Add text for coping with intractability
This commit is contained in:
parent
467dba0d5b
commit
81ef925b7c
@ -144,6 +144,19 @@
|
|||||||
number = {2}
|
number = {2}
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@article{khullerBudgetedMaximumCoverage1999,
|
||||||
|
title = {The Budgeted Maximum Coverage Problem},
|
||||||
|
author = {Khuller, Samir and Moss, Anna and Naor, Joseph},
|
||||||
|
year = {1999},
|
||||||
|
month = apr,
|
||||||
|
volume = {70},
|
||||||
|
pages = {39--45},
|
||||||
|
doi = {10.1016/S0020-0190(99)00031-9},
|
||||||
|
abstract = {The budgeted maximum coverage problem is: given a collection S of sets with associated costs defined over a domain of weighted elements, and a budget L, find a subset of S{${'}\subseteqq$}S such that the total cost of sets in S{${'}$} does not exceed L, and the total weight of elements covered by S{${'}$} is maximized. This problem is NP-hard. For the special case of this problem, where each set has unit cost, a (1-1/e)-approximation is known. Yet, prior to this work, no approximation results were known for the general cost version. The contribution of this paper is a (1-1/e)-approximation algorithm for the budgeted maximum coverage problem. We also argue that this approximation factor is the best possible, unless NP{$\subseteqq$}DTIME(nO(loglogn)).},
|
||||||
|
journal = {Information Processing Letters},
|
||||||
|
number = {1}
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@inproceedings{langPortioningUsingOrdinal2019,
|
@inproceedings{langPortioningUsingOrdinal2019,
|
||||||
title = {Portioning {{Using Ordinal Preferences}}: {{Fairness}} and {{Efficiency}}},
|
title = {Portioning {{Using Ordinal Preferences}}: {{Fairness}} and {{Efficiency}}},
|
||||||
shorttitle = {Portioning {{Using Ordinal Preferences}}},
|
shorttitle = {Portioning {{Using Ordinal Preferences}}},
|
||||||
|
|||||||
@ -333,6 +333,28 @@ constant time.
|
|||||||
however, gives $\{ p_2,p_3,p_4 \}$.
|
however, gives $\{ p_2,p_3,p_4 \}$.
|
||||||
\end{example}
|
\end{example}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A benefit of the three discussed satisfaction functions is that they can be
|
||||||
|
viewed as constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) and can thus be formulated
|
||||||
|
using integer linear programming (ILP). Although integer programming is
|
||||||
|
\textsf{NP}-complete, efficient solvers are readily available for these types of
|
||||||
|
problems. \textcite{talmonFrameworkApprovalBasedBudgeting2019} show that the
|
||||||
|
rule $\mathcal{R}_{sat_{0/1}}^m$ is similar to the max cover problem which can
|
||||||
|
be approximated with a $(1-\frac{1}{e})$-approximation algorithm. In fact,
|
||||||
|
\textcite{khullerBudgetedMaximumCoverage1999} show that an approximation
|
||||||
|
algorithm with the same ratio exists not only for the case where the projects
|
||||||
|
have unit cost but also for the general cost version.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Instead of sacrificing exactness to get a better running time,
|
||||||
|
\textcite{talmonFrameworkApprovalBasedBudgeting2019} show that the
|
||||||
|
$\mathcal{R}_{sat_{0/1}}^m$ rule is fixed parameter tractable for the number of
|
||||||
|
voters $|V|$. A problem is fixed parameter tractable if there exists an
|
||||||
|
algorithm that decides each instance of the problem in $O(f(k)\cdot p(n))$ where
|
||||||
|
$p(n)$ is a polynomial function and $f(k)$ an arbitrary function in $k$. It is
|
||||||
|
crucial to note that $f(k)$ does not admit functions of the form $n^k$. The
|
||||||
|
algorithm for the maximum rule tries to guess the number of voters that are
|
||||||
|
represented by the same project. The estimation is then used to pick a project
|
||||||
|
which has the lowest cost and satisfies exactly the estimated amount of voters.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\printbibliography
|
\printbibliography
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\end{document}
|
\end{document}
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user