Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 47 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 44 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 13 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 12 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 64 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 160 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 452 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Approximate Clustering via Metric Partitioning (1507.02222v3)

Published 8 Jul 2015 in cs.CG, cs.DS, and math.PR

Abstract: In this paper we consider two metric covering/clustering problems - \textit{Minimum Cost Covering Problem} (MCC) and $k$-clustering. In the MCC problem, we are given two point sets $X$ (clients) and $Y$ (servers), and a metric on $X \cup Y$. We would like to cover the clients by balls centered at the servers. The objective function to minimize is the sum of the $\alpha$-th power of the radii of the balls. Here $\alpha \geq 1$ is a parameter of the problem (but not of a problem instance). MCC is closely related to the $k$-clustering problem. The main difference between $k$-clustering and MCC is that in $k$-clustering one needs to select $k$ balls to cover the clients. For any $\eps > 0$, we describe quasi-polynomial time $(1 + \eps)$ approximation algorithms for both of the problems. However, in case of $k$-clustering the algorithm uses $(1 + \eps)k$ balls. Prior to our work, a $3{\alpha}$ and a ${c}{\alpha}$ approximation were achieved by polynomial-time algorithms for MCC and $k$-clustering, respectively, where $c > 1$ is an absolute constant. These two problems are thus interesting examples of metric covering/clustering problems that admit $(1 + \eps)$-approximation (using $(1+\eps)k$ balls in case of $k$-clustering), if one is willing to settle for quasi-polynomial time. In contrast, for the variant of MCC where $\alpha$ is part of the input, we show under standard assumptions that no polynomial time algorithm can achieve an approximation factor better than $O(\log |X|)$ for $\alpha \geq \log |X|$.

Citations (9)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.