MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768429747 · doi:10.4230/lipics.icalp.2018.29

Interpolating between $k$-Median and $k$-Center: Approximation Algorithms for Ordered $k$-Median

2017· preprint· en· W2768429747 on OpenAlexafffund
Deeparnab Chakrabarty, Chaitanya Swamy

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsApproximation algorithmMetric spaceCenter (category theory)AlgorithmDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a generalization of $k$-median and $k$-center, called the {\em ordered $k$-median} problem. In this problem, we are given a metric space $(\mathcal{D},\{c_{ij}\})$ with $n=|\mathcal{D}|$ points, and a non-increasing weight vector $w\in\mathbb{R}_+^n$, and the goal is to open $k$ centers and assign each point each point $j\in\mathcal{D}$ to a center so as to minimize $w_1\cdot\text{(largest assignment cost)}+w_2\cdot\text{(second-largest assignment cost)}+\ldots+w_n\cdot\text{($n$-th largest assignment cost)}$. We give an $(18+ε)$-approximation algorithm for this problem. Our algorithms utilize Lagrangian relaxation and the primal-dual schema, combined with an enumeration procedure of Aouad and Segev. For the special case of $\{0,1\}$-weights, which models the problem of minimizing the $\ell$ largest assignment costs that is interesting in and of by itself, we provide a novel reduction to the (standard) $k$-median problem showing that LP-relative guarantees for $k$-median translate to guarantees for the ordered $k$-median problem; this yields a nice and clean $(8.5+ε)$-approximation algorithm for $\{0,1\}$ weights.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicFacility Location and Emergency ManagementFrench-language works237,207