Advertisement

Improved Approximation Algorithms for Capacitated Facility Location Problems

  • Fabián A. Chudak
  • David P. Williamson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1610)

Abstract

In a recent surprising result, Korupolu, Plaxton, and Rajaraman [10,11] showed that a simple local search heuristic for the capacitated facility location problem (CFLP) in which the service costs obey the triangle inequality produces a solution in polynomial time which is within a factor of 8 + ε of the value of an optimal solution. By simplifying their analysis, we are able to show that the same heuristic produces a solution which is within a factor of 6(1 + ε) of the value of an optimal solution. Our simplified analysis uses the supermodularity of the cost function of the problem and the integrality of the transshipment polyhedron.

Additionally, we consider the variant of the CFLP in which one may open multiple copies of any facility. Using ideas from the analysis of the local search heuristic, we show how to turn any α-approximation algorithm for this variant into one which, at an additional cost of twice the optimum of the standard CFLP, opens at most one additional copy of any facility. This allows us to transform a recent 3-approximation algorithm of Chudak and Shmoys [5] that opens many additional copies of facilities into a polynomial-time algorithm which only opens one additional copy and has cost no more than five times the value of the standard CFLP.

Keywords

Integral Solution Local Search Algorithm Facility Location Problem Fractional Solution Local Search Heuristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Arora and M. Sudan. Improved low-degree testing and its applications. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 4850–495, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dj. A. Babayev. Comments on the note of Frieze. Mathematical Programming 7:249–252, 1974.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Barahona and D. Jensen. Plant location with minimum inventory. Mathematical Programming 83:101–111, 1998.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Chudak. Improved approximation algorithms for uncapacitated facility location. In Proceedings of the 6th IPCO Conference, pages 180–194, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Chudak and D.B. Shmoys. Improved approximation algorithms for the uncapacitated facility location problem. In preparation.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Chudak and D.B. Shmoys. Improved approximation algorithms for a capacitated facility location problem. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 875–876, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Cornuéjols, G. Nemhauser, and L. Wolsey. The uncapacitated facility location problem. In P. Mirchandani and R. Francis, editors, Discrete Location Theory, pages 119–171. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. Feige. A threshold of ln n for approximating set-cover. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 314–318, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Guha and S. Khuller. Greedy strikes back: improved facility location algorithms. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 649–657, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Korupolu, C. Plaxton, and R. Rajaraman. Analysis of a local search heuristic for facility location problems. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 1–10, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Korupolu, C. Plaxton, and R. Rajaraman. Analysis of a local search heuristic for facility location problems. Technical Report 98-30, DIMACS, June 1998. Available from http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/TechnicalReports/1998.html.
  12. 12.
    E. Lawler. Combinatorial Optimization: Networks and Matroids. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, 1976.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Lund and M. Yannakakis. On the hardness of approximating minimization problems. JACM 41:960–981, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Mirchandani and R. Francis, eds. Discrete Location Theory. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1990.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.L. Nemhauser, L.A. Wolsey, and M.L. Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions — I. Mathematical Programming 14:265–294, 1978.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Raz and S. Safra. A sub-constant error-probability low-degree test, and a sub-constant error-probability PCP characterization of NP. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 475–484, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Shmoys, É. Tardos, and K. Aardal. Approximation algorithms for facility location problems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 265–274, 1997.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Sviridenko, July, 1998. Personal communication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabián A. Chudak
    • 1
  • David P. Williamson
    • 2
  1. 1.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights
  2. 2.IBM T.J. Watson Research CenterYorktown Heights

Personalised recommendations