MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109533535 · doi:10.1109/sfcs.2001.959928

Tight approximation results for general covering integer programs

2001· article· en· W2109533535 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsLinear programming relaxationRoundingMultiplicative functionApproximation algorithmMathematicsUpper and lower boundsInteger (computer science)Randomized roundingDiscrete mathematicsCover (algebra)Binary logarithmMultiplicity (mathematics)Linear programmingAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we study approximation algorithms for solving a general covering integer program. An n-vector x of nonnegative integers is sought, which minimizes c/sup T//spl middot/x, subject to Ax/spl ges/b, x/spl les/d. The entries of A, b, c are nonnegative. Let m be the number of rows of A. Covering problems have been heavily studied in combinatorial optimization. We focus on the effect of the multiplicity constraints, x/spl les/d, on approximately. Two longstanding open questions remain for this general formulation with upper bounds on the variables. (i) The integrality gap of the standard LP relaxation is arbitrarily large. Existing approximation algorithms that achieve the well-known O(log m)-approximation with respect to the LP value do so at the expense of violating the upper bounds on the variables by the same O(log m) multiplicative factor. What is the smallest possible violation of the upper bounds that still achieves cost within O(log m) of the standard LP optimum? (ii) The best known approximation ratio for the problem has been O(log(max/sub j//spl Sigma//sub i/A/sub ij/)) since 1982. This bound can be as bad as polynomial in the input size. Is an O(log m)-approximation, like the one known for the special case of Set Cover, possible? We settle these two open questions. To answer the first question we give an algorithm based on the relatively simple new idea of randomly rounding variables to smaller-than-integer units. To settle the second question we give a reduction from approximating the problem while respecting multiplicity constraints to approximating the problem with a bounded violation of the multiplicity constraints.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207