Book•
Approximation Algorithms
02 Jul 2001-
TL;DR: Covering the basic techniques used in the latest research work, the author consolidates progress made so far, including some very recent and promising results, and conveys the beauty and excitement of work in the field.
Abstract: Covering the basic techniques used in the latest research work, the author consolidates progress made so far, including some very recent and promising results, and conveys the beauty and excitement of work in the field. He gives clear, lucid explanations of key results and ideas, with intuitive proofs, and provides critical examples and numerous illustrations to help elucidate the algorithms. Many of the results presented have been simplified and new insights provided. Of interest to theoretical computer scientists, operations researchers, and discrete mathematicians.
Citations
More filters
Book•
16 Dec 2008TL;DR: The variational approach provides a complementary alternative to Markov chain Monte Carlo as a general source of approximation methods for inference in large-scale statistical models.
Abstract: The formalism of probabilistic graphical models provides a unifying framework for capturing complex dependencies among random variables, and building large-scale multivariate statistical models. Graphical models have become a focus of research in many statistical, computational and mathematical fields, including bioinformatics, communication theory, statistical physics, combinatorial optimization, signal and image processing, information retrieval and statistical machine learning. Many problems that arise in specific instances — including the key problems of computing marginals and modes of probability distributions — are best studied in the general setting. Working with exponential family representations, and exploiting the conjugate duality between the cumulant function and the entropy for exponential families, we develop general variational representations of the problems of computing likelihoods, marginal probabilities and most probable configurations. We describe how a wide variety of algorithms — among them sum-product, cluster variational methods, expectation-propagation, mean field methods, max-product and linear programming relaxation, as well as conic programming relaxations — can all be understood in terms of exact or approximate forms of these variational representations. The variational approach provides a complementary alternative to Markov chain Monte Carlo as a general source of approximation methods for inference in large-scale statistical models.
4,335 citations
Cites background or methods from "Approximation Algorithms"
...In this case, one can imagine various types of rounding procedures for producing near-optimal solutions [231]....
[...]
...When applied to combinatorial problems, the first-order LP relaxation recovers various known methods from the integer programming and approximation literature [177, 231]....
[...]
...Frequently, LP relaxations are developed in a manner tailored to specific subclasses of combinatorial problems [177, 231]....
[...]
...This LP relaxation is the classical one for the independent set problem [177, 231]....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: The complexity class P is formally defined as the set of concrete decision problems that are polynomial-time solvable, and encodings are used to map abstract problems to concrete problems.
Abstract: problems To understand the class of polynomial-time solvable problems, we must first have a formal notion of what a "problem" is. We define an abstract problem Q to be a binary relation on a set I of problem instances and a set S of problem solutions. For example, an instance for SHORTEST-PATH is a triple consisting of a graph and two vertices. A solution is a sequence of vertices in the graph, with perhaps the empty sequence denoting that no path exists. The problem SHORTEST-PATH itself is the relation that associates each instance of a graph and two vertices with a shortest path in the graph that connects the two vertices. Since shortest paths are not necessarily unique, a given problem instance may have more than one solution. This formulation of an abstract problem is more general than is required for our purposes. As we saw above, the theory of NP-completeness restricts attention to decision problems: those having a yes/no solution. In this case, we can view an abstract decision problem as a function that maps the instance set I to the solution set {0, 1}. For example, a decision problem related to SHORTEST-PATH is the problem PATH that we saw earlier. If i = G, u, v, k is an instance of the decision problem PATH, then PATH(i) = 1 (yes) if a shortest path from u to v has at most k edges, and PATH(i) = 0 (no) otherwise. Many abstract problems are not decision problems, but rather optimization problems, in which some value must be minimized or maximized. As we saw above, however, it is usually a simple matter to recast an optimization problem as a decision problem that is no harder. Encodings If a computer program is to solve an abstract problem, problem instances must be represented in a way that the program understands. An encoding of a set S of abstract objects is a mapping e from S to the set of binary strings. For example, we are all familiar with encoding the natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4,...} as the strings {0, 1, 10, 11, 100,...}. Using this encoding, e(17) = 10001. Anyone who has looked at computer representations of keyboard characters is familiar with either the ASCII or EBCDIC codes. In the ASCII code, the encoding of A is 1000001. Even a compound object can be encoded as a binary string by combining the representations of its constituent parts. Polygons, graphs, functions, ordered pairs, programs-all can be encoded as binary strings. Thus, a computer algorithm that "solves" some abstract decision problem actually takes an encoding of a problem instance as input. We call a problem whose instance set is the set of binary strings a concrete problem. We say that an algorithm solves a concrete problem in time O(T (n)) if, when it is provided a problem instance i of length n = |i|, the algorithm can produce the solution in O(T (n)) time. A concrete problem is polynomial-time solvable, therefore, if there exists an algorithm to solve it in time O(n) for some constant k. We can now formally define the complexity class P as the set of concrete decision problems that are polynomial-time solvable. We can use encodings to map abstract problems to concrete problems. Given an abstract decision problem Q mapping an instance set I to {0, 1}, an encoding e : I → {0, 1}* can be used to induce a related concrete decision problem, which we denote by e(Q). If the solution to an abstract-problem instance i I is Q(i) {0, 1}, then the solution to the concreteproblem instance e(i) {0, 1}* is also Q(i). As a technicality, there may be some binary strings that represent no meaningful abstract-problem instance. For convenience, we shall assume that any such string is mapped arbitrarily to 0. Thus, the concrete problem produces the same solutions as the abstract problem on binary-string instances that represent the encodings of abstract-problem instances. We would like to extend the definition of polynomial-time solvability from concrete problems to abstract problems by using encodings as the bridge, but we would like the definition to be independent of any particular encoding. That is, the efficiency of solving a problem should not depend on how the problem is encoded. Unfortunately, it depends quite heavily on the encoding. For example, suppose that an integer k is to be provided as the sole input to an algorithm, and suppose that the running time of the algorithm is Θ(k). If the integer k is provided in unary-a string of k 1's-then the running time of the algorithm is O(n) on length-n inputs, which is polynomial time. If we use the more natural binary representation of the integer k, however, then the input length is n = ⌊lg k⌋ + 1. In this case, the running time of the algorithm is Θ (k) = Θ(2), which is exponential in the size of the input. Thus, depending on the encoding, the algorithm runs in either polynomial or superpolynomial time. The encoding of an abstract problem is therefore quite important to our under-standing of polynomial time. We cannot really talk about solving an abstract problem without first specifying an encoding. Nevertheless, in practice, if we rule out "expensive" encodings such as unary ones, the actual encoding of a problem makes little difference to whether the problem can be solved in polynomial time. For example, representing integers in base 3 instead of binary has no effect on whether a problem is solvable in polynomial time, since an integer represented in base 3 can be converted to an integer represented in base 2 in polynomial time. We say that a function f : {0, 1}* → {0,1}* is polynomial-time computable if there exists a polynomial-time algorithm A that, given any input x {0, 1}*, produces as output f (x). For some set I of problem instances, we say that two encodings e1 and e2 are polynomially related if there exist two polynomial-time computable functions f12 and f21 such that for any i I , we have f12(e1(i)) = e2(i) and f21(e2(i)) = e1(i). That is, the encoding e2(i) can be computed from the encoding e1(i) by a polynomial-time algorithm, and vice versa. If two encodings e1 and e2 of an abstract problem are polynomially related, whether the problem is polynomial-time solvable or not is independent of which encoding we use, as the following lemma shows. Lemma 34.1 Let Q be an abstract decision problem on an instance set I , and let e1 and e2 be polynomially related encodings on I . Then, e1(Q) P if and only if e2(Q) P. Proof We need only prove the forward direction, since the backward direction is symmetric. Suppose, therefore, that e1(Q) can be solved in time O(nk) for some constant k. Further, suppose that for any problem instance i, the encoding e1(i) can be computed from the encoding e2(i) in time O(n) for some constant c, where n = |e2(i)|. To solve problem e2(Q), on input e2(i), we first compute e1(i) and then run the algorithm for e1(Q) on e1(i). How long does this take? The conversion of encodings takes time O(n), and therefore |e1(i)| = O(n), since the output of a serial computer cannot be longer than its running time. Solving the problem on e1(i) takes time O(|e1(i)|) = O(n), which is polynomial since both c and k are constants. Thus, whether an abstract problem has its instances encoded in binary or base 3 does not affect its "complexity," that is, whether it is polynomial-time solvable or not, but if instances are encoded in unary, its complexity may change. In order to be able to converse in an encoding-independent fashion, we shall generally assume that problem instances are encoded in any reasonable, concise fashion, unless we specifically say otherwise. To be precise, we shall assume that the encoding of an integer is polynomially related to its binary representation, and that the encoding of a finite set is polynomially related to its encoding as a list of its elements, enclosed in braces and separated by commas. (ASCII is one such encoding scheme.) With such a "standard" encoding in hand, we can derive reasonable encodings of other mathematical objects, such as tuples, graphs, and formulas. To denote the standard encoding of an object, we shall enclose the object in angle braces. Thus, G denotes the standard encoding of a graph G. As long as we implicitly use an encoding that is polynomially related to this standard encoding, we can talk directly about abstract problems without reference to any particular encoding, knowing that the choice of encoding has no effect on whether the abstract problem is polynomial-time solvable. Henceforth, we shall generally assume that all problem instances are binary strings encoded using the standard encoding, unless we explicitly specify the contrary. We shall also typically neglect the distinction between abstract and concrete problems. The reader should watch out for problems that arise in practice, however, in which a standard encoding is not obvious and the encoding does make a difference. A formal-language framework One of the convenient aspects of focusing on decision problems is that they make it easy to use the machinery of formal-language theory. It is worthwhile at this point to review some definitions from that theory. An alphabet Σ is a finite set of symbols. A language L over Σ is any set of strings made up of symbols from Σ. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, the set L = {10, 11, 101, 111, 1011, 1101, 10001,...} is the language of binary representations of prime numbers. We denote the empty string by ε, and the empty language by Ø. The language of all strings over Σ is denoted Σ*. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, then Σ* = {ε, 0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000,...} is the set of all binary strings. Every language L over Σ is a subset of Σ*. There are a variety of operations on languages. Set-theoretic operations, such as union and intersection, follow directly from the set-theoretic definitions. We define the complement of L by . The concatenation of two languages L1 and L2 is the language L = {x1x2 : x1 L1 and x2 L2}. The closure or Kleene star of a language L is the language L*= {ε} L L L ···, where Lk is the language obtained by
2,817 citations
Cites methods from "Approximation Algorithms"
...Many thanks to Sanjeev Arora, Javed Aslam, Guy Blelloch, Avrim Blum, Scot Drysdale, Hany Farid, Hal Gabow, Andrew Goldberg, David Johnson, Yanlin Liu, Nicolas Schabanel, Alexander Schrijver, Sasha Shen, David Shmoys, Dan Spielman, Gerald Jay Sussman, Bob Tarjan, Mikkel Thorup, and Vijay Vazirani....
[...]
...[25], Hochbaum [149], a nd Vazirani [305] deal exclusively with approximation algorithms, as do surv eys by Shmoys [277] and Klein and Young [181]....
[...]
...Several of our colleagues also graciously supplied us with problems; we particularly thank Andrew Goldberg, Danny Sleator, and Umesh Vazirani....
[...]
Book•
22 Jun 2009
TL;DR: This book provides a complete background on metaheuristics and shows readers how to design and implement efficient algorithms to solve complex optimization problems across a diverse range of applications, from networking and bioinformatics to engineering design, routing, and scheduling.
Abstract: A unified view of metaheuristics This book provides a complete background on metaheuristics and shows readers how to design and implement efficient algorithms to solve complex optimization problems across a diverse range of applications, from networking and bioinformatics to engineering design, routing, and scheduling. It presents the main design questions for all families of metaheuristics and clearly illustrates how to implement the algorithms under a software framework to reuse both the design and code. Throughout the book, the key search components of metaheuristics are considered as a toolbox for: Designing efficient metaheuristics (e.g. local search, tabu search, simulated annealing, evolutionary algorithms, particle swarm optimization, scatter search, ant colonies, bee colonies, artificial immune systems) for optimization problems Designing efficient metaheuristics for multi-objective optimization problems Designing hybrid, parallel, and distributed metaheuristics Implementing metaheuristics on sequential and parallel machines Using many case studies and treating design and implementation independently, this book gives readers the skills necessary to solve large-scale optimization problems quickly and efficiently. It is a valuable reference for practicing engineers and researchers from diverse areas dealing with optimization or machine learning; and graduate students in computer science, operations research, control, engineering, business and management, and applied mathematics.
2,735 citations
Cites methods from "Approximation Algorithms"
...An ǫ-approximation algorithm generates an approximate solution a not less than a factor ǫ times the optimum solution s [793]....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 2006
TL;DR: This paper discusses Fixed-Parameter Algorithms, Parameterized Complexity Theory, and Selected Case Studies, and some of the techniques used in this work.
Abstract: PART I: FOUNDATIONS 1. Introduction to Fixed-Parameter Algorithms 2. Preliminaries and Agreements 3. Parameterized Complexity Theory - A Primer 4. Vertex Cover - An Illustrative Example 5. The Art of Problem Parameterization 6. Summary and Concluding Remarks PART II: ALGORITHMIC METHODS 7. Data Reduction and Problem Kernels 8. Depth-Bounded Search Trees 9. Dynamic Programming 10. Tree Decompositions of Graphs 11. Further Advanced Techniques 12. Summary and Concluding Remarks PART III: SOME THEORY, SOME CASE STUDIES 13. Parameterized Complexity Theory 14. Connections to Approximation Algorithms 15. Selected Case Studies 16. Zukunftsmusik References Index
1,730 citations
25 Jul 2010
TL;DR: The results from extensive simulations demonstrate that the proposed algorithm is currently the best scalable solution to the influence maximization problem and significantly outperforms all other scalable heuristics to as much as 100%--260% increase in influence spread.
Abstract: Influence maximization, defined by Kempe, Kleinberg, and Tardos (2003), is the problem of finding a small set of seed nodes in a social network that maximizes the spread of influence under certain influence cascade models. The scalability of influence maximization is a key factor for enabling prevalent viral marketing in large-scale online social networks. Prior solutions, such as the greedy algorithm of Kempe et al. (2003) and its improvements are slow and not scalable, while other heuristic algorithms do not provide consistently good performance on influence spreads. In this paper, we design a new heuristic algorithm that is easily scalable to millions of nodes and edges in our experiments. Our algorithm has a simple tunable parameter for users to control the balance between the running time and the influence spread of the algorithm. Our results from extensive simulations on several real-world and synthetic networks demonstrate that our algorithm is currently the best scalable solution to the influence maximization problem: (a) our algorithm scales beyond million-sized graphs where the greedy algorithm becomes infeasible, and (b) in all size ranges, our algorithm performs consistently well in influence spread --- it is always among the best algorithms, and in most cases it significantly outperforms all other scalable heuristics to as much as 100%--260% increase in influence spread.
1,709 citations
Cites background from "Approximation Algorithms"
...For every edge (u, v) ∈ E, pp(u, v) denotes the propagation probability of the edge, which is the probability that v is activated by u through the edge in the next step after u is activated....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: This paper has always been one of my favorite children, combining as it does elements of the duality of linear programming and combinatorial tools from graph theory, and it may be of some interest to tell the story of its origin this article.
Abstract: This paper has always been one of my favorite “children,” combining as it does elements of the duality of linear programming and combinatorial tools from graph theory. It may be of some interest to tell the story of its origin.
11,096 citations
TL;DR: The work of Dantzig, Fulkerson, Hoffman, Edmonds, Lawler and other pioneers on network flows, matching and matroids acquainted me with the elegant and efficient algorithms that were sometimes possible.
Abstract: Throughout the 1960s I worked on combinatorial optimization problems including logic circuit design with Paul Roth and assembly line balancing and the traveling salesman problem with Mike Held. These experiences made me aware that seemingly simple discrete optimization problems could hold the seeds of combinatorial explosions. The work of Dantzig, Fulkerson, Hoffman, Edmonds, Lawler and other pioneers on network flows, matching and matroids acquainted me with the elegant and efficient algorithms that were sometimes possible. Jack Edmonds’ papers and a few key discussions with him drew my attention to the crucial distinction between polynomial-time and superpolynomial-time solvability. I was also influenced by Jack’s emphasis on min-max theorems as a tool for fast verification of optimal solutions, which foreshadowed Steve Cook’s definition of the complexity class NP. Another influence was George Dantzig’s suggestion that integer programming could serve as a universal format for combinatorial optimization problems.
8,644 citations
TL;DR: This clearly written, mathematically rigorous text includes a novel algorithmic exposition of the simplex method and also discusses the Soviet ellipsoid algorithm for linear programming; efficient algorithms for network flow, matching, spanning trees, and matroids; the theory of NP-complete problems; approximation algorithms, local search heuristics for NPcomplete problems, more.
Abstract: This clearly written , mathematically rigorous text includes a novel algorithmic exposition of the simplex method and also discusses the Soviet ellipsoid algorithm for linear programming; efficient algorithms for network flow, matching, spanning trees, and matroids; the theory of NP-complete problems; approximation algorithms, local search heuristics for NPcomplete problems, more All chapters are supplemented by thoughtprovoking problems A useful work for graduate-level students with backgrounds in computer science, operations research, and electrical engineering Mathematicians wishing a self-contained introduction need look no further—American Mathematical Monthly 1982 ed
7,221 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1988TL;DR: This chapter discusses the Scope of Integer and Combinatorial Optimization, as well as applications of Special-Purpose Algorithms and Matching.
Abstract: FOUNDATIONS. The Scope of Integer and Combinatorial Optimization. Linear Programming. Graphs and Networks. Polyhedral Theory. Computational Complexity. Polynomial-Time Algorithms for Linear Programming. Integer Lattices. GENERAL INTEGER PROGRAMMING. The Theory of Valid Inequalities. Strong Valid Inequalities and Facets for Structured Integer Programs. Duality and Relaxation. General Algorithms. Special-Purpose Algorithms. Applications of Special- Purpose Algorithms. COMBINATORIAL OPTIMIZATION. Integral Polyhedra. Matching. Matroid and Submodular Function Optimization. References. Indexes.
6,287 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1988
TL;DR: In this article, the Fulkerson Prize was won by the Mathematical Programming Society and the American Mathematical Society for proving polynomial time solvability of problems in convexity theory, geometry, and combinatorial optimization.
Abstract: This book develops geometric techniques for proving the polynomial time solvability of problems in convexity theory, geometry, and - in particular - combinatorial optimization. It offers a unifying approach based on two fundamental geometric algorithms: - the ellipsoid method for finding a point in a convex set and - the basis reduction method for point lattices. The ellipsoid method was used by Khachiyan to show the polynomial time solvability of linear programming. The basis reduction method yields a polynomial time procedure for certain diophantine approximation problems. A combination of these techniques makes it possible to show the polynomial time solvability of many questions concerning poyhedra - for instance, of linear programming problems having possibly exponentially many inequalities. Utilizing results from polyhedral combinatorics, it provides short proofs of the poynomial time solvability of many combinatiorial optimization problems. For a number of these problems, the geometric algorithms discussed in this book are the only techniques known to derive polynomial time solvability. This book is a continuation and extension of previous research of the authors for which they received the Fulkerson Prize, awarded by the Mathematical Programming Society and the American Mathematical Society.
3,676 citations