Approximation Algorithms for Clustering Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, we present some approximation algorithms for the following clustering problems: Minimum Sum of Radii (MSR), Minimum Sum of Diameters (MSD), and Unsplittable Capacitated Facility Location. Given a metric (V, d) and an integer k, we consider the problem of partitioning the points of V into k clusters so as to minimize the sum of radii (MSR) or the sum of diameters (MSD) of these clusters. We call a cluster containing a single point, a singleton cluster. For the MSR problem when singleton clusters are not allowed, we give an exact algorithm for metrics induced by unweighted graphs. For the MSD problem on the plane with Euclidean distances, we present a polynomial time approximation scheme. In addition, we settle the complexity of the MSD problem with constant $k$ by giving a polynomial time exact algorithm in this case. In the (uniform) UCFL problem, we are given a set of clients and a set of facilities where client j has demand d_j, each facility i has capacity u and opening cost f_i, and a metric cost c_{ij} which denotes the cost of serving one unit of demand of client j at facility i. The goal is to open a subset of facilities and assign each client to exactly one open facility so that the total amount of demand assigned to each open facility is no more than $u$, while minimizing the total cost of opening facilities and serving clients. As it is NP-hard to give a solution without violating the capacities, we consider bicriteria (\alpha,\eta)-approximation algorithms, where these algorithms return a solution whose cost is within factor \alpha of the optimum and violates the capacity constraints within factor \eta. We present the first constant approximations with violation factor less than 2. In addition, we present a quasi-polynomial time (1+\epsilon,1+\epsilon)-approximation for the (uniform) UCFLP in Euclidean metrics, for any constant \epsilon > 0.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".