1 / 31

Connections in Networks: Hardness of Feasibility vs. Optimality

Connections in Networks: Hardness of Feasibility vs. Optimality. Jon Conrad, Carla P. Gomes, Willem-Jan van Hoeve, Ashish Sabharwal , Jordan Suter Cornell University CP-AI-OR Conference, May 2007 Brussels, Belgium. Feasibility Testing & Optimization.

seth-perkins
Télécharger la présentation

Connections in Networks: Hardness of Feasibility vs. Optimality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Connections in Networks:Hardness of Feasibility vs. Optimality Jon Conrad, Carla P. Gomes,Willem-Jan van Hoeve, Ashish Sabharwal, Jordan Suter Cornell University CP-AI-OR Conference, May 2007 Brussels, Belgium

  2. Feasibility Testing & Optimization Constraint satisfaction work often focuses on pure feasibility testing: Is there a solution? Find me one! • In principle, can be used for optimization as well • Worst-case complexity classes well understood • Often finer-grained typical-case hardness also known(easy-hard-easy patterns, phase transitions) How does the picture change when problems combine both feasibility and optimization components? • We study this in the context of connection networks • Many positive results; some surprising ones! CP-AI-OR 2007

  3. Outline of the Talk • Worst-case vs. typical-case hardness • Easy-hard-easy patterns; phase transition • The Connection Subgraph Problem • Motivation: economics and social networks • Combining feasibility and optimality components • Theoretical results (NP-hardness of approximation) • Empirical study • Easy-hard-easy patterns for pure optimality • Phase transition • Feasibility testing vs. optimization: a clear winner? CP-AI-OR 2007

  4. Outline of the Talk • Worst-case vs. typical-case hardness • Easy-hard-easy patterns; phase transition • The Connection Subgraph Problem • Motivation: economics and social networks • Combining feasibility and optimality components • Theoretical results (NP-hardness of approximation) • Empirical study • Easy-hard-easy patterns for pure optimality • Phase transition • Feasibility testing vs. optimization: a clear winner? CP-AI-OR 2007

  5. Typical-Case Complexity E.g. consider SAT, the Boolean Satisfiability Problem: Does a given formula have a satisfying truth assignment? • Worst-case complexity: NP-complete • Unless P = NP, cannot solve all instances in poly-time • Of course, need solutions in practice anyway • Typical-case complexity: a more detailed picture • What about a majority of the instances? • How about instances w.r.t. certain interesting parameters?e.g. for SAT: clause-to-variable ratio. • Are some regimes easier than others? • Can such parameters characterize feasibility? CP-AI-OR 2007

  6. Random 3-SAT Random 3-SAT: Easy-Hard-Easy • Key parameter: ratio #constraints / #variables • Easy for very low and very high ratios • Hard in the intermediate region • Complexity peaks at ratio ~ 4.26 Computationalhardness as afunction of a keyproblem parameter [Mitchell, Selman, and Levesque ’92; …] CP-AI-OR 2007

  7. Phase transition Random 3-SAT Coinciding Phase Transition • Before critical ratio: almost all formulas satisfiable • After critical ratio: almost all formulas unsatisfiable • Very sharp transition! From satisfiableto unsatisfiable CP-AI-OR 2007

  8. Typical-Case Complexity Is a similar behavior observed in pure optimization problems? How about problems that combine feasibility and optimization components? Note: very few constraints, e.g., implies easy to solvebut not necessarily easy to optimize! Goal: Obtain further insights into the problem. CP-AI-OR 2007

  9. Typical-Case Complexity • Known: a few results for pure optimization problems • Traveling sales person (TSP) under specialized cost functions like log-normal [Gent,Walsh ’96; Zhang,Korf ’96] • We look at the connection subgraph problem • Motivated by resource environment economics andsocial networks (more on this next) • A generalized variant of the Steiner tree problem • Combines feasibility and optimization components A budget constrainton vertex costs A utility functionto be maximized CP-AI-OR 2007

  10. Outline of the Talk • Worst-case vs. typical-case hardness • Easy-hard-easy patterns; phase transition • The Connection Subgraph Problem • Motivation: economics and social networks • Combining feasibility and optimality components • Theoretical results (NP-hardness of approximation) • Empirical study • Easy-hard-easy patterns for pure optimality • Phase transition • Feasibility testing vs. optimization: a clear winner? CP-AI-OR 2007

  11. Connection Subgraph: Motivation Motivation 1: Resource environment economics • Conservation corridors (a.k.a. movement or wildlife corridors)[Simberloff et al. ’97; Ando et al. ’98; Camm et al. ’02] • Preserve wildlife against land fragmentation • Link zones of biological significance (“reserves”) by purchasing continuous protected land parcels • Limited budget; must maximize environmental benefits/utility Reserve Land parcel CP-AI-OR 2007

  12. Connection Subgraph: Motivation Real problem data: • Goal: preserve grizzly bear population in the U.S.A. by creating movement corridors • 3637 land parcels (6x6 miles) connecting 3 reserves in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho • Reserves include, e.g., Yellowstone National Park • Budget: ~ $2B CP-AI-OR 2007

  13. Connection Subgraph: Motivation Motivation 2: Social networks • What characterizes the connection between two individuals? The shortest path? Size of the connected component? A “good” connected subgraph?[Faloutsos, McCurley, Tompkins ’04] • If a person is infected with a disease, who else is likely to be? • Which people have unexpected ties to any members of a list of other individuals? • Vertices in graph: people; edges: know each other or not CP-AI-OR 2007

  14. The Connection Subgraph Problem Given • An undirected graph G = (V,E) • Terminal vertices T V • Vertex cost function: c(v); utility function: u(v) • Cost bound / budget C; desired utility U Is there a subgraph H of G such that • H is connected • cost(H)  C; utility(H)  U ? Cost optimization version : given U, minimize cost Utility optimization version : given C, maximize utility CP-AI-OR 2007

  15. Main Results Worst-case complexity of the connection subgraph problem: NP-hard even to approximate Typical-case complexity w.r.t. increasing budget fraction • Without terminals: pure optimization version, always feasible, still a computational easy-hard-easy pattern • With terminals: • Phase transition: Problem turns from mostly infeasible to mostly feasible at budget fraction ~ 0.13 • Computational easy-hard-easy pattern coinciding with the phase transition • Surprisingly, proving optimality can be substantially easier than proving infeasibility in the phase transition region CP-AI-OR 2007

  16. Outline of the Talk • Worst-case vs. typical-case hardness • Easy-hard-easy patterns; phase transition • The Connection Subgraph Problem • Motivation: economics and social networks • Combining feasibility and optimality components • Theoretical results (NP-hardness of approximation) • Empirical study • Easy-hard-easy patterns for pure optimality • Phase transition • Feasibility testing vs. optimization: a clear winner? CP-AI-OR 2007

  17. Theoretical Results: 1 • NP-completeness: reduction from the Steiner Tree problem, preserving the cost function. Idea: • Steiner tree problem already very similar • Simulate edge costs with node costs • Simulate terminal vertices with utility function • NP-complete even without any terminals • Recall: Steiner tree problem poly-time solvable with constant number of terminals • Also holds for planar graphs CP-AI-OR 2007

  18. v1 vn … v2 … v3 Theoretical Results: 2 • NP-hardness of approximating cost optimization (factor 1.36): reduction from the Vertex Cover problem • Reduction motivated by Steiner tree work [Bern, Plassmann ’89] vertex cover of size k iff connection subgraph with cost bound C = k and utility U = m CP-AI-OR 2007

  19. Outline of the Talk • Worst-case vs. typical-case hardness • Easy-hard-easy patterns; phase transition • The Connection Subgraph Problem • Motivation: economics and social networks • Combining feasibility and optimality components • Theoretical results (NP-hardness of approximation) • Empirical study • Easy-hard-easy patterns for pure optimality • Phase transition • Feasibility testing vs. optimization: a clear winner? CP-AI-OR 2007

  20. Experimental Setup • Study parameter: budget fraction(budget as a fraction of the sum of all node costs) How are problem feasibility and hardness affectedas the budget fraction is varied? • Algorithm: CPLEX on a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) model CP-AI-OR 2007

  21. The MIP Model • Variables: xi {0,1} for each vertex i (included or not) • Cost constraint: i cixi  C • Utility optimization function: maximize i uixi • Connectedness: use a network flow encoding CP-AI-OR 2007

  22. The MIP Model: Connectedness • New source vertex 0, connected to arbitrary terminal t (slightly different construction when no terminals) • Initial flow sent from 0 equals number of vertices • New variables yi,j Z+ for each directed edge (i,j) (flow from i to j) • Flow passes through i iff vi retains 1 unit of flow • Each terminal t retains 1 unit of flow • Conservation of flow constraints CP-AI-OR 2007

  23. Graphs for Evaluation Problem evaluated on semi-structured graphs • m x m lattice / grid graph with k terminals • Inspired by the conservation corridors problem • Place a terminal each on top-left and bottom-right • Maximizes grid use • Place remaining terminals randomly • Assign uniform random costs and utilitiesfrom {0, 1, …, 10} m = 4 k = 4 CP-AI-OR 2007

  24. 10 x 10 8 x 8 Runtime (logscale) 0.01 1 100 10000 6 x 6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Budget fraction Results: without terminals • No terminals  “find the connected component that maximizes the utility within the given budget” • Pure optimization problem; always feasible • Still NP-hard A clear easy-hard-easypattern with uniformrandom costs & utilities Note 1: plot in log-scale for betterviewing of the sharp transitions Note 2: each data point is medianover 100+ random instances CP-AI-OR 2007

  25. Results: with terminals • Easy-hard-easy pattern, peaking at budget fraction ~ 0.13 • Sharp phase transition near 0.13: from infeasible to feasible Note: not in log scale CP-AI-OR 2007

  26. Results: feasibility vs. optimization Split instances into feasible and infeasible; plot median runtime • For feasible ones : computation involves proving optimality • For infeasible ones: computation involves proving infeasibility Infeasible instances take much longer than the feasible ones! CP-AI-OR 2007

  27. With 10 Terminals • The results are even more striking. • Median times: • Hardest instances : 1,200 sec • Hardest feasible instances : 200 sec • Hardest infeasible instances : 30,000 sec (150x) CP-AI-OR 2007

  28. With 20 Terminals • The phenomena still clearly present • Instances a bit easier than for 10 terminals. Median times: • Hardest instances : 340 sec • Hardest feasible instances : 60 sec • Hardest infeasible instances : 7,000 sec (110x) CP-AI-OR 2007

  29. Other Observations • Peak for pure optimality component without terminals (~0.2) is slightly to the right of the peak for feasibility component (~0.13) • Easy-hard-easy pattern also w.r.t. number of terminals • 3 terminals: easy, 10: hard, 20 again easy • Intuitively, more terminals • ----- are harder to connect • +++ leave fewer choices for other vertices to include • Competing constraints  a hard intermediate region CP-AI-OR 2007

  30. Could Other Models / SolversSignificantly Change the Picture? Perhaps, although some other natural options appear unlikely to. • Within Cplex, first check for feasibility then apply optimization • Problem: checking feasibility of the cost constraint equivalent to the metric Steiner tree problem; solvable in O(nk+1), which grows quickly with #terminals. Also, unlikely to be Fixed Parameter Tractable (FPT)[cf. Promel, Steger ’02] • Constraint Prog. (CP) model more promising for feasibility? • Problem: appears promising only as a global constraint, but hard to filter efficiently (unlikely to be FPT); Also, weighted sum not easy to optimize with CP. CP-AI-OR 2007

  31. Summary • Combining feasibility and optimization components can result in intriguing typical-case properties • Connection subgraphs: • NP-hard to approximate • Clear easy-hard-easy patterns and phase transitions • Feasibility testing can be much harder than optimization CP-AI-OR 2007

More Related