Loading [a11y]/accessibility-menu.js
Approximation Algorithms for Optimization of Combinatorial Dynamical Systems | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Approximation Algorithms for Optimization of Combinatorial Dynamical Systems


Abstract:

We consider an optimization problem for a dynamical system whose evolution depends on a collection of binary decision variables. We develop scalable approximation algorit...Show More

Abstract:

We consider an optimization problem for a dynamical system whose evolution depends on a collection of binary decision variables. We develop scalable approximation algorithms with provable suboptimality bounds to provide computationally tractable solution methods even when the dimension of the system and the number of the binary variables are large. The proposed method employs a linear approximation of the objective function such that the approximate problem is defined over the feasible space of the binary decision variables, which is a discrete set. To define such a linear approximation, we propose two different variation methods: one uses continuous relaxation of the discrete space and the other uses convex combinations of the vector field and running payoff. The approximate problem is a 0-1 linear program, which can be solved by existing polynomial-time exact or approximation algorithms, and does not require the solution of the dynamical system. Furthermore, we characterize a sufficient condition ensuring the approximate solution has a provable suboptimality bound. We show that this condition can be interpreted as the concavity of the objective function or that of a reformulated objective function.
Published in: IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control ( Volume: 61, Issue: 9, September 2016)
Page(s): 2644 - 2649
Date of Publication: 03 December 2015

ISSN Information:

Funding Agency:

References is not available for this document.

I. Introduction

The dynamics of critical infrastructures and their system elements—for instance, electric grid infrastructure and their electric load elements—are interdependent, meaning that the state of each infrastructure or its system elements influences and is influenced by the state of the others [1]. For example, consider the placement of power electronic actuators, such as high-voltage direct current links, on transmission networks. Such placement requires consideration of the interconnected swing dynamics of transmission grid infrastructures. Furthermore, the ON/OFF control of a large population of electric loads whose system dynamics are coupled with each other, e.g., supermarket refrigeration systems, must take into account their system-system interdependency. These decision-making problems under dynamic interdependencies combine the combinatorial optimization problems of actuator placement and ON/OFF control with the time evolution of continuous system states. Therefore, we seek decision-making techniques that unify combinatorial optimization and dynamical systems theory.

Select All
1.
S. M. Rinaldi, J. P. Peerenboom, and T. K. Kelly, “Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdepencies,” IEEE Control Syst., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 11–25, 2001.
2.
M. S. Branicky, V. S. Borkar, and S. K. Mitter, “A unified framework for hybrid control: Model and optimal control theory,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 31–45, Jan. 1998.
3.
X. Xu and P. J. Antsaklis, “Optimal control of switched systems based on parametrization of the switching instants,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 2–16, Jan. 2004.
4.
R. Vasudevan, H. Gonzalez, R. Bajcsy, and S. S. Sastry, “Consistent approximations for the optimal control of constrained switched systems—Part 1: A conceptual algorithm,” SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 4463–4483, 2013.
5.
A. Bemporad and M. Morari, “Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints,” Automatica, vol. 35, pp. 407–427, 1999.
6.
C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity, New York : Dover, 1998.
7.
L. J. Watters, “Reduction of integer polynomial programming problems to zero-one linear programming problems,” Oper. Res., vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 1171–1174, 1967.
8.
P. L. Hammer, P. Hansen, and B. Simeone, “Roof duality, complementation and persistency in quadratic 0-1 optimization,” Math. Program., vol. 28, pp. 121–155, 1984.
9.
P. L. Hammer and S. Rudeanu, Boolean Methods in Operations Research, New York, NY, USA : Springer-Verlag, 1968.
10.
A. H. Land and A. Doig, “An automatic method of solving discrete programming problems,” Econometrica, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 497–520, 1960.
11.
W. Murray and K.-M. Ng, “An algorithm for nonlinear optimization problems with binary variables,” Comput. Optim. Appl., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 257–288, 2010.
12.
M. Grötschel, L. Lovász, and A. Schrijver, “The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization,” Combinatorica, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 169–197, 1981.
13.
A. Schrijver, “A combinatorial algorithm minimizing submodular functions in strongly polynomial time,” J. Combin. Theory, Ser. B, vol. 80, pp. 346–355, 2000.
14.
S. Iwata, L. Fleischer, and S. Fujishige, “A combinatorial strongly polynomial algorighm for minimizing submodular functions,” J. Assoc. Comput. Machin., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 761–777, 2001.
15.
S. Jegelka and J. Bilmes, “Approximation bounds for inference using cooperative cuts,” in Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Mach. Learning, 2011.
16.
G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher, “An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I,” Math. Program., vol. 14, pp. 265–294, 1978.
17.
E. Polak, Optimization: Algorithms and Consistent Approximations, New York, NY, USA : Springer-Verlag, 1997.
18.
P. Kokotović and J. Heller, “Direct and adjoint sensitivity equations for parameter optimization,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. AC-12, no. 5, pp. 609–610, 1967.
19.
I. Yang, S. A. Burden, S. S. Sastry, and C. J. Tomlin, “Infinitesimal interconnection variations in nonlinear networked systems,” in Proc. 52nd IEEE Conf. Decision Control, 2013, pp. 1417–1422.
20.
I. Yang, “Risk management and combinatorial optimization for large-scale demand response and renewable energy integration,” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. California, Berkeley, CA, USA, 2015.
21.
V. Azhmyakov, and J. Raisch, “Convex control systems and convex optimal control problems with constraints,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Control, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 993–998, Apr. 2008.
22.
P. Colaneri, R. H. Middleton, Z. Chen, D. Caporale, and F. Blanchini, “Convexity of the cost functional in an optimal control problem for a class of positive switched systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, pp. 1227–1234, 2014.
23.
G. L. Nemhauser and L. A. Wolsey, Integer and Combinatorial Optimization, New York, NY, USA : Wiley, 1988.
24.
S. Martello and P. Toth, Knapsack Problems, New York, NY, USA : Wiley, 1990.
25.
L. Lovász and A. Schrijver, “Cones of matrices and set-fuctions and 0-1 optimization,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 166–190, 1991.
26.
H. D. Sherali and W. P. Adams, “A hierarchy of relaxations between the continuous and convex hull representations for zero-one programming problems,” SIAM J. Discrete Math., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 411–430, 1990.
27.
J. B. Lasserre, “An explicit equivalent positive semidefinite program for nonlinear 0-1 programs,” SIAM J. Optim., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 756–769, 2002.

Contact IEEE to Subscribe

References

References is not available for this document.