Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2411.01486

The Gap Between Greedy Algorithm and Minimum Multiplicative Spanner

Abstract

The greedy algorithm adapted from Kruskal's algorithm is an efficient and folklore way to produce a $k$-spanner with girth at least $k+2$. The greedy algorithm has shown to be `existentially optimal', while it's not `universally optimal' for any constant $k$. Here, `universal optimality' means an algorithm can produce the smallest $k$-spanner $H$ given any $n$-vertex input graph $G$. However, how well the greedy algorithm works compared to `universal optimality' is still unclear for superconstant $k:=k(n)$. In this paper, we aim to give a new and fine-grained analysis of this problem in undirected unweighted graph setting. Specifically, we show some bounds on this problem including the following two (1) On the negative side, when $k<\frac{1}{3}n-O(1)$, the greedy algorithm is not `universally optimal'. (2) On the positive side, when $k>\frac{2}{3}n+O(1)$, the greedy algorithm is `universally optimal'. We also introduce an appropriate notion for `approximately universal optimality'. An algorithm is $(α,β)$-universally optimal iff given any $n$-vertex input graph $G$, it can produce a $k$-spanner $H$ of $G$ with size $|H|\leq n+α(|H^*|-n)+β$, where $H^*$ is the smallest $k$-spanner of $G$. We show the following positive bounds. (1) When $k>\frac{4}{7}n+O(1)$, the greedy algorithm is $(2,O(1))$-universally optimal. (2) When $k>\frac{12}{23}n+O(1)$, the greedy algorithm is $(18,O(1))$-universally optimal. (3) When $k>\frac{1}{2}n+O(1)$, the greedy algorithm is $(32,O(1))$-universally optimal. All our proofs are constructive building on new structural analysis on spanners. We give some ideas about how to break small cycles in a spanner to increase the girth. These ideas may help us to understand the relation between girth and spanners.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yeyuan Chen. 2024-11-03. The Gap Between Greedy Algorithm and Minimum Multiplicative Spanner. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01486

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Beyond Kruskal: Polynomial-Time Tensor Decomposition under the Lovitz-Petrov Condition

Identifiability criteria certify that a given tensor decomposition is a unique rank decomposition. Kruskal's classical condition is one of the best-known deterministic criteria for identifiability. However, no polynomial-time decomposition algorithm is known under the Kruskal condition, and verifying the condition itself is NP-hard. Lovitz and Petrov introduced a strictly more general identifiability condition which, in contrast, is polynomial-time verifiable, but no polynomial-time decomposition algorithm was previously known under this condition. We give a polynomial-time algorithm for tensor decomposition under the Lovitz--Petrov condition. Moreover, combining our algorithm with polynomial-time verification of the Lovitz--Petrov condition yields an efficient end-to-end certification procedure: after computing a decomposition, one can deterministically certify in polynomial time that it is unique and therefore of minimum rank. This contrasts with an arbitrary tensor decomposition, which certifies only an upper bound on the tensor rank, while determining tensor rank is NP-hard in general.

cs.DS

Poisson Exchange Beyond Submodularity: Effective Approximation Algorithms for Offline and Online Subset Selection over Matroids

Over the past decade, a growing body of research has shown that $γ$-weak submodularity broadly arises in numerous subset selection tasks, including feature selection, neural network pruning, and video summarization. Despite its prevalence, maximizing a $γ$-weakly submodular function subject to a general matroid constraint remains challenging. To date, the only known approximation guarantee is the conservative $(1+1/γ)^{-2}$ factor established by \citet{chen2018weakly}. To improve upon this result, this paper proposes a novel algorithm called \MGPE, which repeatedly performs maximum-gain local exchanges through careful control of a non-homogeneous Poisson clock, and proves that this \MGPE\ can attain an approximation ratio arbitrarily close to $ρ_γ=1-\left(γ/(2-γ)\right)^{ \frac{γ^2}{2(1-γ)} }$. In sharp contrast to the previous guarantee, our obtained factor $ρ_γ$ not only strictly improves upon $(1+1/γ)^{-2}$ for every $γ\in(0,1]$, but also can asymptotically approach the optimal $(1-1/e)$-approximation for submodular maximization as $γ\to1$. Furthermore, we surprisingly find that when the matroid constraint reduces to a cardinality or the objective satisfies the stronger notion of $α$-weak DR-submodularity, \MGPE\ can automatically recover the tight approximation ratios of $1-e^{-γ}$ and $1-e^{-α}$, respectively. Here, $α\in(0,1]$ denotes the DR ratio.

cs.DS

Linear-Query Deterministic Approximation for Non-monotone Submodular Maximization under a Knapsack Constraint

Submodular maximization under a knapsack constraint (SMK) is a fundamental combinatorial optimization problem with broad applications across machine learning and data mining. Motivated by large-scale applications where query efficiency is paramount, we study non-monotone SMK and focus on deterministic algorithms with linear query complexity. Prior deterministic linear-query algorithms achieve at best a $1/5-\varepsilon$ approximation, falling short of the $1/4-\varepsilon$ ratio attainable by randomized algorithms. We close this gap by presenting a deterministic $(1/4-\varepsilon)$-approximation with $O(n\log^2(1/\varepsilon)/\varepsilon^2)$ queries. Our approach partitions the analysis based on the cost of the largest optimal element $r$: when the cost of $r$ is moderate, we refine the threshold-twin-greedy framework via residual-budget enumeration to tighten the analysis; when the cost of $r$ is large, we reduce the problem to bicriteria submodular maximization. As a secondary contribution, we obtain a $(1/2-\varepsilon, O(1/\varepsilon))$-bicriteria approximation with $O(n\log(1/\varepsilon)/\varepsilon^2)$ queries, improving over the previous $O(n^2/\varepsilon)$ query bound.

cs.DS