arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 1 Jun 2015

Transcription

1 NEW PERFORMANCE GUARANEES FOR HE GREEDY MAXIMIZAION OF SUBMODULAR SE FUNCIONS JUSSI LAIILA AND AE MOILANEN arxiv: v1 [math.oc] 1 Jun 2015 Abstract. We present new tight performance guarantees for the greedy maximization of nondecreasing submodular set functions. Our main result first provides a performance guarantee in terms of the overlap of the optimal and greedy solutions. As a consequence we improve performance guarantees of Nemhauser, Wolsey and Fisher 1978) and Conforti and Cornuéjols 1984) for maximization over subsets, which are at least half the size of the problem domain. As a further application, we obtain a new tight performance guarantee in terms of the cardinality of the problem domain. Approximation and Cardinality and Convex optimization and Greedy algorithm and Maximization and Steepest ascent 1. Introduction Let X be a finite set, X = {x 1,...,x n }, and let be an integer such that 0 < n. We consider the cardinality-constrained maximization problem 1) max{fs): S =,S X}, wheref: 2 X R + is a submodular set function. Recall thatf is submodular if 2) fs)+fr) fs R)+fS R) for all S,R X; see, e.g., [16]. We further assume that f is nondecreasing; fs) fr) for all S R, and, without loss of generality, that f ) = 0. We consider the following well-known greedy algorithm for solving problem 1): Algorithm A. : Step 0: Set S 0 =. Go to Step 1. : Step t 1 t ): Select any x t S t 1 such that fs t 1 {x t }) = max{fs t 1 {x}): x X \S t i }. Set S t = S t 1 {x t }. Go to step t+1. : Step +1: Set S gr = S. Stop. Date: June 13, Mathematics Subject Classification. 90C59, 90C30, 68W25. Key words and phrases. approximation, cardinality, convex optimization, greedy algorithm, maximization, steepest ascent. J.L. and A.M were supported by the ERC-StG grant A.M. was supported by the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence programme , grant , and the Finnish Natural Heritage Services Metsähallitus). 1

2 2 JUSSI LAIILA AND AE MOILANEN Algorithm A has been extensively studied in the literature. By the Rado- Edmonds theorem [9] or [4]), it finds an optimal solution when f is an additive set function, i.e., when 2) holds with an equality for all S,R X. Nemhauser, Wolsey and Fisher [16] see also [3], [15]) gave the following performance guarantee for Algorithm A for nonadditive functions f: 3) fs opt ) ) =: G NWF ), where S opt is an optimal solution to problem 1). Conforti and Cornuéjols [4] improved 3) to fs opt ) α ) ) 4) =: G CC,α), α for α 0, 1], where α [0, 1] is the total curvature { } fx) fx \{x}) α = max 1 : x X,f{x}) f ). f{x}) f ) It is known that α 0,1] if and only if f is nonadditive [4]. Clearly, G NW ) = G CC,1) and since G CC,α) 1 as α 0 +, 4) can be viewed as a generalization of the Rado-Edmonds theorem. he above performance guarantees further satisfy the estimates } G CC,α) max {G NWF ), 1 e α 1 e 1, α for all α and. he guarantees 3) and 4) are tight for suitable choices of parameters and α. For example, for all α 0,1] and 1 there is a problem of the type 1) and the corresponding greedy solution S gr such that = G CC,α)fS opt ) [4]. Submodular optimization has played a central role in operations research and combinatorial optimization [8]. By now it has applications in various fields, including computer science [12], economics [18] and, more recently, ecology [14], [7], [1]). Problem 1) and the above performance guarantees have been extended to various other settings and problem structures, related to, for example, matroid [6], [4]) and knapsack [17], [13]) constraints, continuous algorithms [20], [2]), nonmonotone functions [5], nonsubmodular functions [19] and supermodular minimization [10], [11]). o authors knowledge, previously presented performance guarantees either do not depend on or n, or, like 3) and 4), they are decreasing in. However, when = n, it is clear that S opt = S gr, so the greedy algorithm returns the optimal solution. his suggests that any performance guarantee should in fact be improving when approaches and is close enough to n. We show that this is indeed the case. More generally, we show that increasing degree of overlap m = S opt S gr between the sets S opt and S gr improves the performance guarantees. While in applications the overlap m may not be known, we can give this quantity a useful lower bound. In fact, when > n/2, we have m 2 n > 0. Our results thus have particular relevance for optimization problems where the maximum is sought over subsets of cardinality larger than n/2.

3 PERFORMANCE GUARANEES SUBMODULAR MAXIMIZAION 3 Let G,α,m) = 1 α 1 1 αm ) 1 α ) ) m and G,α,n) = G,α,max{0,2 n}). Our main result is the following. heorem 1. Let α 0,1], let 1 n and let S opt and S gr be an optimal, repectively a greedy, solution to problem 1) and let m = S opt S gr. hen 5) G,α,m) G,α,n). fs opt ) Moreover, these bounds are tight in the following sense: for every α 0,1] and numbers n and such that 1 n, there is a problem of the type 1) and its greedy solution S gr such that max{0,2 n} = S opt S gr and fs opt ) = G,α,n). We postpone the proof of heorem 1 to Section 2. Remark 2. heorem 1 strictly improves 4) and provides further examples of cases where the performance guarantee equals one, i.e., generalizations of the Rado-Edmonds theorem. Indeed, for all and n such that > n/2, we have G,α,n) > G CC,α). For = n, we get Gn,α,n) = 1. Note that, by 4), lim α 0 + G,α,n) = 1. Moreover, in the case m =, we again get G,α,) = 1. Using heorem 1, one can derive other new performance guarantees for the greedy algorithm. As an example of independent interest, we present the following performance guarantee in terms of n only. Corollary 3. Let α 0,1], 1 n, and let S opt and S gr be an optimal, repectively a greedy, solution to problem 1). hen ) n fs opt ) α 2 α n α ) ) n/2 6), α n where x denotes the largest integer not greater than x. he left-hand estimate is tight in the following sense: for every α 0,1] and n 2, there is a problem of the type 1) and its greedy solution S gr such that fs opt ) = 1 α 1 ) n 1 α 2 n. 2 Proof. If n is an odd integer, it is easy to check that the minimum of G,α,n) over all integers with 0 n is Gn 1)/2,α,n). Moreover, when treated as a continuous function of, G,α,n) attains its minimum at = n/2. ogether with heorem 1 this yields 6). ightness of the lefthand inequality in 6) follows from heorem 1 with the choice = n 2.

4 4 JUSSI LAIILA AND AE MOILANEN 2. Proof of heorem 1 In this section we present a proof of heorem 1. We first prove 5). Note that the right-hand inequality in 5) follows directly from m = S opt S gr max{0,2 n} and the fact that G,α,m) is increasing in m. We next prove the left-hand inequality in 5). We may assume that 0 < m <. Indeed, if m =, then S gr = S opt and the claim is trivial. If m = 0, the claim follows from 4). Let S 0 = and S t = {y 1,...,y t } X be the successive sets chosen by the greedy algorithm for t = 1,...,, so that S 0 S 1 S. Let a t = fs t) fs t 1 ), fs opt ) for t = 1,...,. Because f is nondecreasing, each a t is nonnegative and fs opt ) = a i. Let J = S gr S opt. Let 1 j 1 j m denote the indices for which J = {y j1,...y jm }. Denote j 0 = 0 and j m+1 =. By Lemma 5.1 of [4], we obtain the inequalities 1 α a i + a i + S t 1 S opt )a t, {i: y i S t 1 \S opt} for t = 1,...,. Consequently, {i: y i S t 1 S opt} fs opt ) BJ ), where J = {j 1,...,j m } and, foru {1,...,n}, BU) denotes the minimum of the linear program 7) minimize s.t. b i α b i + i V t 1 \U b t 0, i U V t 1 b i + U V t 1 )b t 1, for t = 1,...,, where V t = {1,...,t}. We next apply the proof of [4, Lemma 5.2], which implies the following two facts: i) If / U, then BU) B{ U V 1,...,}), ii) B{ l,...,}) B{ l+1,...,}), for all 1 l 1. In particular, if j m <, then BJ ) B{ m,...,}) B{ m+ 1,...,}). Moreover, if j m =, then BJ ) = BJ \ {}), so that using i), BJ ) B{ m+1,...,}). Consequently, fs opt ) b i,

5 PERFORMANCE GUARANEES SUBMODULAR MAXIMIZAION 5 where b = b 1,...,b ) is an optimal solution to the problem 7) with U = { m+1,...,}. By the weak duality theorem, we get that fs opt ) c i, where c = c 1,...,c ) is an optimal solution to the dual problem 8) maximize c i s.t. c t +α i=t+1 c i 1, 2 m+1 t)c t + c i 0, i=t+1 1 t m c i 1, m+1 t i = 1,...,. Define the vector c = c 1,...,c ) by { 1 ) c t = 1 αm 1 α m t, ) 1 t m,, m+1 t. m 2 m+1 t)2 m t) An induction argument shows that c is a feasible solution of problem 8) satisfying the first constraints with an equality), so that Moreover, it is easy to compute that and m c i = 1 α fs opt ) c i. 1 αm i= m+1 ) 1 1 α ) ) m c i = m, which, after summation, yield the desired performance guarantee fs opt ) G,α,m). We next show the tightness of G,α,n) by modifying the proof of [4, heorem 5.4]. Let 1 < n be any positive numbers. Pick any number 1 r n/2, let X = {a 1,...,a r,b 1,...,b n r } and let f: 2 X R + be the set function f{a i1,...,a is,b j1,...,b ju }) = u+ 1 αu ) s 1 α ) ik 1, k=1

6 6 JUSSI LAIILA AND AE MOILANEN defined for all subsets {a i1,...,a is,b j1,...,b ju } X. hen f ) = 0. For any S = {a i1,...,a is,b j1,...,b ju } X, where s < r and u n r, and a i X \S, we have fs {a i }) fs) = 1 αu ) 1 α ) i 1 0. For any S = {a i1,...,a is,b j1,...,b ju } X, where s r and u < n r, and b j X \S, we have fs {b j }) fs) = 1 α s k=1 1 α ) ik 1 0. By recalling that a set function g: 2 X R + is submodular if and only if gs {x}) gs) gr {x}) gr), for all S R X and x X \R e.g., [16]), these inequalities show that f is submodular and nondecreasing. Moreover, { } fx) fx \{x}) max 1 : x X,f{x}) 0 f{x}) = 1 fx) fx \{a i}) = α, f{a i }) for any 1 i r, so f has total curvature α. Consider next the case where > n/2. Set r = n, so that r < n/2 < and n r =. It is easy to verify that S opt = {b 1,...,b } is an optimal solution to problem 1) with fs opt ) =. Since f{a 1 }) = f{b j }) = 1, for any 1 j, the greedy algorithm can choose the element a 1 at the first iteration. Assume next that the greedy algorithm has chosen S t 1 = {a 1,...,a t 1 } for some t n. Using the fact l k=1 it is easy to see that 1 α ) k 1 = 1 1 α ) ) l α fs t 1 {a t }) = fs t 1 {b j }) = t 1 α ) i 1, so the greedy algorithm can choose a t at the tth iteration. We therefore can have S gr = {a 1,...a n,b 1,...,b 2 n }. his solution has the value = 1 1 αm ) 1 α ) ) n. α he claim follows because m = S opt S gr = 2 n, whence we obtain n = m. he proof of case n/2 is easier, so we omit its proof.

7 PERFORMANCE GUARANEES SUBMODULAR MAXIMIZAION 7 References [1] M. Bordewich, C. Semple: Budgeted nature reserve selection with diversity feature loss and arbitrary split systems. Journal of Mathematical Biology 64, ) [2] G. Calinescu, C. Chekuri, M. Pál and J. Vondrák: Maximizing a submodular set function subject to a matroid constraint. SIAM Journal on Computing 40, ) [3] G. Cornuéjols, M.L. Fisher, G.L. Nemhauser: Location of bank accounts to optimize float: an analytic study of exact and approximate algorithms. Management Science 23, ) [4] M. Conforti, G. Cornuéjols: Submodular set functions, matroids and the greedy algorithm: tight worst-case bounds and some generalizations of the Rado-Edmonds theorem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 7, ) [5] U. Feige, V.S. Mirrokni, J. Vondrák: Maximizing non-monotone submodular functions. SIAM Journal of Computing 40, ) [6] M.L. Fisher, G.L. Nemhauser, L.A. Wolsey: An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions II. Mathematical Programming Study 8, ) [7] D. Golovin, A. Krause, B. Gardner, S.J. Converse, S. Morey. Dynamic resource allocation in conservation planning. In: Proceeding of the wenty-fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp ) [8] P.R. Goundan, A.S. Schulz: Revisiting the greedy approach to submodular set function maximization. Working Paper, Massachusetts Institute of echnology ) [9] J. Edmonds: Matroids and the greedy algorithm. Mathematical Programming 1, ) [10] V. Il ev: An approximation guarantee of the greedy descent algorithm for minimizing a supermodular set function. Discrete Applied Mathematics 114, ) [11] V. Il ev, N. Linker: Performance guarantees of a greedy algorithm for minimizing a supermodular set function on comatroid. European Journal of Operational Research 171, ) [12] A. Krause, D. Golovin. Submodular function maximization. In: L. Bordeaux, Y. Hamadi, P. Kohli eds.) ractability: Practical Approaches to Hard Problems, pp Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014) [13] A. Kulik, H. Shachnai,. amir: Approximations for monotone and non-monotone submodular maximization with knapsack constraints. Mathematics of Operations Research 38, ) [14] A. Moilanen: Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based planning: unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation 134, ) [15] G.L. Nemhauser, L.A. Wolsey: Best algorithms for approximating the maximum of a submodular set function. Mathematics of Operations Research 3, ) [16] G.L. Nemhauser, L.A. Wolsey, M.L. Fisher: An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions I. Mathematical Programming 14, ) [17] M. Sviridenko: A note on maximizing a submodular set function subject to a knapsack constraint. Operations Research Letters 32, ) [18] D.M. opkis. Supermodularity and Complementarity. Princeton University Press, Princeton 1998) [19] Z. Wang, B. Moran, X. Wang, Q. Pan: Approximation for maximizing monotone non-decreasing set functions with a greedy method. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, in press. doi: /s [20] J. Vondrák: Submodularity and curvature: the optimal algorithm. RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu B23, ) Department of Biosciences, P.O. Box 65, FI University of Helsinki, Finland address: jussi.laitila@helsinki.fi address: atte.moilanen@helsinki.fi