Problems involving the efficient arrangement of simple objects, as captured by bin packing and makespan scheduling, are fundamental tasks in combinatorial optimization. These are well understood in the traditional online and offline cases, but have been less well-studied when the volume of the input is truly massive, and cannot even be read into memory. This is captured by the streaming model of computation, where the aim is to approximate the cost of the solution in one pass over the data, using small space. As a result, streaming algorithms produce concise input summaries that approximately preserve the optimum value. We design the first efficient streaming algorithms for these fundamental problems in combinatorial optimization. For Bin Packing, we provide a streaming asymptotic @math -approximation with @math memory, where @math hides logarithmic factors. Moreover, such a space bound is essentially optimal. Our algorithm implies a streaming @math -approximation for Vector Bin Packing in @math dimensions, running in space @math . For the related Vector Scheduling problem, we show how to construct an input summary in space @math that preserves the optimum value up to a factor of @math , where @math is the number of identical machines.
proves to be substantially harder to approximate, even in a constant dimension. For fixed @math , Bansal, Eli ' a s , and Khan @cite_35 showed an approximation factor of @math . For general @math , a relatively simple algorithm based on an LP relaxation, due to Chekuri and Khanna @cite_9 , remains the best known, with an approximation guarantee of @math . The problem is APX-hard even for @math @cite_6 , and cannot be approximated within a factor better than @math for any fixed @math @cite_8 if @math is arbitrarily large. Hence, our streaming @math -approximation for asymptotically achieves the offline lower bound.
@cite_35 @cite_9 @cite_6 @cite_8
2069278600 2097646889 2055900608 2001663593
We present a new efficient algorithm for the search version of the approximate Closest Vector Problem with Preprocessing (CVPP). Our algorithm achieves an approximation factor of O(n sqrt log n ), improving on the previous best of O(n^ 1.5 ) due to Lag arias, Lenstra, and Schnorr hkzbabai . We also show, somewhat surprisingly, that only O(n) vectors of preprocessing advice are sufficient to solve the problem (with the slightly worse approximation factor of O(n)). We remark that this still leaves a large gap with respect to the decisional version of CVPP, where the best known approximation factor is O(sqrt n log n ) due to Aharonov and Regev AharonovR04 . To achieve these results, we show a reduction to the same problem restricted to target points that are close to the lattice and a more efficient reduction to a harder problem, Bounded Distance Decoding with preprocessing (BDDP). Combining either reduction with the previous best-known algorithm for BDDP by Liu, Lyubashevsky, and Micciancio LiuLM06 gives our main result. In the setting of CVP without preprocessing, we also give a reduction from (1+eps)gamma approximate CVP to gamma approximate CVP where the target is at distance at most 1+1 eps times the minimum distance (the length of the shortest non-zero vector) which relies on the lattice sparsification techniques of Dadush and Kun DadushK13 . As our final and most technical contribution, we present a substantially more efficient variant of the LLM algorithm (both in terms of run-time and amount of preprocessing advice), and via an improved analysis, show that it can decode up to a distance proportional to the reciprocal of the smoothing parameter of the dual lattice MR04 . We show that this is never smaller than the LLM decoding radius, and that it can be up to an wide tilde Omega (sqrt n ) factor larger. By the breakthrough work of Hastad [J ACM 48(4) (2001), 798–859], several constraint satisfaction problems are now known to have the following approximation resistance property: Satisfying more clauses than what picking a random assignment would achieve is NP-hard. This is the case for example for Max E3-Sat, Max E3-Lin, and Max E4-Set Splitting. A notable exception to this extreme hardness is constraint satisfaction over two variables (2-CSP); as a corollary of the celebrated Goemans-Williamson algorithm [J ACM 42(6) (1995), 1115–1145], we know that every Boolean 2-CSP has a nontrivial approximation algorithm whose performance ratio is better than that obtained by picking a random assignment to the variables. An intriguing question then is whether this is also the case for 2-CSPs over larger, non-Boolean domains. This question is still open, and is equivalent to whether the generalization of Max 2-SAT to domains of size d, can be approximated to a factor better than (1 − 1 d2). In an attempt to make progress towards this question, in this paper we prove, first, that a slight restriction of this problem, namely, a generalization of linear inequations with two variables per constraint, is not approximation resistant, and, second, that the Not-All-Equal Sat problem over domain size d with three variables per constraint, is approximation resistant, for every d ≥ 3. In the Boolean case, Not-All-Equal Sat with three variables per constraint is equivalent to Max 2-SAT and thus has a nontrivial approximation algorithm; for larger domain sizes, Max 2-SAT can be reduced to Not-All-Equal Sat with three variables per constraint. Our approximation algorithm implies that a wide class of 2-CSPs called regular 2-CSPs can all be approximated beyond their random assignment threshold. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg. 2004 At [email protected]?10, Agarwal and Sharathkumar presented a streaming algorithm for approximating the minimum enclosing ball of a set of points in d-dimensional Euclidean space. Their algorithm requires one pass, uses O(d) space, and was shown to have approximation factor at most (1+3) [email protected] 1.3661. We prove that the same algorithm has approximation factor less than 1.22, which brings us much closer to a (1+2) 2 1.207 lower bound given by Agarwal and Sharathkumar. We also apply this technique to the dynamic version of the minimum enclosing ball problem (in the non-streaming setting). We give an O(dn)-space data structure that can maintain a 1.22-approximate minimum enclosing ball in O(dlogn) expected amortized time per insertion deletion. par>We prove some non-approximability results for restrictions of basic combinatorial optimization problems to instances of bounded “degreeror bounded “width.” Specifically: We prove that the Max 3SAT problem on instances where each variable occurs in at most B clauses, is hard to approximate to within a factor @math , unless @math . H stad [18] proved that the problem is approximable to within a factor @math in polynomial time, and that is hard to approximate to within a factor @math . Our result uses a new randomized reduction from general instances of Max 3SAT to bounded-occurrences instances. The randomized reduction applies to other Max SNP problems as well. We observe that the Set Cover problem on instances where each set has size at most B is hard to approximate to within a factor @math unless @math . The result follows from an appropriate setting of parameters in Feige's reduction [11]. This is essentially tight in light of the existence of @math -approximate algorithms [20, 23, 9] We present a new PCP construction, based on applying parallel repetition to the inner verifier,'' and we provide a tight analysis for it. Using the new construction, and some modifications to known reductions from PCP to Hitting Set, we prove that Hitting Set with sets of size B is hard to approximate to within a factor @math . The problem can be approximated to within a factor B [19], and it is the Vertex Cover problem for B =2. The relationship between hardness of approximation and set size seems to have not been explored before. We observe that the Independent Set problem on graphs having degree at most B is hard to approximate to within a factor @math , unless P = NP . This follows from a comination of results by Clementi and Trevisan [28] and Reingold, Vadhan and Wigderson [27]. It had been observed that the problem is hard to approximate to within a factor @math unless P = NP [1]. An algorithm achieving factor @math is also known [21, 2, 30, 16 .