1 / 51

Flexible Optimization Problems

Flexible Optimization Problems. A. Akavia, S. Safra. Motivation. What do we do with all the NP-hard optimization problems ???. Relaxations: 2 Parameters. Optimization function  approximation Input  flexibility Example – graph coloring problem : Optimization function –

ruana
Download Presentation

Flexible Optimization Problems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Flexible Optimization Problems A. Akavia, S. Safra

  2. Motivation What do we do with all the NP-hard optimization problems ???

  3. Relaxations: 2 Parameters • Optimization function approximation • Input flexibility Example – graph coloring problem: • Optimization function – • find an approximation of the min coloring. • Input flexibility – • find a k-coloring with few monochromatic edges.

  4. Talk Plan • Approximation • Input flexibility • Flexible optimization problems • Examples • Definitions • Hardness results

  5. Relaxation 1: Approximation • An approximation algorithm is an algorithm that returns an answer C which “g-approximates” the optimal solution C*. • C  g  C*(minimization) • 1/g  C*  C(maximization)

  6. example: 2-colorability Relaxation 2: Input FlexibilityExample: Graph Editing problems complexity and approximation results are w/r to the number of modifications Input: • a graph G, and • a desired property Goal: find a small set of edge-modifications (addition/deletion/both) that transforms Ginto G’with the desired property

  7. Our Work: Flexible-Approximation-Problems • Combining both relaxations – • approximating the optimization function, • while allowing input flexibility. • Example: Given a graph G, find a coloring with fewcolors, and perhaps few monochromatic edges.

  8. Natural Flexible-Approximation-Problems: • Min Non-Deterministic Automaton • Min Synthesis Graph

  9. Non-Deterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) • Many applications: • program verification • speech recognition • natural language processing • … Approximating the minimum NFA, which accepts a given language L is hard.

  10. Flexible Min NFA Sometimes it suffices to find: • a smallNFA,(Approximation) • accepting a language “similar” to the input one.(Input Flexibility)

  11. Example: Automata-Theoretic Approach to Program Verification • ProgramP is correct with respect to a specificationsTif: L(P)  L(T) • In concurrent programming: processesP1,..., Pn are correct w/r to specificationTif: L(P1x…x Pn)  L(T) P . . . P1 . . . P2 . . . P3 . . . in the worst case, |P1x…xPn| is exponential in n

  12. Example: Automata-Theoretic Approach to Program Verification • Coping with this state-explosion [K94]: • finding a small automaton P’ (Optimization) • such that L(P1x…x Pn)  L(P’)(Input Flexibility) • and then checking whether L(P')  L(T) L(P1x…x Pn)  L(P’)  L(P1x…x Pn)  L(T) L(P’)  L(T)

  13. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Combinatorial Chemistry andFlexible Min Synthesis Graph a multi dimensional space attribute coordinate molecule point similarity (molecules) proximity (points) • Choose • Synthesize • Screen *

  14. a b c a b c Node - grow step Label - appended unit a b c a b c b a b c a a b b c c Produces each string s s.t.s = labels concatenation along a path a b b a b a b a b c a Synthesis Graph a b b b b b b c c a a a b b c c c c Split Synthesis [F91,L91,CS99]

  15. Flexible Min Synthesis Graph Output: A smallsynthesis-graphproducing S’, which is similar to S Input: A set of strings S a b c a b c a b c a b • Input flexibitily– • producing S’ and not S • Approximation – • finding a small synthesis graph • not the minimum

  16. Definitions, Theorems and Proofs

  17. Assume a distance function(x,x’)to be the smallest number of basic modifications (say, bit-changes) necessary in order to transform x to x’. the ball of radius d around a given input x is ball(x,d) = {x’ | (x,x’)d}

  18. d (d,g)-flexible approximation problem • Assume: • a distance function , and • an optimizationfunction f. • In a (d,g)-flexible-approximation problem, given an input x, a solution y’ is returned s.t. • y’ is feasible for some x’ball(x,d), and • f(x’,y’) is g-approximateto the optimum (for x). f(x’,y’) ≤ gf(x,y*) x’ x

  19. Biclique Edge Cover - Definition Input: Bipartite graph G Goal: Cover all edges by bicliques(i.e. complete bipartite subgraphs)

  20. (d,g)-Biclique Edge Cover • Assume: • (G,G’) = symmetric edge difference • f(G,y) = no. of bicliques in the cover y. G G’ f(G’,y)=2 f(G,y)=3 (G,G’)=7

  21. (d,g)-Biclique Edge Cover • In a (d,g)-Biclique Edge Cover ((d,g)-BEC) given an input G, a solution y’ is returned s.t. • y’ is the no. of bicliques in a cover ofG’ball(x,d), and • f(G’,y’) is g-approximateto the min-BECfor G. G G’

  22. Hardness of (d,g)-Biclique Edge Cover Thm: >0(d,g)-Biclique-Edge-Cover problem is hard for any g=O(|V|1/5-) and d=O(g), unless NP=ZPP. Proof: later.

  23. (d,g)-Non-Deterministic Finite Automaton (NFA) • Assume: • (L,L’) = symmetric difference between L and L’ • f(L,A) = no. of states in an NFA A accepting L. • In a (d,g)-NFA, given a language L, a solution y’ is returned s.t. • y’ is the no. of states in an NFA accepting L’ball(L,d), and • f(L’,y’) is g-approximateto the optimum for L.

  24. Hardness of (d,g)-NFA Thm: >0 (d,g)-NFA problem is hard for any g=O(|L|1/10-) and d=O(g), unless NP=ZPP

  25. qF q0 {uv| (u,v)E} Bipartite graph G Strings set S NFA Reduction Outlines • Reduction from Biclique-Edge-Cover:

  26. v5 v4 v3 v2 v1 Define L Define L = {vu| (v,u)E} u5 u4 u3 u2 u1 qF q0 A - an automaton acceptin L Proof Reduction from flexible approximation Biclique Edge Cover: k-biclique edge cover of G’in d-distance from G  NFA with k+2 states,accepting L’ in d-distance from L Reduction from Biclique Edge Cover: k-biclique edge cover of G  NFA with k+2 states,accepting L (d,g)-BECis hard for g=O(|V|1/5-) and d=O(g)  (d,g)-NFAis hard for g=O(|L|1/10-) and d=O(g) G=(V,U,E) a bipartite graph.

  27. Reminder • A synthesis-graph Hproduces a string s if:s is a label concatenation along a path from first to last layers in H.

  28. (d,g)-Synthesis Graph Given a set of strings S, output a small synthesis-graph producing S’, which is similar to S • Assume: • (S,S’) = symmetric difference between S and S’ • f(S,H) = no. of internal nodes in a synthesis graph H that produces the strings S. • In a (d,g)-Synthesis Graph, given an input S, a solution y’ is returned s.t. • y’ is the no. of internal nodes in a synthesis graph H producing S’ball(S,d), and • f(S’,y’) g-approximatethe optimum for S.

  29. Hardness of (d,g)-Synthesis Graph Thm: >0 (d,g)-Synthesis Graph problem is hard for any g=O(|S|1/10-) and d=O(g), unless NP=ZPP Proof:

  30. A A {uAv| (u,v)E} A Bipartite graph G Synthesis graph H Strings set S Reduction Outlines • Reduction from Biclique-Edge-Cover:

  31. Define S = {vAu| (v,u)E} Define S Proof Reduction from flexible approximation Biclique Edge Cover: k-biclique edge coverof G’in d-distance from G synthesis graph H with k internal nodes producing S’ in d-distance from S Reduction from Biclique Edge Cover [CS99]: k-biclique edge coverof G synthesis graph H with k internal nodes producing S A A (d,g)-BECis hard for g=O(|V|1/5-) and d=O(g)  (d,g)-SGis hard for g=O(|S|1/10-) and d=O(g) A G=(V,U,E) a bipartite graph. H - a graph constructing S

  32. Hardness Proof of(d,g)-Biclique-Edge-Cover((d,g)-BEC)

  33. (d,g)-Biclique Edge Cover ((d,g)-BEC) • In a (d,g)-Biclique Edge Cover ((d,g)-BEC) given an input G, a solution y’ is returned s.t. • y’ is the no. of bicliques in the cover of G’ball(G,d), and • f(G’,y’) is g-approximateto the min-BECfor G. G f(G,y)=3

  34. Hardness of (d,g)-BEC Thm: (d,g)-BEC is hard for any g=O(|V|1/5-) and d=O(g), unless NP=ZPP. Proof:

  35. flexiblevs. non-flexiblesolutions Lemma: from any solution y’ to G’ball(G,d),we may construct a solution y to G,s.t. f(G,y) ≤ f(G’,y’) + d G G’

  36. Calculating Approximation Factor Claim: Let G be a graph, if v’=f(G’,y’)’g-approximate(d,g)-BEC, where d=O(g),then y, f(G,y)v’+d, s.t. v=v’+dO(g)-approximateBEC Proof: By the lemma y, f(G,y)a’+d, and v  O(g)optG v = v’ + d  goptG + d  2goptG(since d = O(g)) Assume BEC is hard for g=O(|V|1/5-) then: (d,g)-BEC is hard for g=O(|V|1/5-) and d=O(g)

  37. Hardness of Approximation of BEC Proof Outlines: • Construction [Simon90] • Graph coloring is hard to approximate by g=O(|V|1-) [FK98] • Simple calculation, improves Simon’s bound from a constant factor to g=O(|V|1/5-).

  38. 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 5 4 Clique Cover Problem Input: A graph G Goal: Cover all vertices by cliques Clique Cover is equivalent to Graph Coloring

  39. 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 1 1’ 1 2 2’ 2 5 3 3’ 3 4 4 4’ 5 5’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ H Construction [Simon ‘90] GI G

  40. 1 1’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 5 5’ G GI Propositions 1 2 5 3 4 • a clique-cover in G translates into abiclique-cover of the horizontaledges in GI, and vice versa • a clique-cover in G translates into t2biclique-covers of the horizontaledges in H. No. of GI’s copies in H.

  41. H 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 1 2 5 3 4 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ Propositions G=(V,E) • 2|E|t bicliques are necessary and sufficient in order to cover the diagonal edges of H.

  42. 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ H H Propositions • horizontaledges in different copies of GIcannotbe members of the samebiclique. Ascending, hence cannot connect copies within the same row.

  43. H 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 1 2 5 3 4 1 1’ 1 1’ 1 1’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 2 2’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 3 3’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 4 4’ 5 5’ 5 5’ 5 5’ Lemma G=(V,E) • sclique-cover in G(t2s + 2|E|t)biclique-cover in H • rbiclique-cover in H(r – 2|E|t) / t2clique-cover in G

  44. Calculating Approximation Factor • Given a solution with rbicliques for H, we may construct a solution with scliques for G, and • it is easy to verify that • if ris O(|VH|x)-approximate to ropt • then sisO(|V|5x)-approximate to sopt Clique-Cover is hard to approximate by O(|V|1-), >0, unless NP=ZPP (from [FK98])  BEC is hard to approx within g=O(|VH|1/5-), >0, , unless NP=ZPP.

  45. Related Work • Property testing [GGR] • Sample size • Typically seeking an exact solution and not an approximated one • Bi-criteria optimization[MRSR] • optimization (vs. relaxation). • Might be easy when only one criterion is considered. • Bi-criteria: hard with one criterionhard in the bi-criterionversion. • Typically hostile objectives.

  46. relevant case for (d,g)-SG hard easy d=0 d=O(|V|1/5-) d=O(|V|) d=O(|E|) d=|V|2-|E| Graph coloring is easy Discussion • Similar proof is valid for any problem, which is • hard to approximate, and • “v  vd + d” • The gap is still too large:

  47. Future Work • Improving our results • Extending our results to other problems • Achieving positive results • Parameterized polynomial solution • Approximation algorithm

  48. Property Testing[GGR] • Distinguish, by a small no. of probes, between instances x that • satisfy a given property accept • no set of |x| modifications causes x to satisfy the property reject back

  49. Bi-criteria Optimization [MRSR] • Bi-criteria network design problem is a tuple (A,B,S) • A,B are two minimization objectives • S specify a membership requirement in a class of sub-graphs • The problem specifies a budget value on objective A • And seeks minimum over B (within the budget) • A (k,l)-approximation algorithm for an (A,B,S)-bi-criteria optimization problem is a poly.-time algorithm, that produces a solution that belongs to the sub-graph class S, in which • the objective A is at most k times the budget, and • the objective B is at most l times the minimum back

More Related