Paper detail

On the Number of Iterations for Dantzig-Wolfe Optimization and Packing-Covering Approximation Algorithms

We give a lower bound on the iteration complexity of a natural class of Lagrangean-relaxation algorithms for approximately solving packing/covering linear programs. We show that, given an input with $m$ random 0/1-constraints on $n$ variables, with high probability, any such algorithm requires $Ω(ρ\log(m)/ε^2)$ iterations to compute a $(1+ε)$-approximate solution, where $ρ$ is the width of the input. The bound is tight for a range of the parameters $(m,n,ρ,ε)$. The algorithms in the class include Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition, Benders' decomposition, Lagrangean relaxation as developed by Held and Karp [1971] for lower-bounding TSP, and many others (e.g. by Plotkin, Shmoys, and Tardos [1988] and Grigoriadis and Khachiyan [1996]). To prove the bound, we use a discrepancy argument to show an analogous lower bound on the support size of $(1+ε)$-approximate mixed strategies for random two-player zero-sum 0/1-matrix games.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.