# What's wrong with my linear programming formulation of longest path? [closed]

I have a directed graph which has cycles. Each edge has a positive weight. Now given two vertices $u$ and $v$, I want to find the longest simple path from $u$ to $v$. Simple means the path has no repetition in vertices.

I understand this problem is NP-hard in general. But I am wondering what's wrong in my following linear programming formulation.

Let us add a source vertex $s$, which is connected to $u$ by an edge with capacity $1$. Let v be connected to a sink vertex $t$ with capacity 1 too. Denote the new edge set as $E$. Use $w_{ij} = 1$ to represent that the edge $(i,j)$ is in the path, and $w_{ij} = 0$ if not. So $w_{ij} \in \{0,1\}$. Then a simple path from $s$ to $t$ needs to satisfy

1. Conservation constraints: for all vertices $i$ (except $s$ and $t$),

$\sum_{k: (k, i) \in E} w_{ki} = \sum_{j: (i,j) \in E} w_{ij}$.

Let us call this common quantity as $w_i$.

2. No repetition of vertex: add a vertex capacity 1 on each vertex:

$w_i \in \{0,1\}$.

Clearly any set of $\{w_{ij}\}$ satisfying these constraints represents an st-path, as long as $w_{ij}$ is not straight $0$.

Now let us drop the integral constraints:

$w_{ij} \in [0,1]$, $w_i \in [0,1]$,

$w_i = \sum_{k: (k, i) \in E} w_{ki}$ for all $i$,

$w_i = \sum_{j: (i,j) \in E} w_{ij}$ for all $i$.

Then I claim the coefficient matrix arising from these linear constraints is totally unimodular (TUM). To this end, it suffices to show that the coefficient matrix for the last two constraints is TUM. But this is trivial, say by the example 1 of this link (take $B$ as the set of all rows, and $C$ as an empty set).

Since a longest path maximizes a linear function of $w_{ij}$ with positive coefficients, the optimal solution must be an extreme point of the feasible region, which by TUM must be integral. Clearly, setting $w_{ij}$ to straight 0 is not optimal, and so the optimal solution must be an $st$-path.

So question: something must be wrong here, either

1. The integral constraints in 1 and 2 do not jointly define an $st$-path (ignoring the straight 0), and/or

2. TUM does not hold indeed.

## closed as off-topic by Jeffε, David Eppstein, Vijay D, KavehNov 7 '13 at 5:16

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Your question does not appear to be a research-level question in theoretical computer science. For more information about the scope, please see help center. Your question might be suitable for Computer Science which has a broader scope." – Jeffε, David Eppstein, Vijay D, Kaveh
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• This is not a research-level question; it would be better for CS.se. – Jeffε Oct 23 '13 at 12:05