The Gap Between Greedy Algorithm and Minimum Multiplicative Spanner
Guardado en:
| Udgivet i: | arXiv.org (Nov 3, 2024), p. n/a |
|---|---|
| Hovedforfatter: | |
| Udgivet: |
Cornell University Library, arXiv.org
|
| Fag: | |
| Online adgang: | Citation/Abstract Full text outside of ProQuest |
| Tags: |
Ingen Tags, Vær først til at tagge denne postø!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 3124190664 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 022 | |a 2331-8422 | ||
| 035 | |a 3124190664 | ||
| 045 | 0 | |b d20241103 | |
| 100 | 1 | |a Chen, Yeyuan | |
| 245 | 1 | |a The Gap Between Greedy Algorithm and Minimum Multiplicative Spanner | |
| 260 | |b Cornell University Library, arXiv.org |c Nov 3, 2024 | ||
| 513 | |a Working Paper | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a The greedy algorithm adapted from Kruskal's algorithm is an efficient and folklore way to produce a \(k\)-spanner with girth at least \(k+2\). The greedy algorithm has shown to be `existentially optimal', while it's not `universally optimal' for any constant \(k\). Here, `universal optimality' means an algorithm can produce the smallest \(k\)-spanner \(H\) given any \(n\)-vertex input graph \(G\). However, how well the greedy algorithm works compared to `universal optimality' is still unclear for superconstant \(k:=k(n)\). In this paper, we aim to give a new and fine-grained analysis of this problem in undirected unweighted graph setting. Specifically, we show some bounds on this problem including the following two (1) On the negative side, when \(k<\frac{1}{3}n-O(1)\), the greedy algorithm is not `universally optimal'. (2) On the positive side, when \(k>\frac{2}{3}n+O(1)\), the greedy algorithm is `universally optimal'. We also introduce an appropriate notion for `approximately universal optimality'. An algorithm is \((\alpha,\beta)\)-universally optimal iff given any \(n\)-vertex input graph \(G\), it can produce a \(k\)-spanner \(H\) of \(G\) with size \(|H|\leq n+\alpha(|H^*|-n)+\beta\), where \(H^*\) is the smallest \(k\)-spanner of \(G\). We show the following positive bounds. (1) When \(k>\frac{4}{7}n+O(1)\), the greedy algorithm is \((2,O(1))\)-universally optimal. (2) When \(k>\frac{12}{23}n+O(1)\), the greedy algorithm is \((18,O(1))\)-universally optimal. (3) When \(k>\frac{1}{2}n+O(1)\), the greedy algorithm is \((32,O(1))\)-universally optimal. All our proofs are constructive building on new structural analysis on spanners. We give some ideas about how to break small cycles in a spanner to increase the girth. These ideas may help us to understand the relation between girth and spanners. | |
| 653 | |a Algorithms | ||
| 653 | |a Structural analysis | ||
| 653 | |a Optimization | ||
| 653 | |a Greedy algorithms | ||
| 773 | 0 | |t arXiv.org |g (Nov 3, 2024), p. n/a | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t Engineering Database | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3124190664/abstract/embedded/BH75TPHOCCPB476R?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full text outside of ProQuest |u http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.01486 |