Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms are Still Good: Maximizing Monotone Approximately Submodular Minus Modular Functions

Extracted source text · arXiv 1910.05492

\documentclass[twoside]{article}
\usepackage{ecj,palatino,epsfig,latexsym,natbib}

\usepackage{utopia}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage[fleqn]{amsmath}\allowdisplaybreaks
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{bm}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage[american]{babel}
\mathtoolsset{showonlyrefs,showmanualtags}

\newenvironment{myproof}[1]
{\par\noindent\textbf{Proof of #1.}\ \enspace\ignorespaces\begin{allowdisplaybreaks}}
{\end{allowdisplaybreaks}\hspace{\stretch{1}}$\square$}

\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}


%% do not add any other page- or text-size instruction here

\parskip=0.00in

\begin{document}

\ecjHeader{x}{x}{xxx-xxx}{201X}{Maximizing Monotone Approximately Submodular Minus Modular Functions}{C. Qian}
\title{\bf Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms are Still Good: Maximizing Monotone Approximately Submodular Minus Modular Functions}

\author{\name{\bf Chao Qian} \hfill \addr{qianc@lamda.nju.edu.cn}\\
        \addr{National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China}
}

\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
As evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are general-purpose optimization algorithms, recent theoretical studies have tried to analyze their performance for solving general problem classes, with the goal of providing a general theoretical explanation of the behavior of EAs. Particularly, a simple multi-objective EA, i.e., GSEMO, has been shown to be able to achieve good polynomial-time approximation guarantees for submodular optimization, where the objective function is only required to satisfy some properties but without explicit formulation. Submodular optimization has wide applications in diverse areas, and previous studies have considered the cases where the objective functions are monotone submodular, monotone non-submodular, or non-monotone submodular. To complement this line of research, this paper studies the problem class of maximizing monotone approximately submodular minus modular functions (i.e., $f=g-c$) with a size constraint, where $g$ is a non-negative monotone approximately submodular function and $c$ is a non-negative modular function, resulting in the objective function $f$ being non-monotone non-submodular. We prove that the GSEMO can achieve the best-known polynomial-time approximation guarantee. Empirical studies on the applications of Bayesian experimental design and directed vertex cover show the excellent performance of the GSEMO.
\end{abstract}

\begin{keywords}

Submodular optimization,
multi-objective evolutionary algorithms,
running time analysis,
computational complexity,
empirical study.

\end{keywords}

\section{Introduction}

As a kind of randomized metaheuristic optimization algorithm, evolutionary algorithms (EAs)~\citep{back:96} have been successfully applied to solve sophisticated optimization problems in diverse areas, e.g., data mining~\citep{mukhopadhyay2013survey}, machine learning~\citep{zhou2019evolutionary} and networks~\citep{fenton2019towards}, to name a few. One main advantage of EAs is the general-purpose property, i.e., EAs can be used to optimize any problem where solutions can be represented and evaluated. Meanwhile, the theoretical analysis, particularly running time analysis, of EAs has achieved progress during the past two decades. A lot of theoretical results (e.g.,~\citep{neumann2010bioinspired,auger2011theory}) have been derived, helping us understand the practical behaviors of EAs.

Previous analyses, however, mainly focused on isolated problems, which cannot reflect the general-purpose nature of EAs. To provide a general theoretical explanation of the behavior of EAs, there are some recent efforts~\citep{friedrich2015maximizing,friedrich2018heavy,qian2019maximizing} studying the running time complexity of EAs for solving general classes of submodular optimization problems.

Submodularity~\citep{nemhauser1978analysis} characterizes the diminishing returns property of a set function $f: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, i.e., $\forall X \subseteq Y \subseteq V, v \notin Y: f(X \cup \{v\}) -f(X) \geq f(Y \cup \{v\})-f(Y)$. Submodular optimization has played an important role in many areas such as machine learning, data mining, natural language processing, computer vision, economics and operation research. On one hand, many of their applications involve submodular objective functions, e.g., active learning~\citep{golovin2011adaptive}, influence maximization~\citep{kempe2003maximizing}, document summarization~\citep{lin2011class}, image segmentation~\citep{jegelka2011submodularity} and maximum coverage~\citep{feige1998threshold}. On the other hand, the submodular property allows for polynomial-time approximation algorithms with theoretical guarantees. For example, a celebrated result by~\cite{nemhauser1978analysis} shows that for maximizing monotone submodular functions with a size constraint, the greedy algorithm, which iteratively adds one item with the largest marginal gain, can achieve an approximation ratio of $1-1/e$, which is optimal in general~\citep{nemhauser1978best}. Note that a set function $f: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is monotone if $\forall X \subseteq Y \subseteq V: f(X) \leq f(Y)$, and a size constraint requires the size of a subset to be no larger than a budget $k$.

\cite{friedrich2015maximizing} first proved that for maximizing monotone submodular functions with a size constraint, the GSEMO, a simple multi-objective EA (MOEA) widely used in theoretical analyses, can achieve the optimal approximation ratio, i.e., $1-1/e$, in $O(n^2(\log n +k))$ expected running time, where $n$ is the size of the ground set $V$ and $k$ is the budget. They also considered a more general problem class, i.e., maximizing monotone submodular functions with $m$ matroid constraints. Note that a size constraint is actually a uniform matroid constraint. The (1+1)-EA, a simple single-objective EA with population size 1 and bit-wise mutation only, has been shown to be able to achieve a $(\frac{1}{m+1/p+\epsilon})$-approximation ratio in $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}n^{2p(m+1)+1}m\log n)$ expected running time, where $p\geq 1$ and $\epsilon >0$.

Later,~\cite{qian2019maximizing} studied the problem class of maximizing monotone and approximately submodular functions with a size constraint. That is, the objective function to be maximized is not necessarily submodular, but approximately submodular. Using different notions of approximate submodularity~\citep{krause2010submodular,das2011submodular,horel2016maximization}, they proved that the GSEMO can always achieve the best-known polynomial-time approximation guarantee, previously obtained by the greedy algorithm.

For non-monotone cases,~\cite{friedrich2015maximizing} studied a specific case, i.e., symmetric functions. They proved that for maximizing symmetric submodular functions with $m$ matroid constraints, the GSEMO can achieve a $(\frac{1}{(m+2)(1+\epsilon)})$-approximation ratio in $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}n^{m+6}\log n)$ expected running time.~\cite{qian2019maximizing} considered the problem class of maximizing submodular and approximately monotone functions with a size constraint, and proved that the GSEMO can find a subset $X$ with $f(X) \geq (1-1/e)\cdot (\mathrm{OPT}-k\epsilon)$ in $O(n^2(\log n +k))$ expected running time, where $\mathrm{OPT}$ denotes the optimal function value, and $\epsilon \geq 0$ captures the degree of approximate monotonicity. The general non-monotone case has been studied recently.~\cite{friedrich2018heavy} and~\cite{qian2019maximizing} considered the problem class of maximizing non-monotone submodular functions without constraints.~\cite{friedrich2018heavy} proved that the (1+1)-EA using a heavy-tailed mutation operator can achieve an approximation ratio of $(\frac{1}{3}-\frac{\epsilon}{n})$ in $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}n^3\log\frac{n}{\epsilon}+n^{\beta})$ expected running time, where $\epsilon >0$. The heavy-tailed mutation operator samples $l \in \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ according to a power-law distribution with a parameter $\beta>1$, and then flips $l$ bits of a solution chosen uniformly at random.~\cite{qian2019maximizing} proved that a variant of GSEMO, called GSEMO-C, can also achieve the $(\frac{1}{3}-\frac{\epsilon}{n})$-approximation ratio in $O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}n^4\log n)$ expected running time. The difference between GSEMO and GSEMO-C is that the GSEMO generates a new offspring solution by bit-wise mutation in each iteration, whereas the GSEMO-C generates this new solution (i.e., set) as well as its complement in each iteration.

The above mentioned works, showing the good general approximation ability of EAs, are summarized in Table~\ref{table_runtime}, where each work is categorized according to whether the concerned objective functions satisfy the monotone and submodular property. A natural question is then whether EAs can still achieve good polynomial-time approximation guarantees when the objective functions are neither monotone nor submodular. In this paper, we thus consider the problem class of maximizing monotone approximately submodular minus modular functions with a size constraint, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{eq-problem-1}
\arg\max\nolimits_{X \subseteq V} \quad \big(f(X)=g(X)-c(X)\big) \qquad \text{s.t.} \qquad |X| \leq k,
\end{align}
where $g$ is a non-negative monotone approximately submodular function, and $c$ is a non-negative modular function, i.e., $\forall X \subseteq V: c(X)=\sum_{v\in X} c(\{v\})$. Note that the objective function $f$ is non-submodular, and can be non-monotone and take negative values. It is known that monotone approximately submodular maximization with a size constraint has various applications, such as Bayesian experimental design~\citep{krause2008near}, dictionary selection~\citep{krause2010submodular} and sparse regression~\citep{das2011submodular}. The concerned problem Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem-1}) is a natural extension by encoding a cost for each item.~\cite{harshaw2019submodular} proved that the distorted greedy algorithm can find a subset $X$ with $f(X)=g(X)-c(X) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(X^*) -c(X^*)$, where $X^*$ denotes an optimal solution of Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem-1}), and $\gamma$ is the submodularity ratio of $g$, which measures how close $g$ is to submodularity.

\begin{table*}\centering
\caption{A summary of the works on analyzing the running time of EAs for solving problem classes of submodular optimization, where each work is categorized according to the property of concerned objective functions.}\label{table_runtime}\vspace{1em}
\begin{tabular}{l|l|l}
\hline
& & \\[-8pt]
EAs & submodular & non-submodular  \\[2pt]
\hline
& &  \\[-8pt]
monotone & \citep{friedrich2015maximizing}  &  \citep{qian2019maximizing} \\[2pt]
\hline
& &  \\[-8pt]
\multirow{3}{*}{non-monotone} & \citep{friedrich2015maximizing} & \multirow{3}{*}{This work}\\
&\citep{friedrich2018heavy}&\\
&\citep{qian2019maximizing}&\\[2pt]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

In this paper, we analyze the approximation performance of the GSEMO for solving Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem-1}). We prove that by maximizing a surrogate objective $(1-\gamma/k)^{k-|X|}g(X)-c(X)+(|X|/k)c(V)$ and minimizing the subset size $|X|$ simultaneously, the GSEMO can obtain a subset $X$ with $|X|\leq k$ and $g(X)-c(X) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(X^*) -c(X^*)$ in $O(n^2(\log n+k))$ expected running time. Thus, the bottom right cell of Table~\ref{table_runtime} is filled. Our analysis together with~\citep{friedrich2015maximizing,friedrich2018heavy,qian2019maximizing} show that a simple MOEA, i.e., GSEMO, can achieve good polynomial-time approximation guarantees for diverse submodular optimization problems, disclosing the general-purpose property of EAs.

We also empirically compare the GSEMO with the best existing algorithm, distorted greedy~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}, on the applications of Bayesian experimental design and directed vertex cover. The results show that the GSEMO can always perform better than the distorted greedy algorithm by using a little more running time, and even be both better and faster in some cases.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section~\ref{sec-problem} introduces the concerned problem class. Sections~\ref{sec-algorithm} to~\ref{sec-experiment} present the GSEMO, theoretical analysis and empirical study, respectively. Section~\ref{sec-conlusion} concludes the paper.

\section{Maximizing Monotone Approximately Submodular Minus Modular Functions with a Size Constraint}\label{sec-problem}

Let $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ denote the set of reals and non-negative reals, respectively. Given a ground set $V=\{v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_n\}$ of items, a set function $f:2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is defined on subsets of $V$, and maps any subset to a real value. A set function $f:2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is monotone if $\forall X \subseteq Y \subseteq V: f(X) \leq f(Y)$, implying that the function value will not decrease as a set extends. A set function $f:2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is submodular~\citep{nemhauser1978analysis} if
\begin{align}\label{def-submodular}
\forall X,Y\subseteq V: f(X)+f(Y) \geq f(X\cup Y) +f(X \cap Y);
\end{align}
or equivalently
\begin{align}\label{def-submodular-1}
\forall X \subseteq Y \subseteq V, v \notin Y: f(X \cup \{v\})-f(X) \geq f(Y \cup \{v\}) - f(Y);
\end{align}
or equivalently
\begin{align}\label{def-submodular-2}
\forall X \subseteq Y \subseteq V: f(Y)-f(X) \leq \sum\nolimits_{v \in Y \setminus X} \big(f(X \cup \{v\})-f(X)\big).
\end{align}
Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular}) implies that the sum of the function values of any two sets is at least as large as that of their union and intersection. Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular-1}) intuitively represents the diminishing returns property, i.e., the benefit of adding an item to a set will not increase as the set extends. Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular-2}) implies that the benefit by adding a set of items to a set $X$ is no larger than the combined benefits of adding its individual items to $X$. A set function $f:2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is modular if Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular}), Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular-1}) or Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular-2}) holds with equality. For a modular function $f$, it holds that $\forall X \subseteq V: f(X)=\sum_{v \in X} f(\{v\})$; it is non-negative iff $\forall v \in V: f(\{v\}) \geq 0$.

For a general set function $f:2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, several notions of approximate submodularity~\citep{krause2010submodular,das2011submodular,zhang2016submodular,horel2016maximization,zhou2016causal} have been introduced to measure to what extent $f$ has the submodular property. Among them, the submodularity ratio as presented in Definition~\ref{def-approx-submodular-2} has been used most widely.
\begin{definition}[Submodularity Ratio~\citep{das2011submodular}]\label{def-approx-submodular-2}
Let $f: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a set function. The submodularity ratio of $f$ with respect to a set $X \subseteq V$ and a parameter $l \geq 1$ is
\begin{align}
\gamma_{X,l}(f)=\min_{L \subseteq X, S: |S|\leq l, S \cap L =\emptyset} \frac{\sum_{v \in S} (f(L \cup \{v\})-f(L))}{f(L \cup S)-f(L)}.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
The submodularity ratio is actually defined based on Eq.~(\refeq{def-submodular-2}), and captures how much more $f$ can increase by adding any set $S$ of size at most $l$ to any subset $L$ of $X$, compared with the combined benefits of adding the individual items of $S$ to $L$. For a monotone set function $f$, it holds that (1) $\forall X \subseteq V, l \geq 1: \gamma_{X,l}(f) \in [0,1]$; (2) $f$ is submodular iff $\forall X \subseteq V, l \geq 1: \gamma_{X,l}(f) = 1$. The submodularity ratio has been used to measure the closeness of the objective function to submodularity in diverse non-submodular applications, e.g., sparse regression~\citep{das2011submodular}, low rank optimization~\citep{khanna2017approximation}, sparse support selection~\citep{elenberg2018restricted}, and determinantal function maximization~\citep{qian2018approximation}, where the corresponding lower bounds of $\gamma_{X,l}(f)$ have been derived.

In this paper, we will use a slightly different definition of submodularity ratio as in~\citep{bian2017guarantees,bogunovic2018robust,harshaw2019submodular}, i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{eq-submodular}
\gamma(f)=\min_{X \subseteq Y \subseteq V} \frac{\sum_{v \in Y\setminus X} (f(X \cup \{v\})-f(X))}{f(Y)-f(X)}.
\end{align}
It is easy to see that $\forall X \subseteq V, l \geq 1: \gamma_{X,l}(f) \geq \gamma(f)$. For a monotone set function $f$, it holds that (1) $\gamma(f) \in [0,1]$, and (2) $f$ is submodular iff $\gamma(f) = 1$.

The studied problem class is presented in Definition~\ref{def-Prob}. The goal is to find a subset of size at most $k$ maximizing a given objective function $f$, which is the difference between a non-negative monotone approximately submodular function $g$ and a non-negative modular function $c$.

\begin{definition}[Maximizing Monotone Approximately Submodular Minus Modular Functions with a Size Constraint]\label{def-Prob}
Given a non-negative monotone approximately submodular function $g: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$, a non-negative modular function $c: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$, and a budget $k$, to find a subset $X\subseteq V$ of size at most $k$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq-problem}
\arg \max\nolimits_{X \subseteq V}\quad \big(f(X)=g(X)-c(X)\big)\qquad  \text{s.t.} \qquad |X| \leq k.
\end{align}
\end{definition}

This is a natural extension of the widely studied problem of maximizing monotone approximately submodular functions with a size constraint~\citep{das2018approximate} by considering the cost for each item. Note that the objective function $f=g-c$ is non-submodular, because otherwise $g$ is submodular, making a contradiction. It is easy to see that $f$ can be non-monotone and take negative values. In the following, we will always use $\gamma$ to represent $\gamma(g)$ for short.

A typical application is the problem of Bayesian experimental design with costs. Let $\mathbf{V}=[\bm{v}_1,\bm{v}_2,\ldots,\bm{v}_n] \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n}$ denote a measurement matrix, and $\mathbf{V}_X \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times |X|}$ denote the submatrix of $\mathbf{V}$ with its columns indexed by $X \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. In Bayesian experimental design, the goal is to select measurements $\mathbf{V}_X$ to maximize the quality of parameter estimation.~\cite{krause2008near} considered the Bayesian A-optimality objective function, in order to maximally reduce the variance of the posterior distribution over parameters in linear models, i.e., $\bm{y}_X=\mathbf{V}^{\mathrm{T}}_{X} \bm{\theta}+\bm{\zeta}_{X}$, where $\bm{\theta} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\bm{\zeta}_{X}\in \mathbb{R}^{|X|}$ are the parameter and noise vectors, respectively. Each measurement $\bm{v}_i$ corresponds to one experiment, which can be performed to obtain a noisy linear observation, but also introduces a cost $c_i$. To have a low cost,~\cite{harshaw2019submodular} considered the problem of Bayesian experimental design with costs, presented as follows.

\begin{definition}[Bayesian Experimental Design with Costs~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}]\label{def-bayesian}
Given a measurement matrix $\mathbf{V}=[\bm{v}_1,\bm{v}_2,\ldots,\bm{v}_n] \in \mathbb{R}^{d\times n}$, a linear model $\bm{y}_X=\mathbf{V}^{\mathrm{T}}_{X} \bm{\theta}+\bm{\zeta}_{X}$, costs $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_n$, and a budget $k$, where $\bm{\theta}$ has a Gaussian prior distribution $\bm{\theta} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\mathbf{\Sigma})$, the Gaussian i.i.d. noise $\bm{\zeta}_{X} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2\mathbf{I}_{|X|})$, and $\mathbf{I}_{|X|}$ denotes the identity matrix of size $|X|$, to find a submatrix $\mathbf{V}_{X}$ of at most $k$ columns such that
\begin{align}
\arg\max\nolimits_{X \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,n\}}\quad \big(f(X)=g(X)-c(X)\big)\qquad \text{s.t.}\qquad |X|\leq k,
\end{align}
where $g(X)={\rm tr}(\mathbf{\Sigma})-{\rm tr}((\mathbf{\Sigma}^{-1}+\sigma^{-2}\mathbf{V}_X\mathbf{V}^{\mathrm{T}}_X)^{-1})$ is the Bayesian A-optimality function, $\rm{tr}(\cdot)$ denotes the trace of a matrix, and $c(X)=\sum_{i \in X}c_i$ is the cost function.
\end{definition}

It has been shown~\citep{harshaw2019submodular} that $g$ is non-negative, monotone, and approximately submodular with $\gamma \geq (1+(s^2/\sigma^2)\lambda_{\max}(\mathbf{\Sigma}))^{-1}$, where $s=\max_{i \in \{1,2,\ldots,n\}} \|\bm{v}_i\|_2$, and $\lambda_{\max}(\cdot)$ denotes the largest eigenvalue of a square matrix.

In our empirical study, we will examine this application as well as another one with $g$ being submodular, i.e., directed vertex cover with costs presented as follows.

\begin{definition}[Directed Vertex Cover with Costs~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}]\label{def-vertex}
Given a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ with non-negative vertex weights $w: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ and costs $c: V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$, and a budget $k$, to find a subset $X \subseteq V$ of at most $k$ vertices such that
\begin{align}
\arg\max\nolimits_{X \subseteq V}\quad \big(f(X)=g(X)-c(X)\big)\qquad \text{s.t.}\qquad |X|\leq k,
\end{align}
where $g(X)=\sum_{v \in N(X) \cup X} w(v)$, $N(X)=\{(u,v) \in E \mid u \in X\}$ is the set of vertices pointed to by $X$, and $c(X)=\sum_{v \in X} c(v)$.
\end{definition}

It is easy to verify that $g$ is non-negative, monotone and submodular, i.e., $\gamma=1$. Note that this problem is actually the dual norm of vertex cover, but we still use this name for consistency with~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}.

For submodular optimization, it is well known that the greedy algorithm, which iteratively adds one item with the largest marginal gain on $f$, is a good approximation solver in many cases.~\cite{harshaw2019submodular}, however, showed that the greedy algorithm fails to obtain an approximation guarantee for the concerned problem Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem}), and thus, proposed the distorted greedy algorithm as presented in Algorithm~\ref{alg:dg}. In the $i$-th iteration, rather than maximizing the marginal gain on $f$, i.e., $f(X_i \cup \{v\})-f(X_i)=g(X_i \cup \{v\})-c(X_i \cup \{v\})-(g(X_i)-c(X_i))=(g(X_i \cup \{v\})-g(X_i))-c(\{v\})$, it maximizes a distorted one, $\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-(i+1)}(g(X_i \cup \{v\})-g(X_i))-c(\{v\})$, which gradually increases the importance of $g$. It has been proved that the distorted greedy algorithm outputs a subset $X$ with $f(X)=g(X)-c(X) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(X^*)-c(X^*)$, where $X^*$ denotes an optimal solution of Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem}).

\begin{algorithm}[h]\caption{Distorted Greedy Algorithm}
\label{alg:dg}
\textbf{Input}: monotone approximately submodular $g: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ with the submodularity ratio $\gamma$, modular $c: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$, and budget $k$\\
%\textbf{Output}: a subset of $V$ with at most $k$ items\\
\textbf{Process}:
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let $X_0=\emptyset$;
\STATE \textbf{for} $i=0$ \textbf{to} $k-1$ \textbf{do}
\STATE \quad $v_i \leftarrow \arg\max_{v \in V} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-(i+1)}(g(X_i \cup \{v\})-g(X_i))-c(\{v\})$;
\STATE \quad \textbf{if} {$\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-(i+1)}(g(X_i \cup \{v_i\})-g(X_i))-c(\{v_i\})>0$} \,\textbf{then}
\STATE \qquad $X_{i+1} \leftarrow X_{i} \cup \{v_i\}$
\STATE \quad \textbf{else}
\STATE \qquad $X_{i+1} \leftarrow X_{i}$
\STATE \quad \textbf{end if}
\STATE \textbf{end for}
\STATE \textbf{return} $X_k$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

For acceleration,~\cite{harshaw2019submodular} further proposed the stochastic distorted greedy algorithm by adopting the random sampling technique~\citep{Baharan.aaai15}. As presented in Algorithm~\ref{alg:sdg}, in each iteration, it selects an item from a random sample of size $\lceil\frac{n}{k}\log(\frac{1}{\epsilon})\rceil$, instead of the whole set $V$. Thus, the running time (counted by the number of function evaluations) is reduced from $O(kn)$ to $O(n \log \frac{1}{\epsilon})$, while the output subset $X$ can keep an approximation guarantee as $\mathbb{E}(g(X)-c(X)) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma}-\epsilon)\cdot g(X^*)-c(X^*)$, where $\mathbb{E}(\cdot)$ denotes the expectation of a random variable.

\begin{algorithm}[t]\caption{Stochastic Distorted Greedy Algorithm}
\label{alg:sdg}
\textbf{Input}: monotone approximately submodular $g: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$ with the submodularity ratio $\gamma$, modular $c: 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$, budget $k$, and $\epsilon>0$\\
%\textbf{Output}: a subset of $V$ with at most $k$ items\\
\textbf{Process}:
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Let $X_0=\emptyset$;
\STATE \textbf{for} $i=0$ \textbf{to} $k-1$ \textbf{do}
\STATE \quad $V_i \leftarrow \lceil\frac{n}{k}\log(\frac{1}{\epsilon})\rceil$ items uniformly sampled from $V$ with replacement;
\STATE \quad $v_i \leftarrow \arg\max_{v \in V_i} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-(i+1)}(g(X_i \cup \{v\})-g(X_i))-c(\{v\})$;
\STATE \quad \textbf{if} {$\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-(i+1)}(g(X_i \cup \{v_i\})-g(X_i))-c(\{v_i\})>0$} \,\textbf{then}
\STATE \qquad $X_{i+1} \leftarrow X_{i} \cup \{v_i\}$
\STATE \quad \textbf{else}
\STATE \qquad $X_{i+1} \leftarrow X_{i}$
\STATE \quad \textbf{end if}
\STATE \textbf{end for}
\STATE \textbf{return} $X_k$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

These two algorithms require the submodularity ratio $\gamma$ of the function $g$. In cases where the exact value of $\gamma$ is unknown, lower bounds of $\gamma$ can be used, and the approximation guarantees change accordingly, i.e., $\gamma$ is replaced by its lower bound. Note that the value oracle model is assumed, i.e., for a subset $X$, an algorithm can query an oracle to obtain its function value.

\section{Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms}\label{sec-algorithm}

To examine the approximation performance of EAs optimizing the problem class in Definition~\ref{def-Prob}, we consider the GSEMO, a simple MOEA widely used in previous theoretical analyses~\citep{laumanns2004running,friedrich2010approximating,neumann2011computing,qian2013analysis}. As presented in Algorithm~\ref{algo:GSEMO}, the GSEMO is used for maximizing multiple pseudo-Boolean objective functions simultaneously. Note that a subset $X$ of $V$ can be represented by a Boolean vector $\bm{x} \in \{0,1\}^n$, where the $i$-th bit $x_i=1$ if $v_i \in X$, otherwise $x_i=0$. Thus, a pseudo-Boolean function $f: \{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ naturally characterizes a set function $f: 2^{V} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. In the following, $\bm{x}\in \{0,1\}^n$ and its corresponding subset will not be distinguished for notational convenience.

Different from the scenario of single-objective optimization, solutions may be incomparable in multi-objective maximization $\max\, (f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$, due to the conflicting of objectives. The \emph{domination}-based comparison is usually adopted. For two solutions $\bm x$ and $\bm{x}'$, $\bm{x}$ \emph{weakly dominates} $\bm{x}'$ (i.e., $\bm{x}$ is \emph{better} than $\bm{x}'$, denoted by $\bm{x} \succeq \bm{x}'$) if $\forall 1 \leq i \leq m: f_i(\bm{x}) \geq f_i(\bm{x}')$; ${\bm{x}}$ \emph{dominates} $\bm{x}'$ (i.e., $\bm{x}$ is \emph{strictly better} than $\bm{x}'$, denoted by $\bm{x} \succ \bm{x}'$) if ${\bm{x}} \succeq \bm{x}' \wedge \exists i: f_i(\bm{x}) > f_i(\bm{x}')$; $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{x}'$ are \emph{incomparable} if neither $\bm{x} \succeq \bm{x}'$ nor $\bm{x}' \succeq \bm{x}$.

As presented in Algorithm~\ref{algo:GSEMO}, the GSEMO starts from a random initial solution (lines~1-2), and iteratively improves the quality of solutions in the population $P$ (lines~3-9). In each iteration, a parent solution $\bm{x}$ is selected from $P$ uniformly at random (line~4), and used to generate an offspring solution $\bm{x}'$ by bit-wise mutation (line~5), which flips each bit of $\bm{x}$ independently with probability $1/n$. The offspring solution $\bm{x}'$ is then used to update the population $P$ (lines~6-8). If $\bm{x}'$ is not dominated by any parent solution in $P$ (line~6), it will be included into $P$, and meanwhile those parent solutions weakly dominated by $\bm{x}'$ will be deleted (line~7). By this updating procedure, the solutions contained in the population $P$ are always incomparable.

To employ the GSEMO, the problem Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem}) is transformed into a bi-objective maximization problem
\begin{align}\label{eq-bi-problem}
&\arg\max\nolimits_{\bm{x} \in \{0,1\}^n} \quad  (f_1(\bm{x}),f_2(\bm{x})),\vspace{0.5em}\\
&\text{where}\quad\begin{cases}
f_1(\bm{x}) = (1-\frac{\gamma}{k})^{k-|\bm{x}|}g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x})+\frac{|\bm{x}|}{k}c(\bm{1}),\\
f_2(\bm x) = -|\bm{x}|.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Note that $\bm{1}$ denotes the all-1s vector (i.e., the whole set $V$), implying that $c(\bm{1})=c(V)=\sum_{v \in V} c(\{v\})$ is a constant. Thus, the GSEMO is to maximize the distorted objective function $f_1$ and minimize the subset size $|\bm{x}|=\sum^n_{i=1}x_i$ simultaneously. The setting of $f_1$ is inspired by the distorted greedy algorithm (i.e., Algorithm~\ref{alg:dg}). When the GSEMO terminates, the best solution w.r.t. the original single-objective constrained problem Eq.~(\refeq{eq-problem}) will be selected from the resulting population $P$ as the final solution; that is, the solution with the largest $f=g-c$ value satisfying the size constraint in $P$ (i.e., $\arg\max_{\bm{x} \in P, |\bm{x}|\leq k} f(\bm{x})$) will be returned.

Note that bi-objective reformulation here is an intermediate process for solving single-objective constrained optimization problems, which has been shown helpful in several cases~\citep{neumann2006minimum,friedrich2010approximating,neumann2011computing,qian.ijcai15}. What we focus on is still the quality of the best solution w.r.t. the original single-objective problem, in the population found by the GSEMO, rather than the quality of the population w.r.t. the reformulated bi-objective problem. Thus, the running time of the GSEMO is measured by the number of function evaluations until the best solution w.r.t. the original single-objective problem in the population reaches some approximation guarantee for the first time.

\begin{algorithm}[t]\caption{GSEMO Algorithm}\label{algo:GSEMO}
\textbf{Input}: $m$ pseudo-Boolean functions $f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m$, where $f_i: \{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$\\
\textbf{Process}:
    \begin{algorithmic}[1]
    \STATE Choose $\bm{x} \in \{0,1\}^n$ uniformly at random;
    \STATE $P \gets \{\bm x\}$;
    \STATE \textbf{repeat}
    \STATE \quad Choose $\bm x$ from $P$ uniformly at random;
    \STATE \quad Create $\bm{x}'$ by flipping each bit of $\bm x$ with probability $1/n$;
    \STATE \quad \textbf{if} \, {$\nexists \bm z \in P$ such that $\bm z \succ \bm {x}'$} \,\textbf{then}
    \STATE \qquad $P \gets (P \setminus \{\bm z \in P \mid \bm {x}' \succeq \bm z\}) \cup \{\bm {x}'\}$
    \STATE \quad \textbf{end if}
    \STATE \textbf{until} some criterion is met
    \end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

\section{Theoretical Analysis}\label{sec-theory}

In this section, we prove the approximation guarantee of the GSEMO in Theorem~\ref{theo-main}, showing that the returned solution can obtain at least $(1-e^{-\gamma})$ as much $g$ as an optimal solution by paying the same cost. This reaches the best known guarantee, obtained by the distorted greedy algorithm~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}. As in previous analyses for non-monotone submodular optimization, e.g.,~\citep{buchbinder2014submodular,friedrich2018greedy}, we may assume that there is a set $D$ of $k$ ``dummy" items whose marginal contribution to any set is 0, i.e., $\forall X \subseteq V: g(X)=g(X\setminus D) \wedge c(X)=c(X\setminus D)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{theo-main}
For maximizing monotone approximately submodular minus modular functions with a size constraint, i.e., solving the problem Eq.~(\ref{eq-problem}), the expected running time of the GSEMO until finding a solution $\bm{x}$ with $|\bm{x}| \leq k$ and $f(\bm{x})=g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x}) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma}) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*)$ is $O(n^2(\log n+k))$, where $\gamma$ denotes the submodularity ratio of $g$ as in Eq.~(\refeq{eq-submodular}), and $\bm{x}^*$ denotes an optimal solution of Eq.~(\ref{eq-problem}).
\end{theorem}

In the proof, we first derive the expected running time upper bound $O(n^2\log n)$ of the GSEMO until finding the special solution $\bm{0}$, as shown in Lemma~\ref{lemma-first-phase}. The result actually can be applied to any situation where the GSEMO maximizes a bi-objective pseudo-Boolean problem with $(-|\bm{x}|)$ being one objective, and has been used in previous analyses, e.g., Theorem~2 of~\citep{friedrich2015maximizing} and Theorem~1 of~\citep{qian2019maximizing}. Here, we still give the proof for completeness.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-first-phase}
For maximizing monotone approximately submodular minus modular functions with a size constraint, i.e., solving the problem Eq.~(\ref{eq-problem}), the expected running time of the GSEMO until finding the all-0s solution $\bm{0}$ is $O(n^2\log n)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to the procedure of updating the population $P$ in the GSEMO, the solutions maintained in $P$ must be incomparable. Because two solutions with the same value on one objective are comparable, $P$ contains at most one solution for each value of one objective. As $f_2(\bm{x})=-|\bm{x}|$ can take values $0,-1,\ldots,-n$, it holds that $|P| \leq n+1$.

Let $i=\min\{|\bm{x}| \mid \bm{x} \in P\}$ denote the minimum number of 1-bits of the solutions in the population $P$, and $\bm{x}$ denote the corresponding solution, i.e., $|\bm{x}|=i$. First, $i$ will not increase, because solutions with more 1-bits cannot dominate $\bm{x}$. Second, $i$ can decrease in one iteration by selecting $\bm{x}$ in line~4 of Algorithm~\ref{algo:GSEMO} and flipping only one 1-bit of $\bm{x}$ in line~5, occurring with probability $(1/|P|)\cdot (i/n)(1-1/n)^{n-1} \geq i/(en(n+1))$ due to uniform selection and bit-wise mutation. Note that the generated offspring solution $\bm{x}'$ has $(i-1)$ number of 1-bits, and will be included into $P$, implying that $i$ decreases by 1. Thus, the expected running time until $i=0$ (i.e., finding the all-0s vector) is at most $\sum^{n}_{i=1} en(n+1)/i=O(n^2\log n)$.
\end{proof}

After finding the all-0s solution $\bm{0}$, we analyze the expected running time of the GSEMO until finding a solution with the desired approximation guarantee. This proof part is inspired by the analysis of the distorted greedy algorithm in~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}, and relies on Lemma~\ref{lemma-one-step}, that for any $\bm{x} \in \{0,1\}^n$ with $|\bm{x}|<k$, there always exists one item, whose inclusion can improve the objective $f_1$ by at least some quantity relating to $g(\bm{x}^*)$ and $c(\bm{x}^*)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma-one-step}
For any $\bm{x} \in \{0,1\}^n$ with $|\bm{x}| < k$, there exists one item $v \notin \bm{x}$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-4}
& f_1(\bm{x} \cup \{v\})-f_1(\bm{x}) \geq \frac{\gamma}{k} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{1}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*)),
\end{align}
where $f_1$ is defined in Eq.~(\refeq{eq-bi-problem}), and $k$ is the size constraint.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $v^*=\arg \max_{v \in V \setminus \bm{x}} (1-\gamma/k)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v\})$. Due to the existence of $k$ dummy items and $|\bm{x}|<k$, it holds that $(1-\gamma/k)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v^*\}) \geq 0$. Note that $|\bm{x}^*| \leq k$. Thus, we have
\begin{align}
&k \cdot \left(\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v^*\})\right)\\
&\geq |\bm{x}^*| \cdot \left(\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v^*\})\right)\\
&\geq \sum_{v \in \bm{x}^*} \left(\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v\})\right)\\
&=\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1} \sum_{v \in \bm{x}^*} \left(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v\})-g(\bm{x})\right)-c(\bm{x}^*)\\
&\geq \gamma \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1} \left(g(\bm{x} \cup \bm{x}^*)-g(\bm{x})\right)-c(\bm{x}^*)\\
&\geq \gamma \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1} \left(g(\bm{x}^*)-g(\bm{x})\right)-c(\bm{x}^*),
\end{align}
where the second inequality holds by the definition of $v^*$ and $\forall v \in \bm{x}: (1-\gamma/k)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v\}) =-c(\{v\})\leq 0$, the equality holds by the modularity of $c$, the third inequality holds by the definition of $\gamma$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-submodular}) and the monotonicity of $g$, and the last inequality holds by $\bm{x}^* \subseteq \bm{x} \cup \bm{x}^*$ and the monotonicity of $g$. This implies that
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-1}
&\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v^*\})\\
&\geq \frac{\gamma}{k} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1} \left(g(\bm{x}^*)-g(\bm{x})\right)-\frac{1}{k}c(\bm{x}^*).
\end{align}

According to the definition of $f_1$ in Eq.~(\refeq{eq-bi-problem}), we have
\begin{align}
& f_1(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-f_1(\bm{x}) \\
&= \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}\cup \{v^*\}|}g(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-c(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})+\frac{|\bm{x}\cup \{v^*\}|}{k}c(\bm{1})\\
&\quad - \left(\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|}g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x})+\frac{|\bm{x}|}{k}c(\bm{1})\right)\\
&=\left(1\!-\!\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}\!\!(g(\bm{x} \cup \{v^*\})-g(\bm{x}))-c(\{v^*\})+\frac{1}{k}c(\bm{1})+\frac{\gamma}{k}\left(1\!-\!\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}\!\!g(\bm{x})\\
&\geq \frac{\gamma}{k}\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}g(\bm{x}^*) +\frac{1}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*)),
\end{align}
where the second equality holds by $|\bm{x}\cup \{v^*\}|=|\bm{x}|+1$ and the modularity of $c$, and the inequality holds by Eq.~(\refeq{eq-mid-1}). Thus, the lemma holds.
\end{proof}


\begin{myproof}{Theorem~\ref{theo-main}}
After finding the solution $\bm{0}$, it will always be kept in the population $P$. This is because $\bm{0}$ has the largest $f_2$ value (i.e., $f_2(\bm{0})=0$), and no solution can weakly dominate it. To analyze the expected running time until reaching the desired approximation guarantee, we consider a quantity $J_{\max}$, which is defined as
\begin{align}
&J_{\max}=\max\left\{j \in \{0,1,\ldots,k\} \mid \exists \bm{x} \in P: |\bm{x}| \leq j  \right.\\
& \qquad \quad \left. \wedge \; f_1(\bm{x}) \geq \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-j} \left(1-\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^j\right) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{j}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))\right\}.
\end{align}
It can be seen that $J_{\max}=k$ implies that there exists one solution $\bm{x}$ in $P$ satisfying that $|\bm{x}| \leq k$ and
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-2}
f_1(\bm{x}) &\geq \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-k} \left(1-\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^k\right) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{k}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))\\
&\geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*).
\end{align}
According to the definition of $f_1$ in Eq.~(\refeq{eq-bi-problem}) and $|\bm{x}| \leq k$, we have
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-3}
f_1(\bm{x})&=\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\bm{x}|}g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x})+\frac{|\bm{x}|}{k}c(\bm{1})\\
&\leq g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x})+c(\bm{1}).
\end{align}
Combining Eqs.~(\refeq{eq-mid-2}) and~(\refeq{eq-mid-3}) leads to
\begin{align}
g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x}) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*).
\end{align}
Thus, $J_{\max}=k$ implies that there exists one solution $\bm{x}$ in $P$ satisfying that $|\bm{x}| \leq k$ and $f(\bm{x})=g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x}) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*)$; that is, the desired approximation guarantee is reached. Next, we only need to analyze the expected running time until $J_{\max}=k$.

As the population $P$ contains the solution $\bm{0}$, which satisfies that $|\bm{0}|=0$ and $f_1(\bm{0})=(1-\gamma/k)^kg(\bm{0})\geq 0$, $J_{\max}$ is at least 0. Assume that currently $J_{\max}=i <k$, implying that $P$ contains solutions satisfying that $|\bm{x}|\leq i$ and
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-5}
f_1(\bm{x}) \geq \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-i} \left(1-\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^i\right) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{i}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*)).
\end{align}
Let $\hat{\bm{x}}$ be the one with the largest $f_1$ value among these solutions, which is actually the solution with size at most $i$ and the largest $f_1$ value in $P$. First, $J_{\max}$ will not decrease. If $\hat{\bm{x}}$ is deleted from $P$ in line~7 of Algorithm~\ref{algo:GSEMO}, the newly included solution $\bm{x}'$ must weakly dominate $\hat{\bm{x}}$, implying that $|\bm{x}'| \leq |\hat{\bm{x}}|$ and $f_1(\bm{x}')\geq f_1(\hat{\bm{x}})$.

Second, we analyze the expected running time required to increase $J_{\max}$. We consider such an event in one iteration of Algorithm~\ref{algo:GSEMO}: $\hat{\bm{x}}$ is selected for mutation in line~4, and only one specific 0-bit corresponding to the item $v$ in Lemma~\ref{lemma-one-step} is flipped in line~5. This event is called ``a successful event", occurring with probability $(1/|P|)\cdot (1/n)(1-1/n)^{n-1} \geq 1/(en(n+1))$ due to uniform selection and bit-wise mutation. Note that the size $|P|$ of population is always no larger than $n+1$, as shown in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma-first-phase}. According to Lemma~\ref{lemma-one-step}, the offspring solution $\bm{x}'$ generated by a successful event satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-6}
& f_1(\bm{x}')-f_1(\hat{\bm{x}}) \geq \frac{\gamma}{k} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-|\hat{\bm{x}}|-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{1}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*)).
\end{align}
We next consider two cases according to the value of $|\hat{\bm{x}}|$, satisfying $|\hat{\bm{x}}| \leq i$.

(1) $|\hat{\bm{x}}| = i$. Combining Eqs.~(\refeq{eq-mid-5}) and~(\refeq{eq-mid-6}) leads to
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-7}
f_1(\bm{x}') &\geq \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-i} \left(1-\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^i\right) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{i}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))\\
&\quad + \frac{\gamma}{k} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-i-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{1}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))\\
&=\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-i-1} \left(1-\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{i+1}\right) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{i+1}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*)).
\end{align}
Note that $|\bm{x}'|=|\hat{\bm{x}}|+1 = i+1$. Then, $\bm{x}'$ will be added into $P$; otherwise, $\bm{x}'$ must be dominated by one solution in $P$ (line~6 of Algorithm~\ref{algo:GSEMO}), and this implies that $J_{\max}$ has already been larger than $i$, contradicting with the assumption $J_{\max}=i$. After including $\bm{x}'$, $J_{\max} \geq i+1$, i.e., $J_{\max}$ increases.

(2) $|\hat{\bm{x}}| < i$. It holds that $|\bm{x}'|=|\hat{\bm{x}}|+1 \leq i$, and by Eq.~(\refeq{eq-mid-6}),
\begin{align}\label{eq-mid-8}
f_1(\bm{x}')-f_1(\hat{\bm{x}}) \geq \frac{\gamma}{k} \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{k-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+\frac{1}{k}(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*)).
\end{align}
Note that $\bm{x}'$ will be added into $P$; otherwise, $\bm{x}'$ must be dominated by one solution in $P$, contradicting with the definition of $\hat{\bm{x}}$, which is the solution with size at most $i$ and the largest $f_1$ value in $P$. If $f_1(\bm{x}') \geq (1-\gamma/k)^{k-i-1} (1-(1-\gamma/k)^{i+1}) \cdot g(\bm{x}^*)+((i+1)/k)(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))$, $J_{\max}$ increases. Otherwise, the solution $\hat{\bm{x}}$ now becomes $\bm{x}'$, and $f_1(\hat{\bm{x}})$ increases by at least $(\gamma/k)(1-\gamma/k)^{k-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+(1/k)(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))$ according to Eq.~(\refeq{eq-mid-8}).

Based on the above analysis, a successful event will either increase $J_{\max}$ directly or increase $f_1(\hat{\bm{x}})$ by at least $(\gamma/k)(1-\gamma/k)^{k-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+(1/k)(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))$. It is easy to see that $f_1(\hat{\bm{x}})$ will not decrease due to the domination-based comparison. It is also known from Eq.~(\refeq{eq-mid-7}) that $f_1(\hat{\bm{x}})$ needs to increase at most $(\gamma/k) (1-\gamma/k)^{k-i-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+(1/k)(c(\bm{1})-c(\bm{x}^*))$ for increasing $J_{\max}$. Thus, the number of successful events required to increase $J_{\max}$ is at most
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\label{eq-mid-9}
\left\lceil\frac{(\gamma/k) (1\!-\!\gamma/k)^{k-i-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+(1/k)(c(\bm{1})\!-\!c(\bm{x}^*))}{(\gamma/k)(1\!-\!\gamma/k)^{k-1}g(\bm{x}^*)+(1/k)(c(\bm{1})\!-\!c(\bm{x}^*))}\right\rceil& \leq \left\lceil \frac{(\gamma/k) (1\!-\!\gamma/k)^{k-i-1}g(\bm{x}^*)}{(\gamma/k)(1\!-\!\gamma/k)^{k-1}g(\bm{x}^*)}\right\rceil\\
&=\left\lceil \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{-i} \right\rceil.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
A successful event occurs with probability at least $1/(en(n+1))$ in one iteration, implying that the expected running time of one successful event is at most $en(n+1)$. Thus, the expected running time for making $J_{\max} \geq i+1$ (i.e., increasing $J_{\max}$) is at most $\lceil (1-\gamma/k)^{-i} \rceil \cdot en(n+1)$.

To make $J_{\max}=k$, it is sufficient to increase $J_{\max}$ from $0$ to $k$ step-by-step, implying that the expected running time until $J_{\max}=k$ is at most
\begin{align}
\sum^{k-1}_{i=0}\left\lceil \left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{-i} \right\rceil \cdot en(n+1) &\leq en(n+1) \cdot \sum^{k-1}_{i=0} \left(\left(1-\frac{\gamma}{k}\right)^{-i} +1\right)\\
&\leq en(n+1) \cdot (ek+1)=O(n^2k).
\end{align}

Combining the expected running time $O(n^2 \log n)$ for finding the solution $\bm{0}$ in Lemma~\ref{lemma-first-phase}, the total expected running time of the GSEMO for finding a solution $\bm{x}$  with $|\bm{x}| \leq k$ and $f(\bm{x})=g(\bm{x})-c(\bm{x}) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*)$ is $O(n^2(\log n+k))$. Thus, the theorem holds.\vspace{0.3em}
\end{myproof}

From the proof, we can find the reason of adding $(|\bm{x}|/k)\cdot c(\bm{1})$ into $f_1$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-bi-problem}). The term $(|\bm{x}|/k)\cdot c(\bm{1})$ can increase the benefit of adding a single item, and make the derived lower bound of the benefit in Lemma~\ref{lemma-one-step} positive. Without this term, the lower bound of the benefit in Lemma~\ref{lemma-one-step} will become $(\gamma/k)(1-\gamma/k)^{k-|\bm{x}|-1}g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*)/k \geq (\gamma/k)(1-\gamma/k)^{k-1}g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*)/k$, which is not necessarily positive, and the required increment on $f_1$ for $J_{\max}$ increasing from $i$ to $(i+1)$ will become $(\gamma/k) (1-\gamma/k)^{k-i-1}g(\bm{x}^*)-c(\bm{x}^*)/k$; thus, the analysis of Eq.~(\refeq{eq-mid-9}) will fail.

%% the effectiveness of distorted setting has been shown by distorted greedy, thus we do not need to give explanation and emprical verification

\section{Empirical Study}\label{sec-experiment}

In this section, we empirically examine the performance of the GSEMO. We compare it with the best existing algorithms~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}: distorted greedy (i.e., Algorithm~\ref{alg:dg}) and its stochastic version (i.e., Algorithm~\ref{alg:sdg}). The number of iterations of the GSEMO is arbitrarily set to $\lceil ek^2n \rceil $. For the stochastic distorted greedy algorithm, we use two values of $\epsilon$: $0.1$ and $0.2$. As the GSEMO and the stochastic distorted greedy algorithm are randomized algorithms, we repeat the run 20 times independently and report the average $f$ values. All codes and data sets can be downloaded from {\small\url{https://github.com/paper2019/ApproxSub-Minus-Modular}}.

%% we do not need to compare greedy, as distorted greedy has been shown to be better

First, we test these algorithms on the application of Bayesian experimental design with costs (as presented in Definition~\ref{def-bayesian}), where the function $g$ is approximately submodular. Note that as the exact computation of $\gamma$ is difficult, its lower bound $(1+(s^2/\sigma^2)\lambda_{\max}(\mathbf{\Sigma}))^{-1}$ (where $s=\max_{i \in \{1,2,\ldots,n\}} \|\bm{v}_i\|_2$)~\citep{harshaw2019submodular} will be used in the implementation of these algorithms.

The experimental setting is similar to that in~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}. We use the \textit{housing} data set\footnote{\url{https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets.html}} with 506 instances and 14 features, i.e., $n=506$ and $d=14$. Each feature vector is normalized to have mean 0 and variance 1. The covariance matrix $\mathbf{\Sigma}$ of the Gaussian prior distribution of $\bm{\theta}$ is set to $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{D}\mathbf{A}^{\mathrm{T}}$, where each entry of $\mathbf{A}$ is randomly drawn from the standard Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and $\mathbf{D}$ is a diagonal matrix with the $i$-th entry on the diagonal equal to $(i/d)^2$. The cost $c_i$ is set to $0.8 \cdot g(\{i\})$. We use $\sigma\in \{3d,4d,7d\}$ to generate three instances with the lower bound of $\gamma$ equal to $0.456$, $0.567$ and $0.800$, respectively, representing different approximately submodular degrees.

The budget $k$ is set from 5 to 20. The results are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig_BO}. Note that the distorted greedy algorithm and the stochastic distorted greedy algorithm with $\epsilon\in \{0.1,0.2\}$ are denoted by DG, SDG(0.1) and SDG(0.2), respectively. It can be clearly observed that the GSEMO always performs the best. As expected, DG is better than SDG, and SDG becomes worse as $\epsilon$ increases. This is because to decrease the running time, a smaller set of candidate items is examined for selection in each iteration, which may degrade the performance. Note that the standard deviation of the GSEMO can be very small, which is because almost the same good solutions are found in 20 runs.

The GSEMO runs for $\lceil ek^2n \rceil$ iterations. We also want to examine how efficient the GSEMO can be in practice. Thus, we select DG and SDG for the baseline, and plot the curve of objective value over the running time for the GSEMO, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig_BO-time}. The budget $k$ is set to 20. Note that the running time is considered in the number of objective function evaluations, and one unit on the $x$-axis corresponds to $kn$ evaluations, the running time of DG. We can observe that the GSEMO quickly obtains a better $f$ value. In fact, we find that the GSEMO can even be both better and faster than DG in Figures~\ref{fig_BO-time}(a) and~(c).

\begin{figure*}[t!]\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{legend_horizontal}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.2em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{3d}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{4d}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{7d}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.3em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(a) $\gamma=0.456$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(b) $\gamma=0.567$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(c) $\gamma=0.800$
\end{minipage}
\caption{Comparison on the application of Bayesian experimental design with costs. The data set \textit{housing} is used to generate three problem instances with different values of $\gamma$. }\label{fig_BO}
\end{figure*}

%Note that the curve of $f$ may decrease, which is because the GSEMO actually optimizes $f_1$ instead of $f$.

\begin{figure*}[t!]\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{time_legend}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.2em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{time_3d}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{time_4d}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{time_7d}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.3em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(a) $\gamma=0.456$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(b) $\gamma=0.567$
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(c) $\gamma=0.800$
\end{minipage}
\caption{Performance vs. running time of the GSEMO on Bayesian experimental design with costs, where $k=20$.}\label{fig_BO-time}
\end{figure*}


Next, we want to compare these algorithms in cases where the function $g$ is submodular. For this purpose, we use the application of directed vertex cover with costs (as presented in Definition~\ref{def-vertex}), where the function $g$ is exactly submodular. As $g$ is submodular, $\gamma=1$ is used when implementing the algorithms.

We use three graphs\footnote{\url{https://snap.stanford.edu/data/} and \url{https://turing.cs.hbg.psu.edu/txn131/vertex_cover.html}}. \textit{email-Eu-core} is a directed graph with 1,005 vertices and 25,571 edges, generated using email data from a large European research institution. Each vertex represents one person, and edge $(u,v)$ means that person $u$ sent at least one email to person $v$. \textit{frb45-21-mis} and \textit{frb53-24-mis} are two benchmark graphs for vertex cover. Each of them contains five instances, and we use the first one. \textit{frb45-21-mis} contains 945 vertices and 59,186 edges, and \textit{frb53-24-mis} contains 1,272 vertices and 94,227 edges. For these two benchmark graphs, each edge is treated as two directed edges. As in~\citep{harshaw2019submodular}, the weight of each vertex $v$ is set to 1, i.e., $\forall v \in V: w(v)=1$; the cost of each vertex $v$ is set to $1+\max\{d(v)-6,0\}$, i.e., $\forall v\in V: c(v)=1+\max\{d(v)-6,0\}$, where $d(v)$ denotes the out-degree of $v$.

The budget $k$ is set to $\{10,20,\ldots,100\}$. The results are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig_vc}, showing the same performance rank of the algorithms as observed for the application of Bayesian experimental design with costs. The curves in Figure~\ref{fig_vc-time} show that the GSEMO can achieve a better performance than distorted greedy algorithms by using a little more running time.

\begin{figure*}[h!]\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{legend_horizontal}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.2em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{email-eu-core}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{frb45-21-1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{frb53-24-1}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.3em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(a) \textit{email-Eu-core}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(b) \textit{frb45-21-mis}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(c) \textit{frb53-24-mis}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Comparison on the application of directed vertex cover with costs. The three data sets \textit{email-Eu-core}, \textit{frb45-21-mis} and \textit{frb53-24-mis} are used to generate three problem instances. Note that $\gamma$ is always 1.}\label{fig_vc}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[h!]\centering
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.4\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{time_legend}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.2em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{time_email-eu-core}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{time_frb45-21-1}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
        \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{time_frb53-24-1}
\end{minipage}\\\vspace{0.3em}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(a) \textit{email-Eu-core}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(b) \textit{frb45-21-mis}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}[c]{0.32\linewidth}\centering
    \small(c) \textit{frb53-24-mis}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Performance vs. running time of the GSEMO on directed vertex cover with costs, where $k=100$.}\label{fig_vc-time}
\end{figure*}


%add the comparison with GSEMO with $g-c$ to show the effectiveness of $f_1$

%add the comparison with GSEMO without the constant term to show the effectiveness of $f_1$

%% keep the guarantee but do not prove, the bad results may be due to the lack of dummy items

%% does not keep the guarantee

\section{Conclusion}\label{sec-conlusion}

In this paper, we analyze the approximation performance of the GSEMO for solving the problem $\arg\max\nolimits_{X \subseteq V} (f(X)=g(X)-c(X))$ s.t. $|X| \leq k$, where $g$ is a non-negative monotone approximately submodular function and $c$ is a non-negative modular function, and thus $f$ can be non-monotone and non-submodular. We prove that using $O(n^2(\log n+k))$ expected running time, the GSEMO can find a subset $X$ satisfying that $|X|\leq k$ and $g(X)-c(X) \geq (1-e^{-\gamma})\cdot g(X^*) -c(X^*)$, where $\gamma$ is the submodularity ratio of $g$ and $X^*$ denotes an optimal subset. This reaches the best-known polynomial-time approximation guarantee, previously obtained by the distorted greedy algorithm. Experimental results on the applications of Bayesian experimental design and directed vertex cover show the superior performance of the GSEMO over the distorted greedy algorithm.

Submodular optimization is originally defined for set functions, where a solution is a subset. Now it has been extended to the situations where a solution is a multiset or a sequence. Thus, it is expected to examine the performance of EAs for these extensions of submodular optimization. There has been some preliminary efforts toward this direction, e.g.,~\citep{qian2018sequence,qian2018constrained,qian2018multiset}. It is also interesting to study the behavior of EAs for submodular optimization under uncertain environments. For example,~\citet{aaai2019dynamic} have proved that the GSEMO can maintain the approximation guarantee efficiently for monotone approximately submodular maximization with dynamic cost constraints.

%add our related work of noisy subset selection

\small

\bibliographystyle{apalike}
\bibliography{ecj-nonMonoSub-moea}


\end{document}

\begin{thebibliography}{}

\bibitem[Auger and Doerr, 2011]{auger2011theory}
Auger, A. and Doerr, B. (2011).
\newblock {\em Theory of Randomized Search Heuristics: Foundations and Recent
  Developments}.
\newblock World Scientific, Singapore.

\bibitem[B{\"{a}}ck, 1996]{back:96}
B{\"{a}}ck, T. (1996).
\newblock {\em Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice: Evolution
  Strategies, Evolutionary Programming, Genetic Algorithms}.
\newblock Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

\bibitem[Bian et~al., 2017]{bian2017guarantees}
Bian, A.~A., Buhmann, J.~M., Krause, A., and Tschiatschek, S. (2017).
\newblock Guarantees for greedy maximization of non-submodular functions with
  applications.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine
  Learning (ICML'17)}, pages 498--507, Sydney, Australia.

\bibitem[Bogunovic et~al., 2018]{bogunovic2018robust}
Bogunovic, I., Zhao, J., and Cevher, V. (2018).
\newblock Robust maximization of non-submodular objectives.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on
  Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS'18)}, pages 890--899,
  Lanzarote, Spain.

\bibitem[Buchbinder et~al., 2014]{buchbinder2014submodular}
Buchbinder, N., Feldman, M., Naor, J.~S., and Schwartz, R. (2014).
\newblock Submodular maximization with cardinality constraints.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete
  algorithms (SODA'14)}, pages 1433--1452, Portland, OR.

\bibitem[Das and Kempe, 2011]{das2011submodular}
Das, A. and Kempe, D. (2011).
\newblock Submodular meets spectral: {G}reedy algorithms for subset selection,
  sparse approximation and dictionary selection.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine
  Learning (ICML'11)}, pages 1057--1064, Bellevue, WA.

\bibitem[Das and Kempe, 2018]{das2018approximate}
Das, A. and Kempe, D. (2018).
\newblock Approximate submodularity and its applications: {S}ubset selection,
  sparse approximation and dictionary selection.
\newblock {\em Journal of Machine Learning Research}, 19:1--34.

\bibitem[Elenberg et~al., 2018]{elenberg2018restricted}
Elenberg, E.~R., Khanna, R., Dimakis, A.~G., and Negahban, S. (2018).
\newblock Restricted strong convexity implies weak submodularity.
\newblock {\em Annals of Statistics}, 46(6B):3539--3568.

\bibitem[Feige, 1998]{feige1998threshold}
Feige, U. (1998).
\newblock A threshold of $\ln n$ for approximating set cover.
\newblock {\em Journal of the ACM}, 45(4):634--652.

\bibitem[Fenton et~al., 2019]{fenton2019towards}
Fenton, M., Lynch, D., Fagan, D., Kucera, S., Claussen, H., and O'Neill, M.
  (2019).
\newblock Towards automation and augmentation of the design of schedulers for
  cellular communications networks.
\newblock {\em Evolutionary computation}, 27(2):345--375.

\bibitem[Friedrich et~al., 2019]{friedrich2018greedy}
Friedrich, T., G{\"o}bel, A., Neumann, F., Quinzan, F., and Rothenberger, R.
  (2019).
\newblock Greedy maximization of functions with bounded curvature under
  partition matroid constraints.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial
  Intelligence (AAAI'19)}, pages 2272--2279, Honolulu, HI.

\bibitem[Friedrich et~al., 2018]{friedrich2018heavy}
Friedrich, T., G{\"o}bel, A., Quinzan, F., and Wagner, M. (2018).
\newblock Heavy-tailed mutation operators in single-objective combinatorial
  optimization.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Parallel
  Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN'18)}, pages 134--145, Coimbra, Portugal.

\bibitem[Friedrich et~al., 2010]{friedrich2010approximating}
Friedrich, T., He, J., Hebbinghaus, N., Neumann, F., and Witt, C. (2010).
\newblock Approximating covering problems by randomized search heuristics using
  multi-objective models.
\newblock {\em Evolutionary Computation}, 18(4):617--633.

\bibitem[Friedrich and Neumann, 2015]{friedrich2015maximizing}
Friedrich, T. and Neumann, F. (2015).
\newblock Maximizing submodular functions under matroid constraints by
  evolutionary algorithms.
\newblock {\em Evolutionary Computation}, 23(4):543--558.

\bibitem[Golovin and Krause, 2011]{golovin2011adaptive}
Golovin, D. and Krause, A. (2011).
\newblock Adaptive submodularity: Theory and applications in active learning
  and stochastic optimization.
\newblock {\em Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research}, 42:427--486.

\bibitem[Harshaw et~al., 2019]{harshaw2019submodular}
Harshaw, C., Feldman, M., Ward, J., and Karbasi, A. (2019).
\newblock Submodular maximization beyond non-negativity: Guarantees, fast
  algorithms, and applications.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine
  Learning (ICML'19)}, pages 2634--2643, Long Beach, CA.

\bibitem[Horel and Singer, 2016]{horel2016maximization}
Horel, T. and Singer, Y. (2016).
\newblock Maximization of approximately submodular functions.
\newblock In {\em Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems 29
  (NIPS'16)}, pages 3045--3053, Barcelona, Spain.

\bibitem[Jegelka and Bilmes, 2011]{jegelka2011submodularity}
Jegelka, S. and Bilmes, J. (2011).
\newblock Submodularity beyond submodular energies: Coupling edges in graph
  cuts.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision
  and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'11)}, pages 1897--1904, Colorado Springs, CO.

\bibitem[Kempe et~al., 2003]{kempe2003maximizing}
Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., and Tardos, {\'E}. (2003).
\newblock Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on
  Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD'03)}, pages 137--146, Washington,
  DC.

\bibitem[Khanna et~al., 2017]{khanna2017approximation}
Khanna, R., Elenberg, E.~R., Dimakis, A.~G., Ghosh, J., and Negahban, S.
  (2017).
\newblock On approximation guarantees for greedy low rank optimization.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine
  Learning (ICML'17)}, pages 1837--1846, Sydney, Australia.

\bibitem[Krause and Cevher, 2010]{krause2010submodular}
Krause, A. and Cevher, V. (2010).
\newblock Submodular dictionary selection for sparse representation.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine
  Learning (ICML'10)}, pages 567--574, Haifa, Israel.

\bibitem[Krause et~al., 2008]{krause2008near}
Krause, A., Singh, A., and Guestrin, C. (2008).
\newblock Near-optimal sensor placements in {G}aussian processes: {T}heory,
  efficient algorithms and empirical studies.
\newblock {\em Journal of Machine Learning Research}, 9:235--284.

\bibitem[Laumanns et~al., 2004]{laumanns2004running}
Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., and Zitzler, E. (2004).
\newblock Running time analysis of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms on
  pseudo-{B}oolean functions.
\newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation}, 8(2):170--182.

\bibitem[Lin and Bilmes, 2011]{lin2011class}
Lin, H. and Bilmes, J. (2011).
\newblock A class of submodular functions for document summarization.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for
  Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL'11)}, pages
  510--520, Portland, OR.

\bibitem[Mirzasoleiman et~al., 2015]{Baharan.aaai15}
Mirzasoleiman, B., Badanidiyuru, A., Karbasi, A., Vondr\'{a}k, J., and Krause,
  A. (2015).
\newblock Lazier than lazy greedy.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial
  Intelligence (AAAI'15)}, pages 1812--1818, Austin, TX.

\bibitem[Mukhopadhyay et~al., 2013]{mukhopadhyay2013survey}
Mukhopadhyay, A., Maulik, U., Bandyopadhyay, S., and Coello~Coello, C.~A.
  (2013).
\newblock A survey of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for data mining:
  Part {I}.
\newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation}, 18(1):4--19.

\bibitem[Nemhauser and Wolsey, 1978]{nemhauser1978best}
Nemhauser, G.~L. and Wolsey, L.~A. (1978).
\newblock Best algorithms for approximating the maximum of a submodular set
  function.
\newblock {\em Mathematics of Operations Research}, 3(3):177--188.

\bibitem[Nemhauser et~al., 1978]{nemhauser1978analysis}
Nemhauser, G.~L., Wolsey, L.~A., and Fisher, M.~L. (1978).
\newblock An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions
  {--} {I}.
\newblock {\em Mathematical Programming}, 14(1):265--294.

\bibitem[Neumann et~al., 2011]{neumann2011computing}
Neumann, F., Reichel, J., and Skutella, M. (2011).
\newblock Computing minimum cuts by randomized search heuristics.
\newblock {\em Algorithmica}, 59(3):323--342.

\bibitem[Neumann and Wegener, 2006]{neumann2006minimum}
Neumann, F. and Wegener, I. (2006).
\newblock Minimum spanning trees made easier via multi-objective optimization.
\newblock {\em Natural Computing}, 5(3):305--319.

\bibitem[Neumann and Witt, 2010]{neumann2010bioinspired}
Neumann, F. and Witt, C. (2010).
\newblock {\em Bioinspired Computation in Combinatorial Optimization:
  Algorithms and Their Computational Complexity}.
\newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2018a]{qian2018sequence}
Qian, C., Feng, C., and Tang, K. (2018a).
\newblock Sequence selection by {P}areto optimization.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on
  Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'18)}, pages 1485--1491, Stockholm, Sweden.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2018b]{qian2018constrained}
Qian, C., Shi, J.-C., Tang, K., and Zhou, Z.-H. (2018b).
\newblock Constrained monotone $k$-submodular function maximization using
  multiobjective evolutionary algorithms with theoretical guarantee.
\newblock {\em IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation}, 22(4):595--608.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2018c]{qian2018approximation}
Qian, C., Yu, Y., and Tang, K. (2018c).
\newblock Approximation guarantees of stochastic greedy algorithms for subset
  selection.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on
  Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'18)}, pages 1478--1484, Stockholm, Sweden.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2019]{qian2019maximizing}
Qian, C., Yu, Y., Tang, K., Yao, X., and Zhou, Z.-H. (2019).
\newblock Maximizing submodular or monotone approximately submodular functions
  by multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.
\newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 275:279--294.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2013]{qian2013analysis}
Qian, C., Yu, Y., and Zhou, Z.-H. (2013).
\newblock An analysis on recombination in multi-objective evolutionary
  optimization.
\newblock {\em Artificial Intelligence}, 204:99--119.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2015]{qian.ijcai15}
Qian, C., Yu, Y., and Zhou, Z.-H. (2015).
\newblock On constrained {B}oolean {P}areto optimization.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on
  Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'15)}, pages 389--395, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

\bibitem[Qian et~al., 2018d]{qian2018multiset}
Qian, C., Zhang, Y., Tang, K., and Yao, X. (2018d).
\newblock On multiset selection with size constraints.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial
  Intelligence (AAAI'18)}, pages 1395--1402, New Orleans, LA.

\bibitem[Roostapour et~al., 2019]{aaai2019dynamic}
Roostapour, V., Neumann, A., Neumann, F., and Friedrich, T. (2019).
\newblock Pareto optimization for subset selection with dynamic cost
  constraints.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 33rd AAAI Conference on Artificial
  Intelligence (AAAI'19)}, pages 2354--2361, Honolulu, HI.

\bibitem[Zhang and Vorobeychik, 2016]{zhang2016submodular}
Zhang, H. and Vorobeychik, Y. (2016).
\newblock Submodular optimization with routing constraints.
\newblock In {\em Proceedings of the 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial
  Intelligence (AAAI'16)}, pages 819--825, Phoenix, AZ.

\bibitem[Zhou and Spanos, 2016]{zhou2016causal}
Zhou, Y. and Spanos, C.~J. (2016).
\newblock Causal meets submodular: Subset selection with directed information.
\newblock In {\em Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29
  (NIPS'16)}, pages 2649--2657, Barcelona, Spain.

\bibitem[Zhou et~al., 2019]{zhou2019evolutionary}
Zhou, Z.-H., Yu, Y., and Qian, C. (2019).
\newblock {\em Evolutionary Learning: Advances in Theories and Algorithms}.
\newblock Springer, Singapore.

\end{thebibliography}