Minimizing Flow Time in the Wireless Gathering Problem

We address the problem of efficient data gathering in a wireless network through multi-hop communication. We focus on the objective of minimizing the maximum flow time of a data packet. We prove that no polynomial time algorithm for this problem can have approximation ratio less than \Omega(m^{1/3) when $m$ packets have to be transmitted, unless $P = NP$. We then use resource augmentation to assess the performance of a FIFO-like strategy. We prove that this strategy is 5-speed optimal, i.e., its cost remains within the optimal cost if we allow the algorithm to transmit data at a speed 5 times higher than that of the optimal solution we compare to

Independent Set, Induced Matching, and Pricing: Connections and Tight (Subexponential Time) Approximation Hardnesses

We present a series of almost settled inapproximability results for three fundamental problems. The first in our series is the subexponential-time inapproximability of the maximum independent set problem, a question studied in the area of parameterized complexity. The second is the hardness of approximating the maximum induced matching problem on bounded-degree bipartite graphs. The last in our series is the tight hardness of approximating the k-hypergraph pricing problem, a fundamental problem arising from the area of algorithmic game theory. In particular, assuming the Exponential Time Hypothesis, our two main results are: - For any r larger than some constant, any r-approximation algorithm for the maximum independent set problem must run in at least 2^{n^{1-\epsilon}/r^{1+\epsilon}} time. This nearly matches the upper bound of 2^{n/r} (Cygan et al., 2008). It also improves some hardness results in the domain of parameterized complexity (e.g., Escoffier et al., 2012 and Chitnis et al., 2013) - For any k larger than some constant, there is no polynomial time min (k^{1-\epsilon}, n^{1/2-\epsilon})-approximation algorithm for the k-hypergraph pricing problem, where n is the number of vertices in an input graph. This almost matches the upper bound of min (O(k), \tilde O(\sqrt{n})) (by Balcan and Blum, 2007 and an algorithm in this paper). We note an interesting fact that, in contrast to n^{1/2-\epsilon} hardness for polynomial-time algorithms, the k-hypergraph pricing problem admits n^{\delta} approximation for any \delta >0 in quasi-polynomial time. This puts this problem in a rare approximability class in which approximability thresholds can be improved significantly by allowing algorithms to run in quasi-polynomial time.Comment: The full version of FOCS 201

Evaluating genetic algorithms through the approximability hierarchy

Optimization problems frequently appear in any scientific domain. Most of the times, the corresponding decision problem turns out to be NP-hard, and in these cases genetic algorithms are often used to obtain approximated solutions. However, the difficulty to approximate different NP-hard problems can vary a lot. In this paper, we analyze the usefulness of using genetic algorithms depending on the approximation class the problem belongs to. In particular, we use the standard approximability hierarchy, showing that genetic algorithms are especially useful for the most pessimistic classes of the hierarchy

Minimizing flow time in the wireless gathering problem

We address the problem of efficient data gathering in a wireless network through multihop communication. We focus on two objectives related to flow times, that is, the times spent by data packets in the system: minimization of the maximum flow time and minimization of the average flow time of the packets. For both problems we prove that, unless P = NP, no polynomial-time algorithm can approximate the optimal solution within a factor less than Omega(m^{1-ε}) for any 0 < ε < 1, where m is the number of packets. We then assess the performance of two natural algorithms by proving that their cost remains within the optimal cost of the respective problem if we allow the algorithms to transmit data at a speed 5 times higher than that of the optimal solutions to which we compare them. © 2011 ACM

Minimizing flow time in the wireless gathering problem

We address the problem of efficient data gathering in a wireless network through multi-hop communication. We focus on the objective of minimizing the maximum flow time of a data packet. We prove that no polynomial time algorithm for this problem can have approximation ratio less than Omega(m^{1/3) when $m$ packets have to be transmitted, unless $P = NP$. We then use resource augmentation to assess the performance of a FIFO-like strategy. We prove that this strategy is 5-speed optimal, i.e., its cost remains within the optimal cost if we allow the algorithm to transmit data at a speed 5 times higher than that of the optimal solution we compare to

Minimizing flow time in the wireless gathering problem

We address the problem of efficient data gathering in a wireless network through multi-hop communication. We focus on the objective of minimizing the maximum flow time of a data packet. We prove that no polynomial time algorithm for this problem can have approximation ratio less than Ω(m1/3) when m packets have to be transmitted, unless P = NP. We then use resource augmentation to assess the performance of a FIFO-like strategy. We prove that this strategy is 5-speed optimal, i.e., its cost remains within the optimal cost if we allow the algorithm to transmit data at a speed 5 times higher than that of the optimal solution we compare to

Minimizing flow time in the wireless gathering problem

We address the problem of efficient data gathering in a wireless network through multi-hop communication. We focus on the objective of minimizing the maximum flow time of a data packet. We prove that no polynomial time algorithm for this problem can have approximation ratio less than Ω(m1/3) when m packets have to be transmitted, unless P = NP. We then use resource augmentation to assess the performance of a FIFO-like strategy. We prove that this strategy is 5-speed optimal, i.e., its cost remains within the optimal cost if we allow the algorithm to transmit data at a speed 5 times higher than that of the optimal solution we compare to