Skip to main content
Log in

Priority algorithms for the subset-sum problem

  • Published:
Journal of Combinatorial Optimization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Greedy algorithms are simple, but their relative power is not well understood. The priority framework (Borodin et al. in Algorithmica 37:295–326, 2003) captures a key notion of “greediness” in the sense that it processes (in some locally optimal manner) one data item at a time, depending on and only on the current knowledge of the input. This algorithmic model provides a tool to assess the computational power and limitations of greedy algorithms, especially in terms of their approximability. In this paper, we study priority algorithm approximation ratios for the Subset-Sum Problem, focusing on the power of revocable decisions, for which the accepted data items can be later rejected to maintain the feasibility of the solution. We first provide a tight bound of α≈0.657 for irrevocable priority algorithms. We then show that the approximation ratio of fixed order revocable priority algorithms is between β≈0.780 and γ≈0.852, and the ratio of adaptive order revocable priority algorithms is between 0.8 and δ≈0.893.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Angelopoulos S, Borodin A (2004) On the power of priority algorithms for facility location and set cover. Algorithmica 40:271–291

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Aspnes J, Azar Y, Fiat A, Plotkin S, Waarts O (1997) On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling. J ACM 44:486–504

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Baptiste P (1999) Polynomial time algorithms for minimizing the weighted number of late jobs on a single machine with equal processing times. J Sched 2:245–252

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Noy A, Guha S, Naor J, Schieber B (2001) Approximating throughput in real-time scheduling. SIAM J Comput 31:331–352

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Borodin A, Nielsen M, Rackoff C (2003) (Incremental) priority algorithms. Algorithmica 37:295–326

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Borodin A, Boyar J, Larsen K (2005) Priority algorithms for graph optimization problems. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3351. Springer, Berlin, pp 126–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrobak M, Durr C, Jawor W, Kowalik L, Kurowski M (2006) A note on scheduling equal-length jobs to maximize throughput. J Sched 9:71–73

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chuzhoy J, Ostrovsky R, Rabani Y (2001) Approximation algorithms for the job interval scheduling problem and related scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of 42nd annual IEEE symposium of foundations of computer science, pp 348–356

  • Davis S, Impagliazzo R (2004) Models of greedy algorithms for graph problems. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, pp 381–390

  • Erlebach T, Spieksma F (2003) Interval selection: applications, algorithms, and lower bounds. J Algorithms 46:27–53

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer R, Wahl M (2000) On-line scheduling revisited. J Sched 3:343–353

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Garey M, Johnson D (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Graham R (1966) Bounds for certain multiprocessor anomalies. Bell Syst Tech J 45:1563–1581

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn S (2004) One-pass algorithms with revocable acceptances for job interval selection. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto

  • Ibarra O, Kim C (1975) Fast approximation algorithms for the knapsack and sum of subset problem. J ACM 22:463–468

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Iwama K, Taketomi S (2002) Removable online knapsack problems. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2380. Springer, Berlin, pp 293–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellerer H, Mansini R, Pferschy U, Speranza M (2003) An efficient fully polynomial approximation scheme for the subset-sum problem. J Comput Syst Sci 66:349–370

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Martello S, Toth P (1990) Knapsack problems: algorithms and computer implementations. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Moore J (1968) An n-job, one machine sequencing algorithm for minimizing the number of late jobs. Manag Sci 15:102–109

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Regev O (2002) Priority algorithms for makespan minimization in the subset model. Inf Process Lett 84:153–157

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuli Ye.

Additional information

A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of COCOON 2007, LNCS 4598, pp. 504–514.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ye, Y., Borodin, A. Priority algorithms for the subset-sum problem. J Comb Optim 16, 198–228 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-007-9126-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-007-9126-9

Keywords

Navigation