Approximating Covering Problems by Randomized Search Heuristics Using Multi-Objective Models

The main aim of randomized search heuristics is to produce good approximations of optimal solutions within a small amount of time. In contrast to numerous experimental results, there are only a few theoretical explorations on this subject. We consider the approximation ability of randomized search heuristics for the class of covering problems and compare single-objective and multi-objective models for such problems. For the VertexCover problem, we point out situations where the multi-objective model leads to a fast construction of optimal solutions while in the single-objective case, no good approximation can be achieved within the expected polynomial time. Examining the more general SetCover problem, we show that optimal solutions can be approximated within a logarithmic factor of the size of the ground set, using the multi-objective approach, while the approximation quality obtainable by the single-objective approach in expected polynomial time may be arbitrarily bad.

[1]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms and the Vertex Cover problem , 2007, 2007 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation.

[2]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Expected runtimes of a simple evolutionary algorithm for the multi-objective minimum spanning tree problem , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Pietro Simone Oliveto,et al.  Analysis of population-based evolutionary algorithms for the vertex cover problem , 2008, 2008 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence).

[4]  Ran Raz,et al.  A sub-constant error-probability low-degree test, and a sub-constant error-probability PCP characterization of NP , 1997, STOC '97.

[5]  Xin Yao,et al.  A comparative study of three evolutionary algorithms incorporating different amounts of domain knowledge for node covering problem , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[6]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  On the analysis of the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm , 2002, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Clifford Stein,et al.  Introduction to Algorithms, 2nd edition. , 2001 .

[8]  Frank Neumann,et al.  Randomized Local Search, Evolutionary Algorithms, and the Minimum Spanning Tree Problem , 2004, GECCO.

[9]  Thomas H. Cormen,et al.  Introduction to algorithms [2nd ed.] , 2001 .

[10]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  Running time analysis of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms on pseudo-Boolean functions , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[11]  Ingo Wegener,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms and the Maximum Matching Problem , 2003, STACS.

[12]  Carsten Witt,et al.  UNIVERSITY OF DORTMUND REIHE COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH CENTER 531 Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Worst-Case and Average-Case Approximations by Simple Randomized Search Heuristics , 2004 .

[13]  Oliver Giel,et al.  Expected runtimes of a simple multi-objective evolutionary algorithm , 2003, The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, 2003. CEC '03..

[14]  Thomas Jansen,et al.  Design and Management of Complex Technical Processes and Systems by means of Computational Intelligence Methods Evolutionary Algorithms-How to Cope With Plateaus of Constant Fitness and When to Reject Strings of the Same Fitness , 2001 .

[15]  Russ Bubley,et al.  Randomized algorithms , 1995, CSUR.

[16]  Vijay V. Vazirani,et al.  Approximation Algorithms , 2001, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[17]  Vasek Chvátal,et al.  A Greedy Heuristic for the Set-Covering Problem , 1979, Math. Oper. Res..