A Tight Combinatorial Algorithm for Submodular Maximization Subject to a Matroid Constraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an optimal, combinatorial 1-1/e approximation algorithm for monotone submodular optimization over a matroid constraint. Compared to the continuous greedy algorithm (Calinescu, Chekuri, Pal and Vondrak, 2008), our algorithm is extremely simple and requires no rounding. It consists of the greedy algorithm followed by local search. Both phases are run not on the actual objective function, but on a related non-oblivious potential function, which is also monotone submodular. Our algorithm runs in randomized time O(n^8u), where n is the rank of the given matroid and u is the size of its ground set. We additionally obtain a 1-1/e-eps approximation algorithm running in randomized time O (eps^-3n^4u). For matroids in which n = o(u), this improves on the runtime of the continuous greedy algorithm. The improvement is due primarily to the time required by the pipage rounding phase, which we avoid altogether. Furthermore, the independence of our algorithm from pipage rounding techniques suggests that our general approach may be helpful in contexts such as monotone submodular maximization subject to multiple matroid constraints. Our approach generalizes to the case where the monotone submodular function has restricted curvature. For any curvature c, we adapt our algorithm to produce a (1-e^-c)/c approximation. This result complements results of Vondrak (2008), who has shown that the continuous greedy algorithm produces a (1-e^-c)/c approximation when the objective function has curvature c. He has also proved that achieving any better approximation ratio is impossible in the value oracle model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".