For some computational problems (e.g., product configuration, planning, diagnosis, query answering, phylogeny reconstruction) computing a set of similar diverse solutions may be desirable for better decision-making. With this motivation, we studied several decision optimization versions of this problem in the context of Answer Set Programming (ASP), analyzed their computational complexity, and introduced offline online methods to compute similar diverse solutions of such computational problems with respect to a given distance function. All these methods rely on the idea of computing solutions to a problem by means of finding the answer sets for an ASP program that describes the problem. The offline methods compute all solutions in advance using the ASP formulation of the problem with an ASP solver, like Clasp, and then identify similar diverse solutions using clustering methods. The online methods compute similar diverse solutions following one of the three approaches: by reformulating the ASP representation of the problem to compute similar diverse solutions at once using an ASP solver; by computing similar diverse solutions iteratively (one after other) using an ASP solver; by modifying the search algorithm of an ASP solver to compute similar diverse solutions incrementally. We modified Clasp to implement the last online method and called it Clasp-NK. In the first two online methods, the given distance function is represented in ASP; in the last one it is implemented in C++. We showed the applicability and the effectiveness of these methods on reconstruction of similar diverse phylogenies for Indo-European languages, and on several planning problems in Blocks World. We observed that in terms of computational efficiency the last online method outperforms the others; also it allows us to compute similar diverse solutions when the distance function cannot be represented in ASP.
which are similar to @math -distant set (resp. @math -close set ): @cite_23 asks for a set of @math solutions @math -distant close to one solution, whereas @math -distant close set asks for a set of solutions that is @math -close distant to a set of previously computed solutions. Also, the distance measure considered in @math Distant @math Set (resp. @math Close @math Set ) is computable in polynomial time; in @math -distant set (resp. @math -close set ) deciding whether the distance of a set of solutions is less than a given @math is assumed to be in .
@cite_23
2031212151 2001663593 2963964051 2047386086
Given a set S of n sites (points), and a distance measure d , the nearestneighborsearching problem is to build a data structure so that given a query point q , the site nearest to q can be found quickly. This paper gives data structures for this problem when the sites and queries are in a metric space. One data structure, D(S) , uses a divide-and-conquer recursion. The other data structure, M(S,Q) , is somewhat like a skiplist. Both are simple and implementable. The data structures are analyzed when the metric space obeys a certain sphere-packing bound, and when the sites and query points are random and have distributions with an exchangeability property. This property implies, for example, that query point q is a random element of ( S q ) . Under these conditions, the preprocessing and space bounds for the algorithms are close to linear in n . They depend also on the sphere-packing bound, and on the logarithm of the distanceratio ( (S) ) of S , the ratio of the distance between the farthest pair of points in S to the distance between the closest pair. The data structure M(S,Q) requires as input data an additional set Q , taken to be representative of the query points. The resource bounds of M(S,Q) have a dependence on the distance ratio of S ( )Q . While M(S,Q) can return wrong answers, its failure probability can be bounded, and is decreasing in a parameter K . Here K≤ |Q| n is chosen when building M(S,Q) . The expected query time for M(S,Q) is O(Klog n)log ( (S Q) ) , and the resource bounds increase linearly in K . The data structure D(S) has expected O( log n) O(1) query time, for fixed distance ratio. The preprocessing algorithm for M(S,Q) can be used to solve the all nearest neighbor problem for S in O(n(log n) 2 (log ϒ(S)) 2 ) expected time. 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 . We prove conditional near-quadratic running time lower bounds for approximate Bichromatic Closest Pair with Euclidean, Manhattan, Hamming, or edit distance. Specifically, unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis (SETH) is false, for every δ>0 there exists a constant e>0 such that computing a (1+e)-approximation to the Bichromatic Closest Pair requires Ω(n2−δ) time. In particular, this implies a near-linear query time for Approximate Nearest Neighbor search with polynomial preprocessing time. Our reduction uses the recently introduced Distributed PCP framework, but obtains improved efficiency using Algebraic Geometry (AG) codes. Efficient PCPs from AG codes have been constructed in other settings before, but our construction is the first to yield new hardness results. The problem of finding a center string that is "close" to everygiven string arises in computational molecular biology and codingtheory. This problem has two versions: the Closest String problemand the Closest Substring problem. Given a set of strings S= s1, s2, ...,sn , each of length m, the Closest Stringproblem is to find the smallest d and a string s of lengthm which is within Hamming distance d to eachsi e S. This problem comes fromcoding theory when we are looking for a code not too far away froma given set of codes. Closest Substring problem, with an additionalinput integer L, asks for the smallest d and a strings, of length L, which is within Hamming distance daway from a substring, of length L, of each si. This problemis much more elusive than the Closest String problem. The ClosestSubstring problem is formulated from applications in findingconserved regions, identifying genetic drug targets and generatinggenetic probes in molecular biology. Whether there are efficientapproximation algorithms for both problems are major open questionsin this area. We present two polynomial-time approximationalgorithms with approximation ratio 1 + e for any smalle to settle both questions.