Randomized Strategies for Robust Combinatorial Optimization

In this paper, we study the following robust optimization problem. Given an independence system and candidate objective functions, we choose an independent set, and then an adversary chooses one objective function, knowing our choice. Our goal is to find a randomized strategy (i.e., a probability distribution over the independent sets) that maximizes the expected objective value. To solve the problem, we propose two types of schemes for designing approximation algorithms. One scheme is for the case when objective functions are linear. It first finds an approximately optimal aggregated strategy and then retrieves a desired solution with little loss of the objective value. The approximation ratio depends on a relaxation of an independence system polytope. As applications, we provide approximation algorithms for a knapsack constraint or a matroid intersection by developing appropriate relaxations and retrievals. The other scheme is based on the multiplicative weights update method. A key technique is to introduce a new concept called $(\eta,\gamma)$-reductions for objective functions with parameters $\eta, \gamma$. We show that our scheme outputs a nearly $\alpha$-approximate solution if there exists an $\alpha$-approximation algorithm for a subproblem defined by $(\eta,\gamma)$-reductions. This improves approximation ratio in previous results. Using our result, we provide approximation algorithms when the objective functions are submodular or correspond to the cardinality robustness for the knapsack problem

General Bounds for Incremental Maximization

We propose a theoretical framework to capture incremental solutions to cardinality constrained maximization problems. The defining characteristic of our framework is that the cardinality/support of the solution is bounded by a value $k\in\mathbb{N}$ that grows over time, and we allow the solution to be extended one element at a time. We investigate the best-possible competitive ratio of such an incremental solution, i.e., the worst ratio over all $k$ between the incremental solution after $k$ steps and an optimum solution of cardinality $k$. We define a large class of problems that contains many important cardinality constrained maximization problems like maximum matching, knapsack, and packing/covering problems. We provide a general $2.618$-competitive incremental algorithm for this class of problems, and show that no algorithm can have competitive ratio below $2.18$ in general. In the second part of the paper, we focus on the inherently incremental greedy algorithm that increases the objective value as much as possible in each step. This algorithm is known to be $1.58$-competitive for submodular objective functions, but it has unbounded competitive ratio for the class of incremental problems mentioned above. We define a relaxed submodularity condition for the objective function, capturing problems like maximum (weighted) ($b$-)matching and a variant of the maximum flow problem. We show that the greedy algorithm has competitive ratio (exactly) $2.313$ for the class of problems that satisfy this relaxed submodularity condition. Note that our upper bounds on the competitive ratios translate to approximation ratios for the underlying cardinality constrained problems.Comment: fixed typo

Algorithm Engineering in Robust Optimization

Robust optimization is a young and emerging field of research having received a considerable increase of interest over the last decade. In this paper, we argue that the the algorithm engineering methodology fits very well to the field of robust optimization and yields a rewarding new perspective on both the current state of research and open research directions. To this end we go through the algorithm engineering cycle of design and analysis of concepts, development and implementation of algorithms, and theoretical and experimental evaluation. We show that many ideas of algorithm engineering have already been applied in publications on robust optimization. Most work on robust optimization is devoted to analysis of the concepts and the development of algorithms, some papers deal with the evaluation of a particular concept in case studies, and work on comparison of concepts just starts. What is still a drawback in many papers on robustness is the missing link to include the results of the experiments again in the design

Robust randomized matchings

The following game is played on a weighted graph: Alice selects a matching $M$ and Bob selects a number $k$. Alice's payoff is the ratio of the weight of the $k$ heaviest edges of $M$ to the maximum weight of a matching of size at most $k$. If $M$ guarantees a payoff of at least $\alpha$ then it is called $\alpha$-robust. In 2002, Hassin and Rubinstein gave an algorithm that returns a $1/\sqrt{2}$-robust matching, which is best possible. We show that Alice can improve her payoff to $1/\ln(4)$ by playing a randomized strategy. This result extends to a very general class of independence systems that includes matroid intersection, b-matchings, and strong 2-exchange systems. It also implies an improved approximation factor for a stochastic optimization variant known as the maximum priority matching problem and translates to an asymptotic robustness guarantee for deterministic matchings, in which Bob can only select numbers larger than a given constant. Moreover, we give a new LP-based proof of Hassin and Rubinstein's bound

General Bounds for Incremental Maximization

We propose a theoretical framework to capture incremental solutions to cardinality constrained maximization problems. The defining characteristic of our framework is that the cardinality/support of the solution is bounded by a value k in N that grows over time, and we allow the solution to be extended one element at a time. We investigate the best-possible competitive ratio of such an incremental solution, i.e., the worst ratio over all k between the incremental solution after~$k$ steps and an optimum solution of cardinality k. We define a large class of problems that contains many important cardinality constrained maximization problems like maximum matching, knapsack, and packing/covering problems. We provide a general 2.618-competitive incremental algorithm for this class of problems, and show that no algorithm can have competitive ratio below 2.18 in general. In the second part of the paper, we focus on the inherently incremental greedy algorithm that increases the objective value as much as possible in each step. This algorithm is known to be 1.58-competitive for submodular objective functions, but it has unbounded competitive ratio for the class of incremental problems mentioned above. We define a relaxed submodularity condition for the objective function, capturing problems like maximum (weighted) (b-)matching and a variant of the maximum flow problem. We show that the greedy algorithm has competitive ratio (exactly) 2.313 for the class of problems that satisfy this relaxed submodularity condition. Note that our upper bounds on the competitive ratios translate to approximation ratios for the underlying cardinality constrained problems

Complexity results and exact algorithms for robust knapsack problems.

This paper studies the robust knapsack problem, for which solutions are, up to a certain point, immune to data uncertainty. We complement the works found in the literature where uncertainty affects only the profits or only the weights of the items by studying the complexity and approximation of the general setting with uncertainty regarding both the profits and the weights, for three different objective functions. Furthermore, we develop a scenario-relaxation algorithm for solving the general problem and present computational results.Knapsack problem; Robustness; Scenario-relaxation algorithm; NP-hard; Approximation;