chapter 8 pd-method and local ratio
DESCRIPTION
Chapter 8 PD-Method and Local Ratio. (5) Equivalence. This ppt is editored from a ppt of Reuven Bar-Yehuda. Reuven Bar-Yehuda. Introduction. The local ratio technique is an approximation paradigm for NP-hard optimization to obtain approximate solutions - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Chapter 8 PD-Method and Local Ratio
(5) Equivalence
This ppt is editored from a ppt of Reuven Bar-Yehuda.
Reuven Bar-Yehuda
2
Introduction
• The local ratio technique is an approximation paradigm for NP-hard optimization to obtain approximate solutions
• Its main feature of attraction is its simplicity and elegance; it is very easy to understand, and has surprisingly broad applicability.
3
A Vertex Cover Problem:Network Testing
• A network tester involves placing probes onto the network vertices.
• A probe can determine if a connected link is working correctly.
• The goal is to minimize the number of used probes to check all the links.
4
A Vertex Cover Problem:Precedence Constrained
Scheduling
• Schedule a set of jobs on a single machine;• Jobs have precedence constraints between
them;• The goal is to find a schedule which
minimizes the weighted sum of completion times.
This problem can be formulated as a vertex cover problem [Ambuehl-Mastrolilli’05]
5
The Local Ratio Theorem(for minimization problems)
Let w = w1 + w2 . If x is an r-approximate solution for w1 and w2 then x is r-approximate with respect to w as well.
Note that the theorem holds even when negative weights are allowed.
)(/)(
)()(/)(
)()(/)(
ly.respective , and ,for solutions optimal be and ,Let
*
*2
*222
*1
*111
21**
2*1
xwrxw
xwxwrxw
xwxwrxw
wwwxxx
Proof
6
Vertex Cover example
W = [41, 62, 13, 14, 35, 26, 17]
W1 = [ 0, 0, 0, 14, 14, 0, 0]
W2 = [41, 62, 13, 0, 21, 26, 17]
W = W1 + W2
Weight functions:41
62
14
35
17
26
13
7
Vertex Cover example (step 1)
= +
41
62
14
35
17
26
13 0 0
14
14
0
0
041
62
0 21
17
26
13
Note: any feasible solution is a 2-approximate solution for weight function W1
8
Vertex Cover example (step 2)
= +
41
62
0 21
17
26
13 0 0
0 21
0
21
041
62
0 0
17
5
13
9
Vertex Cover example (step 3)
= +
41
62
0 0
17
5
1341
41
0 0
0
0
0 0 21
0 0
17
5
13
10
Vertex Cover example (step 4)
= +
0 21
0 0
17
5
13 0 13
0 0
0
0
13 0 8
0 0
17
5
0
11
Vertex Cover example (step 5)
= +
0 8
0 0
17
5
0 0 8
0 0
12
0
00 0
0 0
5
5
0
12
Vertex Cover example (step 6)
• The optimal solution value of the VC instance on the left is zero.
• By a recurrent application of the Local Ratio Theorem we are guaranteed to be within 2 times the optimal solution value by picking the zero nodes.
• Opt = 120 Approx = 129
0 8
0 0
12
0
041 62 13
14 35 26
17
13
1. For each edge {u,v} do:
2. Let = min {w(u), w(v)}.
3. w(u) w(u) - .4. w(v) w(v) - .5. Return {v | w(v) = 0}.
2-Approx VC (Bar-Yehuda & Even 81)
Iterative implementation – edge by edge
14
Recursive implementation
1. If a zero-cost solution can be found, return one.
2. Otherwise, find a suitable decomposition of w into two weight functions w1 and w2 = w − w1, and solve the problem recursively, using w2 as the weight function in the recursive call.
The Local Ratio Theorem leads naturally to the formulation of recursive algorithms with the following general structure
15
2-Approx VC (Bar-Yehuda & Even 81)
Recursive implementation – edge by edge
1. VC (V, E, w)
2. If E= return ;
3. If w(v)=0 return {v}+VC(V-{v}, E-E(v), w);
4. Let (x,y)E;
5. Let = min{p(x), p(y)};
6. Define w1(v) = if v=x or v=y and 0 otherwise;
7. Return VC(V, E, w- w1 )
16
Algorithm Analysis
We prove that the solution returned by the algorithm is 2-approximate by induction on the recursion and by using the Local Ratio Theorem.
1. In the base case, the algorithm returns a vertex cover of zero cost, which is optimal.
2. For the inductive step, consider the solution returned by the recursive call.
By the inductive hypothesis it is 2-approximate with respect to w2.
We claim that it is also 2-approximate with respect to w1 . In fact, every feasible solution is 2-approximate with respect to w1 .
17
Generality of the analysis
• The proof that a given algorithm is an r-approximation algorithm is by induction on the recursion.
• In the base case, the solution is optimal (and, therefore, r-approximate) because it has zero cost, and in the inductive step, the solution returned by the recursive call is r-approximate with respect to w2 by the inductive hypothesis.
• Thus, different algorithms differ from one Thus, different algorithms differ from one another only in the choice of another only in the choice of ww11, and in the proof , and in the proof that every feasible solution is that every feasible solution is rr-approximate with -approximate with respect to respect to ww11..
18
The key ingredient
Different algorithms (for different problems), differ from one another only in the decomposition of W, and this decomposition is determined completely by the choice of W1.
W2 = W – W1
19
The creative part…find r-effective weights
w1 is fully r-effective if there exists a number b such that
b w1 · x r · b
for all feasible solutions x
20
Framework
Proving this amounts to proving that:
1. b is a lower bound on the optimum value,
2. r ·b is an upper bound on the cost of every feasible solution
…and thus every feasible solution is r-approximate (all with respect to w1).
The analysis of algorithms in our framework boils down to proving that w1 is r-effective.
.Output
while.-end
;1
for and set
;1 and if set
min
such that )( choose
.)(* choose
}0|{)(
and 0}|{)(set
begin do feasible primenot is while
.0 0, 0,set Initially,
1*
1*
11
*
1)(
*
1
1
00
kA
ki
ki
ki
ki
kr
kj
kj
ji
m
i
kiijj
kJjri
m
i
kiirr
n
j
kjij
kj
k
xx
kk
i*iyyyy
xrjxx
a
yac
a
yac
kJr
kIi
xaikI
xjkJ
x
kyx
do covered,not edgean exists thereif
tices}chosen vernot {)( kJ
edge} coverednot {)( kI
1or 0
of weight remaining j
ight vertex weupdate
edge uncoveredan choose
while.-end
* of endpoint each at weight update
};{
;ight smaller we
with * of endpoint an choose
;* edge uncoveredan choose
};in not vertices{
exists edge uncovered while
. Initially,
jj cc
ij
rCC
ir
i
CJ
C
.Output
while.-end
;1
for and set
;1 and if set
min
such that )( choose
.)(* choose
}0|{)(
and 0}|{)(set
begin do feasible primenot is while
.0 0, 0,set Initially,
1*
1*
11
*
1)(
*
1
1
00
kA
ki
ki
ki
ki
kr
kj
kj
ji
m
i
kiijj
kJjri
m
i
kiirr
n
j
kjij
kj
k
xx
kk
i*iyyyy
xrjxx
a
yac
a
yac
kJr
kIi
xaikI
xjkJ
x
kyx
23
A different W1 for VC star by star (Clarkson’83)
41
62
16
35
17
26
13
Let x 2 V with minimum " = w(x)d(x)
16/4
16/4
16
16/4
16/4
0
0 37
58
0 31
13
26
13
= +
Let d(x) be the degree of vertex x
24
A different W1 for VC star by star
Let x 2 V with minimum " = w(x)d(x)
4
0
0b = 4 · is a lower bound on the optimum value,
2 ·b is an upper bound on the cost of every feasible solution
W1 is 2-effective
25
Another W1 for VChomogeneous (= proportional to the potential coverage)
Let " =minx2Vw(x)d(x)
3 4
4 5
3
3
2 b = |E| · is a lower bound on the optimum value,
2 ·b is an upper bound on the cost of every feasible solution
W1 is 2-effective
.Output
while.-end
;1
otherwisw;
0 and )(for set
;1 and if set
min
such that )( choose
}0|{)(
and 0}|{)(set
begin do feasible primenot is while
.0 0, 0,set Initially,
1
1
11
)(
1)(
)(
1
1
00
kA
ki
ki
irki
ki
kr
kj
kj
kIiij
m
i
kiijj
kJj
kIiir
m
i
kiirr
n
j
kjij
kj
k
xx
kk
yy
akIiyy
xrjxx
a
yac
a
yac
kJr
xaikI
xjkJ
x
kyx
do covered,not edgean exists thereif
tices}chosen vernot {)( kJ
edge} coverednot {)( kI
)( at edges uncovered of #
of weight remaining r
r
ight vertex weupdate
minimize to vertex a choose r
while.-end
oadjacent t x each verte and
0
at weight update
};{
; at edges uncovered of #
of weight remainingmin
reach to vertex a choose
edges}; uncovered{
};in not vertices{
exists edge uncovered while
. Initially,
jj
r
Jj
cc
rj
c
r
rCC
j
j
r
I
CJ
C
.Output
while.-end
;1
otherwisw;
0 and )(for set
;1 and if set
min
such that )( choose
}0|{)(
and 0}|{)(set
begin do feasible primenot is while
.0 0, 0,set Initially,
1
1
11
)(
1)(
)(
1
1
00
kA
ki
ki
irki
ki
kr
kj
kj
kIiij
m
i
kiijj
kJj
kIiir
m
i
kiirr
n
j
kjij
kj
k
xx
kk
yy
akIiyy
xrjxx
a
yac
a
yac
kJr
xaikI
xjkJ
x
kyx
28
Partial Vertex Cover
Input: VC with a fixed number k
Goal: Identify a minimum cost subset of vertices that hits at least k edges
Examples:• if k = 1 then OPT = 13• if k = 3 then OPT = 14• if k = 5 then OPT = 25• if k = 6 then OPT = 14+13
41
62
14
25
17
26
13
29
w=[41, 62, 13, 14, 25, 26, 17]
w1=[ 0, 0, 0, 14, 14, 0, 0]
w2=[41, 62, 13, 0, 11, 26, 17]w = w1 + w2
Weight functions:
Assume k < |E| (number of edges)Note: NOT every feasible solution is a 2-approximate solution for weight function w1
In VC every edge must be hit by a vertex.In partial VC, k vertices are sufficient. So the optimum for w1 is 0 (k<=5); vice versa the solution that takes for example vertex 4 is infinite many times larger than the optimum
41
62
14
25
17
26
13
Partial Vertex Cover
}
30
Positive Weight Function
• We do not know of any single subset that must contribute to all solutions.
• To prevent OPT from being equal to 0, we can assign a positive weight to every element.
31
w=[41, 62, 13, 14, 25, 26, 17]
w1=[ 0, 0, 0, 14, 14, 0, 0]
w2=[41, 62, 13, 0, 11, 26, 17]
w = w1 + w2
Weight functions:
Observe that 14 is NOT a lower bound Observe that 14 is NOT a lower bound of the optimal value!of the optimal value!For example for k=1 then 13 is the optimal value.
41
62
14
25
17
26
13
Positive Weight Function
32
x
Let d(x) be the degree of vertex xWhat is the amortized cost to hit one edge by using x ?
What is the minimal amortized cost to hit any edge?
Positive Weight Function
)),(min(
)(min
kxd
xwx
bound.lower valida represents "" edges, hit tohave weSince kk
33
Positive Weight Function W1
w1(x) = · min{ d(x) , k }
For k = 3 then = 14/3
Weight functions (k=3):
w = [41, 62, 13, 14, 25, 26, 17]w1= [14, 14, 28/3, 14, 14, 14, 14]w2= [27, 48, 11/3, 0, 11, 12, 3]
w = w1 + w2
41
62
14
25
17
26
13
34
Function W1
• [Lower Bound] Every feasible solution costs at least k = 14
• [Upper Bound] There are feasible solutions whose value can be arbitrarily larger than k (e.g. take all the vertices)
• But if you take all the vertices then not all of them are strictly necessary!!
• We can focus on Minimal Solutions!!!
14
14
14
14
14
14
28/3
35
Minimal Solutions
• By minimal solution we mean a feasible solution that is minimal with respect to set inclusion, that is, a feasible solution whose proper subsets are all infeasible.
• Minimal solutions are meaningful mainly in the context of covering problems (covering problems are problems for which feasible solutions are monotone inclusion-wise, that is, if a set X is a feasible solution, then so is every superset of X; MST is not a covering problem).
36
Minimal Solutions:r-effective weights
w1 is r-effective if there exists a number b such that
b w1 · x r · b
for all minimal feasible solution x
37
The creative part…again find r-effective weights
• If we can show that our algorithm uses an r-effective w1 and returns minimal solutions, we will have essentially proved that it is an r-approximation algorithm.
• Designing an algorithm to return minimal solutions is quite easy.
• Most of the creative effort is therefore expended in finding an r-effective weight function (for a small r).
38
2-effective weight function
1. In terms of w1 every feasible solution costs at least · k 2. In terms of w1 every minimal feasible solution costs at most 2 · · k
Minimal solution = any proper subset is not a feasible solution
)),(min()(1 kxdxw
39
Proof of 2. (= costs at most 2 · · k )
.2))((22)(*)()(
Hence,
deleted.) becan * ,(otherwise )(
minimal, is Since .)(2
1 Denote
nodes.) least twoat contains :(note .)(*)(Then
).(min*)(such that * Choose
).()()(Then .by hit and ,in
endpoints only with edges ofnumber thedenote )(let ,For
.2)( show tosufficesIt .)( is value
cost theOtherwise, .cost with }{ that ,)),(min(
such that node a contains If .solution minimal aConsider
*}\{ 1*}\{ 11
*}\{ 1
2
*}\{ 11
11
21
kxdttxdxdxd
xkxdt
Cxdt
Cxdxd
xdxdCx
xdxdxdxC
ixdCx
kxdxd
kxCkkxd
xCC
xCxxCxCx
xCx
Cx
xCx
Cx
i
CxCx
40
Proof of 2. (cont.) xd1(x) = 2d2(x) = 3
41
The approximation algorithm
Let C be theset of edges and S(x) be theset of edges that arehit by x
Algorithm from Bar-Yehuda et al. “Local Ratio: A Unified Framework for Approximation Algorithms” ACM Computing Surveys, 2004
42
Algorithm Framework
1. If a zero-cost minimal solution can be found, do: optimal solution.
2. Otherwise, if the problem contains a zero-cost element, do: problem size reduction.
3. Otherwise, do: weight decomposition.
Partial Vertex Cover
vertices.least at hit to
subset rtex weight veminimum a find ,0integer
and ,ex weight with vert),(graph aGiven
k
k
wEVG
.21for }1,0{ ,
),(for s.t.
min
}.,...,,{ Assume
),(
2211
21
, n, , i = zx
kz
Evv z+ xx
x+ w + x + wxw
vvvV
iji
Evvij
jiijji
nn
n
ji
Primal and Dual
0,0
),(
s.t.
min
),(
zx
kz
Evv
zxx
wx
Evvij
ji
ijji
ji
.0,0
,
),(, s.t.
max
),(:
uy
Vvwy
Evvyu
ku
iEvvj
iij
jiij
ji
Complementary Slackness Condition
0)(
0)(
0)(
0)(
),(
),(:
kzu
zxxy
zuy
xyw
Evvij
ijjiij
ijij
iEvvjiji
ji
ji primal
dual
Complementary Slackness Condition
0)(
0)(
0)(
0)(
),(
),(:
kzu
zxxy
zuy
xyw
Evvij
ijjiij
ijij
iEvvjiji
ji
ji primal
dual
.Output
;0,),(:for 0
0 then
and 1 if
do to1for
while;-end
|;}),(|{|
;min
;),(for set
;),(for 1
;1set
))(deg,min(min
))(deg,min(
such that choose
};0|),{(
and 0}|{set
begin do 0 while
.,0 0,,0 0,set Initially,
0,),(:),(
),(
),(:),(:
xx
xEvvjz
x
kzzx
ns
Ijrjll
yu
Ijryy
Ijrz
x
il
yw
rl
yw
Jr
zjiI
xjJ
l
kluyzx
A
jjssj
s
xEvvjsj
Evvijs
ijEvv
rjrj
rj
r
I
Evvjiji
JiI
Evvjrjr
ij
j
jjsji
ji
jijr
do edges) (covered# while k
tices}chosen vernot {J
edge} coverednot {I
)at edges uncovered of #,min(
of weight remainingmin
jk
jJj
ight vertex weupdate
reach to vertex a choose Jr
Primal-Dual schema ???
