1 / 29

Algorithms & LPs for k-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs

Algorithms & LPs for k-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs. David Pritchard Zinal Workshop, Jan 20 ‘09. k-Edge Connected Graph. k edge-disjoint paths between every u, v at least k edges leave S, for all ∅ ≠ S ⊊ V even if (k-1) edges fail, G is still connected. | δ (S)| ≥ k. S.

perrin
Download Presentation

Algorithms & LPs for k-Edge Connected Spanning Subgraphs

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. Algorithms & LPs fork-Edge ConnectedSpanning Subgraphs David Pritchard Zinal Workshop, Jan 20 ‘09

  2. k-Edge Connected Graph • k edge-disjoint paths between every u, v • at least k edges leave S, for all ∅ ≠ S ⊊ V • even if (k-1) edges fail, G is still connected |δ(S)| ≥ k S

  3. k-ECSS & k-ECSM Optimization Problems k-edge connected spanning subgraph problem(k-ECSS): given an initial graph (maybe with edge costs), find k-edge connected subgraph including all vertices, w/ |E| (or cost) minimal k-ecsmultisubgraph problem (k-ECSM): can buy asmany copiesas you likeof any edge 3-edge-connected multisubgraph of G, |E|=9 G

  4. Approximation Algorithms k-ECSS and k-ECSM are NP-hard for k ≥ 2 For k-ECS/M or any NP-hard minimization problem, one notion of a good heuristic is a polytime “α-approximation algorithm”: always produces a feasible solution (e.g., k-edge connected subgraph) whose output cost is at most α times optimal Also call α the approximation ratio/factor

  5. Approximability Any problem has either • no constant-factor approximation algorithm • Ǝ constant α ≥ 1: α-approx alg exists, but no (α-ε)-approx exists for any ε>0 [α=1: “in P”] • Ǝ constant α ≥ 1: (α+ε)-approx alg exists for any ε>0, but no α-approx [α=1: “apx scheme”]

  6. Question What is the approximability of the k-edge-connected spanning subgraph andk-edge-connected spanning multisubgraph problems? • It will depend on k • Exact approximability not known but we’ll determine rough dependence on k • Also look at important unit-cost special case

  7. History of k-ECSS 2-ECSS is NP-hard, has a 2-apx alg [FJ 80s]& is APX-hard (has no approximation scheme if P ≠ NP) even for unit costs [F 97] k-ECSS has a 2-apx alg [KV 92] unit cost k-ECSS: has a (1+2/k)-apx [CT96] & Ǝ tiny ε>0, for all k>2, no (1+ε/k)-apx [G+05] • Gets easier to approximate as k increases! How do k-ECSS, k-ECSM depend on k?

  8. Main Course • We prove k-ECSS with general costs does not have approximation ratio tending to 1 as k tends to infinity • We conjecture that k-ECSM with general costs does have approximation ratio tending to 1 as k tends to infinity

  9. Part 1: Approximation Hardness

  10. An Initial Observation For the k-ESCM (multisubgraph) problem, we may assume edge costs are metric, i.e. cost(uv) ≤ cost(uw) + cost(wv) since replacing uv with uw, wv maintains k-EC u v S w

  11. What’s Hard About Hardness? A 2-VCSS is a 2-ECSS is a 2-ECSM. For metric costs, can split-off conversely, e.g. All of these are APX-hard [via {1,2}-TSP] vertex-connected 2-ECSM 2-ECSS 2-VCSS

  12. What’s Hard About Hardness? 1+ε hardness for 2-VCSS implies 1+ε hardness for k-VCSS, for all k ≥ 2 But this approach fails for k-ECSS, k-ECSM G G, a hardinstance for2-VCSS zero-cost edges to V(G) Instance for 3-VCSSwith same hardness

  13. Hardness of k-ECSS (slide 1/2)Ǝ ε>0, ∀ k≥2, no 1+ε-apx if P ≠ NP Reduce APX-hard TreeCoverByPaths to k-ECSS Input: a tree T, collection X of paths in T A subcollection Y of X is a cover if the union of {E(p) | p in Y} equals E(T) Goal: min-size subcollection of X that is a cover size-2cover

  14. Hardness of k-ECSS (slide 2/2)Ǝ ε>0, ∀ k≥2, no 1+ε-apx if P ≠ NP • Replace each edge e of T by k-1 zero-cost parallel edges; replace each path p in X by a unit-cost edge connecting endpoints of p … min |X| to cover T = k-ECSS optimum. 0 × (k-1) 0 × (k-1) 0 × (k-1) 0 × (k-1) 0 × (k-1) 0 × (k-1) 1 1 1 1

  15. Part 2: Linear Programs

  16. From Hardness to Approximability Conjecture [P.]For some constant C, there is a(1+C/k)-approximation algorithm for k-ECSM. For k ≤ 2 it is known to hold with C=1. • Next: definition of LP-relative, motivation an LP-relative

  17. LP Relaxation Introduce variables xe≥ 0 for all edges e of G. LP relaxation of k-ECSM problem: min ∑ xecost(e) s.t.x(δ(S)) ≥ k for all ∅ ≠ S ⊊ V 0.4 ∑e in δ(S) xe ≥ k S 1.2 1.4

  18. LP-Relativea new name for an old concept The LP is a linear relaxation of k-ECSM so LP-OPT ≤ OPT (optimal k-ECSM cost) Definition: an LP-relative α-approximation algorithm has output cost ALG ≤ α⋅LP-OPT (Stronger than “α-approx” — ALG ≤ α·OPT) + LP-OPT OPT ALG (integrality gap)

  19. Motivation Similar results for related problems are true LP-relative (1+C/k)-approx for k-ECSM would imply a (1+C/k)-approx for subset k-ECSM • Subset k-ECSM: given a graph with some vertices required, find a graph with edge-connectivity ≥ k between all required vertices (k=1: Steiner tree) • To show this, use parsimonious property [GB93] of the LP: there is an optimal fractional solution that doesn’t use non-required vertices

  20. A Combinatorial Approach? “Ǝ constant C so that for every A, B > 0,every (A + B + C)-edge-connected graph contains a disjoint A-ECSM and B-ECSM” would imply the conjecture. Cousins: Ǝk, each k-strongly connected digraph has 2 disjoint strongly connected subdigraphs Ǝk, every k-edge connected hypergraph contains 2 disjoint connected hypergraphs OPEN [B-J Y 01] FALSE [B-J T 03]

  21. More About the LP LP relaxation of k-ECSM equals (up to scaling)the Held-Karp TSP relaxation, andthe undirected Steiner tree LP relaxation. LP and generalizations are well-studied • Basic (“extreme”) solutions have few nonzeroes • Extreme solution properties are often key to algorithmic results (e.g., [GGTW 05]) How “unstructured” can extreme points get?

  22. Extremely Extreme Extreme Point • Edge values of the form Fibi/Fib|V|/2 and 1 - Fibi/Fib|V|/2(exponentially small in |V|) • Maximum degree |V|/2

  23. Structural LP Property [CFN] The LP has 2|V|-1 constraints, |V|2vars, but • Ǝ a basic solution which is optimal (all LPs); • we can find it in polytime(reformulation); • every basic solution has ≤ 2|V|-3 nonzero coordinates (laminar family of constraints).

  24. 1+O(1/k) Algorithm forUnit-Cost k-ECSM [GGTW] • Solve LP to get a basic optimal solution x* • Round every value in x* up to the next highest integer and return the corresponding multigraph (k=4)

  25. Analysis • Optimal k-ECSM has degree k or more at each vertex, hence at least k|V|/2 edges • The fractional LP solution x* has value (fractional edge count) k|V|/2 • There are at most 2|V|-3 nonzero coordinates • Rounding up increases cost by at most 2|V|-3 • ALG/OPT ≤ (k|V|/2 + 2|V|-3)/(k|V|/2) < 1 + 4/k

  26. Open Questions Resolve the conjecture! What’s the minimum f(A, B) so that any f(A, B)-edge-connected (multi)graph contains disjoint A- and B-edge-connected subgraphs? Is there a constant k such that every k-strongly connected digraph has 2 disjoint strongly connected subdigraphs?

  27. Thanks for Attending!

  28. Small Extreme Examples n=7, Δ=4 n=6, denom=2 n=8, denom=3 n=9, Δ=5 n=10, denom=Δ=5 n=9, denom=4

  29. Previously Known Constructions [BP]: minimum nonzero value of x* can be ~1/|V| [C]: max degree can be ~|V|1/2

More Related