Cited by 65Complexity and Algorithms in GraphsOptimization and Packing ProblemsOptimization and Search Problems

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Tight Approximation Algorithms for Maximum Separable Assignment Problems

Fleischer, Lisa, Goemans, Michel X., Mirrokni, Vahab S., Sviridenko, Maxim·2011·Mathematics of Operations Research

Abstract

A separable assignment problem (SAP) is defined by a set of bins and a set of items to pack in each bin; a value, fij, for assigning item j to bin i; and a separate packing constraint for each bin—i.e., for each bin, a family of subsets of items that fit in to that bin. The goal is to pack items into bins to maximize the aggregate value. This class of problems includes the maximum generalized assignment problem (GAP)1 and a distributed caching problem (DCP) described in this paper. Given a β-approximation algorithm for finding the highest value packing of a single bin, we give A polynomial-time LP-rounding based ((1 − 1/e)β)-approximation algorithm. A simple polynomial-time local search (β/(β + 1) − ε)-approximation algorithm, for any ε > 0. Therefore, for all examples of SAP that admit an approximation scheme for the single-bin problem, we obtain an LP-based algorithm with (1 − 1/e − ε)-approximation and a local search algorithm with (½ - ε)-approximation guarantee. Furthermore, for cases in which the subproblem admits a fully polynomial approximation scheme (such as for GAP), the LP-based algorithm analysis can be strengthened to give a guarantee of 1 − 1/e. The best previously known approximation algorithm for GAP is a ½-approximation by Shmoys and Tardos and Chekuri and Khanna. Our LP algorithm is based on rounding a new linear programming relaxation, with a provably better integrality gap. To complement these results, we show that SAP and DCP cannot be approximated withi…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/moor.1110.0499

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.1023/B:JOCO.0000038913.96607.c2 · DOI
  2. Andelman N., 2004, Proc. 9th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory (SWAT), 26
  3. Baev I. D., 2001, Proc. 12th ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 661
  4. 10.1137/080715421 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.orl.2005.05.006 · DOI
  6. Calinescu G., 2010, SIAM J. Comput.
  7. 10.1002/rsa.10033 · DOI
  8. Chakrabarty D., 2008, Proc. 49th Annual IEEE Sympos. Foundations Comput. Sci. (FOCS), 687
  9. Chekuri C., 2000, Proc. 11th ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 213
  10. 10.1145/285055.285059 · DOI
  11. Feige U., SIAM J. Comput., 32, 172, 10.1137/S0097539700380754 · DOI
  12. Feige U., 2006, Proc. 47th Annual IEEE Sympos. Foundations Comput. Sci. (FOCS)
  13. Fleischer L., Proc. 16th Annual ACM/SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 611
  14. Garg N., 1998, Proc. 39th Annual IEEE Sympos. Foundations Comput. Sci., 300
  15. Garg R., 2001, Proc. 4th Internat. Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combin. Optim. Problems (APPROX)
  16. Goemans M. X., SIAM J. Discrete Math., 7, 656, 10.1137/S0895480192243516 · DOI
  17. Gomes C., 2003, Proc. 14th ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (SODA)
  18. Jain K., 2003, Proc. 14th ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 266
  19. Jansen K., 2004, Proc. 15th ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 204
  20. Mirrokni V. S., 2005, Approximation Algorithms for Distributed and Selfish Agents
  21. 10.1007/BF01202286 · DOI
  22. 10.1287/moor.20.2.257 · DOI
  23. Shachnai H., 2003, Proc. 6th Internat. Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinat. Optim. Problems (APPROX), 167
  24. 10.1007/BF01585178 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/S0167-6377(03)00062-2 · DOI
  26. Vondrák J., 2008, Proc. 4th Annual ACM Sympos. Theory Comput. (STOC), 67
  27. Young N., 1996, Proc. 7th ACM-SIAM Sympos. Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 170
  28. 10.1109/SFCS.2001.959930 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Fleischer, L., Goemans, M. X., Mirrokni, V. S., & Sviridenko, M.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
Venue
Mathematics of Operations Research
Published
2011-08
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
416-431
ISSN
  • 0364-765X (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5471
OpenAlex
W2054428995
Cited by
65
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Mathematics of Operations Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Optimization and Packing Problems
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Theoretical Computer Science › Optimization and Search Problems
Keywords
LP rounding, local search, approximation algorithms, integrality gap, hardness of approximation, combinatorial auctions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review