-
Approximating Multiobjective Optimization Problems: How exact can you be?
Authors:
Cristina Bazgan,
Arne Herzel,
Stefan Ruzika,
Clemens Thielen,
Daniel Vanderpooten
Abstract:
It is well known that, under very weak assumptions, multiobjective optimization problems admit $(1+\varepsilon,\dots,1+\varepsilon)$-approximation sets (also called $\varepsilon$-Pareto sets) of polynomial cardinality (in the size of the instance and in $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$). While an approximation guarantee of $1+\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ is the best one can expect for singleobjecti…
▽ More
It is well known that, under very weak assumptions, multiobjective optimization problems admit $(1+\varepsilon,\dots,1+\varepsilon)$-approximation sets (also called $\varepsilon$-Pareto sets) of polynomial cardinality (in the size of the instance and in $\frac{1}{\varepsilon}$). While an approximation guarantee of $1+\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ is the best one can expect for singleobjective problems (apart from solving the problem to optimality), even better approximation guarantees than $(1+\varepsilon,\dots,1+\varepsilon)$ can be considered in the multiobjective case since the approximation might be exact in some of the objectives.
Hence, in this paper, we consider partially exact approximation sets that require to approximate each feasible solution exactly, i.e., with an approximation guarantee of $1$, in some of the objectives while still obtaining a guarantee of $1+\varepsilon$ in all others. We characterize the types of polynomial-cardinality, partially exact approximation sets that are guaranteed to exist for general multiobjective optimization problems. Moreover, we study minimum-cardinality partially exact approximation sets concerning (weak) efficiency of the contained solutions and relate their cardinalities to the minimum cardinality of a $(1+\varepsilon,\dots,1+\varepsilon)$-approximation set.
△ Less
Submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Exact and approximate determination of the Pareto set using minimal correction subsets
Authors:
Andreia P. Guerreiro,
João Cortes,
Daniel Vanderpooten,
Cristina Bazgan,
Inês Lynce,
Vasco Manquinho,
José Rui Figueira
Abstract:
Recently, it has been shown that the enumeration of Minimal Correction Subsets (MCS) of Boolean formulas allows solving Multi-Objective Boolean Optimization (MOBO) formulations. However, a major drawback of this approach is that most MCSs do not correspond to Pareto-optimal solutions. In fact, one can only know that a given MCS corresponds to a Pareto-optimal solution when all MCSs are enumerated.…
▽ More
Recently, it has been shown that the enumeration of Minimal Correction Subsets (MCS) of Boolean formulas allows solving Multi-Objective Boolean Optimization (MOBO) formulations. However, a major drawback of this approach is that most MCSs do not correspond to Pareto-optimal solutions. In fact, one can only know that a given MCS corresponds to a Pareto-optimal solution when all MCSs are enumerated. Moreover, if it is not possible to enumerate all MCSs, then there is no guarantee of the quality of the approximation of the Pareto frontier. This paper extends the state of the art for solving MOBO using MCSs. First, we show that it is possible to use MCS enumeration to solve MOBO problems such that each MCS necessarily corresponds to a Pareto-optimal solution. Additionally, we also propose two new algorithms that can find a (1 + {\varepsilon})-approximation of the Pareto frontier using MCS enumeration. Experimental results in several benchmark sets show that the newly proposed algorithms allow finding better approximations of the Pareto frontier than state-of-the-art algorithms, and with guaranteed approximation ratios.
△ Less
Submitted 14 April, 2022;
originally announced April 2022.
-
One-Exact Approximate Pareto Sets
Authors:
Arne Herzel,
Cristina Bazgan,
Stefan Ruzika,
Clemens Thielen,
Daniel Vanderpooten
Abstract:
Papadimitriou and Yannakakis show that the polynomial-time solvability of a certain singleobjective problem determines the class of multiobjective optimization problems that admit a polynomial-time computable $(1+\varepsilon, \dots , 1+\varepsilon)$-approximate Pareto set (also called an $\varepsilon$-Pareto set). Similarly, in this article, we characterize the class of problems having a polynomia…
▽ More
Papadimitriou and Yannakakis show that the polynomial-time solvability of a certain singleobjective problem determines the class of multiobjective optimization problems that admit a polynomial-time computable $(1+\varepsilon, \dots , 1+\varepsilon)$-approximate Pareto set (also called an $\varepsilon$-Pareto set). Similarly, in this article, we characterize the class of problems having a polynomial-time computable approximate $\varepsilon$-Pareto set that is exact in one objective by the efficient solvability of an appropriate singleobjective problem. This class includes important problems such as multiobjective shortest path and spanning tree, and the approximation guarantee we provide is, in general, best possible. Furthermore, for biobjective problems from this class, we provide an algorithm that computes a one-exact $\varepsilon$-Pareto set of cardinality at most twice the cardinality of a smallest such set and show that this factor of 2 is best possible. For three or more objective functions, however, we prove that no constant-factor approximation on the size of the set can be obtained efficiently.
△ Less
Submitted 28 August, 2019;
originally announced August 2019.
-
The Power of the Weighted Sum Scalarization for Approximating Multiobjective Optimization Problems
Authors:
Cristina Bazgan,
Stefan Ruzika,
Clemens Thielen,
Daniel Vanderpooten
Abstract:
We determine the power of the weighted sum scalarization with respect to the computation of approximations for general multiobjective minimization and maximization problems. Additionally, we introduce a new multi-factor notion of approximation that is specifically tailored to the multiobjective case and its inherent trade-offs between different objectives.
For minimization problems, we provide a…
▽ More
We determine the power of the weighted sum scalarization with respect to the computation of approximations for general multiobjective minimization and maximization problems. Additionally, we introduce a new multi-factor notion of approximation that is specifically tailored to the multiobjective case and its inherent trade-offs between different objectives.
For minimization problems, we provide an efficient algorithm that computes an approximation of a multiobjective problem by using an exact or approximate algorithm for its weighted sum scalarization. In case that an exact algorithm for the weighted sum scalarization is used, this algorithm comes arbitrarily close to the best approximation quality that is obtainable by supported solutions - both with respect to the common notion of approximation and with respect to the new multi-factor notion. Moreover, the algorithm yields the currently best approximation results for several well-known multiobjective minimization problems. For maximization problems, however, we show that a polynomial approximation guarantee can, in general, not be obtained in more than one of the objective functions simultaneously by supported solutions.
△ Less
Submitted 8 November, 2020; v1 submitted 3 August, 2019;
originally announced August 2019.
-
On the representation of the search region in multi-objective optimization
Authors:
Kathrin Klamroth,
Renaud Lacour,
Daniel Vanderpooten
Abstract:
Given a finite set $N$ of feasible points of a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, the search region corresponds to the part of the objective space containing all the points that are not dominated by any point of $N$, i.e. the part of the objective space which may contain further nondominated points. In this paper, we consider a representation of the search region by a set of tight local u…
▽ More
Given a finite set $N$ of feasible points of a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem, the search region corresponds to the part of the objective space containing all the points that are not dominated by any point of $N$, i.e. the part of the objective space which may contain further nondominated points. In this paper, we consider a representation of the search region by a set of tight local upper bounds (in the minimization case) that can be derived from the points of $N$. Local upper bounds play an important role in methods for generating or approximating the nondominated set of an MOO problem, yet few works in the field of MOO address their efficient incremental determination. We relate this issue to the state of the art in computational geometry and provide several equivalent definitions of local upper bounds that are meaningful in MOO. We discuss the complexity of this representation in arbitrary dimension, which yields an improved upper bound on the number of solver calls in epsilon-constraint-like methods to generate the nondominated set of a discrete MOO problem. We analyze and enhance a first incremental approach which operates by eliminating redundancies among local upper bounds. We also study some properties of local upper bounds, especially concerning the issue of redundant local upper bounds, that give rise to a new incremental approach which avoids such redundancies. Finally, the complexities of the incremental approaches are compared from the theoretical and empirical points of view.
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2015; v1 submitted 21 February, 2015;
originally announced February 2015.
