The bandpass problem: combinatorial optimization and library of problems

A combinatorial optimization problem, called the Bandpass Problem, is introduced. Given a rectangular matrix A of binary elements {0,1} and a positive integer B called the Bandpass Number, a set of B consecutive non-zero elements in any column is called a Bandpass. No two bandpasses in the same column can have common rows. The Bandpass problem consists of finding an optimal permutation of rows of the matrix, which produces the maximum total number of bandpasses having the same given bandpass number in all columns. This combinatorial problem arises in considering the optimal packing of information flows on different wavelengths into groups to obtain the highest available cost reduction in design and operating the optical communication networks using wavelength division multiplexing technology. Integer programming models of two versions of the bandpass problems are developed. For a matrix A with three or more columns the Bandpass problem is proved to be NP-hard. For matrices with two or one column a polynomial algorithm solving the problem to optimality is presented. For the general case fast performing heuristic polynomial algorithms are presented, which provide near optimal solutions, acceptable for applications. High quality of the generated heuristic solutions has been confirmed in the extensive computational experiments. As an NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem with important applications the Bandpass problem offers a challenge for researchers to develop efficient computational solution methods. To encourage the further research a Library of Bandpass Problems has been developed. The Library is open to public and consists of 90 problems of different sizes (numbers of rows, columns and density of non-zero elements of matrix A and bandpass number B), half of them with known optimal solutions and the second half, without.     

Some Limitations of Qualitative Risk Rating Systems

Qualitative systems for rating animal antimicrobial risks using ordered categorical labels such as “high,”“medium,” and “low” can potentially simplify risk assessment input requirements used to inform risk management decisions. But do they improve decisions? This article compares the results of qualitative and quantitative risk assessment systems and establishes some theoretical limitations on the extent to which they are compatible. In general, qualitative risk rating systems satisfying conditions found in real‐world rating systems and guidance documents and proposed as reasonable make two types of errors: (1) Reversed rankings, i.e., assigning higher qualitative risk ratings to situations that have lower quantitative risks; and (2) Uninformative ratings, e.g., frequently assigning the most severe qualitative risk label (such as “high”) to situations with arbitrarily small quantitative risks and assigning the same ratings to risks that differ by many orders of magnitude. Therefore, despite their appealing consensus‐building properties, flexibility, and appearance of thoughtful process in input requirements, qualitative rating systems as currently proposed often do not provide sufficient information to discriminate accurately between quantitatively small and quantitatively large risks. The value of information (VOI) that they provide for improving risk management decisions can be zero if most risks are small but a few are large, since qualitative ratings may then be unable to confidently distinguish the large risks from the small. These limitations suggest that it is important to continue to develop and apply practical quantitative risk assessment methods, since qualitative ones are often unreliable.