A note on computational approaches for the antibandwidth problem

In this note, we consider the antibandwidth problem, also known as dual bandwidth problem, separation problem and maximum differential coloring problem. Given a labeled graph (i.e., a numbering of the vertices of a graph), the antibandwidth of a node is defined as the minimum absolute difference of its labeling to the labeling of all its adjacent vertices. The goal in the antibandwidth problem is to find a labeling maximizing the antibandwidth. The problem is NP-hard in general graphs and has applications in diverse areas like scheduling, radio frequency assignment, obnoxious facility location and map-coloring. There has been much work on deriving theoretical bounds for the problem and also in the design of metaheuristics in recent years. However, the optimality gaps between the best known solution values and reported upper bounds for the HarwellBoeing Matrix-instances, which are the commonly used benchmark instances for this problem, are often very large (e.g., up to 577%). Moreover, only for three of these 24 instances, the optimal solution is known, leading the authors of a state-of-the-art heuristic to conclude “HarwellBoeing instances are actually a challenge for modern heuristic methods”. The upper bounds reported in literature are based on the theoretical bounds involving simple graph characteristics, i.e., size, order and degree, and a mixed-integer programming (MIP) model. We present new MIP models for the problem, together with valid inequalities, and design a branch-and-cut algorithm and an iterative solution algorithm based on them. These algorithms also include two starting heuristics and a primal heuristic. We also present a constraint programming approach, and calculate upper bounds based on the stability number and chromatic number. Our computational study shows that the developed approaches allow to find the proven optimal solution for eight instances from literature, where the optimal solution was unknown and also provide reduced gaps for eleven additional instances, including improved solution values for seven instances, the largest optimality gap is now 46%.