PASS Approximation

A Framework for Analyzing and Designing Heuristics
  • Uriel Feige
  • Nicole Immorlica
  • Vahab S. Mirrokni
  • Hamid Nazerzadeh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5687)

Abstract

We introduce a new framework for designing and analyzing algorithms. Our framework applies best to problems that are inapproximable according to the standard worst-case analysis. We circumvent such negative results by designing guarantees for classes of instances, parameterized according to properties of the optimal solution. We also make sure that our parameterized approximation, called PArametrized by the Signature of the Solution (PASS) approximation, is the best possible. We show how to apply our framework to problems with additive and submodular objective functions such as the capacitated maximum facility location problems. We consider two types of algorithms for these problems. For greedy algorithms, our framework provides a justification for preferring a certain natural greedy rule over some alternative greedy rules that have been used in similar contexts. For LP-based algorithms, we show that the natural LP relaxation for these problems is not optimal in our framework. We design a new LP relaxation and show that this LP relaxation coupled with a new randomized rounding technique is optimal in our framework.

In passing, we note that our results strictly improve over previous results of Kleinberg, Papadimitriou and Raghavan [JACM 2004] concerning the approximation ratio of the greedy algorithm.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ageev, A., Sviridenko, M.: An 0.828-approximation algorithm for uncapacitated facility location problem. Discrete Applied Mathematics 93, 289–296 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cornuejols, G., Nemhauser, G., Wolsey, L.: Locations of bank accounts to optimize float: an analytic study of exact and approximate algorithms. Management Science 23, 789–810 (1977)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feige, U., Immorlica, N., Mirrokni, V., Nazerzadeh, H.: A combinatorial allocation mechanism with penalties for banner advertising. Proceedings of the 17th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feige, U., Mirrokni, V., Vondrak, J.: Maximizing non-monotone submodular functions. In: Proceedings of the forty-eight annual IEEE symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 461–471 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kempe, D., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, É.: Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In: KDD 2003: Proceedings of the ninth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pp. 137–146. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kleinberg, J.M., Papadimitriou, C.H., Raghavan, P.: Segmentation problems. J. ACM 51(2), 263–280 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leskovec, J., Krause, A., Guestrin, C., Faloutsos, C., VanBriesen, J., Glance, N.S.: Cost-effective outbreak detection in networks. In: KDD, pp. 420–429 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mossel, E., Roch, S.: On the submodularity of influence in social networks. In: Proceedings of ACM STOC, pp. 128–134 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uriel Feige
    • 1
  • Nicole Immorlica
    • 2
  • Vahab S. Mirrokni
    • 3
  • Hamid Nazerzadeh
    • 4
  1. 1.Weizmann InstituteRehovotIsrael
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Google ResearchNew York, NYUSA
  4. 4.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations