Two-Stage Robust Network Design with Exponential Scenarios

  • Rohit Khandekar
  • Guy Kortsarz
  • Vahab Mirrokni
  • Mohammad R. Salavatipour
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5193)

Abstract

We study two-stage robust variants of combinatorial optimization problems like Steiner tree, Steiner forest, and uncapacitated facility location. The robust optimization problems, previously studied by Dhamdhere et al. [1], Golovin et al. [6], and Feige et al. [4], are two-stage planning problems in which the requirements are revealed after some decisions are taken in stage one. One has to then complete the solution, at a higher cost, to meet the given requirements. In the robust Steiner tree problem, for example, one buys some edges in stage one after which some terminals are revealed. In the second stage, one has to buy more edges, at a higher cost, to complete the stage one solution to build a Steiner tree on these terminals. The objective is to minimize the total cost under the worst-case scenario. In this paper, we focus on the case of exponentially many scenarios given implicitly. A scenario consists of any subset of k terminals (for Steiner tree), or any subset of k terminal-pairs (for Steiner forest), or any subset of k clients (for facility location). We present the first constant-factor approximation algorithms for the robust Steiner tree and robust uncapacitated facility location problems. For the robust Steiner forest problem with uniform inflation, we present an O(logn)-approximation and show that the problem with two inflation factors is impossible to approximate within O(log1/2 − εn) factor, for any constant ε> 0, unless NP has randomized quasi-polynomial time algorithms. Finally, we show APX-hardness of the robust min-cut problem (even with singleton-set scenarios), resolving an open question by [1] and [6].

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dhamdhere, K., Goyal, V., Ravi, R., Singh, M.: How to pay, come what may: Approximation Algorithms for Demand-Robust Covering Problems. In: Proc. of 46th IEEE FOCS (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dantzig, G.B.: Linear programming under uncertainty. Management Sci. 1, 197–206 (1955)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fakcharoenphol, J., Rao, S., Talwar, K.: A tight bound on approximating arbitrary metrics by tree metrics. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 69(3), 485–497 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feige, U., Jain, K., Mahdian, M., Mirrokni, V.: Robust Combinatorial Optimization with Exponential Scenarios. In: Fischetti, M., Williamson, D.P. (eds.) IPCO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4513, pp. 439–453. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dahlhaus, E., Johnson, D., Papadimitriou, C., Seymour, P., Yannakakis, M.: The Complexity of Multiterminal Cuts. SIAM J. Comput. 23(4), 864–894 (1994)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Golovin, D., Goyal, V., Ravi, R.: Pay Today for a Rainy Day: Improved Approximation Algorithms for Demand-Robust Min-Cut and Shortest Path Problems. In: Proc. of STACS, pp. 206–217 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta, A., Pál, M., Ravi, R., Sinha, A.: Boosted sampling: approximation algorithms for stochastic optimization. In: Proc. of 36th ACM STOC (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta, A., Ravi, R., Sinha, A.: An edge in time Saves nine: LP Rounding Approximation Algorithms for Stochastic Network Design. In: Proc. of 45th IEEE FOCS (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Immorlica, N., Karger, D., Minkoff, M., Mirrokni, V.: On the costs and benefits of procrastination: approximation algorithms for stochastic combinatorial optimization problems. In: Proc. of SODA 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milnor, J.W.: Games against nature. In: Thrall, R.M., Coomb, C.H., Davis, R.L. (eds.) Decision Processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ravi, R., Sinha, A.: Hedging uncertainty: Approximation algorithms for stochastic optimization problems. In: Bienstock, D., Nemhauser, G.L. (eds.) IPCO 2004. LNCS, vol. 3064, pp. 101–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robins, G., Zelikovsky, A.: Improved Steiner tree approximation in graphs. In: Proc. of SODA 2000, pp. 770–779 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shmoys, D., Swamy, C.: Stochastic optimization is (almost) as easy as deterministic optimization. In: Proc. of 45th IEEE FOCS 2004 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rohit Khandekar
    • 1
  • Guy Kortsarz
    • 2
  • Vahab Mirrokni
    • 3
  • Mohammad R. Salavatipour
    • 4
  1. 1.IBM T.J.Watson research center 
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers University-Camden. Currently visiting IBM Research at Yorktown Heights 
  3. 3.Google ResearchUSA
  4. 4.Dept. of Computing ScienceUniversity of Alberta, EdmontonAlbertaCanada

Personalised recommendations