1 / 12

Approximating Soft-Capacitated Facility Location Problem

Approximating Soft-Capacitated Facility Location Problem. Mohammad Mahdian, MIT Yinyu Ye, Stanford Jiawei Zhang, Stanford. Facility Location Problem. Given set C of cities (or clients), set F of facilities, opening cost f i for i 2 F , and

stefan
Download Presentation

Approximating Soft-Capacitated Facility Location Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Approximating Soft-Capacitated Facility Location Problem Mohammad Mahdian, MIT Yinyu Ye, Stanford Jiawei Zhang, Stanford

  2. Facility Location Problem • Given • set Cof cities (or clients), • set F of facilities, • opening cost fi for i2F, and • metric connection cost c(i,j) for i2F and j2C • Find • set SµF of facilities to open, and • an assignment : C S of cities to open facilities • To minimize • The total facility cost (i2 S fi), plus • the total connection cost (j2C c(i,(i))).

  3. Example 7 2 10 5 4 3 Solution 1: open both facilities Facility cost = 10+5=15 Connection cost = 2+3+5=10 Total cost = 25 Solution 2: open right facility Facility cost = 5 Connection cost = 7+3+8=18 Total cost = 23 Solution 3: open left facility Facility cost = 10 Connection cost = 2+4+5 = 11 Total cost = 21 Optimal 5 8

  4. Capacitated Variants • Hard-Capacitated Facility Location • Facility i has a capacity ui which specifies the maximum number of clients that can be assigned to it. • Best Approx ratio: 7.88 by Pal et al. using local search • Soft-Capacitated Facility Location • Facility i can serve kui clients at a cost of kfi (for every k). • In other words, the opening cost of i is fidx/uie, where x is the number of clients served by i. • We give a 2-approximation algorithm. This achieves the integrality gap of the LP.

  5. Previous Results

  6. Simple Reduction to UFLP • We reduce the problem to linear-cost FLP, and then to UFLP. • In linear FLP, the cost of facility i is aix + bi, where x is the # of clients that it serves. • To reduce linear FLP to UFLP, just add ai to the connection costs of all clients to i.

  7. Reduction to UFLP, cont’d. • Recall that in SCFLP, the opening cost of facility i is fidx/uie. • Replace this facility by a facility of cost fi(1+(x-1)/ui). • Observe that dx/uie · 1+(x-1)/ui· 2dx/uie

  8. A Simple Observation • This reduction can double the facility cost, but it does not change the connection cost. • Definition: An algorithm is a (f,c)-approx algorithm for a FLP, if it finds a solution of cost at most f F*+c C*, where F* and C* are facility and connection costs of an arbitrary solution. • Similarly, we define the notion of (f,c)-approx reduction between two FLPs.

  9. Simple Observation, cont’d. • Lemma. If we have a (f,c)-reduction from problem A to problem B, and a (f,c)-algorithm for problem B, then we get a (ff,cc)-algorithm for problem A. • We have a (2,1)-reduction from SCFLP to linear-FLP. • Also, the UFLP algorithm of Jain, M., & Saberi (the JMS algorithm) is a (1,2)-approximation for UFLP.

  10. The missing link • Reduction from linear-FLP to UFLP is not necessarily a (1,1)-reduction, since it moves part of the facility cost to the connection cost; However, • Theorem. If we reduce an instance of the linear-FLP to UFLP and solve it using the JMS algorithm, then we get a (1,2)-approx. solution. • Proof is by looking into the factor-revealing LP of JMS algorithm. See paper for details.

  11. Results • Theorem. There is a 2-approx alg for SCFLP. This achieves the integrality gap of the natural LP relaxation of SCFLP. • Other results in the paper: A different analysis for our 1.52-approx alg for UFLP, which allows us to implement this alg in quasi-linear time, using techniques developed by Thorup.

  12. Conclusion • Moral of the story: Bi-factor approx algs and approx reductions for FLPs are useful. • Open Question 1. Is there a (1,1+2/e)-approximation for UFLP? • Such an algorithm would imply a 1.463-approximation for UFLP, achieving the hardness lower bound. • Open Question 2. Better hardness results for capacitated variants?

More Related