Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
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.