Paper detail

A Nearly Tight Analysis of Greedy k-means++

The famous $k$-means++ algorithm of Arthur and Vassilvitskii [SODA 2007] is the most popular way of solving the $k$-means problem in practice. The algorithm is very simple: it samples the first center uniformly at random and each of the following $k-1$ centers is then always sampled proportional to its squared distance to the closest center so far. Afterward, Lloyd's iterative algorithm is run. The $k$-means++ algorithm is known to return a $Θ(\log k)$ approximate solution in expectation. In their seminal work, Arthur and Vassilvitskii [SODA 2007] asked about the guarantees for its following \emph{greedy} variant: in every step, we sample $\ell$ candidate centers instead of one and then pick the one that minimizes the new cost. This is also how $k$-means++ is implemented in e.g. the popular Scikit-learn library [Pedregosa et al.; JMLR 2011]. We present nearly matching lower and upper bounds for the greedy $k$-means++: We prove that it is an $O(\ell^3 \log^3 k)$-approximation algorithm. On the other hand, we prove a lower bound of $Ω(\ell^3 \log^3 k / \log^2(\ell\log k))$. Previously, only an $Ω(\ell \log k)$ lower bound was known [Bhattacharya, Eube, Röglin, Schmidt; ESA 2020] and there was no known upper bound.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.