Hardness and approximation of the Probabilistic $p$-Center problem under Pressure Note: Work supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 691161.

Let $G$ be an edge-weighted graph; we will denote it $G=(V,E,L)$ with $L=\left(\ell_{ij}\right)_{i,j\in V}$ the matrix of lengths. If $\mathbb{Q}$ denotes the set of rational numbers, $L$ has entries in $\mathbb{Q}\cup\{\infty\}$ such that $\ell_{ij}<\infty\Leftrightarrow(i,j)\in E$. We will denote $\ell_{m}$ and $\ell_{M}$, respectively the smallest and the largest edge lengths (i.e., $\ell_{M}$ is the largest finite entry in $L$). We will refer as the uniform case the case where all edge lengths are equal. For all problems we consider in this paper, the objective value is linear with respect to the lengths and feasibility conditions due not depend on the lengths. As a consequence, the uniform case is equivalent to the case where all edge lengths are equal to 1. When dealing with the uniform case we will omit $L$ in the instance. A mixed graph is a graph with both directed and non-directed edges. When no ambiguity occurs we will use similar notations for graphs and mixed graphs. In the mixed case, we will just identify directed edges an denote them with an arrow in the related drawing. All non-directed notions in graphs also apply to mixed graphs by considering the non-directed version of the mixed graph obtained by replacing directed edges by non-directed ones. Similarly, all directed notions apply to mixed graphs since a mixed graph can be seen as a digraph with non-directed edges replaced by two directed edges in opposite directions. For instance, when speaking about distances in a mixed graph, paths are meant to respect the edge orientations and thus, the matrix of distances is not symmetric anymore. In an edge-weighted graph $G=(V,E,L)$ and two vertices $i,j$, $d(i,j)=+\infty$ if $i$ and $j$ are in different connected components. In a mixed graph, we may have $d(i,j)=+\infty$ with $i$ and $j$ in the same connected component. It just means that there is no path from $i$ to $j$ respecting the orientation of directed edges. For example, in the mixed graph represented in Figure 2, $d(2,6)=5$ while $d(6,2)=\infty$.

In our motivating application, fire hazards (or any hazard occurring on vertices) is modeled using scenarios. The landscape is represented by an edge-weighted graph $G=(V,E,L)$. A scenario is associated with each specific fire outbreak. We restrict ourselves to single fire outbreak and consequently, each scenario $s$ corresponds to a single vertex $s$ on fire. This restriction is motivated by our primary focus on a relatively short time period after outbreak which assumes an efficient early warning system. In this case everybody can escape to a shelter before the fire spreads to adjacent zones.

The operational graph associated with the scenario $s$, denoted by $G^{s}$, is a mixed graph $G^{s}=(V,E^{s},L^{s})$ obtained from $G=(V,E,L)$ by replacing the edges $(s,v)$ incident to $s$ by directed edges $(s,v)$. All weights are preserved. Consequently, in $G^{s}$, vertex $s$ is no longer accessible from another vertex.

For every two vertices $i,j$, the distance from $i$ to $j$ in $G^{s}$ is denoted $d^{s}(i,j)$. Note that for all $j\in V\setminus\{s\}$, we have $d^{s}(j,s)=+\infty$.

In this paper, we consider a uniform distribution of probabilities over all scenarios: each scenario $s_{i},i\in V\$ has probability $\frac{1}{|V|}$ and these events are all independent.

In most $p$-Center problems under indeterminacy, given a solution $C$ with $p$ vertices or less, and given a scenario $s$, the evacuation distance of a vertex $j$ is usually the shortest distance between $j$ and its nearest shelter, $d(j,C)$. This strategy is not adapted to our context and we consider a different evacuation strategy introduced and explained in our previous paper Demange et al. (2020). This evacuation strategy induces new evacuation distances to shelters. If $s$ is on fire, we have:

1. 1.

   for people on $s$, two cases have to be considered. If a shelter is located on $s$, then people present on vertex $s$ are considered as safely sheltered in it, otherwise we assume that they first run away from the fire in any direction and after they reach a neighbor $j$, they evacuate to the shortest shelter from $j$ in $G^{s}$.

2. 2.

   for people who are not on $s$, say on $j\neq s$, the evacuation distance from $j$ to shelter $k$ corresponds to $d^{s}(j,k)$ in graph $G^{s}$, i.e., avoiding vertex $s$.

This evaluation of evacuation distances makes our problem specific compared to the literature and induces some additional complexity. The justification of this measure for people escaping from $s$ is twofold. First, since the area $s$ may be relatively large, a single scenario may correspond to many possible fire configurations, each prohibiting some paths in the zone. The second motivation is to represent decision under stress, a very important characteristic in emergency management: somebody close to the fire may not take rational decisions when selecting a direction while people in another zone can be assumed to behave more rationally.

For a given set $C\subset V$ seen as a set shelter’s locations and a given scenario $s$, the evacuation distance of a zone $j$ is denoted by $r^{s}(C,j)$. If a shelter is located on $j$, $r^{s}(C,j)=0$ otherwise we have:

where $N^{+}_{G^{s}}(s)$ is the set of all vertices $v$ such that $(s,v)\in E^{s}$.

Notice that $r^{s}(C,j)$ is equal to $+\infty$ if $j$ can’t reach any shelter in $G^{s}$.

The evacuation radius associated with scenario $s$ is defined as $r^{s}(C)=\max_{j\in V}r^{s}(C,j)$. Note that $r^{s}(C)$ is not equal to the usual radius computed in $G^{s}$: $r^{s}(C)\geq\max\limits_{v\in V}d^{s}(v,C)$.

We are now ready to define the problem Min P$p$CP. A Min P$p$CP-instance will be an edge-weighted graph $G$ and an integer $p$ and a solution $C$ will correspond to a set of at most $p$ vertices where to locate shelters. A given solution $C$ corresponds to $n=|V|$ evacuation radius $r^{1}(C),\ldots,r^{n}(C)$ for $n$ different scenarios. We associate to $C$ the expected value ${\mathbb{E}}(C)$ of these evacuation radius over all scenarios:

$E(C)$ is called probabilistic radius. For any set $C$ of centers, it can be computed in polynomial time: for each scenario it requires to compute the matrix of shortest path values in the related operational graph, which requires $O(|V|^{3})$ operations. So, ${\mathbb{E}}(C)$ can be computed in $O(|V|^{3})$. The Min P$p$CP problem is then to determine a solution $C^{*}$ minimizing $E$.

We synthesize below the formal definition of the problem:

In a more general setting we could add a probability distribution on vertices but in this work we only consider the uniform probability distribution. In this context, recall that by uniform, we mean $L$ is the matrix $(\ell_{ij})$ with $\ell_{ij}=1\Leftrightarrow(i,j)\in E$ and $\ell_{ij}=\infty$ otherwise.

Note that in our definition, $p$ is part of the instance. We can define natural sub-problems by restricting the possible values for $p$. If $p$ is a fixed value, then the related sub-problem is polynomial since all possible $p$-centers can be enumerated in polynomial time and the probabilistic radius (objective value) of each one can be determined in polynomial time.

A variant of the Min $p$-Center problem for large-scale emergencies is proposed in Huang et al. (2010), where the disaster affects a single vertex $s$, including any facility on this vertex. This model incorporates both indeterminacy in the facility availability and in the demand: any facility on an affected vertex is no longer available and only the population on this vertex requires evacuation. Our context is really different since we consider that all zones must be evacuated in each scenario $s$ and that a shelter always secures at least the people from the corresponding area.

Numerous models for Min $p$-Center under indeterminacy have already been developed. In a non-deterministic environment, problems are generally described in two stages: first, before the indeterminacy is resolved (i.e., when the instance is still subject to indeterminacy), we need to choose locations. Then, once the effective instance is known, we can react, for example by assigning vertices to centers. This description matches real life situations like facility breakdown or natural disaster cutting off communication, and it has been addressed using various approaches (see for example the reviews Caunhye et al. (2012); Laporte et al. (2015); Snyder (2006); Correia and da Gama (2015)). We briefly present some Min $p$-Center variants under indeterminacy, as well as some other models relevant for our context.

In some models, non determinate parameters may vary independently one from each other, for example in Averbakh and Berman (1997); Averbakh (2003); Lu (2013); Taghavi and Shavandi (2012) lengths in the graph are described as intervals. In our context, this independence hypothesis is not relevant since, if a fire ignites on a vertex, then all lengths of the edges incident to this vertex are modified in a same way. So, we focus on the Min $p$-Center variants where indeterminacy is represented by a set of discrete scenarios.

In such a decision-making environment, we usually distinguish two contexts: risk and uncertainty. Risk refers to situations where the values of some parameters are governed by given probability distributions. In uncertainty on the contrary, no probabilistic information is used, either because it is not available or because the decision maker prefers not to resort to it. The first context is referred as stochastic, or probabilistic models and the second one corresponds to robust models. In this second context, a measure of robustness is usually considered for evaluating the performance of a solution. For example, in Du et al. (2020), a robust variant of Min $p$-Center with scenarios is studied. Here, we assume some probability distribution over scenarios; for this reason, we focus only on stochastic/probabilistic variants of Min $p$-Center with a fixed set of discrete scenarios.

In stochastic optimization, one generally optimizes the expected value of a given objective function or one maximizes the probability that the solution is “good”. Such problems can be solved using a specific algorithm, like in Martínez-Merino et al. (2017), or using the general stochastic programming techniques, as in Bayram and Yaman (2018). The problem studied in Martínez-Merino et al. (2017) is different from ours since the indeterminacy is associated to the demand and it is not possible to re-affect the vertices to a center. Note that, despite Min P$p$CP falls into the paradigm of stochastic optimization, we cannot easily reduce it to classical $p$-center variants. In particular, Min P$p$CP cannot be seen as a variant in which new distances are associated to each scenario. Indeed, due to our specific evacuation process, in particular for people in the zone on fire, the new evacuation distances to a shelter do not systematically correspond to a shortest path in the new graph $G^{s}$.

Finally, Min P$p$CP has been introduced in Demange et al. (2018). We have proposed an explicit solution for the uniform case (all edge lengths are 1) on paths and cycles. In these cases, a solution is characterized by the list of lengths of segments between two consecutive centers. A $p$-center is then called balanced if the maximum difference between two segment lengths is minimized and it is monotone if the sequence of segment lengths is monotone. It is straightforward to show that a balanced solution is optimal for the usual Min $p$-Center and, in Demange et al. (2018) we have shown that a monotone balanced solution is also optimal for Min P$p$CP. Even though the result is not surprising, the proof was surprisingly non-trivial. In Demange et al. (2018), we proposed as well some related hardness results. In particular, we showed that Min P$p$CP is not approximable on planar graphs of degree 2 or 3 within a ratio less than $\frac{20}{19}$, unless P=NP. Refining this result in restricted classes of subgrids and designing approximation algorithms were outlined as open questions.

Note finally that in Demange et al. (2020), we investigated a variant, called robust, where the objective is to minimize the maximum (worst) evacuation radius over all scenarios instead of minimizing their expected value. It falls into the uncertainty paradigm. For this version, we proposed NP-hardness results in various classes of graphs that include subgrids. Our application motivates this class. We also proposed exact algorithms based on Integer Linear Programming formulation.

In the next subsection we characterize the set of feasible solutions of Min P$p$CP.

In this subsection we analyze necessary and sufficient conditions for a solution to be feasible for a given Min P$p$CP-instance $(G,p)$. Without loss of generality we will consider that $G=(V,E,L)$ is a connected graph. A vertex $a\in G$ is an articulation point if and only if removing $a$ disconnects the graph $G$. We denote by $\mathcal{A}(G)$ the set of articulation points of $G$.

We call articulation component of $G$ associated with an articulation point $a$ a connected component of $G\setminus\{a\}$. Then every vertex $a\in\mathcal{A}(G)$ is associated to at least 2 articulation components, and every articulation component is associated to one articulation point. A graph is 2-connected if it has no articulation point; in this case there is no articulation component.

A minimal articulation component, or MAC for short, is an articulation component that does not strictly contain another articulation component. We denote $\Upsilon(G)$ the set of minimal articulation components. Note that an articulation component that is a singleton $\{v\}$ is necessarily minimal and this occurs if and only if $v$ is a vertex of degree 1.

Given an edge-weighted graph $G=(V,E,L)$ and $p$, we denote with $\mathcal{C}_{p}(G)$ the set of feasible solutions of the Min P$p$CP-instance $(G,p)$.

As a consequence, from now we will consider only Min P$p$CP instances satisfying $p\geq 2$.

For a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a set $V^{\prime}\subset V$, we will denote $G[V^{\prime}]$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $V^{\prime}$. $G[V^{\prime}]$ is called a subgraph of $G$. A partial graph of $G$ is a graph $(V,E^{\prime})$ with $E^{\prime}\subset E$ obtained from $G$ by deleting 0 or some edges. A partial subgraph of $G$ is a partial graph of a subgraph of $G$. For $U\subset V$, we denote $G\setminus U$ the graph $G[V\setminus U]$. A pending vertex in a graph is a vertex of degree 1. A $n\times m$ grid is the graph $\mathcal{G}=(\mathcal{V,E})$ with vertex set $\mathcal{V}=\{(i,j),i\in\{0,\ldots n-1\},j\in\{0,\ldots,m-1\}\}$ and $((i,j),(k,l))\in\mathcal{E}$ if and only if $|i-k|+|j-l|=1$. A (partial) subgrid is a (partial) subgraph of a grid. For instance, the graph in Figure 2 is a partial subgrid. Given a subgrid $G=(V,E)$, a grid embedding is a one-to-one function from $V$ to $\mathcal{V}$ for some dimensions $(n,m)$ such that every edge $(u,v)\in E$ maps to an edge of the $n\times m$ grid. If $u\in V$ maps to $(i,j)$ in the grid, $(i,j)$ are called the coordinates of $u$. Unless otherwise stated, each time we will refer to a subgrid, we will assume that a grid embedding is given. As defined in Demange and de Werra (2013), for a partial subgrid $G$ and a positive integer $f$, the $f$-expansion of $G$, denoted $Exp(G,f)$, is obtained from $G$ by inserting $f-1$ vertices on each edge (each edge becomes a path of $f$ edges). If $f\geq 2$, the $f$-expansion of any partial subgrid is a subgrid. If $G$ is a subgrid embedded in a $n\times m$ grid $\mathcal{G}$, then $Exp(G,f)$ is a subgrid embedded in the $[(n-1)f+1]\times[(m-1)f+1]$ grid $Exp(\mathcal{G},f)$. The vertex set of $G$ can be seen as a subset of the vertex set of $Exp(G,f)$ and more precisely, in the related grid embedding of $Exp(G,f)$, the coordinates of any vertex $u\in V$ are multiplied by $f$ compared to its coordinates in the original grid embedding of $G$ in $\mathcal{G}$. Subgrids, and to a lesser extent partial subgrids, constitute a natural class of instances in our motivating application. It corresponds to the case where the landscape is divided into square areas and some areas are not considered since they correspond for instance to natural barriers, like lakes, or to protected private lands that can neither been used for sheltering nor for evacuating.

In Theorem 1, we will show that a polynomial time approximation algorithm $\mathtt{A}$ for Min P$p$CP in subgrid of degrees $\{2,3\}$ ($p$ being part of the instance) guaranteeing a ratio of at most $\frac{56}{55}$ could be used to compute in polynomial time the size of the minimum vertex cover on a planar graph of degrees $\{2,3\}$, which is a contradiction.

We adapt the proof of the hardness result in Demange et al. (2018) to obtain a hardness result in subgrids. The requirement that the resulting graph is a subgraph of a grid induces significant technical difficulties for both the reduction and its analysis.

We start from a planar graph $G=(V,E)$ with degrees $\{2,3\}$, instance of Min Vertex Cover. We randomly choose an orientation of the edges of $G$ that will be used in our reductions and analysis. We then apply successively two transformations, Transformation 1, denoted $\varphi_{1}$ and Transformation 2, denoted $\varphi_{2}$ that are detailed in Subsection 3.2. Figure 3 gives a simple schematic representation of the whole reduction.

Transformation 1 ($\varphi_{1}$) constructs from $G$ a subgrid ${H_{q}}=(V^{H_{q}},E^{H_{q}})$, for some positive integer $q$ specified later, in such a way that:

• $\bullet$

  $V\subset V^{H_{q}}$,

• $\bullet$

  Edges $(u,v)$ of $G$ map to non-crossing paths $P^{H_{q}}_{uv}$ of even length between $u$ and $v$ in $H_{q}$.

The subgrid $H$ appearing in Figure 3 is an intermediate stage not directly used in the analysis.

We then apply Transformation 2 ($\varphi_{2}$) to construct a subgrid $F=(V^{F},E^{F})$ from $H_{q}$. Roughly speaking, it consists in replacing the first two edges of $P^{H_{q}}_{uv}$ (where $uv\in E$ is oriented from $u$ to $v$) with a gadget $T^{2}$, and every other edge of $H_{q}$ with a gadget $T^{1}$, both defined in the next subsection.

For the analysis now, we note that there is no direct and easy link between $\tau(G)$ and $\tau(H_{q})$ since $\tau(H_{q})$ can be obtained in polynomial time ($H_{q}$ is bipartite) while $G$ is meant to be an instance of an NP-hard restriction of Min Vertex Cover. For this reason, we introduce an auxiliary graph $\widetilde{H}_{q}=(V^{\widetilde{H}_{q}},E^{\widetilde{H}_{q}})$. It can be seen as a perturbation of $H_{q}$ with a direct link between $\tau(\widetilde{H}_{q})$ and $\tau(G)$. It is simply obtained by replacing, for every edge $(u,v)\in E$, the two first edges of the path $P^{H_{q}}_{uv}$ by a single edge. This way, the path $P^{H_{q}}_{uv}$ of even length becomes, in $\widetilde{H}_{q}$, a path $P^{\widetilde{H}_{q}}_{uv}$ of odd length and Lemma 3 can be used to write $\tau(\widetilde{H}_{q})$ as a function of $\tau(G)$.

On the other hand, as outlined in Lemma 4, the properties of the two gadgets allow to establish a direct link between dominating sets in $F$ and vertex covers in $\widetilde{H}_{q}$. In all, it gives a relation between the Min Dominating Set problem in $F$ and the Min Vertex Cover problem in $G$.

Then, in Subsection 3.3, we outline different relations between the Min Dominating Set problem and Min P$p$CP in a triangle-free graphs without pending vertices using three lemmas, Lemma 5, Lemma 6 and Lemma 7. This can be applied to $F$.

Finally, in Subsection 3.4, we use these results to establish Theorem 1. We show that, when applying $\mathtt{A}$ on $F$ for $p<\gamma(F)$, the output is a solution of Min P$p$CP of probabilistic radius at least 2, while applying it for $p=\gamma({F})$ gives a solution of probabilistic radius less than 2. Hereby we can use such an algorithm to compute $\gamma(F)$, and consequently $\tau(G)$. Since constructing $H$, $H_{q}$, $\widetilde{H}_{q}$ and $F$, as well as evaluating the value of a Min P$p$CP solution, can be done in polynomial time, and since algorithm $\mathtt{A}$ is applied less than $|V|$ times, the whole process is polynomial.

Using a result of Yanpei et al. (1991), we can embed $G=(V,E)$ in a grid $H=(V^{H},E^{H})$ of polynomial size. Vertices of $G$ are mapped to vertices of the grid, and edges $(u,v)$ of $G$ map to non-crossing paths $P_{uv}^{H}$ between $u$ and $v$ in the grid. Note that we cannot control the length and parity of these paths. The resulting graph is a partial subgrid and not necessarily a subgrid yet. We then perform a $2q$-expansion for some positive integer $q$ specified later. The resulting graph ${H_{q}}=(V^{H_{q}},E^{H_{q}})$ is a subgrid ($q>0$). In addition, since the expansion multiplies by $2q$ all path lengths from $H$ to $H_{q}$, edges $(u,v)$ of $G$ map to non-crossing paths $P_{uv}^{H_{q}}$ of even length between $u$ and $v$ in $H_{q}$. It means that paths $P_{uv}^{H_{q}}$ have $2k_{uv}+1$ internal vertices (excluding $u$ and $v$) for some non-negative integers $k_{uv}$.

∎

As already noticed in Subsection 3.1, we cannot establish a direct link between $\tau(G)$ and $\tau(H_{q})$ but since we now control the parity of paths $P_{uv}^{H_{q}}$, it is easy to slightly modify $H_{q}$ so as we can apply Lemma 3. This is the role of the graph $\widetilde{H}_{q}=(V^{\widetilde{H}_{q}},E^{\widetilde{H}_{q}})$. Recall that this graph is obtained from $H_{q}$ by replacing, for every edge $(u,v)\in E$, the two first edges of the path $P^{H_{q}}_{uv}$ by a single edge, as illustrated in Figure 5. This way, $\widetilde{H}_{q}$ can directly be obtained from $G$ by inserting $2k_{uv}$ vertices on each edge $(u,v)\in E$. As a consequence, Lemma 3 allows to establish:

In addition, we have:

By construction, we have $\forall(u,v)\in E,2k_{uv}+1\geq 2q-1$, which gives:

Thanks to the $2q$-expansion, for $(u,v)\in E$ oriented from $u$ to $v$, the first two edges of $P^{H_{q}}_{uv}$ in $H_{q}$ are both horizontal or vertical. Note as well that the orientation of $G$ immediately defines an orientation of $H_{q}$ and of $\widetilde{H}_{q}$. We can then construct the subgrid $F=(V^{F},E^{F})$ from the subgrid $H_{q}$ as follows.

For every edge $(u,v)\in E$ oriented from $u$ to $v$, we replace, in $H_{q}$, the first two edges $(u,i),(i,x)$ of $P^{{H_{q}}}_{uv}$ with $T^{2}_{ux}$ defined in Figure 7, and every other edges $(x,y)\in E^{H_{q}}$ with $T^{1}_{xy}$ defined in Figure 6.

In the following we use $T_{xy}$ to refer to $T^{1}_{xy}$ or $T^{2}_{xy}$. Note that two gadgets $T_{xy}$ never overlap each other in $F$ and the resulting graph $F$ is a subgrid. Indeed, if $G$ is embedded in a grid $\mathcal{G}$, $H_{q}$ is embedded in $Exp(\mathcal{G},2q)$ and $F$ is embedded in $Exp(\mathcal{G},14q)$.

By construction we have $|V^{F}|=|V^{\widetilde{H}_{q}}|+13|E^{\widetilde{H}_{q}}|+3|E|$ and $|E^{F}|=15|E^{\widetilde{H}_{q}}|+3|E|$.

Using Relation 4, we deduce: