Local-search based approximation algorithms for mobile facility location problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the mobile facility location (MFL) problem. We are given a set of facilities and clients located in a common metric space G = (V, c). The goal is to move each facility from its initial location to a destination (in V) and assign each client to the destination of some facility so as to minimize the sum of the movement-costs of the facilities and the client-assignment costs. This abstracts facility-location settings where one has the flexibility of moving facilities from their current locations to other destinations so as to serve clients more efficiently by reducing their assignment costs.We give the first local-search based approximation algorithm for this problem and achieve the best-known approximation guarantee. Our main result is (3 + e)-approximation for this problem for any constant e > 0 using local search. The previous best guarantee for MFL was an 8-approximation algorithm due to Friggstad and Salavatipour [12] based on LP-rounding. Our guarantee matches the best-known approximation guarantee for the k-median problem. Since there is an approximation-preserving reduction from the k-median problem to MFL, any improvement of our result would imply an analogous improvement for the k-median problem. Furthermore, our analysis is tight (up to o(1) factors) since the tight example for the local-search based 3-approximation algorithm for k-median can be easily adapted to show that our local-search algorithm has a tight approximation ratio of 3. Our results extend to the weighted generalization wherein each facility i has a non-negative weight wi and the movement cost for i is wi times the distance traveled by i.In contrast to the k-median problem, the local search procedure that moves, at each step, a constant number of facilities (to chosen destinations) and assigns each client to the nearest destination, is known to have an unbounded locality gap. Our local-search algorithm is a natural and simple variant, where we only select the destinations of the facilities in each step and optimally rematch the facilities to these destinations (which might entail moving all facilities). One of the chief novelties in the analysis is that in order to generate a suitable collection of local-search moves whose resulting inequalities yield the desired bound on the cost of a local-optimum, we define a tree-like structure that (loosely speaking) functions as a recursion tree, using which we spawn off local-search moves by exploring this tree to a constant depth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".