A Deterministic Fully Polynomial Time Approximation Scheme For Counting Integer Knapsack Solutions Made Easy

Given n elements with nonnegative integer weights w=(w_1,...,w_n), an integer capacity C and positive integer ranges u=(u_1,...,u_n), we consider the counting version of the classic integer knapsack problem: find the number of distinct multisets whose weights add up to at most C. We give a deterministic algorithm that estimates the number of solutions to within relative error epsilon in time polynomial in n, log U and 1/epsilon, where U=max_i u_i. More precisely, our algorithm runs in O((n^3 log^2 U)/epsilon) log (n log U)/epsilon) time. This is an improvement of n^2 and 1/epsilon (up to log terms) over the best known deterministic algorithm by Gopalan et al. [FOCS, (2011), pp. 817-826]. Our algorithm is relatively simple, and its analysis is rather elementary. Our results are achieved by means of a careful formulation of the problem as a dynamic program, using the notion of binding constraints

Small Extended Formulation for Knapsack Cover Inequalities from Monotone Circuits

Initially developed for the min-knapsack problem, the knapsack cover inequalities are used in the current best relaxations for numerous combinatorial optimization problems of covering type. In spite of their widespread use, these inequalities yield linear programming (LP) relaxations of exponential size, over which it is not known how to optimize exactly in polynomial time. In this paper we address this issue and obtain LP relaxations of quasi-polynomial size that are at least as strong as that given by the knapsack cover inequalities. For the min-knapsack cover problem, our main result can be stated formally as follows: for any $\varepsilon >0$, there is a $(1/\varepsilon)^{O(1)}n^{O(\log n)}$-size LP relaxation with an integrality gap of at most $2+\varepsilon$, where $n$ is the number of items. Prior to this work, there was no known relaxation of subexponential size with a constant upper bound on the integrality gap. Our construction is inspired by a connection between extended formulations and monotone circuit complexity via Karchmer-Wigderson games. In particular, our LP is based on $O(\log^2 n)$-depth monotone circuits with fan-in~$2$ for evaluating weighted threshold functions with $n$ inputs, as constructed by Beimel and Weinreb. We believe that a further understanding of this connection may lead to more positive results complementing the numerous lower bounds recently proved for extended formulations.Comment: 21 page

Faster FPTASes for counting and random generation of Knapsack solutions

In the #P-complete problem of counting 0/1 Knapsack solutions, the input consists of a sequence of n nonnegative integer weights w1,…,wn and an integer C, and we have to find the number of subsequences (subsets of indices) with total weight at most C. We give faster and simpler fully polynomial-time approximation schemes (FPTASes) for this problem, and for its random generation counterpart. Our method is based on dynamic programming and discretization of large numbers through floating-point arithmetic. We improve both deterministic counting FPTASes from Gopalan et al. (2011) [9], Štefankovič et al. (2012) [6] and the randomized counting and random generation algorithms in Dyer (2003) [5]. Our method is general, and it can be directly applied on top of combinatorial decompositions (such as dynamic programming solutions) of various problems. For example, we also improve the complexity of the problem of counting 0/1 Knapsack solutions in an arc-weighted DAG.Peer reviewe

A Faster FPTAS for #Knapsack

Given a set W = {w_1,..., w_n} of non-negative integer weights and an integer C, the #Knapsack problem asks to count the number of distinct subsets of W whose total weight is at most C. In the more general integer version of the problem, the subsets are multisets. That is, we are also given a set {u_1,..., u_n} and we are allowed to take up to u_i items of weight w_i. We present a deterministic FPTAS for #Knapsack running in O(n^{2.5}epsilon^{-1.5}log(n epsilon^{-1})log (n epsilon)) time. The previous best deterministic algorithm [FOCS 2011] runs in O(n^3 epsilon^{-1} log(n epsilon^{-1})) time (see also [ESA 2014] for a logarithmic factor improvement). The previous best randomized algorithm [STOC 2003] runs in O(n^{2.5} sqrt{log (n epsilon^{-1})} + epsilon^{-2} n^2) time. Therefore, for the case of constant epsilon, we close the gap between the O~(n^{2.5}) randomized algorithm and the O~(n^3) deterministic algorithm. For the integer version with U = max_i {u_i}, we present a deterministic FPTAS running in O(n^{2.5}epsilon^{-1.5}log(n epsilon^{-1} log U)log (n epsilon) log^2 U) time. The previous best deterministic algorithm [TCS 2016] runs in O(n^3 epsilon^{-1}log(n epsilon^{-1} log U) log^2 U) time