Most systems and learning algorithms optimize average performance or average loss -- one reason being computational complexity. However, many objectives of practical interest are more complex than simply average loss. This arises, for example, when balancing performance or loss with fairness across people. We prove that, from a computational perspective, optimizing arbitrary objectives that take into account performance over a small number of groups is not significantly harder to optimize than average performance. Our main result is a polynomial-time reduction that uses a linear optimizer to optimize an arbitrary (Lipschitz continuous) function of performance over a (constant) number of possibly-overlapping groups. This includes fairness objectives over small numbers of groups, and we further point out that other existing notions of fairness such as individual fairness can be cast as convex optimization and hence more standard convex techniques can be used. Beyond learning, our approach applies to multi-objective optimization, more generally.
. When faced with multiple objectives, no one single solution may be optimal [see, e.g.,][] ZuluagaSKP13, RaviMRRH93, GrandoniRSZ14 . A solution is Pareto-optimal if no other solution is simultaneously better in all objectives. Often the goal is to recover the entire set of Pareto-optimal solutions. While computing the Pareto set (even membership) is NP-hard , for some problems it can be succinctly approximated . Some work in multi-objective optimization addresses the problem as a convex programming problem, while other work such as @cite_0 provides reductions to an underlying linear optimization problem. Our work follows in this spirit.
@cite_0
2024008934 2261103830 1990421110 2083246371
This paper proposes an alternate method for finding several Pareto optimal points for a general nonlinear multicriteria optimization problem. Such points collectively capture the trade-off among the various conflicting objectives. It is proved that this method is independent of the relative scales of the functions and is successful in producing an evenly distributed set of points in the Pareto set given an evenly distributed set of parameters, a property which the popular method of minimizing weighted combinations of objective functions lacks. Further, this method can handle more than two objectives while retaining the computational efficiency of continuation-type algorithms. This is an improvement over continuation techniques for tracing the trade-off curve since continuation strategies cannot easily be extended to handle more than two objectives. We study the problem of optimal multi-robot path planning on graphs (MPP) over four distinct minimization objectives: the total arrival time, the makespan (last arrival time), the total distance, and the maximum (single-robot traveled) distance. On the structure side, we show that each pair of these four objectives induces a Pareto front and cannot always be optimized simultaneously. Then, through reductions from 3-SAT, we further establish that computation over each objective is an NP-hard task, providing evidence that solving MPP optimally is generally intractable. Nevertheless, in a related paper, we design complete algorithms and efficient heuristics for optimizing all four objectives, capable of solving MPP optimally or near-optimally for hundreds of robots in challenging setups. In many multiobjective optimization problems, the Pareto Fronts and Sets contain a large number of solutions and this makes it difficult for the decision maker to identify the preferred ones. A possible way to alleviate this difficulty is to present to the decision maker a subset of a small number of solutions representatives of the Pareto Front characteristics. In this paper, a two-steps procedure is presented, aimed at identifying a limited number of representative solutions to be presented to the decision maker. Pareto Front solutions are first clustered into "families", which are then synthetically represented by a "head-of-the-family" solution. Level Diagrams are then used to represent, analyse and interpret the Pareto Front reduced to its head-of-the-family solutions. The procedure is applied to a reliability allocation case study of literature, in decision-making contexts both without or with explicit preferences by the decision maker on the objectives to be optimized. A natural way to deal with multiple, partially conflicting objectives is turning all the objectives but one into budget constraints. Many classical optimization problems, such as maximum spanning tree and forest, shortest path, maximum weight (perfect) matching, maximum weight independent set (basis) in a matroid or in the intersection of two matroids, become NP-hard even with one budget constraint. Still, for most of these problems efficient deterministic and randomized approximation schemes are known. Not much is known however about the case of two or more budgets: filling this gap, at least partially, is the main goal of this paper. In more detail, we obtain the following main results: Using iterative rounding for the first time in multi-objective optimization, we obtain multi-criteria PTASs (which slightly violate the budget constraints) for spanning tree, matroid basis, and bipartite matching with @math k = O ( 1 ) budget constraints. We present a simple mechanism to transform multi-criteria approximation schemes into pure approximation schemes for problems whose feasible solutions define an independence system. This gives improved algorithms for several problems. In particular, this mechanism can be applied to the above bipartite matching algorithm, hence obtaining a pure PTAS. We show that points in low-dimensional faces of any matroid polytope are almost integral, an interesting result on its own. This gives a deterministic approximation scheme for @math k -budgeted matroid independent set. We present a deterministic approximation scheme for @math k -budgeted matching (in general graphs), where @math k = O ( 1 ) . Interestingly, to show that our procedure works, we rely on a non-constructive result by Stromquist and Woodall, which is based on the Ham Sandwich Theorem.