Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.07715

Metric repair is two problems: Which edges, and what weights

Asaf Etgar·Anna Gilbert
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Real distance data rarely cooperate: measurements are noisy, observations are missing, and the numbers that result seldom satisfy the triangle inequality. A family of methods exists to correct them, and every one of those methods rests on the same hope --- that analysis run on the corrected data is a more faithful surrogate for the truth than analysis run on the raw data. We are not aware of anyone having tested that hope. We test it through the problem of Metric Repair, which asks for the fewest edges whose reweighting restores the triangle inequality. We implement a suite of algorithms, covering the literature and new methods, both with theoretical guarantees and heuristics, and evaluate their performance on real and synthetic data, both inherently non metric and corrupted. We demonstrate that the algorithms' performance is determined predominantly by the type and fraction of corruption, rather than the corruption's magnitude or graph size. We further test the effect of repair on downstream tasks, namely MDS and $k$NN, and ask if the repair got the result closer to the truth compared to a corrupted instance. In most cases it did not, and we identify the culprit. A small set of edges is not enough. Finding the correct set of edges, be it an injected corruption or a natural non-metricity, is critical. Moreover, deciding on a weight rule impacts performance: on data instances with available metric ground truth, a metric repair algorithm can pull the graph further from the truth, while an oracle access to the true weights helps. Surprisingly, the opposite can be true as well. Setting the weights is not an implementation detail; it is half the problem.

Explore related subjects

cs.DS

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Asaf Etgar, Anna Gilbert. 2026-08-07. Metric repair is two problems: Which edges, and what weights. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.07715

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

Approximating Prize-Collecting TSP below 1.556

The prize-collecting traveling salesperson problem is a variant of the metric traveling salesperson problem in which vertices may be left unvisited by paying their associated penalties. The objective is to minimize the length of the tour plus the total penalty of the unvisited vertices. Blauth, Klein, and Nägele gave the previously best-known LP-relative $1.599$-approximation. We show that a simpler version of their algorithm, obtained by omitting the splitting-off preprocessing before the tree decomposition, has an LP-relative approximation ratio of $1.555761$. The improvement comes entirely from a new analysis of the parity-correction step: a simple analysis already gives $1.56$, and the stated factor follows from a numerical parameter search with exact verification.

cs.DS↗