1 / 28

The Matroid Median Problem

The Matroid Median Problem. Viswanath Nagarajan IBM Research Joint with R. Krishnaswamy, A. Kumar, Y. Sabharwal, B. Saha. k-Median Problem. Set of locations in a metric space (V,d) Symmetric, triangle inequality

stephanie-carpenter
Download Presentation

The Matroid Median 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. The Matroid Median Problem Viswanath Nagarajan IBM Research Joint with R. Krishnaswamy, A. Kumar, Y. Sabharwal, B. Saha

  2. k-Median Problem • Set of locations in a metric space (V,d) • Symmetric, triangle inequality • Place k facilities such that sum of connection costs (to nearest facility) is minimized: minFµV, |F|·ku2V d(u,F)

  3. k-Median Results • poly(log n) approx via tree embeddings [B ’96] • LP rounding O(1)-approx [CGST ’99] • Lagrangian relaxation + primal dual [JV ’01] • Local search with p-exchanges [AGKMMP ’04] • best known ratio 3+² • Hardness of approximation ¼ 1.46 [GK ’98]

  4. Red-Blue Median • Facilities are of two different types • Partition V into red and blue sets • Separate bounds kr and kb on facilities • Recently introduced [HKK ’10] • Motivated by Content Distribution Networks • T facility-types (RB Median is T=2) • O(1)-approximation ratio via Local Search kr=3kb=2

  5. Matroid Median • Given matroid M on ground-set V • Locate facilities F that are independent in M • Minimize connection cost • Recap matroid M=(V, Iµ2V) • A,B2 I and |A|<|B| )9 e 2 BnA : A[{e} 2 I • Substantial generalization of RB Median • The CDN application with T facility-types reduces to partition matroid constraint B A e k3=1 k4=2 k1=2 k2=3

  6. Talk Outline Thm: 16-approximation for Matroid Median • Bad example for Local Search • LP relaxation • Phase I : sparsification • Phase II: reformulation

  7. Local Search? • Partition matroid with T parts • T-1 exchange local search • Swap up to T-1 facilities in each step • Unlikely to work beyond T=O(1) Eg. T=5 Uniform metric on T+1 Clients n=mT+1 OPT = 1 (small fac.) LOPT = m (big fac.) m 1 m m m m locality gap (n/T)

  8. LP relaxation min uv d(u,v) ¢xuv s.t. vxuv = 1 8 u 2 V xuv·yv8 u,v 2 V v2Syv· r(S) 8 Sµ V x, y¸ 0. connection constraints matroid rank constraints xuv u v y 2 M facilities clients

  9. Solving the LP • Exponential number of rank constraints • Use separation oracle: minSµV r(S) - v2S yv • An instance of submodular minimization • Also more efficient algorithms to separate over the matroid polytope [C ’84] • Solvable in poly-time via Ellipsoid algorithm

  10. Idea for approach(1) • Problem non-trivial even if metric is a tree  • Even O(log n)-approximation not obvious • What’s easier than a tree? • Suppose input is special star-like instance One root facility (can help any client) Others are private facilities (help only 1 client) client 2 client 1 client 3 root facility

  11. Idea for approach(2) • Recall LP variables • yj : facility opening (in matroid polytope) • xij : connection • For any client i, private j2 P(i) WMA xij = yj • Connection constraintj xij = 1 • So xir = 1 - j2P(i) xij = 1 - j2P(i) yj • Can eliminate all connection variables ! client i r private facilities P(i)

  12. Idea for approach(3) • Reformulate the LP min i[j2P(i) dij¢ yj + dir¢(1- j2P(i) yj) ] s.t. j2P(i) yj· 1, 8 clients i y 2 M • This is just an instance of intersection of M with partition matroid from P(i)s  xij xir To ensure xir¸ 0 matroid constraint

  13. Idea for approach(4) • Start with LP optimum (x,y) of arbitrary matroid median instance • Phase I: Use (x,y) to form clusters of disjoint star-like instances • Phase II: Resolve the new star-LP • (x,y) itself restricted to the stars not integral • Show that new LP is integral • ¼ matroid intersection

  14. Phase I: sparsify LP solution

  15. Outline • Modify LP connections x in four steps • Similar to [CGST ’99] • Key: no change in facility variables y • Need to ensure y remains in matroid polytope • Not true in [CGST ’99] • Require some more (technical) work

  16. Step 1: cluster clients • Lu = v duv¢xuv, contribution of u to LP obj. • B(u) is local ball of u • vertices within distance 2¢Lufrom u • Order clients u in increasing Lu • Pick maximal disjoint set of local balls • T are the chosen clients • Move each client to T-client close to it Loss in obj · 4¢ LP* (additive) 3 4 3 4 5 5 1 1 6 6 2 2

  17. Obs on step 1 • Local balls of T clients are disjoint • y-value inside any local ball ¸ ½ • Markov inequality • Restrict to clients T (now weighted) • For any p,q2T : d(p,q) ¸ 2¢(LPp + LPq) • well separated clients y¸½ separated T balls

  18. More obs on step 1 • Supposey-value in each T’s local ball ¸ 1 • Then instance of matroid intersection: • Matroid M and partition from local-ball(T) • Resolving suitable LP ) integral soln • Will need intersection with `laminar’ constraints, not just partition matroid

  19. Step 2: private facilities • Ensure that each facility in some T-ball or helps at most one client (ie. private) • Break connections from all except closest client 1 to facility j • Reconnect to facilities in B(1), y-value ¸ ½ • Total reconnection for any client · ½ j 3 1 Constant factor loss in obj 2

  20. Step 3: uniform objective • Each connection from client p to any facility in B(q) will pay same objective d(p,q) • Since p,q well separated d(p,q) · O(1)¢ d(p,j) • For any j 2 B(q) • Constant factor loss in obj p q

  21. Step 4: building stars • WMA each client i 2 T connected to • Its private facilities P(i), OR • Its closest other client k2T, ie. facility in B(k) • Set of `outer’ connections ¼ directed tree • Unique out-edge from each client • Lem: Can modify outer connection to `star’ Constant factor loss in obj

  22. The star structure • One pseudo-root { r, r’ } • Every other client connected to either r or r’ • All LP-connections x are from client i to: • private facility j2P(i), obj d(i,j) OR • facility in B(k) with k2{ r, r’ }, uniform obj d(i,k) r r’ i

  23. Phase II: using star • Will drop all the connection x-variables • WMA xij = yj for j2P(i) private facilities • Total outer connection=1 - j2P(i) xij =1 - j2P(i) yj • Each outer-connection pays same obj d(i,r) • Want property (in integral soln) that P(i)=;) there is a recourse connection to r • Do not quite ensure this, but…

  24. Phase II contd. • Add constraint that y(P(r)) + y(P(r’)) ¸ 1 • Indeed feasible for (x,y) since each local ball has y-value ¸ ½ • This ensures (in integral soln) that P(i)=;) there is a recourse connection to r or r’ • Lose another constant factor in obj

  25. Phase II: new LP • Apply constraints for each star to get LP min i[j2P(i) dij¢ yj + d(i,r(i))¢(1- j2P(i) yj)] s.t. j2P(i) yj· 1, 8 clients i y(P(r)) + y(P(r’)) ¸ 1, 8 p-root {r, r’} y 2 M Lem: Integral polytope (via proof similar to matroid intersection) laminar constraints matroid constraint

  26. Summarize • Using LP solution and metric properties reduce to star-like instances • Formulate new LP for star-like instances, with only facility variables • New LP is integral

  27. Other Results • O(1)-approximation for prize-collecting version of matroid median • Knapsack Median problem (knapsack constraint on open facilities) • Give bi-criteria approx, violate budget by wmax • Can we get true O(1)-approx? • Handle other constraints in k-median?

  28. Thank You

More Related