A QPTAS for Facility Location on Unit Disk Graphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the classic (Uncapacitated) Facility Location problem on Unit Disk Graphs (UDGs). For a given point set P in the plane, the unit disk graph UDG(P) on P has vertex set P and an edge between two distinct points p, q ∈ P if and only if their Euclidean distance |pq| is at most 1. The weight of the edge pq is equal to their distance |pq|. An instance of {Facility Location} on UDG(P) consists of a set C ⊆ P of clients and a set F ⊆ P of facilities, each having an opening cost f_i. The goal is to pick a subset F' ⊆ F to open while minimizing ∑_{i ∈ F'} f_i + ∑_{v ∈ C} d(v,F'), where d(v,F') is the distance of v to nearest facility in F' through UDG(P). In this paper, we present the first Quasi-Polynomial Time Approximation Schemes (QPTAS) for the problem. While approximation schemes are well-established for facility location problems on sparse geometric graphs (such as planar graphs), there is a lack of such results for dense graphs. Specifically, prior to this study, to the best of our knowledge, there was no approximation scheme for any facility location problem on UDGs in the general setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".