arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2111.08048

Sometimes, Convex Separable Optimization Is Much Harder than Linear Optimization, and Other Surprises

Abstract

An influential 1990 paper of Hochbaum and Shanthikumar made it common wisdom that "convex separable optimization is not much harder than linear optimization" [JACM 1990]. We exhibit two fundamental classes of mixed integer (linear) programs that run counter this intuition. Namely those whose constraint matrices have small coefficients and small primal or dual treedepth: While linear optimization is easy [Brand, Kouteck\'y, Ordyniak, AAAI 2021], we prove that separable convex optimization IS much harder. Moreover, in the pure integer and mixed integer linear cases, these two classes have the same parameterized complexity. We show that they yet behave quite differently in the separable convex mixed integer case. Our approach employs the mixed Graver basis introduced by Hemmecke [Math. Prog. 2003]. We give the first non-trivial lower and upper bounds on the norm of mixed Graver basis elements. In previous works involving the integer Graver basis, such upper bounds have consistently resulted in efficient algorithms for integer programming. Curiously, this does not happen in our case. In fact, we even rule out such an algorithm.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Cornelius Brand, Martin Koutecký, Alexandra Lassota, Sebastian Ordyniak. 2021-11-15. Sometimes, Convex Separable Optimization Is Much Harder than Linear Optimization, and Other Surprises. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.08048

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

An FPTAS for Two-Machine Open-Shop Scheduling with a Single Unavailability Interval

We consider the two-machine open-shop scheduling problem in which one machine is unavailable during a fixed interval. We study the resumable setting: an operation interrupted by the unavailability interval may resume, without penalty, when the machine becomes available. The objective is to minimize the makespan. Although the problem is NP-hard and several approximation algorithms are known, whether it admits a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme (FPTAS) has remained open for two decades. We resolve this question affirmatively by giving the first FPTAS, thereby strengthening the previously known polynomial-time approximation scheme (PTAS). As an intermediate result, we develop a new pseudo-polynomial dynamic program with seven state dimensions, improving on the ten-dimensional formulation in the literature.

cs.DM

Generalized Graph Search Trees

Graph search algorithms and their corresponding graph search trees are commonly used in algorithmic graph theory. In recent years, the recognition problem of these graph search trees has received significant attention. So far, the research has focused on two types of search trees: first-in trees that behave like BFS-trees and last-in trees that behave like DFS-trees. The search tree paradigms differ from each other by the parent a vertex is connected to. In first-in trees, it is the first visited neighbor, while in last-in trees it is the last neighbor visited before that vertex. Here, we will generalize these concepts of graph search trees by allowing every preceding neighbor of a vertex to be the parent. We study the complexity of the recognition problem of these generalized graph search trees. We present NP-completeness proofs for most searches. We also show that the problem is trivial for Generic Search and polynomial-time solvable for several searches on bipartite graphs and chordal graphs. We also study the question how fixing the start vertex influences the complexity of the problem.

cs.DM

The exact asymptotic constant in the metric dimension of Jaccard space

Let $X$ be a finite set with $|X|=n$ and let $\mathrm{Jac}(a,b)=|a\,\triangle\, b|/|a\cup b|$ be the Jaccard distance on the power set $2^X$. Lladser and Paradise recently proved that the metric dimension of $(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})$ is $\Theta(n/\ln n)$, with the constant left open; their bounds are $(\ln 2)\,n/\ln n\lesssim \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})\lesssim 2\ln(2e)\,n/\ln n$. We determine the constant: \[ \beta(2^X,\mathrm{Jac})=\frac{2n}{\log_2 n}\,(1+o(1))=(2\ln 2)\,\frac{n}{\ln n}\,(1+o(1)). \] The proof identifies the problem, on each ``slice'' of subsets of fixed cardinality, with the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi coin-weighing problem for a spring scale (the problem of \emph{detecting matrices}). The lower bound is the Erd\H{o}s--R\'enyi entropy argument applied to the middle slice; the upper bound follows from the explicit detecting families of Lindstr\"om and of Cantor and Mills, augmented by a single extra landmark that reveals cardinality.

cs.DM