Parameterized Approximation Schemes using Graph Widths

Combining the techniques of approximation algorithms and parameterized complexity has long been considered a promising research area, but relatively few results are currently known. In this paper we study the parameterized approximability of a number of problems which are known to be hard to solve exactly when parameterized by treewidth or clique-width. Our main contribution is to present a natural randomized rounding technique that extends well-known ideas and can be used for both of these widths. Applying this very generic technique we obtain approximation schemes for a number of problems, evading both polynomial-time inapproximability and parameterized intractability bounds

Replica Placement on Bounded Treewidth Graphs

We consider the replica placement problem: given a graph with clients and nodes, place replicas on a minimum set of nodes to serve all the clients; each client is associated with a request and maximum distance that it can travel to get served and there is a maximum limit (capacity) on the amount of request a replica can serve. The problem falls under the general framework of capacitated set covering. It admits an O(\log n)-approximation and it is NP-hard to approximate within a factor of $o(\log n)$. We study the problem in terms of the treewidth $t$ of the graph and present an O(t)-approximation algorithm.Comment: An abridged version of this paper is to appear in the proceedings of WADS'1

Distributed Connectivity Decomposition

We present time-efficient distributed algorithms for decomposing graphs with large edge or vertex connectivity into multiple spanning or dominating trees, respectively. As their primary applications, these decompositions allow us to achieve information flow with size close to the connectivity by parallelizing it along the trees. More specifically, our distributed decomposition algorithms are as follows: (I) A decomposition of each undirected graph with vertex-connectivity $k$ into (fractionally) vertex-disjoint weighted dominating trees with total weight $\Omega(\frac{k}{\log n})$, in $\widetilde{O}(D+\sqrt{n})$ rounds. (II) A decomposition of each undirected graph with edge-connectivity $\lambda$ into (fractionally) edge-disjoint weighted spanning trees with total weight $\lceil\frac{\lambda-1}{2}\rceil(1-\varepsilon)$, in $\widetilde{O}(D+\sqrt{n\lambda})$ rounds. We also show round complexity lower bounds of $\tilde{\Omega}(D+\sqrt{\frac{n}{k}})$ and $\tilde{\Omega}(D+\sqrt{\frac{n}{\lambda}})$ for the above two decompositions, using techniques of [Das Sarma et al., STOC'11]. Moreover, our vertex-connectivity decomposition extends to centralized algorithms and improves the time complexity of [Censor-Hillel et al., SODA'14] from $O(n^3)$ to near-optimal $\tilde{O}(m)$. As corollaries, we also get distributed oblivious routing broadcast with $O(1)$-competitive edge-congestion and $O(\log n)$-competitive vertex-congestion. Furthermore, the vertex connectivity decomposition leads to near-time-optimal $O(\log n)$-approximation of vertex connectivity: centralized $\widetilde{O}(m)$ and distributed $\tilde{O}(D+\sqrt{n})$. The former moves toward the 1974 conjecture of Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman postulating an $O(m)$ centralized exact algorithm while the latter is the first distributed vertex connectivity approximation

Data-Collection for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: a Network-Flow Heuristic

The goal of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is ``to map in detail one-quarter of the entire sky, determining the positions and absolute brightnesses of more than 100 million celestial objects''. The survey will be performed by taking ``snapshots'' through a large telescope. Each snapshot can capture up to 600 objects from a small circle of the sky. This paper describes the design and implementation of the algorithm that is being used to determine the snapshots so as to minimize their number. The problem is NP-hard in general; the algorithm described is a heuristic, based on Lagriangian-relaxation and min-cost network flow. It gets within 5-15% of a naive lower bound, whereas using a ``uniform'' cover only gets within 25-35%.Comment: proceedings version appeared in ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (1998