Approximation Algorithms for Clustering Problems with Lower Bounds and Outliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider clustering problems with non-uniform lower bounds and outliers, and obtain the first approximation guarantees for these problems. We have a set F of facilities with lower bounds {L_i}_{i in F} and a set D of clients located in a common metric space {c(i,j)}_{i,j in F union D}, and bounds k, m. A feasible solution is a pair (S subseteq F, sigma: D -> S union {out}), where sigma specifies the client assignments, such that |S| <=k, |sigma^{-1}(i)| >= L_i for all i in S, and |sigma^{-1}(out)| <= m. In the lower-bounded min-sum-of-radii with outliers P (LBkSRO) problem, the objective is to minimize sum_{i in S} max_{j in sigma^{-1})i)}, and in the lower-bounded k-supplier with outliers (LBkSupO) problem, the objective is to minimize max_{i in S} max_{j in sigma^{-1})i)} c(i,j). We obtain an approximation factor of 12.365 for LBkSRO, which improves to 3.83 for the non-outlier version (i.e., m = 0). These also constitute the first approximation bounds for the min-sum-of-radii objective when we consider lower bounds and outliers separately. We apply the primal-dual method to the relaxation where we Lagrangify the |S| <= k constraint. The chief technical contribution and novelty of our algorithm is that, departing from the standard paradigm used for such constrained problems, we obtain an O(1)-approximation despite the fact that we do not obtain a Lagrangian-multiplier-preserving algorithm for the Lagrangian relaxation. We believe that our ideas have broader applicability to other clustering problems with outliers as well. We obtain approximation factors of 5 and 3 respectively for LBkSupO and its non-outlier version. These are the first approximation results for k-supplier with non-uniform lower bounds.
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 | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".