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

Robust and MaxMin Optimization under Matroid and Knapsack Uncertainty Sets

Consider the following problem: given a set system (U,I) and an edge-weighted graph G = (U, E) on the same universe U, find the set A in I such that the Steiner tree cost with terminals A is as large as possible: "which set in I is the most difficult to connect up?" This is an example of a max-min problem: find the set A in I such that the value of some minimization (covering) problem is as large as possible. In this paper, we show that for certain covering problems which admit good deterministic online algorithms, we can give good algorithms for max-min optimization when the set system I is given by a p-system or q-knapsacks or both. This result is similar to results for constrained maximization of submodular functions. Although many natural covering problems are not even approximately submodular, we show that one can use properties of the online algorithm as a surrogate for submodularity. Moreover, we give stronger connections between max-min optimization and two-stage robust optimization, and hence give improved algorithms for robust versions of various covering problems, for cases where the uncertainty sets are given by p-systems and q-knapsacks.Comment: 17 pages. Preliminary version combining this paper and http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1045 appeared in ICALP 201

Solving Assembly Line Balancing Problems by Combining IP and CP

Assembly line balancing problems consist in partitioning the work necessary to assemble a number of products among different stations of an assembly line. We present a hybrid approach for solving such problems, which combines constraint programming and integer programming.Comment: 10 pages, Sixth Annual Workshop of the ERCIM Working Group on Constraints, Prague, June 200

Submodular Optimization with Submodular Cover and Submodular Knapsack Constraints

We investigate two new optimization problems -- minimizing a submodular function subject to a submodular lower bound constraint (submodular cover) and maximizing a submodular function subject to a submodular upper bound constraint (submodular knapsack). We are motivated by a number of real-world applications in machine learning including sensor placement and data subset selection, which require maximizing a certain submodular function (like coverage or diversity) while simultaneously minimizing another (like cooperative cost). These problems are often posed as minimizing the difference between submodular functions [14, 35] which is in the worst case inapproximable. We show, however, that by phrasing these problems as constrained optimization, which is more natural for many applications, we achieve a number of bounded approximation guarantees. We also show that both these problems are closely related and an approximation algorithm solving one can be used to obtain an approximation guarantee for the other. We provide hardness results for both problems thus showing that our approximation factors are tight up to log-factors. Finally, we empirically demonstrate the performance and good scalability properties of our algorithms.Comment: 23 pages. A short version of this appeared in Advances of NIPS-201

Algorithms for the continuous nonlinear resource allocation problem---new implementations and numerical studies

Patriksson (2008) provided a then up-to-date survey on the continuous,separable, differentiable and convex resource allocation problem with a single resource constraint. Since the publication of that paper the interest in the problem has grown: several new applications have arisen where the problem at hand constitutes a subproblem, and several new algorithms have been developed for its efficient solution. This paper therefore serves three purposes. First, it provides an up-to-date extension of the survey of the literature of the field, complementing the survey in Patriksson (2008) with more then 20 books and articles. Second, it contributes improvements of some of these algorithms, in particular with an improvement of the pegging (that is, variable fixing) process in the relaxation algorithm, and an improved means to evaluate subsolutions. Third, it numerically evaluates several relaxation (primal) and breakpoint (dual) algorithms, incorporating a variety of pegging strategies, as well as a quasi-Newton method. Our conclusion is that our modification of the relaxation algorithm performs the best. At least for problem sizes up to 30 million variables the practical time complexity for the breakpoint and relaxation algorithms is linear

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

The Knapsack Problem with Neighbour Constraints

We study a constrained version of the knapsack problem in which dependencies between items are given by the adjacencies of a graph. In the 1-neighbour knapsack problem, an item can be selected only if at least one of its neighbours is also selected. In the all-neighbours knapsack problem, an item can be selected only if all its neighbours are also selected. We give approximation algorithms and hardness results when the nodes have both uniform and arbitrary weight and profit functions, and when the dependency graph is directed and undirected.Comment: Full version of IWOCA 2011 pape