Steiner Tree Approximation via Iterative Randomized Rounding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Steiner tree problem is one of the most fundamental NP -hard problems: given a weighted undirected graph and a subset of terminal nodes, find a minimum-cost tree spanning the terminals. In a sequence of papers, the approximation ratio for this problem was improved from 2 to 1.55 [Robins and Zelikovsky 2005]. All these algorithms are purely combinatorial. A long-standing open problem is whether there is an LP relaxation of Steiner tree with integrality gap smaller than 2 [Rajagopalan and Vazirani 1999]. In this article we present an LP-based approximation algorithm for Steiner tree with an improved approximation factor. Our algorithm is based on a, seemingly novel, iterative randomized rounding technique. We consider an LP relaxation of the problem, which is based on the notion of directed components. We sample one component with probability proportional to the value of the associated variable in a fractional solution: the sampled component is contracted and the LP is updated consequently. We iterate this process until all terminals are connected. Our algorithm delivers a solution of cost at most ln(4) + ε < 1.39 times the cost of an optimal Steiner tree. The algorithm can be derandomized using the method of limited independence. As a by-product of our analysis, we show that the integrality gap of our LP is at most 1.55, hence answering the mentioned open question.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".