Decision Making Based on Approximate and Smoothed Pareto Curves

  • Heiner Ackermann
  • Alantha Newman
  • Heiko Röglin
  • Berthold Vöcking
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3827)

Abstract

We consider bicriteria optimization problems and investigate the relationship between two standard approaches to solving them: (i) computing the Pareto curve and (ii) the so-called decision maker’s approach in which both criteria are combined into a single (usually non-linear) objective function. Previous work by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis showed how to efficiently approximate the Pareto curve for problems like Shortest Path, Spanning Tree, and Perfect Matching. We wish to determine for which classes of combined objective functions the approximate Pareto curve also yields an approximate solution to the decision maker’s problem. We show that an FPTAS for the Pareto curve also gives an FPTAS for the decision maker’s problem if the combined objective function is growth bounded like a quasi-polynomial function. If these functions, however, show exponential growth then the decision maker’s problem is NP-hard to approximate within any factor. In order to bypass these limitations of approximate decision making, we turn our attention to Pareto curves in the probabilistic framework of smoothed analysis. We show that in a smoothed model, we can efficiently generate the (complete and exact) Pareto curve with a small failure probability if there exists an algorithm for generating the Pareto curve whose worst case running time is pseudopolynomial. This way, we can solve the decision maker’s problem w.r.t. any non-decreasing objective function for randomly perturbed instances of, e.g., Shortest Path, Spanning Tree, and Perfect Matching.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agarwal, P.K., Eppstein, D., Guibas, L.J., Henzinger, M.R.: Parametric and kinetic minimum spanning trees. In: IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 596–605 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barahona, F., Pulleyblank, W.R.: Exact arborescences, matchings and cycles. Discrete Applied Mathematics 16, 91–99 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beier, R., Vöcking, B.: Random Knapsack in Expected Polynomial Time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 69(3), 306–329 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beier, R., Vöcking, B.: Typical Properties of Winners and Losers in Discrete Optimization. In: Proc. of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC-2004), pp. 343–352 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dey, T.K.: Improved bounds on planar k-sets and k-levels. In: IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 161–165 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ehrgott, M.: Multicriteria Optimization. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 491. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen, P.: Bicriterion path problems. In: Programming Languages and their Definition. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 177, pp. 109–127 (1980)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henig, M.I.: The shortest path problem with two objective functions. European Journal of Operational Research 25(2), 281–291 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horst, R., Tuy, H.: Global Optimization. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katoh, N.: Bicriteria network optimization problems. IEICE Transactions Fundamentals of Electronics, Communications and Computer Sciences E75-A, 321–329 (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mulmuley, K., Vazirani, U.V., Vazirani, V.V.: Matching is as easy as matrix inversion. Combinatorica 7(1), 105–114 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: The complexity of restricted spanning tree problems. Journal of the ACM 29(2), 285–309 (1982)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papadimitriou, C.H., Yannakakis, M.: On the approximability of trade-offs and optimal access of web sources. In: FOCS 2000: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 86–92. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spielman, D.A., Teng, S.-H.: Smoothed Analysis of Algorithms: Why The Simplex Algorithm Usually Takes Polynomial Time. Journal of the ACM 51(3), 385–463 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tsaggouris, G., Zaroliagis, C.: Non-additive shortest paths. In: Albers, S., Radzik, T. (eds.) ESA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3221, pp. 822–834. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vassilvitskii, S., Yannakakis, M.: Efficiently computing succinct trade-off curves. In: Díaz, J., Karhumäki, J., Lepistö, A., Sannella, D. (eds.) ICALP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3142, pp. 1201–1213. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warburton, A.: Approximation of Pareto optima in multiple-objective, shortest-path problems. Operations Research 35(1), 70–78 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heiner Ackermann
    • 1
  • Alantha Newman
    • 1
  • Heiko Röglin
    • 1
  • Berthold Vöcking
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRWTH Aachen 

Personalised recommendations