DOCSLIB.ORG

An Introduction to Matroids & Greedy in Approximation Algorithms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Introduction to Matroids & Greedy in Approximation Algorithms An Introduction to Matroids & Greedy in Approximation Algorithms (Juli`an Mestre, ESA 2006) CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 1/21 Let E be a finite set. Let L be a non-empty family of subsets of E (independent sets). Def. (E; L) is called a subset system if: 8A 2 L; 8A0 ⊆ A; A0 2 L [hereditary property] A (positive) weight function w defined on E induces a weight function defined on L: w (X) = X w (e) e2X Subset systems CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 2/21 Def. (E; L) is called a subset system if: 8A 2 L; 8A0 ⊆ A; A0 2 L [hereditary property] A (positive) weight function w defined on E induces a weight function defined on L: w (X) = X w (e) e2X Subset systems Let E be a finite set. Let L be a non-empty family of subsets of E (independent sets). CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 2/21 A (positive) weight function w defined on E induces a weight function defined on L: w (X) = X w (e) e2X Subset systems Let E be a finite set. Let L be a non-empty family of subsets of E (independent sets). Def. (E; L) is called a subset system if: 8A 2 L; 8A0 ⊆ A; A0 2 L [hereditary property] CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 2/21 Subset systems Let E be a finite set. Let L be a non-empty family of subsets of E (independent sets). Def. (E; L) is called a subset system if: 8A 2 L; 8A0 ⊆ A; A0 2 L [hereditary property] A (positive) weight function w defined on E induces a weight function defined on L: w (X) = X w (e) e2X CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 2/21 Alg. Greedy: SOL ; for each e 2 E in non-increasing order of w (e) if SOL + e 2 L then SOL SOL + e return SOL Thm. Greedy is optimal for any weight function on (E; L) iff (E; L) is a matroid. (Rado-Edmonds) Picking a heaviest independent set Prob. Given a subset system (E; L) and a weight function w : E −! R+, pick a maximum-weight element of L. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 3/21 Thm. Greedy is optimal for any weight function on (E; L) iff (E; L) is a matroid. (Rado-Edmonds) Picking a heaviest independent set Prob. Given a subset system (E; L) and a weight function w : E −! R+, pick a maximum-weight element of L. Alg. Greedy: SOL ; for each e 2 E in non-increasing order of w (e) if SOL + e 2 L then SOL SOL + e return SOL CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 3/21 Picking a heaviest independent set Prob. Given a subset system (E; L) and a weight function w : E −! R+, pick a maximum-weight element of L. Alg. Greedy: SOL ; for each e 2 E in non-increasing order of w (e) if SOL + e 2 L then SOL SOL + e return SOL Thm. Greedy is optimal for any weight function on (E; L) iff (E; L) is a matroid. (Rado-Edmonds) CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 3/21 What on earth is a matroid? Def. A subset system (E; L) is a matroid if: 8A 2 L; 8B 2 L with jAj < jBj ; 9z 2 B n A such that A + z 2 L [augmentation property] CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 4/21 What on earth is a matroid? Def. A subset system (E; L) is a matroid if: 8A 2 L; 8B 2 L with jAj < jBj ; 9z 2 B n A such that A + z 2 L [augmentation property] A$ CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 4/21 What on earth is a matroid? Def. A subset system (E; L) is a matroid if: 8A 2 L; 8B 2 L with jAj < jBj ; 9z 2 B n A such that A + z 2 L [augmentation property] A$ B$: |A|<|B| CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 4/21 What on earth is a matroid? Def. A subset system (E; L) is a matroid if: 8A 2 L; 8B 2 L with jAj < jBj ; 9z 2 B n A such that A + z 2 L [augmentation property] A$ z: A+z$ B$: |A|<|B| CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 4/21 Matroid examples Ex. 1 Subsets of at most k elements. k 2 N. E: finite set. L = fX ⊆ E : jXj ≤ kg. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 5/21 Matroid examples Ex. 1 Subsets of at most k elements. k 2 N. E: finite set. L = fX ⊆ E : jXj ≤ kg. non-empty: j;j ≤ k ) ; 2 L CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 5/21 Matroid examples Ex. 1 Subsets of at most k elements. k 2 N. E: finite set. L = fX ⊆ E : jXj ≤ kg. hereditary: if A 2 L and A0 ⊆ A, then: jA0j ≤ jAj ≤ k ) A0 2 L CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 5/21 Matroid examples Ex. 1 Subsets of at most k elements. k 2 N. E: finite set. L = fX ⊆ E : jXj ≤ kg. augmentation: if jAj < jBj, then for arbitrary z 2 B n A: jA + zj = jAj + 1 ≤ jBj − 1 + 1 ≤ k thus, jA + zj 2 L CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 5/21 Matroid examples Ex. 1 Subsets of at most k elements. k 2 N. E: finite set. L = fX ⊆ E : jXj ≤ kg. Cor. We can find a heaviest subset of k elements using the Greedy algorithm. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 5/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 2 Column matroids. A: matrix with elements from a field. E = f~x : ~x is a column of Ag. L = fX ⊆ E : X is linearly independentg. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 6/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 2 Column matroids. A: matrix with elements from a field. E = f~x : ~x is a column of Ag. L = fX ⊆ E : X is linearly independentg. non-empty: the empty set is vacuously linearly independent CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 6/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 2 Column matroids. A: matrix with elements from a field. E = f~x : ~x is a column of Ag. L = fX ⊆ E : X is linearly independentg. hereditary: linear dependency cannot be introduced by removing vectors CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 6/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 2 Column matroids. A: matrix with elements from a field. E = f~x : ~x is a column of Ag. L = fX ⊆ E : X is linearly independentg. augmentation: if 8z 2 B n A; A + z 62 L, then each vector of B is linearly dependent on the vectors of A which implies jBj ≤ jAj CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 6/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 2 Column matroids. A: matrix with elements from a field. E = f~x : ~x is a column of Ag. L = fX ⊆ E : X is linearly independentg. Cor. We can find a heaviest base among the vectors of A using the Greedy algorithm. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 6/21 augmentation: Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 augmentation: Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. non-empty: G; = (V; ;) is a forest CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 augmentation: Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. hereditary: any subset of a forest is a forest CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. augmentation: if jAj < jBj, then #trees in GA > #trees in GB CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. augmentation: GB u v CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. augmentation: G GB A u u v v CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. augmentation: $ GB GA+(u,v) u u v v CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 Matroid examples (cont'd) Ex. 3 Cycle/Graphic matroids. G = (V; E): undirected graph. E = edge set of G. L = fX ⊆ E : GX = (V; X) is a forestg. Cor. We can find a heaviest spanning tree of G using the Greedy algorithm. CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 7/21 k-extendible systems Def. A subset system (E; L) is k-extendible if: 8C 2 L; 8x 62 C with C + x 2 L; 8D extension of C; 9Y ⊆ D n C such that jY j ≤ k and D n Y + x 2 L CoReLab Monday seminar { presentation: Evangelos Bampas 8/21 k-extendible systems Def.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 9. Coping with NP-Completeness
    Chapter 9 Coping with NP-completeness You are the junior member of a seasoned project team. Your current task is to write code for solving a simple-looking problem involving graphs and numbers. What are you supposed to do? If you are very lucky, your problem will be among the half-dozen problems concerning graphs with weights (shortest path, minimum spanning tree, maximum flow, etc.), that we have solved in this book. Even if this is the case, recognizing such a problem in its natural habitat—grungy and obscured by reality and context—requires practice and skill. It is more likely that you will need to reduce your problem to one of these lucky ones—or to solve it using dynamic programming or linear programming. But chances are that nothing like this will happen. The world of search problems is a bleak landscape. There are a few spots of light—brilliant algorithmic ideas—each illuminating a small area around it (the problems that reduce to it; two of these areas, linear and dynamic programming, are in fact decently large). But the remaining vast expanse is pitch dark: NP- complete. What are you to do? You can start by proving that your problem is actually NP-complete. Often a proof by generalization (recall the discussion on page 270 and Exercise 8.10) is all that you need; and sometimes a simple reduction from 3SAT or ZOE is not too difficult to find. This sounds like a theoretical exercise, but, if carried out successfully, it does bring some tangible rewards: now your status in the team has been elevated, you are no longer the kid who can't do, and you have become the noble knight with the impossible quest.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 561, Lecture 24 Outline All-Pairs Shortest Paths Example
    Outline CS 561, Lecture 24 • All Pairs Shortest Paths Jared Saia • TSP Approximation Algorithm University of New Mexico 1 All-Pairs Shortest Paths Example • For the single-source shortest paths problem, we wanted to find the shortest path from a source vertex s to all the other vertices in the graph • We will now generalize this problem further to that of finding • For any vertex v, we have dist(v, v) = 0 and pred(v, v) = the shortest path from every possible source to every possible NULL destination • If the shortest path from u to v is only one edge long, then • In particular, for every pair of vertices u and v, we need to dist(u, v) = w(u → v) and pred(u, v) = u compute the following information: • If there’s no shortest path from u to v, then dist(u, v) = ∞ – dist(u, v) is the length of the shortest path (if any) from and pred(u, v) = NULL u to v – pred(u, v) is the second-to-last vertex (if any) on the short- est path (if any) from u to v 2 3 APSP Lots of Single Sources • The output of our shortest path algorithm will be a pair of |V | × |V | arrays encoding all |V |2 distances and predecessors. • Many maps contain such a distance matric - to find the • Most obvious solution to APSP is to just run SSSP algorithm distance from (say) Albuquerque to (say) Ruidoso, you look |V | times, once for every possible source vertex in the row labeled “Albuquerque” and the column labeled • Specifically, to fill in the subarray dist(s, ∗), we invoke either “Ruidoso” Dijkstra’s or Bellman-Ford starting at the source vertex s • In this class, we’ll focus
    [Show full text]
  • Approximability Preserving Reduction Giorgio Ausiello, Vangelis Paschos
    Approximability preserving reduction Giorgio Ausiello, Vangelis Paschos To cite this version: Giorgio Ausiello, Vangelis Paschos. Approximability preserving reduction. 2005. hal-00958028 HAL Id: hal-00958028 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00958028 Preprint submitted on 11 Mar 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Laboratoire d'Analyse et Modélisation de Systèmes pour l'Aide à la Décision CNRS UMR 7024 CAHIER DU LAMSADE 227 Septembre 2005 Approximability preserving reductions Giorgio AUSIELLO, Vangelis Th. PASCHOS Approximability preserving reductions∗ Giorgio Ausiello1 Vangelis Th. Paschos2 1 Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” [email protected] 2 LAMSADE, CNRS UMR 7024 and Université Paris-Dauphine [email protected] September 15, 2005 Abstract We present in this paper a “tour d’horizon” of the most important approximation-pre- serving reductions that have strongly influenced research about structure in approximability classes. 1 Introduction The technique of transforming a problem into another in such a way that the solution of the latter entails, somehow, the solution of the former, is a classical mathematical technique that has found wide application in computer science since the seminal works of Cook [10] and Karp [19] who introduced particular kinds of transformations (called reductions) with the aim of study- ing the computational complexity of combinatorial decision problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Admm for Multiaffine Constrained Optimization Wenbo Gao†, Donald
    ADMM FOR MULTIAFFINE CONSTRAINED OPTIMIZATION WENBO GAOy, DONALD GOLDFARBy, AND FRANK E. CURTISz Abstract. We propose an expansion of the scope of the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM). Specifically, we show that ADMM, when employed to solve problems with multiaffine constraints that satisfy certain easily verifiable assumptions, converges to the set of constrained stationary points if the penalty parameter in the augmented Lagrangian is sufficiently large. When the Kurdyka-Lojasiewicz (K-L)property holds, this is strengthened to convergence to a single con- strained stationary point. Our analysis applies under assumptions that we have endeavored to make as weak as possible. It applies to problems that involve nonconvex and/or nonsmooth objective terms, in addition to the multiaffine constraints that can involve multiple (three or more) blocks of variables. To illustrate the applicability of our results, we describe examples including nonnega- tive matrix factorization, sparse learning, risk parity portfolio selection, nonconvex formulations of convex problems, and neural network training. In each case, our ADMM approach encounters only subproblems that have closed-form solutions. 1. Introduction The alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) is an iterative method that was initially proposed for solving linearly-constrained separable optimization problems having the form: ( inf f(x) + g(y) (P 0) x;y Ax + By − b = 0: The augmented Lagrangian L of the problem (P 0), for some penalty parameter ρ > 0, is defined to be ρ L(x; y; w) = f(x) + g(y) + hw; Ax + By − bi + kAx + By − bk2: 2 In iteration k, with the iterate (xk; yk; wk), ADMM takes the following steps: (1) Minimize L(x; yk; wk) with respect to x to obtain xk+1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 12: Matroids 12.1 Matroids: Definition and Examples
    IE 511: Integer Programming, Spring 2021 4 Mar, 2021 Lecture 12: Matroids Lecturer: Karthik Chandrasekaran Scribe: Karthik Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the usual scrutiny reserved for formal publi- cations. Matroids are structures that can be used to model the feasible set of several combinatorial opti- mization problems. In this lecture, we will define matroids, consider some examples, introduce the matroid optimization problem and see its generality through some concrete optimization problems that it formulates, and see a BIP formulation of the matroid optimization problem. We will sub- sequently see that the LP-relaxation of the BIP formulation has an integral optimal solution (via the concept of TDI that we learnt in the previous lecture). This will ultimately broaden the family of IPs that can be solved by simply solving the LP relaxation. 12.1 Matroids: Definition and Examples Definition 1. Let N be a finite set and I ⊆ 2N (recall that 2N denotes the collection of all subsets of N, i.e., 2N := fS : S ⊆ Ng). 1. The pair (N; I) is an independence system if (i) ; 2 I and (ii) If A 2 I and B ⊆ A, then B 2 I (i.e., the set I has the hereditary property{see Figure 12.1). The sets in I are called independent sets. Figure 12.1: Hereditary property of independent sets: If A is an independent set and B is a subset of A, then B should also be an independent set. 2. An independence system (N; I) is a matroid if (iii) for all A; B 2 I with jBj > jAj there exists e 2 B n A such that A [ feg 2 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation Algorithms
    Lecture 21 Approximation Algorithms 21.1 Overview Suppose we are given an NP-complete problem to solve. Even though (assuming P = NP) we 6 can’t hope for a polynomial-time algorithm that always gets the best solution, can we develop polynomial-time algorithms that always produce a “pretty good” solution? In this lecture we consider such approximation algorithms, for several important problems. Specific topics in this lecture include: 2-approximation for vertex cover via greedy matchings. • 2-approximation for vertex cover via LP rounding. • Greedy O(log n) approximation for set-cover. • Approximation algorithms for MAX-SAT. • 21.2 Introduction Suppose we are given a problem for which (perhaps because it is NP-complete) we can’t hope for a fast algorithm that always gets the best solution. Can we hope for a fast algorithm that guarantees to get at least a “pretty good” solution? E.g., can we guarantee to find a solution that’s within 10% of optimal? If not that, then how about within a factor of 2 of optimal? Or, anything non-trivial? As seen in the last two lectures, the class of NP-complete problems are all equivalent in the sense that a polynomial-time algorithm to solve any one of them would imply a polynomial-time algorithm to solve all of them (and, moreover, to solve any problem in NP). However, the difficulty of getting a good approximation to these problems varies quite a bit. In this lecture we will examine several important NP-complete problems and look at to what extent we can guarantee to get approximately optimal solutions, and by what algorithms.
    [Show full text]
  • Universality for and in Induced-Hereditary Graph Properties
    Discussiones Mathematicae Graph Theory 33 (2013) 33–47 doi:10.7151/dmgt.1671 Dedicated to Mieczys law Borowiecki on his 70th birthday UNIVERSALITY FOR AND IN INDUCED-HEREDITARY GRAPH PROPERTIES Izak Broere Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Pretoria e-mail: [email protected] and Johannes Heidema Department of Mathematical Sciences University of South Africa e-mail: [email protected] Abstract The well-known Rado graph R is universal in the set of all countable graphs , since every countable graph is an induced subgraph of R. We I study universality in and, using R, show the existence of 2ℵ0 pairwise non-isomorphic graphsI which are universal in and denumerably many other universal graphs in with prescribed attributes.I Then we contrast universality for and universalityI in induced-hereditary properties of graphs and show that the overwhelming majority of induced-hereditary properties contain no universal graphs. This is made precise by showing that there are 2(2ℵ0 ) properties in the lattice K of induced-hereditary properties of which ≤ only at most 2ℵ0 contain universal graphs. In a final section we discuss the outlook on future work; in particular the question of characterizing those induced-hereditary properties for which there is a universal graph in the property. Keywords: countable graph, universal graph, induced-hereditary property. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 05C63. 34 I.Broere and J. Heidema 1. Introduction and Motivation In this article a graph shall (with one illustrative exception) be simple, undirected, unlabelled, with a countable (i.e., finite or denumerably infinite) vertex set. For graph theoretical notions undefined here, we generally follow [14].
    [Show full text]
  • Branch and Price for Chance Constrained Bin Packing
    Branch and Price for Chance Constrained Bin Packing Zheng Zhang Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China, [email protected] Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, [email protected] Brian Denton Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, [email protected] Xiaolan Xie Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China, [email protected] Center for Biomedical and Healthcare Engineering, Ecole Nationale Superi´euredes Mines, Saint Etienne 42023, France, [email protected] This article considers two versions of the stochastic bin packing problem with chance constraints. In the first version, we formulate the problem as a two-stage stochastic integer program that considers item-to- bin allocation decisions in the context of chance constraints on total item size within the bins. Next, we describe a distributionally robust formulation of the problem that assumes the item sizes are ambiguous. We present a branch-and-price approach based on a column generation reformulation that is tailored to these two model formulations. We further enhance this approach using antisymmetry branching and subproblem reformulations of the stochastic integer programming model based on conditional value at risk (CVaR) and probabilistic covers. For the distributionally robust formulation we derive a closed form expression for the chance constraints; furthermore, we show that under mild assumptions the robust model can be reformulated as a mixed integer program with significantly fewer integer variables compared to the stochastic integer program. We implement a series of numerical experiments based on real data in the context of an application to surgery scheduling in hospitals to demonstrate the performance of the methods for practical applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Distributed Optimization Algorithms for Networked Systems
    Distributed Optimization Algorithms for Networked Systems by Nikolaos Chatzipanagiotis Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science Duke University Date: Approved: Michael M. Zavlanos, Supervisor Wilkins Aquino Henri Gavin Alejandro Ribeiro Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2015 Abstract Distributed Optimization Algorithms for Networked Systems by Nikolaos Chatzipanagiotis Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science Duke University Date: Approved: Michael M. Zavlanos, Supervisor Wilkins Aquino Henri Gavin Alejandro Ribeiro An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mechanical Engineering & Materials Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2015 Copyright c 2015 by Nikolaos Chatzipanagiotis All rights reserved except the rights granted by the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial Licence Abstract Distributed optimization methods allow us to decompose certain optimization prob- lems into smaller, more manageable subproblems that are solved iteratively and in parallel. For this reason, they are widely used to solve large-scale problems arising in areas as diverse as wireless communications, optimal control, machine learning, artificial intelligence, computational biology, finance and statistics, to name a few. Moreover, distributed algorithms avoid the cost and fragility associated with cen- tralized coordination, and provide better privacy for the autonomous decision mak- ers. These are desirable properties, especially in applications involving networked robotics, communication or sensor networks, and power distribution systems. In this thesis we propose the Accelerated Distributed Augmented Lagrangians (ADAL) algorithm, a novel decomposition method for convex optimization prob- lems.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation Algorithms for Optimization of Combinatorial Dynamical Systems
    1 Approximation Algorithms for Optimization of Combinatorial Dynamical Systems Insoon Yang, Samuel A. Burden, Ram Rajagopal, S. Shankar Sastry, and Claire J. Tomlin Abstract This paper considers an optimization problem for a dynamical system whose evolution depends on a collection of binary decision variables. We develop scalable approximation algorithms with provable suboptimality bounds to provide computationally tractable solution methods even when the dimension of the system and the number of the binary variables are large. The proposed method employs a linear approximation of the objective function such that the approximate problem is defined over the feasible space of the binary decision variables, which is a discrete set. To define such a linear approximation, we propose two different variation methods: one uses continuous relaxation of the discrete space and the other uses convex combinations of the vector field and running payoff. The approximate problem is a 0–1 linear program, which can be solved by existing polynomial-time exact or approximation algorithms, and does not require the solution of the dynamical system. Furthermore, we characterize a sufficient condition ensuring the approximate solution has a provable suboptimality bound. We show that this condition can be interpreted as the concavity of the objective function. The performance and utility of the proposed algorithms are demonstrated with the ON/OFF control problems of interdependent refrigeration systems. I. INTRODUCTION The dynamics of critical infrastructures and their system elements—for instance, electric grid infrastructure and their electric load elements—are interdependent, meaning that the state of each infrastructure or its system elements influences and is influenced by the state of the others [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Hereditary Properties of Sequences
    Testing Hereditary Properties of Sequences Cody R. Freitag1, Eric Price2, and William J. Swartworth3 1 Department of Computer Science, UT Austin, Austin, TX, USA [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, UT Austin, Austin, TX, USA [email protected] 3 Department of Computer Science, UT Austin, Austin, TX, USA [email protected] Abstract A hereditary property of a sequence is one that is preserved when restricting to subsequences. We show that there exist hereditary properties of sequences that cannot be tested with sublinear queries, resolving an open question posed by Newman et al. [20]. This proof relies crucially on an infinite alphabet, however; for finite alphabets, we observe that any hereditary property can be tested with a constant number of queries. 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.2 Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity Keywords and phrases Property Testing Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.CVIT.2016.23 1 Introduction Property testing is the problem of distinguishing objects x that satisfy a given property P from ones that are “far” from satisfying it in some distance measure [13], with constant (say, 2/3) success probability. The most basic questions in property testing are which properties can be tested with constant queries; which properties cannot be tested without reading almost the entire input x; and which properties lie in between. This paper considers property testing of sequences under the edit distance. We say a length n sequence x is -far from another (not necessarily length-n) sequence y if the edit distance is at least n. One of the key problems in property testing is testing if a sequence is 1 monotone; a long line of work (see [10, 5, 7, 8] and references therein) showed that Θ( log n) queries are necessary and sufficient.
    [Show full text]
  • Scribe Notes 2 from 2018
    Advanced Algorithms 25 September 2018 Lecture 2: Approximation Algorithms II Lecturer: Mohsen Ghaffari Scribe: Davin Choo 1 Approximation schemes Previously, we described simple greedy algorithms that approximate the optimum for minimum set cover, maximal matching and vertex cover. We now formalize the notion of efficient (1 + )-approximation algorithms for minimization problems, a la [Vaz13]. Let I be an instance from the problem class of interest (e.g. minimum set cover). Denote jIj as the size of the problem (in bits), and jIuj as the size of the problem (in unary). For example, if the input is n just a number x (of at most n bits), then jIj = log2(x) = O(n) while jIuj = O(2 ). This distinction of \size of input" will be important later when we discuss the knapsack problem. Definition 1 (Polynomial time approximation algorithm (PTAS)). For cost metric c, an algorithm A is a PTAS if for each fixed > 0, c(A(I)) ≤ (1 + ) · c(OP T (I)) and A runs in poly(jIj). By definition, the runtime for PTAS may depend arbitrarily on . A stricter related definition is that of fully polynomial time approximation algorithms (FPTAS). Assuming P 6= NP, FPTAS is the best one can hope for on NP-hard optimization problems. Definition 2 (Fully polynomial time approximation algorithm (FPTAS)). For cost metric c, an algo- 1 rithm A is a FPTAS if for each fixed > 0, c(A(I)) ≤ (1 + ) · c(OP T (I)) and A runs in poly(jIj; ). As before, (1−)-approximation, PTAS and FPTAS for maximization problems are defined similarly.
    [Show full text]