Hardness and Approximability in Multi-Objective Optimization

We systematically study the hardness and the approximability of combinatorial multiobjective NP optimization problems (multi-objective problems, for short). We define solution notions that precisely capture the typical algorithmic tasks in multiobjective optimization. These notions inherit polynomial-time Turing reducibility from multivalued functions, which allows us to compare the solution notions and to define corresponding NP-hardness notions. For both we prove reducibility and separation results. Furthermore, we define approximative solution notions and investigate in which cases polynomial-time solvability translates from one to another notion. For problems where all objectives have to be minimized, approximability results translate from single-objective to multi-objective optimization such that the relative error degrades only by a constant factor. Such translations are not possible for problems where all objectives have to be maximized, unless P = NP. As a consequence we see that in contrast to single-objective problems, where the solution notions coincide, the situation is more subtle for multiple objectives. So it is important to exactly specify the NP-hardness notion when discussing the complexity of multi-objective problems.

[1]  J. A. Hoogeveen,et al.  Single-machine bicriteria scheduling , 1992 .

[2]  Carsten Lund,et al.  Proof verification and the intractability of approximation problems , 1992, FOCS 1992.

[3]  Leonard M. Adleman,et al.  NP-Complete Decision Problems for Binary Quadratics , 1978, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[4]  Reuven Bar-Yehuda,et al.  A Local-Ratio Theorem for Approximating the Weighted Vertex Cover Problem , 1983, WG.

[5]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  On the approximability of trade-offs and optimal access of Web sources , 2000, Proceedings 41st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[6]  Naveen Garg,et al.  A 3-approximation for the minimum tree spanning k vertices , 1996, Proceedings of 37th Conference on Foundations of Computer Science.

[7]  Pierre Hansen,et al.  Bicriterion Path Problems , 1980 .

[8]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Finding k-cuts within twice the optimal , 1991, [1991] Proceedings 32nd Annual Symposium of Foundations of Computer Science.

[9]  Xavier Gandibleux,et al.  A survey and annotated bibliography of multiobjective combinatorial optimization , 2000, OR Spectr..

[10]  E.L. Lawler,et al.  Optimization and Approximation in Deterministic Sequencing and Scheduling: a Survey , 1977 .

[11]  Christian Glaßer,et al.  Improved and Derandomized Approximations for Two-Criteria Metric Traveling Salesman , 2009, Electron. Colloquium Comput. Complex..

[12]  A. J. Clewett,et al.  Introduction to sequencing and scheduling , 1974 .

[13]  E. Polak,et al.  On Multicriteria Optimization , 1976 .

[14]  Sergei Vassilvitskii,et al.  Efficiently computing succinct trade-off curves , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[15]  Christian Glaßer,et al.  Multiobjective Disk Cover Admits a PTAS , 2008, ISAAC.

[16]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  The complexity of restricted spanning tree problems , 1982, JACM.

[17]  George L. Vairaktarakis,et al.  Complexity of Single Machine Hierarchical Scheduling: A Survey , 1993 .

[18]  Alan L. Selman,et al.  A Taxonomy of Complexity Classes of Functions , 1994, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[19]  Timothy J. Long,et al.  Quantitative Relativizations of Complexity Classes , 1984, SIAM J. Comput..

[20]  Nicos Christofides Worst-Case Analysis of a New Heuristic for the Travelling Salesman Problem , 1976, Operations Research Forum.

[21]  Ewald Speckenmeyer,et al.  Ramsey numbers and an approximation algorithm for the vertex cover problem , 1985, Acta Informatica.