Hubbry Logo
Submodular set functionSubmodular set functionMain
Open search
Submodular set function
Community hub
Submodular set function
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Submodular set function
Submodular set function
from Wikipedia

In mathematics, a submodular set function (also known as a submodular function) is a set function that, informally, describes the relationship between a set of inputs and an output, where adding more of one input has a decreasing additional benefit (diminishing returns). The natural diminishing returns property which makes them suitable for many applications, including approximation algorithms, game theory (as functions modeling user preferences) and electrical networks. Recently, submodular functions have also found utility in several real world problems in machine learning and artificial intelligence, including automatic summarization, multi-document summarization, feature selection, active learning, sensor placement, image collection summarization and many other domains.[1][2][3][4]

Definition

[edit]

If is a finite set, a submodular function is a set function , where denotes the power set of , which satisfies one of the following equivalent conditions.[5]

  1. For every with and every we have that .
  2. For every we have that .
  3. For every and such that we have that , or equivalently, .

A nonnegative submodular function is also a subadditive function, but a subadditive function need not be submodular. If is not assumed finite, then the above conditions are not equivalent. In particular a function defined by if is finite and if is infinite satisfies the first condition above, but the second condition fails when and are infinite sets with finite intersection.

Types and examples of submodular functions

[edit]

Monotone

[edit]

A set function is monotone if for every we have that . Examples of monotone submodular functions include:

Linear (Modular) functions
Any function of the form is called a linear function. Additionally if then f is monotone.
Budget-additive functions
Any function of the form for each and is called budget additive.[6]
Coverage functions
Let be a collection of subsets of some ground set . The function for is called a coverage function. This can be generalized by adding non-negative weights to the elements.
Entropy
Let be a set of random variables. Then for any we have that is a submodular function, where is the entropy of the set of random variables , a fact known as Shannon's inequality.[7] Further inequalities for the entropy function are known to hold, see entropic vector.
Matroid rank functions
Let be the ground set on which a matroid is defined. Then the rank function of the matroid is a submodular function.[8]

Non-monotone

[edit]

A submodular function that is not monotone is called non-monotone. In particular, a function is called non-monotone if it has the property that adding more elements to a set can decrease the value of the function. More formally, the function is non-monotone if there are sets in its domain s.t. and .

Symmetric

[edit]

A non-monotone submodular function is called symmetric if for every we have that . Examples of symmetric non-monotone submodular functions include:

Graph cuts
Let be the vertices of a graph. For any set of vertices let denote the number of edges such that and . This can be generalized by adding non-negative weights to the edges.
Mutual information
Let be a set of random variables. Then for any we have that is a submodular function, where is the mutual information.

Asymmetric

[edit]

A non-monotone submodular function which is not symmetric is called asymmetric.

Directed cuts
Let be the vertices of a directed graph. For any set of vertices let denote the number of edges such that and . This can be generalized by adding non-negative weights to the directed edges.

Continuous extensions of submodular set functions

[edit]

Often, given a submodular set function that describes the values of various sets, we need to compute the values of fractional sets. For example: we know that the value of receiving house A and house B is V, and we want to know the value of receiving 40% of house A and 60% of house B. To this end, we need a continuous extension of the submodular set function.

Formally, a set function with can be represented as a function on , by associating each with a binary vector such that when , and otherwise. A continuous extension of is a continuous function , that matches the value of on , i.e. .

Several kinds of continuous extensions of submodular functions are commonly used, which are described below.

Lovász extension

[edit]

This extension is named after mathematician László Lovász.[9] Consider any vector such that each . Then the Lovász extension is defined as

where the expectation is over chosen from the uniform distribution on the interval . The Lovász extension is a convex function if and only if is a submodular function.

Multilinear extension

[edit]

Consider any vector such that each . Then the multilinear extension is defined as [10][11].

Intuitively, xi represents the probability that item i is chosen for the set. For every set S, the two inner products represent the probability that the chosen set is exactly S. Therefore, the sum represents the expected value of f for the set formed by choosing each item i at random with probability xi, independently of the other items.

Convex closure

[edit]

Consider any vector such that each . Then the convex closure is defined as .

The convex closure of any set function is convex over .

Concave closure

[edit]

Consider any vector such that each . Then the concave closure is defined as .

Relations between continuous extensions

[edit]

For the extensions discussed above, it can be shown that when is submodular.[12]

Properties

[edit]
  1. The class of submodular functions is closed under non-negative linear combinations. Consider any submodular function and non-negative numbers . Then the function defined by is submodular.
  2. For any submodular function , the function defined by is submodular.
  3. The function , where is a real number, is submodular whenever is monotone submodular. More generally, is submodular, for any non decreasing concave function .
  4. Consider a random process where a set is chosen with each element in being included in independently with probability . Then the following inequality is true where is the empty set. More generally consider the following random process where a set is constructed as follows. For each of construct by including each element in independently into with probability . Furthermore let . Then the following inequality is true .[citation needed]

Optimization problems

[edit]

Submodular functions have properties which are very similar to convex and concave functions. For this reason, an optimization problem which concerns optimizing a convex or concave function can also be described as the problem of maximizing or minimizing a submodular function subject to some constraints.

Submodular set function minimization

[edit]

The hardness of minimizing a submodular set function depends on constraints imposed on the problem.

  1. The unconstrained problem of minimizing a submodular function is computable in polynomial time,[13][14] and even in strongly-polynomial time.[15][16] Computing the minimum cut in a graph is a special case of this minimization problem.
  2. The problem of minimizing a submodular function with a cardinality lower bound is NP-hard, with polynomial factor lower bounds on the approximation factor.[17][18]

Submodular set function maximization

[edit]

Unlike the case of minimization, maximizing a generic submodular function is NP-hard even in the unconstrained setting. Thus, most of the works in this field are concerned with polynomial-time approximation algorithms, including greedy algorithms or local search algorithms.

  1. The problem of maximizing a non-negative submodular function admits a 1/2 approximation algorithm.[19][20] Computing the maximum cut of a graph is a special case of this problem.
  2. The problem of maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a cardinality constraint admits a approximation algorithm.[21][22] The maximum coverage problem is a special case of this problem.
  3. The problem of maximizing a monotone submodular function subject to a matroid constraint (which subsumes the case above) also admits a approximation algorithm.[23][24][25]

Many of these algorithms can be unified within a semi-differential based framework of algorithms.[18]

[edit]

Apart from submodular minimization and maximization, there are several other natural optimization problems related to submodular functions.

  1. Minimizing the difference between two submodular functions[26] is not only NP hard, but also inapproximable.[27]
  2. Minimization/maximization of a submodular function subject to a submodular level set constraint (also known as submodular optimization subject to submodular cover or submodular knapsack constraint) admits bounded approximation guarantees.[28]
  3. Partitioning data based on a submodular function to maximize the average welfare is known as the submodular welfare problem, which also admits bounded approximation guarantees (see welfare maximization).

Applications

[edit]

Submodular functions naturally occur in several real world applications, in economics, game theory, machine learning and computer vision.[4][29] Owing to the diminishing returns property, submodular functions naturally model costs of items, since there is often a larger discount, with an increase in the items one buys. Submodular functions model notions of complexity, similarity and cooperation when they appear in minimization problems. In maximization problems, on the other hand, they model notions of diversity, information and coverage.

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ H. Lin and J. Bilmes, A Class of Submodular Functions for Document Summarization, ACL-2011.
  2. ^ S. Tschiatschek, R. Iyer, H. Wei and J. Bilmes, Learning Mixtures of Submodular Functions for Image Collection Summarization, NIPS-2014.
  3. ^ A. Krause and C. Guestrin, Near-optimal nonmyopic value of information in graphical models, UAI-2005.
  4. ^ a b A. Krause and C. Guestrin, Beyond Convexity: Submodularity in Machine Learning, Tutorial at ICML-2008
  5. ^ (Schrijver 2003, §44, p. 766)
  6. ^ Buchbinder, Niv; Feldman, Moran (2018). "Submodular Functions Maximization Problems". In Gonzalez, Teofilo F. (ed.). Handbook of Approximation Algorithms and Metaheuristics, Second Edition: Methodologies and Traditional Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC. doi:10.1201/9781351236423. ISBN 9781351236423.
  7. ^ "Information Processing and Learning" (PDF). cmu.
  8. ^ Fujishige (2005) p.22
  9. ^ Lovász, L. (1983). "Submodular functions and convexity". Mathematical Programming the State of the Art. pp. 235–257. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-68874-4_10. ISBN 978-3-642-68876-8. S2CID 117358746.
  10. ^ Vondrak, Jan (2008-05-17). "Optimal approximation for the submodular welfare problem in the value oracle model". Proceedings of the fortieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. STOC '08. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 67–74. doi:10.1145/1374376.1374389. ISBN 978-1-60558-047-0. S2CID 170510.
  11. ^ Calinescu, Gruia; Chekuri, Chandra; Pál, Martin; Vondrák, Jan (January 2011). "Maximizing a Monotone Submodular Function Subject to a Matroid Constraint". SIAM Journal on Computing. 40 (6): 1740–1766. doi:10.1137/080733991. ISSN 0097-5397.
  12. ^ Vondrák, Jan. "Polyhedral techniques in combinatorial optimization: Lecture 17" (PDF).
  13. ^ Grötschel, M.; Lovasz, L.; Schrijver, A. (1981). "The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization". Combinatorica. 1 (2): 169–197. doi:10.1007/BF02579273. hdl:10068/182482. S2CID 43787103.
  14. ^ Cunningham, W. H. (1985). "On submodular function minimization". Combinatorica. 5 (3): 185–192. doi:10.1007/BF02579361. S2CID 33192360.
  15. ^ Iwata, S.; Fleischer, L.; Fujishige, S. (2001). "A combinatorial strongly polynomial algorithm for minimizing submodular functions". J. ACM. 48 (4): 761–777. doi:10.1145/502090.502096. S2CID 888513.
  16. ^ Schrijver, A. (2000). "A combinatorial algorithm minimizing submodular functions in strongly polynomial time". J. Combin. Theory Ser. B. 80 (2): 346–355. doi:10.1006/jctb.2000.1989.
  17. ^ Z. Svitkina and L. Fleischer, Submodular approximation: Sampling-based algorithms and lower bounds, SIAM Journal on Computing (2011).
  18. ^ a b R. Iyer, S. Jegelka and J. Bilmes, Fast Semidifferential based submodular function optimization, Proc. ICML (2013).
  19. ^ U. Feige, V. Mirrokni and J. Vondrák, Maximizing non-monotone submodular functions, Proc. of 48th FOCS (2007), pp. 461–471.
  20. ^ N. Buchbinder, M. Feldman, J. Naor and R. Schwartz, A tight linear time (1/2)-approximation for unconstrained submodular maximization, Proc. of 53rd FOCS (2012), pp. 649-658.
  21. ^ Nemhauser, George; Wolsey, L. A.; Fisher, M. L. (1978). "An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions I". Mathematical Programming. 14 (14): 265–294. doi:10.1007/BF01588971. S2CID 206800425.
  22. ^ Williamson, David P. "Bridging Continuous and Discrete Optimization: Lecture 23" (PDF).
  23. ^ G. Calinescu, C. Chekuri, M. Pál and J. Vondrák, Maximizing a submodular set function subject to a matroid constraint, SIAM J. Comp. 40:6 (2011), 1740-1766.
  24. ^ M. Feldman, J. Naor and R. Schwartz, A unified continuous greedy algorithm for submodular maximization, Proc. of 52nd FOCS (2011).
  25. ^ Y. Filmus, J. Ward, A tight combinatorial algorithm for submodular maximization subject to a matroid constraint, Proc. of 53rd FOCS (2012), pp. 659-668.
  26. ^ M. Narasimhan and J. Bilmes, A submodular-supermodular procedure with applications to discriminative structure learning, In Proc. UAI (2005).
  27. ^ R. Iyer and J. Bilmes, Algorithms for Approximate Minimization of the Difference between Submodular Functions, In Proc. UAI (2012).
  28. ^ R. Iyer and J. Bilmes, Submodular Optimization Subject to Submodular Cover and Submodular Knapsack Constraints, In Advances of NIPS (2013).
  29. ^ J. Bilmes, Submodularity in Machine Learning Applications, Tutorial at AAAI-2015.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A submodular set function is a real-valued function f:2VRf: 2^V \to \mathbb{R} defined on the power set of a finite ground set VV, satisfying the submodularity condition f(A)+f(B)f(AB)+f(AB)f(A) + f(B) \geq f(A \cup B) + f(A \cap B) for all subsets A,BVA, B \subseteq V. This property equivalently captures diminishing marginal returns, where the marginal gain of adding an element ee to a set SS is at least as large as adding it to any superset TST \supseteq S, formally f(S{e})f(S)f(T{e})f(T)f(S \cup \{e\}) - f(S) \geq f(T \cup \{e\}) - f(T) for STVS \subseteq T \subseteq V and eTe \notin T. Submodular functions serve as discrete analogs to convex functions in , enabling efficient algorithms for problems exhibiting decreasing incremental benefits. Submodular functions are often studied under additional assumptions, such as monotonicity, where f(A)f(B)f(A) \leq f(B) for all ABVA \subseteq B \subseteq V, which models non-decreasing utilities like coverage or rank functions. Common examples include the rank function of , which measures the size of the largest independent set in a subset and is both monotone and submodular; the coverage function f(S)=iSAif(S) = |\cup_{i \in S} A_i| for sets AiUA_i \subseteq U; and graph cut functions f(S)=eδ(S)wef(S) = \sum_{e \in \delta(S)} w_e, where δ(S)\delta(S) is the cut defined by partition (S,VS)(S, V \setminus S) with non-negative edge weights wew_e. Non-monotone cases arise in symmetric functions or certain probabilistic models. In , submodular functions underpin problems like maximum coverage, submodular welfare, and min-cut maximization, where the achieves a (11/e)(1 - 1/e)- for monotone submodular maximization under cardinality constraints, as established by Nemhauser, Wolsey, and Fisher in 1978. For constraints, extensions like the continuous greedy algorithm yield the same approximation guarantee. Minimization of submodular functions, even non-monotone, can be solved exactly in polynomial time using algorithms based on methods or combinatorial techniques developed by Grötschel, Lovász, and Schrijver in the 1980s. Applications extend to and , where submodularity models tasks with , such as in graphical models, data summarization, clustering, and sensor placement. In , they appear in combinatorial auctions and welfare maximization under gross substitutes conditions. Recent research explores learnability, revealing that submodular functions can be approximated from samples under product distributions with constant factors, though general cases face Ω~(n1/3)\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/3}) lower bounds on . These structural insights highlight both the tractability and inherent complexity of submodular optimization.

Definition and Fundamentals

Formal Definition

A submodular set function is defined as a function f:2VRf: 2^V \to \mathbb{R}, where VV is a finite ground set and 2V2^V denotes the power set of VV, consisting of all of VV. This maps every possible subset of VV to a , providing a value associated with each collection of elements from the ground set. The core property of submodularity is captured by the inequality: for all subsets A,BVA, B \subseteq V, f(A)+f(B)f(AB)+f(AB).f(A) + f(B) \geq f(A \cup B) + f(A \cap B). This condition encodes a form of discrete convexity, analogous to convexity in . Submodularity holds regardless of whether the function is normalized such that f()=0f(\emptyset) = 0, though this normalization is commonly assumed in applications to simplify analyses and ensure the contributes no value. Boundedness assumptions, such as non-negativity or upper bounds on f(V)f(V), are sometimes imposed for optimization contexts but are not required for the basic definition. Although the definition can be extended formally to infinite ground sets VV by considering set algebras closed under finite unions and intersections, finiteness of VV is typically assumed because key structural properties, like monotonic decompositions into simpler functions, may fail otherwise; for instance, certain bounded submodular functions on infinite domains admit no universal decomposition with finite support. Intuitively, submodularity reflects diminishing returns: the marginal benefit of adding an element to a set decreases as the set grows larger. Monotonicity, requiring f(A)f(B)f(A) \leq f(B) whenever ABA \subseteq B, is an orthogonal condition that complements submodularity in many settings.

Equivalent Formulations

One equivalent of submodularity emphasizes the diminishing marginal returns of the function. Specifically, a set function f:2VRf: 2^V \to \mathbb{R} defined on a finite ground set VV is submodular if, for all ABVA \subseteq B \subseteq V and eVBe \in V \setminus B, the marginal gain of adding element ee to set AA is at least as large as the marginal gain of adding it to set BB: Δ(eA):=f(A{e})f(A)f(B{e})f(B)=:Δ(eB).\Delta(e \mid A) := f(A \cup \{e\}) - f(A) \geq f(B \cup \{e\}) - f(B) =: \Delta(e \mid B). This captures the intuitive notion that the benefit of incorporating an additional element decreases as the set grows larger. This marginal gain formulation is equivalent to the standard set inequality definition f(A)+f(B)f(AB)+f(AB)f(A) + f(B) \geq f(A \cup B) + f(A \cap B) for all A,BVA, B \subseteq V. The equivalence follows from standard arguments, such as verifying the inequality over the symmetric difference of AA and BB, as detailed in references on submodular function theory. For the direction from set inequality to marginal gains, fix ABVA \subseteq B \subseteq V and eBe \notin B. Then f(A{e})+f(B)f((A{e})B)+f((A{e})B)=f(A)+f(B{e})f(A \cup \{e\}) + f(B) \geq f((A \cup \{e\}) \cap B) + f((A \cup \{e\}) \cup B) = f(A) + f(B \cup \{e\}), rearranging yields the desired marginal inequality. The set inequality itself provides an inclusion-exclusion based characterization of submodularity, analogous to the principle in measure theory where the sum of function values over intersecting sets exceeds the values over their union and intersection. This formulation f(AB)+f(AB)f(A)+f(B)f(A \cap B) + f(A \cup B) \leq f(A) + f(B) directly mirrors the discrete version of inclusion-exclusion and applies to any finite ground set VV. Submodularity also admits a duality with supermodularity. A function g:2VRg: 2^V \to \mathbb{R} is supermodular if it satisfies the reverse inequality g(A)+g(B)g(AB)+g(AB)g(A) + g(B) \leq g(A \cap B) + g(A \cup B) for all A,BVA, B \subseteq V, corresponding to increasing marginal returns. If ff is submodular on the finite set VV, then the transformed function g(S)=f(VS)g(S) = -f(V \setminus S) is supermodular. To verify, substitute into the supermodularity condition: the reverse set inequality for gg reduces to the submodularity inequality for ff after accounting for the negation and complementation, as V(AB)=(VA)(VB)V \setminus (A \cap B) = (V \setminus A) \cup (V \setminus B) and V(AB)=(VA)(VB)V \setminus (A \cup B) = (V \setminus A) \cap (V \setminus B). This duality preserves the finite ground set structure and is useful for analyzing optimization problems via complementary perspectives.

Properties

Algebraic Properties

Submodular set functions exhibit several important algebraic properties that ensure the class is closed under certain operations and transformations, facilitating their use in and related fields. One fundamental property is closure under non-negative linear combinations: if f1,f2,,fkf_1, f_2, \dots, f_k are submodular functions defined on the power set of a ground set VV, and α1,α2,,αk0\alpha_1, \alpha_2, \dots, \alpha_k \geq 0 are non-negative scalars, then the function f=i=1kαifif = \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i f_i is also submodular. This closure follows directly from the submodularity inequality, as the weighted sum preserves the condition for all sets A,BVA, B \subseteq V. Another key algebraic property is preservation under restriction to subsets. For a submodular function f:2VRf: 2^V \to \mathbb{R} and any subset UVU \subseteq V, the restriction of ff to the power set 2U2^U, defined by fU(S)=f(S)f_U(S) = f(S) for SUS \subseteq U, remains submodular. This property ensures that submodularity is inherited by subsystems or induced subproblems, which is useful in decomposing larger optimization instances. Submodularity can also interact with other function classes through composition, though preservation requires specific conditions. If ϕ:RR\phi: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is a non-decreasing and ff is submodular, the composition ϕf\phi \circ f preserves submodularity, provided ff takes values in the domain of ϕ\phi. These compositions arise in applications like transforming coverage functions in , but the exact conditions depend on the monotonicity and the domain structure. The Lovász extension provides a bridge to continuous domains by constructing a piecewise linear convex function f^:RVR\hat{f}: \mathbb{R}^V \to \mathbb{R} that extends ff while preserving key algebraic features, such as agreement on indicator vectors of sets (i.e., f^(1S)=f(S)\hat{f}(\mathbf{1}_S) = f(S) for SVS \subseteq V). This extension is particularly valuable as it linearizes the discrete structure for convex optimization techniques, with the submodularity of ff implying the convexity of f^\hat{f}.

Variational Properties

Submodularity implies a form of along increasing chains of sets. Specifically, for a chain of sets ∅ = A_0 \subset A_1 \subset \dots \subset A_n = V, the marginal gains δ_i = f(A_i) - f(A_{i-1}) are nonincreasing, i.e., δ_1 ≥ δ_2 ≥ \dots ≥ δ_n, and their sum equals f(V) - f(∅). This property arises directly from the submodular inequality f(A ∪ {e}) - f(A) ≥ f(B ∪ {e}) - f(B) for A ⊆ B and e ∉ B, ensuring that additions to larger sets yield smaller increments. Monotonicity interacts with submodularity to refine these variational behaviors. A submodular function f is monotone if f(A) ≤ f(B) whenever A ⊆ B, guaranteeing nonnegative marginal gains along chains and an overall nondecreasing profile. A weaker variant, weakly monotone submodularity, holds if there exists a constant c ≥ 0 such that f(A) ≤ f(B) + c for all A ⊆ B, allowing mild decreases but bounding the deviation from monotonicity; this is useful in non-monotone settings where strict increases are not required. Random order expectation properties provide probabilistic variational insights for submodular functions. For a monotone submodular f, the E[f(π(1..k))], where π is a uniform of the ground set V and π(1..k) denotes its prefix of size k, captures the average performance under stochastic ordering and equals the multilinear extension evaluated at the uniform vector (k/|V|, ..., k/|V|). This expectation is concave in k and facilitates analysis in streaming or online algorithms, where it bounds the progress toward f(V). Submodularity's variational structure connects to matroids through greedy algorithm guarantees. Conceptually, when maximizing a monotone submodular function over a constraint, the —selecting elements with maximum marginal gain while preserving independence—achieves a (1 - 1/e)- relative to the optimum, leveraging the to ensure each step captures sufficient value. Recent work in has extended these variational properties to contexts. For instance, variational inequalities derived from submodularity underpin formulations for finding sets effective against adversarial responses, with algorithms achieving constant-factor approximations under uncertainty. Similarly, analyses of weakly monotone variants in 2023+ studies highlight their role in non-convex learning problems, such as difference-of-submodular minimization, where bounded decreases enable scalable DC programming decompositions.

Types and Examples

Monotone Submodular Functions

A monotone submodular function is a f:2VRf: 2^V \to \mathbb{R} that satisfies both submodularity, f(A)+f(B)f(AB)+f(AB)f(A) + f(B) \geq f(A \cup B) + f(A \cap B) for all A,BVA, B \subseteq V, and monotonicity, f(A)f(B)f(A) \leq f(B) whenever ABVA \subseteq B \subseteq V. This combination ensures that the function exhibits while consistently non-decreasing as the input set grows, making it particularly useful in modeling coverage or utility gains in . Prominent examples include the set coverage function, defined as f(A)=iASif(A) = \left| \bigcup_{i \in A} S_i \right|
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.