barcelona, Spain
Minh Do
Hans-Joachim Böckenhauer NASA Ames Research Center
Department of Computer Science Moffett Field, California
ETH Zürich
Zürich, Switzerland Marco Dorigo
Institut de Recherches Interdisciplinaires
Vincenzo Bonifaci et de Développements en
Istituto di Analisi dei Sistemi ed Informatica Intelligence Artificielle (IRIDIA)
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Université Libre de Bruxelles
Roma, Italy Brussels, Belgium
xiii
xiv Contributors
György Dósa Fred Glover

Mathematical Department OptTek Systems
University of Pannonia Boulder, Colorado
Veszprém, Hungary
Teofilo F. Gonzalez
Ding-Zhu Du Department of Computer Science
Department of Computer Science University of California
University of Texas at Dallas Santa Barbara, California
Richardson, Texas
Fabrizio Grandoni
Devdatt Dubhashi Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial
Computer Science Department Intelligence Research
Chalmers University Manno, Switzerland
Goteborg, Sweden
Magnús M. Halldórsson
Özlem Ergun ICE-TCS, School of Computer Science
Department of Mechanical and Reykjavik University
Industrial Engineering Reykjavik, Iceland
Northeastern University
Hideki Hashimoto
Boston, Massachusetts
Department of Logistics and
Information Engineering
Leah Epstein
Tokyo University of Marine
Department of Mathematics
Science and Technology
University of Haifa
Tokyo, Japan
Haifa, Israel
Holger H. Hoos
Guy Even
Leiden Institute of Advanced
School of Electrical Engineering
Computer Science
Tel Aviv University
Universiteit Leiden
Tel Aviv, Israel
Leiden, the Netherlands
Moran Feldman Juraj Hromkovič
Department of Mathematics and Department of Computer Science
Computer Science ETH Zürich
The Open University of Israel Zürich, Switzerland
Raanana, Israel
Yannan Hu
David Fernández-Baca Department of Mathematical Informatics
Department of Computer Science Nagoya University
Iowa State University Nagoya, Japan
Ames, Iowa
Toshihide Ibaraki
Jeremy Frank The Kyoto College of Graduate
NASA Ames Research Center Studies for Informatics
Moffett Field, California Kyoto, Japan
Daya Ram Gaur Shinji Imahori

Department of Mathematics and Department of Information and
Computer Science System Engineering
University of Lethbridge Chuo University
Lethbridge, Canada Tokyo, Japan
Contributors xv
Csanád Imreh Ion Măndoiu

Department of Computer Science Computer Science and
University of Szeged Engineering Department
Szeged, Hungary University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
Andrew B. Kahng
CSE and ECS Departments Alberto Marchetti-Spaccamela
University of California, San Diego Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
La Jolla, California Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”
Roma, Italy
Samir Khuller
Department of Computer Science Rafael Martí
University of Maryland Facultad de Mathemáticas
College Park, Maryland Universidad de Valencia
Valencia, Spain
Dennis Komm
Department of Computer Science Rajeev Motwani
ETH Zürich Department of Computer Science
Zürich, Switzerland Stanford University
Stanford, California
Guy Kortsarz
Department of Computer Science Hiroshi Nagamochi
Rutgers University Department of Applied
Camden, New Jersey Mathematics and Physics
Kyoto University
Ramesh Krishnamurti Kyoto, Japan
School of Computer Science
Simon Fraser University Sotiris Nikoletseas
Burnaby, Canada Computer Engineering &
Informatics Department
Manuel Laguna Patras University
Leeds School of Business Patras, Greece
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado Liadan O’Callaghan
Google Inc
Stefano Leonardi Mountain View, California
Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica
Universitá degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” James B. Orlin
Roma, Italy Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Guillermo Leguizamón
Departamento de Informática Alessandro Panconesi
Universidad Nacional de San Luis Computer Science Department
San Luis, Argentina Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”
Roma, Italy
Derong Liu
Department of Electrical & Luís Paquete
Computer Engineering DEI/CISUC
University of Illinois at Chicago University of Coimbra
Chicago, Illinois Coimbra, Portugal
xvi Contributors
Vangelis Th. Paschos Krzysztof Socha

LAMSADE and Université Paris-Dauphine Institut de Recherches Interdisciplinaires
Paris, France et de Développements en Intelligence
Artificielle (IRIDIA)
Abraham P. Punnen Université libre de Bruxelles
Department of Mathematics Brussels, Belgium
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, Canada Roberto Solis-Oba
The University of Western Ontario
Balaji Raghavachari
London, Canada
University of Texas at Dallas
Paul Spirakis
Richardson, Texas
Computer Engineering &
Informatics Department
Dror Rawitz Patras University
Faculty of Engineering Patras, Greece
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, Israel Thomas Stützle
Institut de Recherches Interdisciplinaires
Sartaj Sahni et de Développements en Intelligence
Department of Computer Science Artificielle (IRIDIA)
University of Florida Université Libre de Bruxelles
Gainesville, Florida Brussels, Belgium
Celso S. Sakuraba Tami Tamir

Department of Production Engineering School of Computer Science
Federal University of Sergipe The Interdisciplinary Center
Sao Cristovao, Brazil Herzliya, Israel
Nasim Samei Rob van Stee

Department of Computer Science Computer Science Department
The University of Western Ontario University of Leicester
London, Canada Leicester, United Kingdom
Balaji Venkatachalam
Sebastian Seibert
Iowa State University
RWTH Aachen University
Ames, Iowa
Aachen, Germany
Wei Wu
Hadas Shachnai Department of Computer Science and
Computer Science Department Mathematical Informatics
The Technion Nagoya University
Haifa, Israel Nagoya, Japan
Hava T. Siegelmann Weili Wu

Computer Science Department Department of Computer Science
University of Massachusetts University of Texas at Dallas
Amherst, Massachusetts Richardson, Texas
Contributors xvii
Mutsunori Yagiura Alexander Zelikovsky

Department of Mathematical Informatics Computer Science Department
Nagoya University Georgia State University
Nagoya, Japan Atlanta, Georgia
Neal E. Young
Department of Computer Science An Zhu
University of California at Riverside Google Inc
Riverside, California Mountain View, California
1
Introduction,
Overview, and
Notation
1.1 Introduction............................................................................... 1
1.2 Overview .................................................................................... 2
Local Search, Artificial Neural Networks, and
Metaheuristics • Multiobjective Optimization, Reoptimization, Sensitivity
Analysis, and Stability • Traditional Applications • Computational
Geometry and Graph Applications • Large-Scale and Emerging
Applications
1.3 Definitions and Notation ........................................................... 16
Time and Space Complexity • NP-Completeness • Performance
Teofilo F. Gonzalez Evaluation of Algorithms
1.1 Introduction
Approximation algorithms were formally introduced in the 1960s to generate near-optimal solutions to
optimization problems that could not be solved efficiently by the computational techniques available
at that time. With the advent of the theory of NP-completeness in the early 1970s, the area became
more prominent as the need to generate near-optimal solutions for NP-hard optimization problems
became the most important avenue for dealing with computational intractability. As it was established
in the 1970s, for some problems it is possible to generate near-optimal solutions quickly, whereas for
other problems generating provably good suboptimal solutions is as difficult as generating optimal ones.
Computational approaches based on probabilistic analysis and randomized algorithms became popu-
lar in the 1980s. The introduction of new techniques to solve linear programming problems started
a new wave of approximation algorithms that matured and saw tremendous growth in the 1990s.
There were a few techniques introduced in the 1980s and 1990s to deal, in the practical sense, with
inapproximable problems. These methodologies have been referred to as metaheuristics and include
Simulated Annealing (SA), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), Evolutionary Computation (EC), Tabu
Search (TS), Memetic Algorithms (MAs), and so on. Other previously established methodologies such
as local search, backtracking, and branch-and-bound were also explored at that time. There has been
a tremendous amount of research in metaheuristics during the past three decades. These techniques
have been evaluated experimentally and have demonstrated their usefulness for solving problems that
are arising in practice. During the last 25 years or so, approximation algorithms have attracted con-
siderably more attention. This was a result of a stronger inapproximability methodology that could
be applied to a wider range of problems and the development of new approximation algorithms
for problems arising in established and emerging application areas. Polynomial Time Approximation
1
2 Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics
Schemes (PTASs) were introduced in the 1960s and the more powerful Fully Polynomial Approximation
Schemes (FPTASs) were introduced in the 1970s. Asymptotic PTAS (APTAS) and Asymptotic FPTAS
(AFPTAS), and Fully Polynomial Randomized Approximation Schemes (FPRASs) were introduced
later on.
Today approximation algorithms enjoy a stature comparable to that of algorithms in general and the
area of metaheuristics has established itself as an important research area. The new stature is a byproduct
of a natural expansion of research into more practical areas where solutions to real-world problems are
expected, as well as by the higher level of sophistication required to design and analyze these new proce-
dures. The goal of approximation algorithms and metaheuristics is to provide the best possible solutions
and to guarantee that such solutions satisfy certain criteria. This two-volume handbook houses these two
approaches and thus covers all the aspects of approximations. We hope it will serve you as a valuable
reference for approximation methodologies and applications.
Approximation algorithms and metaheuristics have been developed to solve a wide variety of problems.
A good portion of these algorithms have only theoretical value due to the fact that their time complexity
is a high-order polynomial or they have a huge constant associated with their time complexity bound.
However, these results are important because they establish what is possible, and it may be that in the
near future these algorithms will be transformed into practical ones. Other approximation algorithms do
not suffer from this pitfall, but some were designed for problems with limited applicability. However, the
remaining approximation algorithms have real-world applications. Given this, there is a huge number of
important application areas, including new emerging ones, where approximation algorithms and meta-
heuristics have barely penetrated and we believe there is an enormous potential for their use. Our goal is
to collect a wide portion of the approximation algorithms and metaheuristics in as many areas as possible,
as well as to introduce and explain in detail the different methodologies used to design these algorithms.
1.2 Overview
Our overview in this section is devoted mainly to the earlier years. The individual chapters in the two
volumes discuss in detail the recent research accomplishments in different subareas. This section will
also serve as an overview of both volumes of this handbook. Chapter 2 discusses some of the basic
methodologies and applies them to classical problems.
Even before the 1960s researchers in applied mathematics and graph theory had established upper
and lower bounds for certain properties of graphs. For example, bounds had been established for the
chromatic number, achromatic number, chromatic index, maximum clique, maximum independent set,
and so on. Some of these results could be seen as the precursors of approximation algorithms. By the
1960s it was understood that there were problems that could be solved efficiently, whereas for other
problems all the known algorithms required exponential time in the worst case. Heuristics were being
developed to find quick solutions to problems that appeared to be computationally difficult to solve.
Researchers were experimenting with heuristics, branch-and-bound procedures, and iterative improve-
ment frameworks and were evaluating their performance when solving actual problem instances. There
were many claims being made, not all of which could be substantiated, about the performance of the
procedures being developed to generate optimal and suboptimal solutions to combinatorial optimization
problems.
Half a century ago (1966), Ronald L. Graham [1] formally introduced approximation algorithms. He
analyzed the performance of list schedules for scheduling tasks on identical machines, a fundamental
problem in scheduling theory.
Problem: Scheduling tasks on identical machines.
Instance: Set of n tasks (T1 , T2 , . . . , Tn ) with processing time requirements t1 , t2 , . . . , tn , partial order
C defined over the set of tasks to enforce task dependencies, and a set of m identical machines.
Introduction, Overview, and Notation 3
Objective: Construct a schedule with minimum makespan. A schedule is an assignment of tasks to time
intervals on the machines in such a way that (1) each task Ti is processed continuously for ti units
of time by one of the machines; (2) each machine processes at most one task at a time; and (3) the
precedence constraints are satisfied (i.e., machines cannot commence the processing of a task until
all of its predecessors have been completed). The makespan of a schedule is the time at which all the
machines have completed processing the tasks.
The list-scheduling procedure is given an ordering of the tasks specified by a list L. Then the procedure
finds the earliest time t when a machine is idle, and an unassigned task is available (i.e., all its predecessor
tasks have been completed). It assigns the leftmost available task in the list L to an idle machine at time t
and this step is repeated until all the tasks have been scheduled.
The main result in Reference 1 was proving that for every problem instance I, the schedule generated
by this policy has a makespan that is bounded above by (2 − 1/m) times the optimal makespan for the
instance. This is called the approximation ratio or approximation factor for the algorithm. We also say that
the algorithm is a (2 − 1/m)-approximation algorithm. This criterion for measuring the quality of the
solutions generated by an algorithm remains as one of the most important ones in use today. The second
contribution in Reference 1 was showing that the approximation ratio (2−1/m) is the best possible for list
schedules, that is, the analysis of the approximation ratio for this algorithm cannot be improved. This was
established by presenting problem instances (for all m and n ≥ 2m − 1) and lists for which the schedule
generated by the procedure has a makespan equal to 2−1/m times the optimal makespan for the instance.
A restricted version of the list-scheduling algorithm is analyzed in detail in Chapter 2.
The third important aspect of the results in Reference 1 was showing that list scheduling may have
anomalies. To explain this we need to define some terms. The makespan of the list schedule for instance
I using list L is denoted by fL (I). Suppose that instance I is a slightly modified version of instance I.
The modification is such that we intuitively expect that fL (I ) ≤ fL (I). But this is not always true, so there
is an anomaly. For example, suppose that I is I, except that I has an additional machine. Intuitively
fL (I ) ≤ fL (I) because with one additional machine, tasks should be finished earlier or at worst at the same
time as when there is one fewer machine. But this is not always the case for list schedules, there are prob-
lem instances and lists for which fL (I ) > fL (I). This is called an anomaly. Our expectation would be valid
if list scheduling would generate minimum makespan schedules, but we have a procedure that generates
suboptimal solutions. Such guarantees are not always possible in this type of environment. List schedules
suffer from other anomalies, for example, relaxing the precedence constraints or decreasing the execution
time of the tasks. In both cases, one would expect schedules with smaller or the same makespans. But, that
is not always the case. Chapter 2 presents problem instances where anomalies occur. The main reason for
discussing anomalies now is that even today, numerous papers are being published and systems are being
deployed where “common sense”-based procedures are being introduced without any analytical justifica-
tion and/or thorough experimental validation. Anomalies show that since we live for the most part in a
“suboptimal world,” the effect of our decisions is not always the intended one (unintended consequences).
One can design approximation algorithms that do not suffer from certain types of anomalies but probably
not for all possible ones.
Other classical problems with numerous applications are the traveling salesperson, Steiner tree, and
spanning tree problems, which will be formally defined later on. Even before the 1960s there were several
well-known polynomial time algorithms to construct minimum weight spanning trees for edge-weighted
graphs [2]. These simple greedy algorithms have low-order polynomial time complexity bounds. It was
well known at that time that the same type of procedures does not generate an optimal tour for the
traveling salesperson problem (TSP) and does not construct optimal Steiner trees. However, in 1968 E. F.
Moore (as discussed in Reference 3) showed that for any set of points P in metric space LM ≤ LT ≤ 2LS ,
where LM , LT , and LS are the total weight of a minimum weight spanning tree, a minimum weight tour
(solution) for the TSP, and minimum weight Steiner tree for P, respectively. Since every spanning tree is
a Steiner tree, the above-mentioned bounds show that when using a minimum weight spanning tree to
approximate the Steiner tree we have a solution (Steiner tree) whose weight is at most twice the weight
of an optimal Steiner tree. In other words, any algorithm that generates a minimum weight spanning
tree is a 2-approximation algorithm for the Steiner tree problem. Furthermore, this approximation
algorithm takes no more time than an algorithm that constructs a minimum weight spanning tree for
edge weighted graphs [2], as such an algorithm can be used to construct an optimal spanning tree for a
set of points in metric space. The above-mentioned bound is established by defining a transformation
from any minimum weight Steiner tree into a TSP tour with weight at most 2LS . Therefore, LT ≤ 2LS
[3]. Then by observing that the deletion of an edge in an optimum tour for the TSP problem results in a
spanning tree, it follows that LM < LT . Chapter 3 discusses this approximation algorithm and its analysis
in more detail. The Steiner ratio is defined as LS /LM . The earlier arguments show that the Steiner ratio √
is at least 12 . Gilbert and Pollak [3] conjectured that the Steiner ratio in the Euclidean plane equals 23
(the 0.86603 . . . conjecture). A proof of this conjecture and improved approximation algorithms for the
Steiner tree problem are discussed in Chapter 36.
The above-mentioned constructive proof can be applied to a minimum weight spanning tree to gener-
ate a tour for the TSP problem. The construction takes polynomial time and results in a 2-approximation
algorithm for the TSP problem. This approximation algorithm for the TSP is also referred to as the
double spanning tree algorithm and is discussed in Chapters 3 and 27. Improved approximation algo-
rithms for the TSP and algorithms for its generalizations are discussed in Chapters 3, 27, 34, 35, and
Volume 2, Chapter 2. The approximation algorithm for the Steiner tree problem just discussed is
explained in Chapter 3, and improved approximation algorithms and applications are discussed in Chap-
ters 36, 37, and Volume 2, Chapter 2. Volume 2, Chapter 14 discusses approximation algorithms for
computationally intractable variations of the spanning tree problem.
In 1969, Graham [4] studied the problem of scheduling tasks on identical machines but restricted to
independent tasks, that is, the set of precedence constraints is empty. He analyzed the Largest Processing
Time first (LPT) scheduling rule, which is list scheduling where the list of tasks L is arranged in nonin-
creasing order of their processing requirements. His elegant proof established that the LPT procedure
generates a schedule with makespan at most 43 − 3m 1
times the makespan of an optimal schedule, that is,
4 1
the LPT scheduling algorithm has a 3 − 3m approximation ratio. He also showed that the analysis is best
possible for all m and n ≥ 2m+1. For n ≤ 2m tasks the approximation ratio is smaller and under some con-
ditions, LPT generates an optimal makespan schedule. Graham [4], following a suggestion by D. Kleitman
and D. Knuth, considered list schedules where the first portion of the list L consists of k tasks (without
loss of generality, assume k is a multiple of m) with the longest processing times arranged by their starting
times in an optimal schedule for these k tasks (only). Then the list L has the remaining n − k tasks in any
order. The approximation ratio for this list schedule using list L is 1 + m−1
m+k . An optimal schedule for the
longest k tasks can be constructed in O(n + mk ) time by a straight forward branch and bound algorithm.
In other words, this algorithm has an approximation ratio 1+ and time complexity O(n+m(m−1−m)/ ).
For any fixed constants m and , the algorithm constructs in polynomial (linear) time with respect to n,
a schedule with makespan at most 1 + times the optimal makespan. Note that for a fixed constant m
the time complexity is polynomial with respect to n, but it is not polynomial with respect to 1/. This
was the first algorithm of its kind and later on, it was called Polynomial Time Approximation Scheme
(PTAS). Chapter 8 discusses different PTASs. Additional PTAS appear in Chapter 36 and Volume 2,
Chapters 2 and 5. The proof techniques presented in References 1, 4 are outlined in Chapter 2 and have
been extended to apply to other problems. There is an extensive body of literature for approximation algo-
rithms and metaheuristics for scheduling problems. Chapters 38, 39, and Volume 2, Chapter 25 discuss
interesting approximation algorithms and heuristics for scheduling problems. The scheduling handbook
[5] is an excellent source for scheduling algorithms, models, and performance analysis.
The development of NP-completeness theory in the early 1970s by Cook [6], Karp [7], and others for-
mally introduced the notion that there is a large class of decision problems (the answer to these problems
is a simple yes or no) that are computationally equivalent. This means that either every problem in this
class has a polynomial time algorithm that solves it, or none of them do. Furthermore, this question is
the same as the P = NP question, a classical open problem in computational complexity. This question is
to determine whether or not the set of languages recognized in polynomial time by deterministic Turing
machines is the same as the set of languages recognized in polynomial time by nondeterministic Turing
machines. The conjecture has been that P = NP, and thus the hardest problems in NP would not be
solvable in polynomial time. The computationally equivalent decision problems in this class are called
NP-complete problems. The scheduling on identical machines problem discussed earlier is an optimiza-
tion problem. Its corresponding decision problem has its input augmented by an integer value B, and
the yes–no question is to determine whether or not there is a schedule with makespan at most B. An
optimization problem whose corresponding decision problem is NP-complete is called an NP-hard prob-
lem. Therefore, scheduling tasks on identical machines is an NP-hard problem. The TSP and the Steiner
tree problem are also NP-hard problems. The minimum weight spanning tree problem can be solved in
polynomial time and it is not an NP-hard problem under the assumption that P = NP. The next section
discusses NP-completeness in more detail. There is a long list of practical problems arising in many dif-
ferent fields of study that are known to be NP-hard problems [8]. Because of this, the need to cope with
these computationally intractable problems was recognized earlier on. Since then approximation algo-
rithms became a central area of research activity. Approximation algorithms offered a way to circumvent
computational intractability by paying a price when it comes to the quality of the solutions generated. But
a solution can be generated quickly. In other words and another language, “no te fijes en lo bien, fijate en
lo rápido”. Words used to describe my golf playing ability when I was growing up.
In the early 1970s, Garey et al. [9] as well as Johnson [10,11] developed the first set of polynomial time
approximation algorithms for the bin packing problem. The analysis of the approximation ratio for these
algorithms is asymptotic, which is different from those for the scheduling problems discussed earlier. We
will define this notion precisely in the next section, but the idea is that the ratio holds when the value of an
optimal solution is greater than some constant. Research on the bin packing problem and its variants has
attracted very talented investigators who have generated more than 1000 papers, most of which deal with
approximations. This work has been driven by numerous applications in engineering and information
sciences (see Chapters 28, 29, 30, and 31).
Johnson [12] developed polynomial time algorithms for the sum of subsets, max satisfiability, set cover,
graph coloring, and max clique problems. The algorithms for the first two problems have a constant ratio
approximation, but for the other problems the approximation ratio is ln n and n . Sahni [13,14] developed
a PTAS for the knapsack problem. Rosenkrantz et al. [15] developed several constant ratio approximation
algorithms for the TSP that satisfy the triangle inequality (or simply, defined over metric graphs). This
version of the problem is defined over edge weighted complete graphs, rather than for points in metric
space as in Reference 3. These algorithms have an approximation ratio of two.
Sahni and Gonzalez [16] showed that there were a few NP-hard optimization problems for which
the existence of a constant ratio polynomial time approximation algorithm implies the existence of a
polynomial time algorithm to generate an optimal solution. In other words, complexity of generating a
constant ratio approximation and an optimal solution are computationally equivalent problems. For these
problems, the approximation problem is NP-hard or simply inapproximable (under the assumption that
P = NP). Later on, this notion was extended to mean that there is no polynomial time algorithm with
approximation ratio r for a problem under some complexity theoretic hypothesis. The approximation
ratio r is called the inapproximability ratio (see Chapter 17 in the first edition of this handbook).
The k-min-cluster problem is one of these inapproximable problems. Given an edge-weighted undi-
rected graph, the k-min-cluster problem is to partition the set of vertices into k sets so as to minimize the
sum of the weight of the edges with endpoints in the same set. The k-maxcut problem is defined as the
k-min-cluster problem, except that the objective is to maximize the sum of the weight of the edges with
endpoints in different sets. Even though these two problems have exactly the same set of feasible and opti-
mal solutions, there is a linear time algorithm for the k-maxcut problem that generates k-cuts with weight
at least k−1
k times the weight of an optimal k-cut [16], whereas approximating the k-min-cluster problem
is a computationally intractable problem. The former problem has the property that a near-optimal solu-
tion may be obtained as long as partial decisions are made optimally, whereas for the k-min-cluster an
optimal partial decision may turn out to force a terrible overall solution. For the k-min-cluster problem if
one makes a mistake at some iteration, one will end up with a solution that is far from optimal. Whereas
for the k-maxcut problem one can make many mistakes and still end up with a near-optimal solution.
A similar situation arises when you make a mistake an exam where almost everyone receives a perfect
score, versus a course where the average score is about 50% of the points.
Another interesting problem whose approximation problem is NP-hard is the TSP problem [16]. This
is not exactly the same version of the TSP problem discussed earlier, which we said has several constant
ratio polynomial time approximation algorithms. Given an edge-weighted undirected graph, the TSP is
to find a least weight tour, that is, to find a least weight (simple) path that starts at vertex 1, visits each
vertex in the graph exactly once, and ends at vertex 1. The weight of a path is the sum of the weight of its
edges. The weights of the edges are unrelated and the approximation problem is NP-hard. The version of
the TSP problem studied in Reference 15 is limited to metric graphs, that is, the graph is complete (all the
edges are present) and the set of edge weights satisfies the triangle inequality (which means that the weight
of the edge joining vertex i and j is less than or equal to the weight of any path from vertex i to vertex j).
This version of the TSP problem is equivalent to the one studied by E. F. Moore [3]. The approximation
algorithms given in References 3, 15 can be easily adapted to provide a constant ratio approximation to
the version of the TSP problem where the tour is defined as visiting each vertex in the graph at least
once. Since Moore’s approximation algorithms for the metric Steiner tree and metric TSP are based on
the same idea, one would expect that the Steiner tree problem defined over arbitrarily weighted graphs
is NP-hard to approximate. However, this is not the case. Moore’s algorithm [3] can be modified to be a
2-approximation algorithm for this more general Steiner tree problem.
As pointed out in Reference 17, Levner and Gens [18] added a couple of problems to the list of prob-
lems that are NP-hard to approximate. Garey and Johnson [19] show that the max clique problem has the
property that if for some constant r there is a polynomial time r-approximation algorithm, then there is
a polynomial time r -approximation for any constant r such that 0 < r < 1. Since that time researchers
have tried many different algorithms for the clique problem, none of which were constant ratio approx-
imation algorithms, and it was conjectured that none existed under the assumption that P = NP. This
conjecture has been proved.
A PTAS is said to be an FPTAS if its time complexity is polynomial with respect to n (the problem size)
and 1/. The first FPTAS was developed by Ibarra and Kim [20] for the knapsack problem. Sahni [21]
developed three different techniques based on rounding, interval partitioning, and separation to construct
FPTAS for sequencing and scheduling problems. These techniques have been extended to other problems
and are discussed in Chapter 9. Horowitz and Sahni [22] developed FPTAS for scheduling on processors
with different processing speeds. Reference 17 discusses a simple O(n3 /) FPTAS for the knapsack prob-
lem developed by Babat [23,24]. Lawler [25] developed techniques for maximum speed-up FPTAS for the
knapsack and related problems. Chapter 9 presents different methodologies to design FPTAS. Garey and
Johnson [26] showed that if any problem in a class of NP-hard optimization problems that satisfy certain
properties has a FPTAS, then P = NP. The properties are that the objective function value of every feasi-
ble solution is a positive integer, and the problem is strongly NP-hard. A problem is strongly NP-hard if
the problem is NP-hard even when the magnitude of the maximum number in the input is bounded by a
polynomial on the input length. For example, the TSP problem is strongly NP-hard, whereas the knapsack
problem is not, under the assumption that P = NP (see Chapter 9).
Lin and Kernighan [27] developed elaborate heuristics that established experimentally that instances
of the TSP with up to 110 cities can be solved to optimality with 95% confidence in O(n2 ) time. This
was an iterative improvement procedure applied to a set of randomly selected feasible solutions. The
process was to perform k pairs of link (edge) interchanges that improved the length of the tour. However,
Papadimitriou and Steiglitz [28] showed that for the TSP no local optimum of an efficiently searchable
neighborhood can be within a constant factor of the optimal value unless P = NP. Since then there
has been quite a bit of research activity in this area. Deterministic and stochastic local search in efficiently
searchable, as well as in very large neighborhoods, are discussed in Chapters 16, 17, 18, and 19. Chapter 13
discusses issues relating to the empirical evaluation of approximation algorithms and metaheuristics.
Perhaps the best known approximation algorithm for the TSP defined over metric graphs is the one
by Christofides [29]. The approximation ratio for this algorithm is 32 , which is smaller than the approxi-
mation ratio of 2 for the algorithms reported in References 3, 15. However, looking at the bigger picture
that includes the time complexity of the approximation algorithms, Christofides algorithm is not of the
same order as the ones given in References 3, 15. Therefore, neither approximation algorithm dominates
the other as one has a smaller time complexity bound, whereas the other (Christofides algorithm) has a
smaller worst case approximation ratio.
Ausiello et al. [30] introduced the differential ratio, which is another way of measuring the quality
of the solutions generated by approximation algorithms. Differential ratio destroys the artificial dissym-
metry between “equivalent” minimization and maximization problems (e.g., the k-maxcut and the k-min
cluster discussed earlier) when it comes to approximation. This ratio uses the difference between the worst
possible solution minus the solution generated by the algorithm, divided by the difference between the
worst solution minus the best solution. Cornuejols et al. [31] also discussed a variation of differential ratio
approximations. They wanted the ratio to satisfy the following property: “A modification of the data that
adds a constant to the objective function value should also leave the error measure unchanged.” That is,
the “error” by the approximation algorithm should be the same as before. Differential ratio and its exten-
sions are discussed in Chapter 15, along with other similar notions [30]. Ausiello et al. [30] introduced
reductions that preserve approximability. Since then there have been several new types of approximation
preserving reductions. The main advantage of these reductions is that they enable us to define large classes
of optimization problems that behave in the same way with respect to approximation. Informally, the class
of NP Optimization (NPO) problems, is the set of all optimization problems which can be “recognized”
in polynomial time (see Chapter 14 for a formal definition). An NPO problem is said to be in APX,
if it has a constant approximation ratio polynomial time algorithm. The class PTAS consists of all NPO
problems which have PTAS. The class FPTAS is defined similarly. Other classes, Poly-APX, Log-APX,
and Exp-APX, have also been defined (see Chapter 14).
One of the main accomplishments at the end of the 1970s was the development of a polynomial time
algorithm for Linear Programming (LP) problems by Khachiyan [32]. This result had a tremendous
impact on approximation algorithm research and started a new wave of approximation algorithms. Two
subsequent research accomplishments were at least as significant as Khachiyan’s [32] result. The first one
was a faster polynomial time algorithm for solving linear programming problems developed by Karmakar
[33]. The other major accomplishment was the work of Grötschel et al. [34,35]. They showed that it is pos-
sible to solve a linear programming problem with an exponential number of constraints (with respect to
the number of variables) in time which is polynomial in the number of variables and the number of bits
used to describe the input, given a separation oracle plus a bounding ball and a lower bound on the vol-
ume of the feasible solution space. Given a solution, the separation oracle determines in polynomial time
whether or not the solution is feasible, and if it is not it finds a constraint that is violated. Chapter 10 gives
an example of the use of this approach. Important developments have taken place during the past 30 years.
The books [35,36] are excellent references for linear programming theory, algorithms, and applications.
Because of the above-mentioned results, the approach of formulating the solution to an NP-hard prob-
lem as an integer linear programming problem and so solving the corresponding linear programming
problem became very popular. This approach is discussed in Chapter 2. Once a fractional solution is
obtained, one uses rounding to obtain a feasible solution to the original NP-hard problem. The round-
ing may be deterministic or randomized, and it may be very complex (meta-rounding). LP rounding is
discussed in Chapters 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, and Volume 2, Chapters 8 and 11.
Independently, Johnson [12] and Lovász [37] developed efficient algorithms for the set cover with
approximation ratio of 1 + ln d, where d is the maximum number of elements in each set. Chvátal [38]
extended this result to the weighted set cover problem. Subsequently, Hochbaum [39] developed an
algorithm with approximation ratio f , where f is the maximum number of sets containing any of the ele-
ments in the set. This result is normally inferior to the one by Chvátal [38], but it is more attractive for the
weighted vertex cover problem, which is a restricted version of the weighted set cover. For this subproblem
it is a 2-approximation algorithm. A few months after Hochbaum’s initial result,* Bar-Yehuda and Even
[40] developed a primal-dual algorithm with the same approximation ratio as the one in Reference 39. The
algorithm in Reference 40 does not require the solution of an LP problem, as in the case of the algorithm in
Reference 39, and its time complexity is linear. But it uses linear programming theory to establish this
result. This was the first primal-dual approximation algorithm, though some previous algorithms may
also be viewed as falling into this category. An application of the primal-dual approach as well as related
ones are discussed in Chapter 2. Chapters 4, 34, and Volume 2, Chapter 23 discuss several primal-dual
approximation algorithms. Chapter 12 discusses “distributed” primal-dual algorithms. These algorithms
make decisions by using only “local” information.
In the mid 1980s Bar-Yehuda and Even [41] developed a new framework parallel to the primal-dual
methods. They called it local ratio; it is simple and requires no prior knowledge of linear programming.
In Chapter 2 we explain the basics of this approach, and Chapter 6 and Reference 42 covers extensively
this technique as well as its extensions.
Raghavan and Thompson [43] were the first to apply randomized rounding to relaxations of linear
programming problems to generate solutions to the problem being approximated. This field has grown
tremendously. LP randomized rounding is discussed in Chapters 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, and Volume 2, Chap-
ter 11, and deterministic rounding is discussed in Chapters 2, 7, 8, 10, and Volume 2, Chapters 8 and
11. A disadvantage of LP-rounding is that a linear programming problem needs to be solved. This takes
polynomial time with respect to the input length, but in this case it means the number of bits needed
to represent the input. In contrast, algorithms based on the primal-dual approach are for the most part
faster, since they take polynomial time with respect to the number of “objects” in the input. However, the
LP-rounding approach can be applied to a much larger class of problems and it is more robust since the
technique is more likely to be applicable after changing the objective function and/or constraints for a
problem.
The first Asymptomatic PTAS (APTAS) was developed by Fernandez de la Vega and Lueker [44] for
the bin packing problem. The first Asymptomatic FPTAS (AFPTAS) for the same problem was developed
by Karmakar and Karp [45]. These approaches are discussed in Chapter 15. FPRASs are discussed in
Chapter 11.
In the 1980s, new approximation algorithms were developed as well as PTAS and FPTAS based on
different approaches. These results are reported throughout the handbook. One difference was the appli-
cation of approximation algorithm to other areas of research activity (very large-scale integration [VLSI],
bioinformatics, network problems) as well as other problems in established areas.
In the late 1980s Papadimitriou and Yannakakis [46] defined MAXSNP as a subclass of NPO. These
problems can be approximated within a constant factor and have a nice logical characterization. They
showed that if MAX3SAT, vertex cover, MAXCUT, and some other problems in the class could be approx-
imated in polynomial time with an arbitrary precision, then all MAXSNP problems would. This fact was
established by using approximation preserving reductions (see Chapter 14). In the 1990s Arora et al. [47],
using complex arguments (see Chapter 17 in the 1st edition of this handbook), showed that MAX3SAT
is hard to approximate within a factor of 1 + for some > 0 unless P = NP. Thus, all prob-
lems in MAXSNP do not admit a PTAS unless P = NP. This work led to major developments in the
*
Here we are referring to the time when these results appeared as technical reports. Note that from the journal publication
dates, the order is reversed. You will find throughout the chapters similar patterns. To add to the confusion, a large number
of papers have also been published in conference proceedings. Since it would be very complex to include the dates when the
initial technical report and conference proceedings were published, we only include the latest publication date. Please keep
this in mind when you read the chapters and, in general, the computer science literature.
area of approximation algorithms, including inapproximability results for other problems, a bloom of
approximation preserving reductions, discovery of new inapproximability classes, and construction of
approximation algorithms achieving optimal or near-optimal ratios.
Feige et al. [48] showed that the clique problem could not be approximated to within some constant
value. Applying the previous results in Reference 26 it showed that the clique problem is inapproximable
to within any constant. Feige [49] showed that set cover is inapproximable within ln n. Other inapprox-
imable results appear in References 50, 51. Chapter 17 in the first edition of this handbook discusses all of
this work in detail.
There are many other very interesting results that have been published in the past 25 years. Goemans
and Williamson [52] developed improved approximation algorithms for the maxcut and satisfiability
problems using semidefinite programming (SDP). This seminal work opened a new venue for the design
of approximation algorithms. Chapter 8 in the first edition of this handbook discusses this work as
well as developments in this area. Goemans and Williamson [53] also developed powerful techniques
for designing approximation algorithms based on the primal-dual approach. The dual-fitting and factor
revealing approach is used in Reference 54. Techniques and extensions of these approaches are discussed
in Chapters 4, 12, 34, and Volume 2, Chapter 23.
This concludes our overview of Section I of this volume. Section 1.2.1 presents an overview of Section II
of this volume dealing with local search, artificial neural nets and metaheuristics. Section 1.2.2 presents
an overview of multiobjective optimization, reoptimization, sensitivity analysis and stability all of which
are in Section III of this volume. In the last couple of decades we have seen approximation algorithms
being applied to traditional combinatorial optimization problems as well as problems arising in other
areas of research activity. These areas include: VLSI design automation, networks (wired, sensor, and
wireless), bioinformatics, game theory, computational geometry, and graph problems. In Sections 1.2.3
through 1.2.5 we elaborate further on these applications. Section 1.2.3 overviews traditional application
covered in Section IV of this volume. Sections 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 overview contemporary and emerging
application which are covered in Volume 2.
1.2.1 Local Search, Artificial Neural Networks, and Metaheuristics

Local search techniques have a long history; they range from simple constructive and iterative improve-
ment algorithms to rather complex methodologies that require significant fine-tuning, such as evolution-
ary algorithms (EAs) or SA. Local search is perhaps one of the most natural ways to attempt to find an
optimal or suboptimal solution to an optimization problem. The idea of local search is simple: Start from
a solution and improve it by making local changes until no further progress is possible. Deterministic
local search algorithms are discussed in Chapter 16. Chapter 17 covers stochastic local search algorithms.
These are local search algorithms that make use of randomized decisions, for example, in the context
of generating initial solutions or when determining search steps. When the neighborhood to search for
the next solution is very large, finding the best neighbor to move to is many times an NP-hard prob-
lem. Therefore, an approximation solution is needed at this step. In Chapter 18 the issues related to very
large-scale neighborhood search are discussed from the theoretical, algorithmic, and applications point
of view.
Reactive Search advocates the use of simple subsymbolic machine learning to automate the parameter
tuning process and make it an integral (and fully documented) part of the algorithm. Parameters are
normally tuned through a feedback loop that many times depends on the user input. Reactive search
attempts to mechanize this process. Chapter 19 discusses issues arising during this process.
Artificial neural networks have been proposed as a tool for machine learning and many results have
been obtained regarding their application to practical problems in robotics control, vision, pattern recog-
nition, grammatical inferences, and other areas. Recently, neural networks have found many applications
in the forefront of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). For example, Google’s open-
source deep learning neural network tools as well as the Cloud, have been a catalyst for the development of
these new applications.* Recently artificial neural networks have been used to improve energy utilization
during certain periods in Google’s massive data centers with impressive results. The whole process has
been fully automated without the use of training data. Once trained (automatically or manually), the neu-
ral network will compute an input/output mapping which, if the training data was representative enough,
will closely match the unknown rule which produced the original data. Neural networks are discussed in
Chapter 20 and may be viewed as heuristics to solve a large class of problems.
The work of Lin and Kernighan [27] sparked the study of modern heuristics, which have evolved
and are now called metaheuristics. The term metaheuristics was coined by Glover [55] in 1986 and in
general means “to find beyond in an upper level.” The most popular metaheuristics include: TS, SA,
ACO, EC, iterated local search (ILC), MAs, plus many others that keep up popping-up every year.
One of the motivations for the study of metaheuristics is that it was recognized early on that constant
ratio polynomial time approximation algorithms are not likely to exist for a large class of practical
problems [16]. Metaheuristics do not guarantee that near-optimal solutions will be found quickly for all
problem instances. However, these complex programs do find near-optimal solutions for many problem
instances that arise in practice. These procedures have wide range of applicability, which is their most
appealing aspect.
There are many ways of viewing metaheuristics. Some are single point while others are population
based. In the former case one solution is modified over and over again until the algorithm terminates.
Whereas in the latter case a set of solutions is carried throughout the execution of the algorithm. Some
metaheuristics have a fixed neighborhood where moves can be made, whereas others have variable neigh-
borhoods throughout the execution of the procedure. Metaheuristic algorithms may use memory to
influence future moves and some are memoryless. Metaheuristics may be nature-inspired or algorith-
mic based. But no matter how they work, they have all been used successfully to solve many practical
problems. In what follows we discuss several metaheuristics.
The term tabu search was coined by Glover [55]. TS is based on adaptive memory and responsive explo-
ration. The former allows for an effective and efficient search of the solution space. The latter is used
to guide the search process by imposing restraints and inducements based on the information collected.
Intensification and diversification are controlled by the information collected, rather than by a random
process. Chapter 21 discusses many different aspects of TS as well as problems to which it has been
applied. Most recently, applications in the field of quantum computing as well an open-source hybrid
quantum solver for D-wave systems have emerged. These developments have placed TS at the forefront
of the field of quantum computing.
In the early 1980s Kirkpatrick et al. [56] and independently Černý [57] introduced SA as a randomized
local search algorithm to solve combinatorial optimization problems. SA is a local search algorithm, which
means that it starts with an initial solution and then searches through the solution space by iteratively
generating a new solution that is “near” to it. But, sometimes the moves are to a worse solution to escape
local optimal solutions. This method is based on statistical mechanics (Metropolis algorithm). It was
heavily inspired by an analogy between the physical annealing process of solids and the problem of solving
large combinatorial optimization problems. Chapter 25 in the 1st edition of this handbook discusses this
approach in detail.
EC is a metaphor for building, applying, and studying algorithms based on Darwinian principles of
natural selection. Algorithms that are based on evolutionary principles are called EAs. They are inspired
by nature’s capability to evolve living beings well adapted to their environment. There have been a variety
of slightly different EAs proposed over the years. Three different strands of EAs were developed indepen-
dently of each other over time. These are evolutionary programming (EP) introduced by Fogel [58] and
Fogel et al. [59], evolutionary strategies (ESs) proposed by Rechenberg [60], and genetic algorithms (GAs)
initiated by Holland [61]. GAs are mainly applied to solve discrete problems. Genetic programming (GP)
*
https://www.tensorflow.org/ and https://aiexperiments.withgoogle.com
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
She made a swift movement—then seemed checked by a vision of its
futility. The other door closed quietly and heavily. Stripped of the pose that
served her for strength, the vanity which served her for modesty, Barbara
sat in the leather chair which Ted had abandoned and let her ugly
imaginings consume her.
CHAPTER XXI
WALTER’S SOLUTION
T HE Thorstads had not gone back to Mohawk. Mrs. Thorstad had said
that she would stay in St. Pierre until they heard further from Freda and
since it was the school vacation her husband had agreed. After the first
shock of disappearance they had accepted Freda’s letter at its face value and
decided to wait for news from her. It was all they could do, in fact. One
alternative, publicity, advertising her disappearance, would have done only
harm and have looked cruelly unnecessary in view of her farewell letter to
her father. The other alternative, setting private detectives to work, would
have been too expensive and again her letters did not justify that. They must
wait. Mrs. Thorstad, after a bit, did not brood, nor indeed appear to worry
greatly. She was quickly allied with clubdom and petty politics and was
busy. Her husband, trying to interest himself in stray free lectures at the
University and in the second hand bookstores, grew rather pallid and thin.
They stopped at an inexpensive boarding house on the West Side. It was
a place of adequate food, adequate cleanliness and no grace. Mrs.
Thorstad’s reputation as a prominent club woman stood her in good stead in
these rather constricted surroundings where most of the guests were men of
sapped masculinity, high busted women dividing their time between small
shopping and moving pictures. The men were persons of petty importance
and men of small independence, but there was one strangely incongruous
person in the company. He was the editor of the scandal paper of the city, a
thin, elderly, eye-glassed person of fifty, who had maintained, in spite of his
scavenging for scandals, some strange insistence on and delight in his own
respectability. He was personally so polite, so gentlemanly, so apparently
innocuous that it was almost incredible to think of him as the editor of the
sheet which sold itself so completely on the strength of its scandal that it
needed no advertising to float its circulation.
There was a natural attraction between him and Adeline Thorstad. They
had mutually a flare for politics and intense personal prejudices
complicating that instinctive liking. They often ran upon the same moral
catch words in their conversation. Robinson began to be a “booster” for
Mrs. Thorstad. He saw her political possibilities and commenced to call
attention to her here and there in his columns.
It was one of Mr. Thorstad’s few occasions of protest.
“Shall you tell him to keep your name out of his paper or shall I?”
“But he’s said nothing that isn’t awfully friendly, Eric. I hate to hurt his
feelings. I’m sure he meant to be kind.”
“You don’t want to be featured in ‘The Town Reporter,’ Adeline. It
doesn’t—it isn’t right.”
She let the stubborn lines settle over her face.
“I don’t think the ‘Town Reporter’ is as corrupt as almost any of the
others.”
“Look at the stuff it prints!”
“But, my dear, if it’s true, isn’t there a kind of courage in printing it?”
He looked at her in exasperation, measuring her and his own futility.
“So you want to let that go?”
“I think it’s better not to hurt him, Eric.”
He shut the door of their room sharply and yet when she saw him again
he had regained his quiet indifference to her doings. The friendship between
her and the editor continued to flourish.
They were in the dining-room on Tuesday, the third of August, when the
morning papers were brought in. It was a sticky, hot, lifeless morning.
Halves of grapefruit tipped wearily on the warmish plates. No one spoke
much. The head of the silk department in Green’s was hurrying through his
breakfast in order to get down to inspect the window trim. The stenographer
at Bailey and Marshall’s had slipped into her place. Mrs. Thorstad was alert
determinedly, Mr. Thorstad sagging a little beside her. Robinson picked up
his paper first, casually, and uttered a low whistle.
“That’s a bit of news,” he said.
Several people craned and reached for the papers they had been too
indolent to open. A headline ran across the page.
PROMINENT CLUBMAN KILLS HIMSELF IN
FASHIONABLE CLUB
WALTER GRANGE CARPENTER, CAPITALIST, SHOOTS SELF

FATALLY IN EARLY MORNING HOURS. CAUSE
OF SUICIDE MYSTERY.
They gathered around the news without a particle of sympathy. No one
cared. He was a mystery and sensation—that was all.
“Funny thing,” said Robinson. “I wonder what was at the bottom of
that.”
“I shouldn’t be surprised if it was the Duffield girl,” Mrs. Thorstad said
rather casually.
“Who was that?”
“You know—the political organizer who was sent here for the
Republican women.”
“Was Carpenter in love with her?”
“I think so. I saw him—well, perhaps I shouldn’t say—”
Robinson gave her a keen glance and let the matter drop. But that night
after dinner he sought her out again, segregating her from the rest of the
people. Mr. Thorstad was not there.
“What was it you were saying about that Miss Duffield?”
She hedged a little.
“Oh, I don’t like to talk scandal, Mr. Robinson. I’m no gossip. I never
liked the woman. I always believed she made a great deal of trouble and I
know she was not a good influence on my daughter. But I have no wish to
malign her. If she is responsible for this tragedy, she and her free love
doctrines have indeed wrought havoc—”
She paused abruptly.
“I wish you’d tell me what you know,” said Robinson. “I’ll confide in
you, Mrs. Thorstad. I heard from a certain source to-day that Carpenter left
this Duffield women everything he possessed. Every one seems to know
they were seen around town constantly until she went away. There seems to
have been considerable expectation that they would marry—surprise that
they did not. Well—you can see that any information added—”
“But what good would it do?” She pressed him, her utilitarian little mind
anxious for results.
“I’d rather like to know why Carpenter shot himself. So would other
people. If this woman is a menace she should be exposed.”
“She should indeed. An interloper, making trouble, trying to run politics
—”
He surveyed her amusedly, familiar with outbreaks of spite, waiting for
his point to win itself.
“You knew her well.”
“I worked with her closely. A brilliant person—clever, modern. Modern
in the way that these Eastern young women are modern. I did not approve
of many things she did. I did not approve of some of the things she said.
Then there was an incident which convinced me.”
She went on, a little deft prodding keeping her in motion, telling the
story of having seen Walter Carpenter come to Margaret’s room and of
having seen the letter from Gregory with its protestation that he must see
her, that he wanted “to unloose her emotions—not fetter her in marriage.”
How those words had imprinted themselves on Mrs. Thorstad’s mind!
There was great satisfaction in Robinson’s face.
“And this Gregory?”
She had thought that out too.
“Why it must have been that Gregory Macmillan. He came here later and
she talked of knowing him. I heard Mrs. Flandon speak of it.”
“Ah, the Sinn Feiner! Why, it’s perfect.”
She had a moment of fearful doubt.
“You wouldn’t quote me? There’d be no libel—?”
“My dear lady, I’ve no money to spend on libel suits. I’ll never get
mixed up in one. Every bit of my stuff is looked over by a lawyer before it
sees the light of print. Don’t you worry. I’d never implicate a lady.
Scourging a vampire”—he fell into his grandiloquent press language again
—“is an entirely different matter.”
“There’s such a thing as justice,” said Mrs. Thorstad bridling.
He nodded with gravity. They might have been, from their appearance,
two kindly middle-aged persons discussing a kindly principle, so well did
their faces deceive their minds.
So it happened that the next issue of the ‘Town Reporter’ carried in its
headlines on the following day—
WAS MYSTERY OF SUICIDE OF RICH CLUBMAN ENTANGLED
IN FREE LOVE PROBLEM?
There followed an article of subtle insinuation written by the hand of an

adept. It crept around the edge of libel, telling only the facts that every one
knew, but in such proximity that the train of thought must be complete—
that one who knew anything of the people implicated could see that
Margaret Duffield (never named) believer in all “doctrines of free madness”
had “perhaps preyed upon the soul of the man.” And then after a little the
“Sinn Feiner” came into the article, he too coming from groups who knew
no “law but license.” Ugly intrigue—all of it—dragging its stain across the
corpse of Walter Carpenter.
The news had come to the Flandons at breakfast too. Gage had come
down first and picked up the newspaper while he was waiting for Helen and
the children. He read it at a glance and the blow made him a little dizzy.
Like a flood there came over him the quick sense of the utter blackness of
Walter’s mind—more than any sense of loss or pity came horror at the
baffled intellect which had caused the tragedy. He stood, reading,
moistening his lips as Helen entered and lifted the children to their chairs.
“Any news, Gage?”
He handed it to her silently.
“Oh, my God!” said Helen, “How terrible! How awful, Gage!”
He nodded and sat down in his chair, putting his head in his hands. She
read the article through.
“But why, do you suppose?”
Then she stopped, knowing the thought that must have come to him as it
came to her.
“Poor, poor Walter!”
She went around the table to Gage.
“You’ll go down of course, but take a cup of coffee first,” she said, her
hand on his shoulder.
He roused himself.
“All right.”
Some one telephoned for Gage and he said he would come at once to the
club. They went on with the form of breakfast. The children chattered. The
room shone with sunlight. Helen, through her shock and grief, caught a
glimpse of the shrinking of their trouble against this terrific final snuffing
out of life. Abashed at the comfort it gave her, she drew away from the
thought.
But it made her tender to Gage. It kept persisting, that thought. “It wasn’t
Gage. It might have been Gage. It might have been us. People like us do go
that far then. How horribly selfish this is. Poor Walter!” She suddenly
stopped short. She must telegraph Margaret. Margaret would have to know.
Whatever there had been between her and Carpenter, she must know.
Doubtless—perhaps—she would want to come to see him—Or would she?
She telegraphed Margaret as compassionately as possible. Yet it seemed
a little absurd to be too compassionate. Margaret wouldn’t like the shock
“broken.” She would want to know the facts.
The sun seemed brighter than it had been for days. Despite the grave
weight of sorrow on her spirit, Helen was calmed, attended by peace. She
was feeling the vast relief attendant on becoming absorbed in a trouble not
her own. It was not that her grief was not deep for Carpenter. He had been
Gage’s good friend and hers. And yet—it was almost as if in dying he had
deflected a tragedy from her, as if he had bought immunity for her with his
terrific price. She dared not tamper with the thought of what this might do
to Gage.
The mail man in his blue coat was coming up the steps. She opened the
door for him, anxious to do something, wondering if there would be a letter
from Margaret. There was. She laid the others aside and read that first. It
was a long letter full of thought, which at another time would have been
interesting. Margaret had wearied of Republicanism. She and many other
women were talking of the “League” again.
And Walter Carpenter lay dead. Was it relevant?
Helen put down the letter and looked through her others. There was one
from some hotel in Montana. She ripped it open and the first words startled
her so that she looked for the signature. It was signed by Freda Thorstad.
A swooning excitement came over Helen. She hardly dared read it.
Then, holding it crushed tightly, she went up to her own room. As she went
the children called to her. They wanted her to come and see the castle in the
sandbox.
“Soon,” she called to them, “I’ll be down soon. Mother’s busy—don’t
call me for a few minutes.”
She locked her door and read the letter. What had startled her was that
abrupt beginning “Asking for money is the hardest thing in the world—at
least nothing has ever been so hard before.” It went on “But I don’t know
what else to do, and I must do something. I can’t write any one else, partly
because no one else I know has enough money to send me and also because
I haven’t told any one except your husband about myself—and I suppose he
has told you. If he hasn’t he’ll tell you now that it is the truth. It’s this way.
My husband has been terribly sick and what money he had was stolen while
he was at the hotel before I got here. He’s still weak and of course he wants
to go home. But I haven’t dared tell him we haven’t any money because he
doesn’t know the maid picked his pockets while he was ill. We have to get
away from the hospital now that he’s well enough to travel—we don’t know
anybody in the city and there are his hospital bills to pay. The doctor told
me he would wait, but I can’t ask the nurses to do that. It seems almost
ridiculous for an able bodied person to be asking for money but we owe so
much more than I can earn that I must borrow. There doesn’t seem to be any
way to get money sometimes except by borrowing. I know I could pay it
back as soon as Gregory gets well again. I suppose you’ll wonder why I
don’t ask father. Well—he hasn’t as much money as we need. We need
nearly six hundred dollars to take Gregory to Ireland and pay the bills here.
Perhaps it would be better to get it from Gregory’s friends in Ireland. But I
know from what he’s told me that they all are trying so hard to do things for
the country with what little money they have that it would worry him to ask
them. And it would take too long. He mustn’t be worried, the doctors say,
and he must get back to his home soon. You know something about him for
I remember that I saw you at his lecture. He is really very wonderful and....
It isn’t as if I had a right to ask you either, except perhaps a kind of human
right.... You’ve been so kind to me, you and Mr. Flandon....”
Helen finished the letter with a rueful, very tired smile. Then she took it
into Gage’s room and laid it on his bureau where he would see it, when he
came in. He telephoned at noon to tell her that he was coming out; she kept
out of the way so that he would read the letter before she saw him.
He brought it to her and gave it back, folded.
“I suppose I should have told you that business but it was the girl’s
secret. She didn’t want it known and I stumbled on it.”
“I see,” she answered, inadequately.
“Looks like a bad situation for them, doesn’t it? I didn’t know, by the
way, where she had gone. I assumed she had gone to join him but I did
think Sable had driven her to do it. Evidently he sent for her.”
“And he nearly died.”
They paused in embarrassment. Helen held herself tautly.
“There’s an apology due you,” she began.
He held his hand out, deprecating it.
“No, please—you had every reason.” He changed the subject abruptly.
“Do we let her have the money?” He smiled for a minute. “Money’s
tight as hell. I haven’t got much in cash you know. But I don’t see how we
can refuse the girl.”
“We won’t,” said Helen.
“By the way, what I came out to say was that Walter’s lawyer thinks we
should send for Margaret Duffield. There’s a rumor that she is his legatee.
He had no family—his mother died last year. From what Pratt said he left it
all to Margaret. She’ll be rich.”
“I did wire her,” answered Helen, “an hour ago. I thought she ought to
know.”
“That’s good.”
“Tell me about it.”
“It was all in the paper. He shot himself a little after midnight. He was
alone in his room. It was evidently quite premeditated. There was a sealed
letter for his lawyer with instructions undoubtedly and everything was in
perfect order. He—he had simply decided to do it. And he has done it.
Something made him lie down—that’s all.”
He spoke reflectively, with a degree of abstraction that was surprising.
“Why do they think he did it?”
“Heat—not well physically. That’s what goes to the papers. Better
spread that. If the girl is involved, we’ll keep her name clear.”
“Oh, yes.”
“For Walter’s sake,” Gage went on. And then very slowly, he added, “I
wouldn’t like people to know that she got him.”
“Yet if it comes out that he left her everything, won’t people guess?”
“They won’t know. Nor do we know. Nobody knows except Walter and
he’s dead.”
They sent a second wire to Margaret requesting her presence for urgent
reasons and by night they had heard that she would come. The funeral was
to be on Friday.
It was Thursday evening when the “Town Reporter” bristled with ugly
headlines on the streets of St. Pierre. Walter’s body lay in the undertaking
“parlors” those ineffective substitutes for homes for those who die
homeless, in the brief period between their last hours among human kind
and the grave. No place except a home can indeed truly shelter the dead.
Walter lay inscrutably lonely, in the public parlor, mysterious in the death
which was a refusal to go on with life, a relinquishment so brave and so
cowardly that it always shocks observers into awe. As he lay there, a
raucous voiced newsboy outside the window ran down toward the main
throughfare, a bunch of “Town Reporters” under his arm, shouting, “All the
noos about the sooicide”—and in half an hour his papers were gone, some
bought openly, some bought hurriedly and shamefacedly. Hundreds of
people now knew the reason Elihu Robinson gave for the death of Walter
Carpenter, his version of the struggle in the stilled brain of the man he had
not known except by sight and hundreds of people as intimate with the
tragedy as he, wagged their heads and said wisely that this “was about the
truth of it,” with other and sundry comments on the corruption of the age
and particularly of the rich.
The Flandons read it with mixed disgust and anger. They knew it was the
kind of stain that only time could scrub away. It did not matter much to
Walter now that he was slandered. His suicide was a defiance of slander.
They were sorry for Margaret but not too much bothered by her reception of
such scandal if it came to her. It was only local scandal.
“The worst of it,” said Helen to Gage, “is tying Gregory Macmillan up
that way just as they were about to announce his marriage. I telephoned
Freda’s father this afternoon for I was going to tell him you had had a
business letter from her and knew where she was. It seemed wise. But
anyway he had just heard from her too. He was so happy, poor fellow. Now
to have this nasty scandal about his son-in-law will be another blow. I shall
go to see him and tell him that it’s an utter lie. I know from what Margaret
told me that there never was a thing between her and Macmillan.”
Mr. Thorstad had already taken the matter up with Elihu Robinson. He
had called him what he was and his white faced indignation was something
the editor preferred to submit to without resistance. But he was not without
trumps as usual.
“But who is your authority for saying that Macmillan was implicated
with this lady?” asked Mr. Thorstad, angrily.
He had not told that Macmillan was his son-in-law and the editor
wondered at his defense of Macmillan.
“My dear fellow,” he said with that touch of apologetic and righteous
concern with which he always met such attacks. “My dear fellow, your wife
told me that.”
CHAPTER XXII
THE MOURNERS
M ARGARET came, calm and yet clearly distressed beyond measure. It

was pathetic to see her control, to see that she could not even break
through it to the relief of abandonment. She was very white during the
day of the funeral and the ones succeeding it and her eyes met other eyes
somewhat reluctantly. She came on Friday morning and Helen had not been
able to persuade her to stay with them. She had gone to a hotel and from
there, quite simply to the parlors of the undertakers.
“Don’t wait for me, Helen—and I’d sooner be alone. I’ll be here a long
while, probably.”
Perhaps after all Walter and Margaret found relief in each other when the
grim parlor door was shut. At least at the funeral Margaret sat very quietly,
though the well-bred curious eyes of the little group of people strayed
unceasingly toward her. She went through it as she went through the
following days. It was soon known, before the will was probated, that she
was Walter’s legatee. There was a great deal of business to be done. Walter
had decided no doubt that the brief embarrassment of inheriting his fortune
was better than the recurrent fear of cramping poverty which had always
pursued her and of which she had told him. She saw the lawyers and his
business associates and discussed with them the best way of disposing of
Walter’s interests, and word of her coldness spread around rather quickly
and was considered to justify Mr. Robinson’s deductions.
Gage saw her at the funeral. He had not looked for her—had not felt
ready to see her. But in the semicircle of chairs facing the gray satin coffin,
he was so placed that his eyes met hers unexpectedly. When they did,
hostility glinted in his. “You got him,” they seemed to say—and hers looked
back steady, unrepentant, even though her mouth was drawn with pain and
sorrow.
It had hit Gage as it had Helen. The lightning had been drawn from him.
Walter’s death had roused in him an instinct of resistance which had been
dormant. He had no certain idea of what had passed between Walter and
Margaret but he knew what Carpenter’s point of view had been—how far
he had gone, how willing he had been to yield every concession to a woman
—to Margaret—in the belief that it would then be possible to build love on
a basis of comradeship. Walter had found failure, just how or why no one
knew except perhaps Margaret herself. Gage’s mind stumbled along
nervously, trying to analyze his and Walter’s failure. He remembered how
they had talked together about women, how Walter had said he would be
“willing to trust to their terms.” For some reason he lay dead of their terms.
And he himself—he had looked at himself in the glass an hour ago with a
kind of horror as if he saw himself for the first time in weeks. There was a
softening of his features it seemed to him, a look of dissipation, of
untrimmed thought, brooding. The memory of his face haunted him. That
was what came of being unwilling to trust to the terms of women. Either
way—
He looked across at Margaret again, quiet, firm, persistent through
tragedy, through all emotional upheaval, and a grim admiration shot
through his hostility. After all she was consistent. With all his admiration
for women, even at the height of his passion for Helen, he had never
connected her or any woman with ability to follow a line of action with
such consistency. He had some sense of what was going on in Margaret’s
mind—an apperception of her refusal to let this tragedy break her down.
He became conscious of Helen’s sigh. She sat beside him, her hands
folded loosely in her lap. The minister talked on, performing with decent
civility and entanglement of phrase, the rites of last courtesy for the dead.
Gage wondered what he and Helen would do. He was glad that the mess
about Freda Thorstad was cleared up. Not that it made any grave difference
except in a certain clearness of atmosphere. If she got a divorce she couldn’t
get it on those grounds. He wondered how their painfully sore minds could
be explained in a divorce court which was accustomed to dealing with
brutal incidents. Perhaps a separation would be better. He wondered how he
was going to provide for her decently. It was going to be a long job building
up the new practice. Things were breaking badly.
Some emphatic phrase of the minister, starting out of his droning talk,
brought Gage’s eyes back to the coffin. Strange how the sense of that silent
form within it gave him fresh energy. Life had got Walter. Women had got
him, in some obscure way. He felt his shoulders straighten with stubborn
impulse. They wouldn’t get him. Deftly and logically his thought became
practical. He would cut out all this thinking about women. He would—
perhaps he would get the Thornton business. It meant a big retainer. He
could have done it a few months ago. Now—he visualized old Thornton’s
tight mouth, keen eyes. He’d want value received. Have to get in shape—
cut out the booze—concentrate on business—men’s business. The actual
phrase took shape in his mind. Men’s business. By God, that was how
women got you. They got you thinking about them until you became
obsessed, obsessed with them and their business. It was so and it had
always been so. These new problems were not what people thought they
were. They were not sex stuff. Perhaps they altered the grain of woman—
changed her—but the adjustment of sex was as it always had been, between
each man and each woman. Let the women go on, be what they wanted, do
what they wanted. It made some of them better, some of them worse—put
new figures in the dance but it was the same dance. Even if it wasn’t the
minuet or the waltz there was still dancing. And there was choosing of
partners.
Every one stood up. Gage was standing too, with the rest, his vagrant
thoughts brought back from their wanderings to the ever shocking
realization that he was helping in the laying away of this friend of his and
the inevitable feeling that life was a short business for him and every one.
He fell back into triteness. You must play the game.
After it was all over he was standing beside Helen.
“I want to go to see Margaret,” said Helen. “I’ll go to her hotel now,
Gage.”
“Bring her home if you like,” answered Gage.
The ease of his tone startled Helen. She looked at him in quick surprise,
meeting his unexpected smile.
“I merely meant I thought I could be reasonably civil,” he said—and
with impulse, “I feel rather cleaned out, Helen. I’ll run down town now and
see what I can do before dinner.”
She thought, “He hasn’t had anything to drink for two days,” placing the
responsibility for his unwonted pleasantness on a practical basis. It cheered
her. She went to Margaret’s hotel and found her in her room, lying on her
bed and her head buried in the counterpane. It was the nearest to
abandonment that Helen had ever seen in her friend so she ventured to try
to comfort.
“It’s the awful blackness of his mind that I can’t bear,” said Margaret,
“the feeling he must have had that there was no way out.” She sat up and
looked at Helen somewhat wildly. “It frightens me too. For he had such a
good mind. He saw things straight. Perhaps there isn’t any way out. Perhaps
we are battering our heads against life and each other like helpless fools.”
“Did you love him?” asked Helen. It seemed to her the only vital point
just then.
Margaret threw her hands out futilely.
“I don’t know. I was afraid of what might happen if we married. Either
way it looked too dangerous. I was afraid of softening too much—of
lapsing into too much caring—or of not being able to care at all. He wasn’t
afraid—but I was. And—the rotten part is, Helen, that I wasn’t afraid for
him but for myself.”
She was hushed for a moment and then broke out again.
“It wasn’t for myself as myself. It was just that if our marriage hadn’t
been a miracle of success, it would have proved the case against women
again.”
“You mustn’t think any more than you can help,” said Helen. “It wasn’t
like Walter to want to cause you pain and I know he wouldn’t want you to
suffer now.”
“No, he was willing to do all the suffering,” said Margaret in bitter self-
mockery. “He did it too.”
She got hold of herself by one swift motion of her well-controlled mind
and stood up, brushing her hair back with the gesture Walter loved. “It’s not
your burden, poor girl. You have enough.”
“Not so many,” said Helen. “By the way, Margaret, you haven’t heard
about Freda Thorstad, have you?”
“Did she come back?”
“No—she wrote. She had married Gregory Macmillan secretly when he
was here. They sent her word that he had typhoid out West and she went to
him. Why she didn’t tell people is still a mystery.”
“Married him—Gregory? But she’d only known him four days.”
Helen nodded. “That’s just it. Isn’t it—” she stopped, fearing to wound.
“Magnificent—brave—foolish—” finished Margaret. Her voice broke
unaccustomedly. “It’s wonderful. Gregory will be a strange husband but if
she shares him with Ireland and—oh, it’s rather perfect. And so all that
nonsense about Gage being involved—”
“Was nonsense.”
Margaret did not ask further about Gage. She reverted to Freda and
Gregory. The news left her marveling, an envy that was wonder in her
remarks. She made no comparisons between Freda and herself and yet it
was clear that Freda wrought herself to another phase—a step on towards
some solution of thought.
Helen urged her to come to dinner.
“I’d rather not, I think. I’ll have a rest perhaps.”
“Then you’ll go out with us for a ride to-night?”
“Gage wouldn’t like it, would he?”
“He suggested your coming to dinner, my dear.”
They smiled at each other.
“Then I’ll go.” She turned swiftly to Helen. “Oh, work it out if you can,
Helen. Not working it out—is horrible.”
CHAPTER XXIII
RESPITE
F REDA was trying to mend a blouse. Her unskillful fingers pricked

themselves and it was obvious that even her laborious efforts could do
little to make the waist presentable. Its frayed cuffs were beyond
repairing. However, it would do until they got to Mohawk and she could get
the clothes which she had there. She had not written her mother to send her
anything. Nor had she spent any of the money the Flandons had sent for
such luxuries as new clothes. She had been uplifted when that check for a
thousand dollars—not for six hundred—had slipped out of the envelope
with Mrs. Flandon’s kind, congratulatory letter. Gregory’s three hundred
had been put back in his purse and then, as it gradually came over her
impractical mind that such a sum was totally inadequate to their need she
had told him that she had some money of her own—a little reserve which
had been sent to her. Naturally he had assumed her father had sent it and
later she thought she would tell him that it was a debt they had assumed and
make arrangements for paying it. Not now. He must not worry now about
the money. She looked across the room at him—their shabby little hotel
room, with its lace curtains pinned back for air and the shaky table desk
dragged up before the window. He had not been quite fit enough to travel
when they left the hospital, and she had insisted that he must try his strength
before they made the journey to Mohawk, the first lap on the way back to
Ireland. How eager he was to be off now—how impossible it was to check
him! She forgot the blouse and sat looking at him, sitting there unconscious
of her regard. His profile was outlined against the blank window opening,
still so thin, and yet so restored.
“It’s getting dark. You ought to stop now, Gregory. You’ll be worn out.”
He did not hear her. That was one of the things she had found out could
happen. Especially since this lot of mail had been forwarded from his
bureau, letters full of such terrible news for him from Ireland. His friends
were in prison—were killed. Devastation was spreading.
She rose, with a new air of maturity and crossed to him.
“It’s growing late.” This time she came behind his chair and bent her
cheek to his.
He moved absently.
“Yes, sweetheart—I’ll be soon through. I was writing to Larry’s widow,
poor girl. There seemed so much to say.”
“I know, but you must stop.” She used the appeal she had already
learned to use when he was bound to tax his fragile strength. “You’ll never
get back there unless you rest more.”
“Oh, yes I will. And when I do get back—how I’m going to start some
things in motion. It will be a terrible swift motion too. I’ve lost a sad
amount of time.”
Freda laughed and he looked at her. It was a laugh of pure amusement,
and so contagious that he joined her, jumping up from the letter to kiss her.
“No—you laughing rogue—not time lost in winning my bride. Mocker.”
Freda held him at arms length teasingly.
“I have you for a minute now, haven’t I?”
“You always have me. You don’t mind, darling, that they need me? You
wouldn’t—not share it with me?”
“Of course I share it. And I know I have you—when you remember me.”
He buried his lips in her hair and then drew her to his knees.
“Sweetheart, if you could know how they suffer—when you see—”
She composed herself to listen, knowing how it would be. He would
hold her close like this and tighter and tighter his arms would feel as he
explained and related. Then, in his excitement, he would loose her and
leave her, gently, while he paced up and down the room and forgot the
tenants in the next room and herself and everything in his impassioned
oratory.
So he was. That was Gregory. When he put her down she turned on the
light and picked up her sewing. It was not that she did not listen willingly.
She did. If she could not kindle in his flame she was warmed in the glow of
it. She too had come to care. Perhaps when they reached Ireland and she
saw for herself she would kindle too—she rather hoped so.
He stopped talking and his mind, relaxed, shot back to her.
“Do you feel well to-night, darling?”
“Of course. I’m the most indomitably healthy person you ever knew. I
can’t help it.”
“You’re so sweetly healthy that I keep forgetting to take care of you.”
She tossed the blouse from her restlessly and stretched her long arms
back of her head to make a cushion.
“It doesn’t bother me when you forget,” she told him. “I’m very glad
that it doesn’t, too. I’m glad I haven’t begun marriage by learning habits of
dependency. I think we’re rather lucky, Greg. Being us, as we are, with a
two day wedding trip and a crowning episode of typhoid and now a baby
and an Irish question ahead of us, we’ve learned how to stand alone. Mind
our own business instead of crowding into each other’s, you know.”
He did not know. A great deal of modern difficulty and problem making
had slipped by him. “You are an obscure young person,” he told her, “and
most divinely beautiful. I am going to get Francis Hart to paint you—like
that, with your head thrown back. I want a hundred paintings of you just to
compare with you, so that I can show that no painting can be as lovely as
you are.”
They spent a week in Mohawk and because Gregory found that Mr.
Thorstad knew Irish history with unexpected profundity and sympathy he
was content to spend much time with his father-in-law. They met on many
points, in the simplicity of their minds, the way they wound their thoughts
around simple philosophies instead of allowing the skeins of thought to
tangle—in the uncorrupted and untempted goodness of them both and their
fine appreciation of freedom—the freedom which in Mr. Thorstad had bade
his daughter seek life and in Gregory had tried to unloose the rigors of
Margaret Duffield. Gregory did not talk so much to Mrs. Thorstad. He was
apt, in the midst of some flight of hers, to look a little bewildered and then
become inattentive. She, however, took it for genius. The chastening which
she had suffered after that mistake of blackening Gregory’s name in
connection with Margaret had still some effect. She was anxious to wipe
that error out and to that end she worked very hard to establish the fame and
name of Gregory. His books were spread over the library table and she had
already, in characteristic method, started a book of clippings about him.
She spent a good deal of time with Freda. Freda was rather more gentle
than she had been, and interested honestly in many of the details of child
bearing that her mother dragged up from her memory on being questioned.
If Mrs. Thorstad felt disappointment in Freda, she tried very honestly to
conceal it but now and again there cropped out an involuntary trace of the
superiority which she as a modern woman was bound to feel over a
daughter who took so little interest in the progress of politics and listened so
much to her husband’s talk. She spoke of it once only and most tactfully.
“You must be careful not to be a reactionary, my dear. You are going
from the land of freedom and the land in which women are rising to every
dignity, to a country which may be—of course is bound to be—
comparatively unenlightened. I hope indeed that you have your children.
Two—or even three children—are very desirable. But you must not forget
that every woman owes a duty to herself in development and in keeping
abreast of the times which may not be neglected. I don’t want to hurt you,
dear. Of course I myself am perhaps a little exceptional in the breadth of my
outlook. But it is not personal ambition. It is for the sex. Did I tell you that
Mrs. Flandon talked to me when she saw me in St. Pierre about doing much
of the state organizing for the Republican women? She says she needs some
of my organizing ability. I shall help her of course. In fact I hope I may be
able to prevail upon your father to apply for a position at the University in
St. Pierre. I feel we have rather outgrown Mohawk.”
“But, mother, that means an instructorship again for father, and it’s a step
backward.”
“Not exactly that. Think of the advantages of living in the city—the
cultural advantages. And there is a great field open in municipal politics. I
have some strong friends there—and one gentleman—an editor—even went
so far as to say there might be a demand for me in public life in St. Pierre, if
I established residence there.”
“It would be pretty rough on father to pull up stakes here—”
The hint came again.
“My dear child, you must not be a reactionary. I do not like to see you
start out your married life with the idea of subordinating your life as an
individual to a husband, no matter how beloved he may be. It is not wise
and it is not necessary. Look back over our life. Have I ever for one moment
failed in my duty towards the home or towards my husband or child and has
it not been possible at the same time for me to keep progress before me

Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics Second Edition Methologies and Traditional Applications Volume 1 Teofilo F Gonzalez (Editor)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics Second Edition Methologies and Traditional Applications Volume 1 Teofilo F Gonzalez (Editor)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Approximation Algorithms

and Metaheuristics Second Edition

Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and

Advances in Metaheuristics Algorithms Methods and

Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms and

Handbook of Research on Food Science and Technology:

Spanish Society 1348 1700 2nd Edition Teofilo F. Ruiz

Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis: Volume 2:

Handbook of Technical Textiles Volume 1 Second Edition

Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis: Radiation Physics

Computer-Aided Graphing and Simulation Tools for AutoCAD Users

For more information about this series please visit:

M2Z R M I ^ M ]2:2R M U U2\ H H T

© 2018 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-7011-8 (Hardback)

and the CRC Press Web site at

SECTION I Basic Methodologies

12 Distributed Approximation Algorithms via LP-Duality

SECTION II Local Search, Neural Networks, and Metaheuristics

SECTION III Multiobjective Optimization, Sensitivity

26 Sensitivity Analysis in Combinatorial Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455

SECTION IV Traditional Applications

41 Linear Ordering Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737

Ravindra K. Ahuja Mauro Brunato

J. Benton János Csirik

György Dósa Fred Glover

Daya Ram Gaur Shinji Imahori

Csanád Imreh Ion Măndoiu

Vangelis Th. Paschos Krzysztof Socha

Celso S. Sakuraba Tami Tamir

Nasim Samei Rob van Stee

Hava T. Siegelmann Weili Wu

Mutsunori Yagiura Alexander Zelikovsky

1.2.1 Local Search, Artificial Neural Networks, and Metaheuristics

WALTER GRANGE CARPENTER, CAPITALIST, SHOOTS SELF

There followed an article of subtle insinuation written by the hand of an

M ARGARET came, calm and yet clearly distressed beyond measure. It

F REDA was trying to mend a blouse. Her unskillful fingers pricked

You might also like