We study the complexity-theoretic boundaries of tractability for three classical problems in the context of Hierarchical Task Network Planning: the validation of a provided plan, whether an executable plan exists, and whether a given state can be reached by some plan. We show that all three problems can be solved in polynomial time on primitive task networks of constant partial order width (and a generalization thereof), whereas for the latter two problems this holds only under a provably necessary restriction to the state space. Next, we obtain an algorithmic meta-theorem along with corresponding lower bounds to identify tight conditions under which general polynomial-time solvability results can be lifted from primitive to general task networks. Finally, we enrich our investigation by analyzing the parameterized complexity of the three considered problems, and show that (1) fixed-parameter tractability for all three problems can be achieved by replacing the partial order width with the vertex cover number of the network as the parameter, and (2) other classical graph-theoretic parameters of the network (including treewidth, treedepth, and the aforementioned partial order width) do not yield fixed-parameter tractability for any of the three problems.

The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) is the most prominent multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for real-world applications. While it performs evidently well on bi-objective optimization problems, empirical studies suggest that it is less effective when applied to problems with more than two objectives. A recent mathematical runtime analysis confirmed this observation by proving the NGSA-II for an exponential number of iterations misses a constant factor of the Pareto front of the simple 3-objective OneMinMax problem. In this work, we provide the first mathematical runtime analysis of the NSGA-III, a refinement of the NSGA-II aimed at better handling more than two objectives. We prove that the NSGA-III with sufficiently many reference points -- a small constant factor more than the size of the Pareto front, as suggested for this algorithm -- computes the complete Pareto front of the 3-objective OneMinMax benchmark in an expected number of O(n log n) iterations. This result holds for all population sizes (that are at least the size of the Pareto front). It shows a drastic advantage of the NSGA-III over the NSGA-II on this benchmark. The mathematical arguments used here and in previous work on the NSGA-II suggest that similar findings are likely for other benchmarks with three or more objectives.

The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm-II (NSGA-II) is one of the most prominent algorithms to solve multi-objective optimization problems. Recently, the first mathematical runtime guarantees have been obtained for this algorithm, however only for synthetic benchmark problems. In this work, we give the first proven performance guarantees for a classic optimization problem, the NP-complete bi-objective minimum spanning tree problem. More specifically, we show that the NSGA-II with population size $N \ge 4((n-1) w_{\max} + 1)$ computes all extremal points of the Pareto front in an expected number of $O(m^2 n w_{\max} \log(n w_{\max}))$ iterations, where $n$ is the number of vertices, $m$ the number of edges, and $w_{\max}$ is the maximum edge weight in the problem instance. This result confirms, via mathematical means, the good performance of the NSGA-II observed empirically. It also shows that mathematical analyses of this algorithm are not only possible for synthetic benchmark problems, but also for more complex combinatorial optimization problems. As a side result, we also obtain a new analysis of the performance of the global SEMO algorithm on the bi-objective minimum spanning tree problem, which improves the previous best result by a factor of $|F|$, the number of extremal points of the Pareto front, a set that can be as large as $n w_{\max}$. The main reason for this improvement is our observation that both multi-objective evolutionary algorithms find the different extremal points in parallel rather than sequentially, as assumed in the previous proofs.

The study of algorithmic fairness received growing attention recently. This stems from the awareness that bias in the input data for machine learning systems may result in discriminatory outputs. For clustering tasks, one of the most central notions of fairness is the formalization by Chierichetti, Kumar, Lattanzi, and Vassilvitskii [NeurIPS 2017]. A clustering is said to be fair, if each cluster has the same distribution of manifestations of a sensitive attribute as the whole input set. This is motivated by various applications where the objects to be clustered have sensitive attributes that should not be over- or underrepresented. We discuss the applicability of this fairness notion to Correlation Clustering. The existing literature on the resulting Fair Correlation Clustering problem either presents approximation algorithms with poor approximation guarantees or severely limits the possible distributions of the sensitive attribute (often only two manifestations with a 1:1 ratio are considered). Our goal is to understand if there is hope for better results in between these two extremes. To this end, we consider restricted graph classes which allow us to characterize the distributions of sensitive attributes for which this form of fairness is tractable from a complexity point of view. While existing work on Fair Correlation Clustering gives approximation algorithms, we focus on exact solutions and investigate whether there are efficiently solvable instances. The unfair version of Correlation Clustering is trivial on forests, but adding fairness creates a surprisingly rich picture of complexities. We give an overview of the distributions and types of forests where Fair Correlation Clustering turns from tractable to intractable. The most surprising insight to us is the fact that the cause of the hardness of Fair Correlation Clustering is not the strictness of the fairness condition.