Paper detail

Practical Budgeted Submodular Maximization

We consider the problem of maximizing a non-negative monotone submodular function subject to a knapsack constraint, which is also known as the Budgeted Submodular Maximization (BSM) problem. Sviridenko (2004) showed that by guessing 3 appropriate elements of an optimal solution, and then executing a greedy algorithm, one can obtain the optimal approximation ratio of $α=1-1/e\approx 0.632$ for BSM. However, the need to guess (by enumeration) 3 elements makes the algorithm of Sviridenko impractical as it leads to a time complexity of $O(n^5)$ (which can be slightly improved using the thresholding technique of Badanidiyuru & Vondrak (2014), but only to roughly $O(n^4)$). Our main results in this paper show that fewer guesses suffice. Specifically, by making only 2 guesses, we get the same optimal approximation ratio of $α$ with an improved time complexity of roughly $O(n^3)$. Furthermore, by making only a single guess, we get an almost as good approximation ratio of $0.6174>0.9767α$ in roughly $O(n^2)$ time. Prior to our work, the only algorithms that were known to obtain an approximation ratio close to $α$ for BSM were the algorithm of Sviridenko and an algorithm of Ene & Nguyen (2019) that achieves $(α-ε)$-approximation. However, the algorithm of Ene & Nguyen requires ${(1/ε)}^{O(1/ε^4)}n\log^2 n$ time, and hence, is of theoretical interest only as ${(1/ε)}^{O(1/ε^4)}$ is huge even for moderate values of $ε$. In contrast, all the algorithms we analyze are simple and parallelizable, which makes them good candidates for practical use. Recently, Tang et al. (2020) studied a simple greedy algorithm that already has a long research history, and proved that its approximation ratio is at least 0.405. We improve over this result, and show that the approximation ratio of this algorithm is within the range [0.427, 0.462].

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.