The Capacitated Sum of Radii problem involves partitioning a set of points $P$, where each point $p\in P$ has capacity $U_p$, into $k$ clusters that minimize the sum of cluster radii, such that the number of points in the cluster centered at point $p$ is at most $U_p$. We begin by showing that the problem is APX-hard, and that under gap-ETH there is no parameterized approximation scheme (FPT-AS). We then construct a $\approx5.83$-approximation algorithm in FPT time (improving a previous $\approx7.61$ approximation in FPT time). Our results also hold when the objective is a general monotone symmetric norm of radii. We also improve the approximation factors for the uniform capacity case, and for the closely related problem of Capacitated Sum of Diameters.

Hybrid k-Clustering is a model of clustering that generalizes two of the most widely studied clustering objectives: k-Center and k-Median. In this model, given a set of n points P, the goal is to find k centers such that the sum of the r-distances of each point to its nearest center is minimized. The r-distance between two points p and q is defined as max{dist(p, q)-r, 0} - this represents the distance of p to the boundary of the r-radius ball around q if p is outside the ball, and 0 otherwise. This problem was recently introduced by Fomin et al. [APPROX 2024], who designed a (1+ε, 1+ε)-bicrtieria approximation that runs in time 2^{(kd/ε)^{O(1)}} ⋅ n^{O(1)} for inputs in ℝ^d; such a bicriteria solution uses balls of radius (1+ε)r instead of r, and has a cost at most 1+ε times the cost of an optimal solution using balls of radius r. In this paper we significantly improve upon this result by designing an approximation algorithm with the same bicriteria guarantee, but with running time that is FPT only in k and ε - crucially, removing the exponential dependence on the dimension d. This resolves an open question posed in their paper. Our results extend further in several directions. First, our approximation scheme works in a broader class of metric spaces, including doubling spaces, minor-free, and bounded treewidth metrics. Secondly, our techniques yield a similar bicriteria FPT-approximation schemes for other variants of Hybrid k-Clustering, e.g., when the objective features the sum of z-th power of the r-distances. Finally, we also design a coreset for Hybrid k-Clustering in doubling spaces, answering another open question from the work of Fomin et al.

Data summarization tasks are often modeled as k-clustering problems, where the goal is to choose k data points, called cluster centers, that best represent the dataset by minimizing a clustering objective. A popular objective is to minimize the maximum distance between any data point and its nearest center, which is formalized as the k-center problem. While in some applications all data points can be chosen as centers, in the general setting, centers must be chosen from a predefined subset of points, referred as facilities or suppliers; this is known as the k-supplier problem. In this work, we focus on fair data summarization modeled as the fair k-supplier problem, where data consists of several groups, and a minimum number of centers must be selected from each group while minimizing the k-supplier objective. The groups can be disjoint or overlapping, leading to two distinct problem variants each with different computational complexity.

We consider the well-studied Robust (k,z)-Clustering problem, which generalizes the classic k-Median, k-Means, and k-Center problems and arises in the domains of robust optimization [Anthony, Goyal, Gupta, Nagarajan, Math. Oper. Res. 2010] and in algorithmic fairness [Abbasi, Bhaskara, Venkatasubramanian, 2021 & Ghadiri, Samadi, Vempala, 2022]. Given a constant z ≥ 1, the input to Robust (k,z)-Clustering is a set P of n points in a metric space (M,δ), a weight function w: P → ℝ_{≥ 0} and a positive integer k. Further, each point belongs to one (or more) of the m many different groups S_1,S_2,…,S_m ⊆ P. Our goal is to find a set X of k centers such that max_{i ∈ [m]} ∑_{p ∈ S_i} w(p) δ(p,X)^z is minimized. Complementing recent work on this problem, we give a comprehensive understanding of the parameterized approximability of the problem in geometric spaces where the parameter is the number k of centers. We prove the following results: [(i)] 1) For a universal constant η₀ > 0.0006, we devise a 3^z(1-η₀)-factor FPT approximation algorithm for Robust (k,z)-Clustering in discrete high-dimensional Euclidean spaces where the set of potential centers is finite. This shows that the lower bound of 3^z for general metrics [Goyal, Jaiswal, Inf. Proc. Letters, 2023] no longer holds when the metric has geometric structure. 2) We show that Robust (k,z)-Clustering in discrete Euclidean spaces is (√{3/2}- o(1))-hard to approximate for FPT algorithms, even if we consider the special case k-Center in logarithmic dimensions. This rules out a (1+ε)-approximation algorithm running in time f(k,ε)poly(m,n) (also called efficient parameterized approximation scheme or EPAS), giving a striking contrast with the recent EPAS for the continuous setting where centers can be placed anywhere in the space [Abbasi et al., FOCS'23]. 3) However, we obtain an EPAS for Robust (k,z)-Clustering in discrete Euclidean spaces when the dimension is sublogarithmic (for the discrete problem, earlier work [Abbasi et al., FOCS'23] provides an EPAS only in dimension o(log log n)). Our EPAS works also for metrics of sub-logarithmic doubling dimension.

Abstract The Set Packing problem is, given a collection of sets $$\mathcal {S}$$ S over a ground set U, to find a maximum collection of sets that are pairwise disjoint. The problem is among the most fundamental NP-hard optimization problems that have been studied extensively in various computational regimes. The focus of this work is on parameterized complexity, Parameterized Set Packing (PSP): Given parameter $$r \in {\mathbb N}$$ r ∈ N , is there a collection $$ \mathcal {S}' \subseteq \mathcal {S}: |\mathcal {S}'| = r$$ S ′ ⊆ S : | S ′ | = r such that the sets in $$\mathcal {S}'$$ S ′ are pairwise disjoint? Unfortunately, the problem is not fixed parameter tractable unless $$\textsf {W[1]} = \textsf {FPT} $$ W [ 1 ] = FPT , and, in fact, an “enumerative” running time of $$|\mathcal {S}|^{\Omega (r)}$$ | S | Ω ( r ) is required unless the exponential time hypothesis (ETH) fails. This paper is a quest for tractable instances of Set Packing from parameterized complexity perspectives. We say that the input $$({U},\mathcal {S})$$ ( U , S ) is “compact” if $$|{U}| = f(r)\cdot \textsf {poly} ( \log |\mathcal {S}|)$$ | U | = f ( r ) · poly ( log | S | ) , for some $$f(r) \ge r$$ f ( r ) ≥ r . In the Compact PSP problem, we are given a compact instance of PSP. In this direction, we present a “dichotomy” result of PSP: When $$|{U}| = f(r)\cdot o(\log |\mathcal {S}|)$$ | U | = f ( r ) · o ( log | S | ) , PSP is in , while for $$|{U}| = r\cdot \Theta (\log (|\mathcal {S}|))$$ | U | = r · Θ ( log ( | S | ) ) , the problem is -hard; moreover, assuming ETH, Compact PSP does not admit $$|\mathcal {S}|^{o(r/\log r)}$$ | S | o ( r / log r ) time algorithm even when $$|{U}| = r\cdot \Theta (\log (|\mathcal {S}|))$$ | U | = r · Θ ( log ( | S | )<

This paper considers the well-studied algorithmic regime of designing a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for a k-clustering problem that runs in time $f(k,\epsilon)poly(n)$ (sometimes called an efficient parameterized approximation scheme or EPAS for short1). Notable results of this kind include EPASes in the high-dimensional Euclidean setting for k-center [Badŏiu, Har-Peled, Indyk; STOC’02] as well as k-median, and k-means [Kumar, Sabharwal, Sen; J. ACM 2010]. Our main contribution is a clean and simple EPAS that settles more than ten clustering problems (across multiple well-studied objectives as well as metric spaces) and unifies well-known EPASes. More specifically, our algorithm gives EPASes in the following settings:•Clustering objectives: k-means, k-center, k-median, priority k-center, $\ell$-centrum, ordered k-median, socially fair k-median (aka robust k-median), or any other objective that can be formulated as minimizing a monotone (not necessarily symmetric!) norm of the distances of the points from the solution (generalizing the symmetric formulation introduced by Chakrabarty and Swamy [STOC’19]).•Metric spaces: Continuous high-dimensional Euclidean spaces, metrics of bounded doubling dimension, bounded treewidth metrics, and planar metrics. Prior to our results, EPASes were only known for vanilla clustering objectives (k-means, k-median, and k-center) and each such algorithm is tailored to work for the specific input metric and clustering objective (e.g., EPASes for k means and k-center in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ are conceptually very different). In contrast, our algorithmic framework is applicable to a wide range of well-studied objective functions in a uniform way, and is (almost) entirely oblivious to any specific metric structures and yet is able to effectively exploit those unknown structures. In particular, our algorithm is not based on the (metric- and objective-specific) technique of coresets. Key to our analysis is a new concept that we call bounded $\epsilon$-scatter dimension—an intrinsic complexity measure of a metric space that is a relaxation of the standard notion of bounded doubling dimension(often used as a source of algorithmic tractability for geometric problems). Our main technical result shows that two conditions are essentially sufficient for our algorithm to yield an EPAS on the input metric M for any clustering objective:(i)The objective is described by a monotone norm, and(ii)the $\epsilon$-scatter dimension of M is upper bounded by a function of $\epsilon$.1Quick remarks: (i) An EPAS is not comparable to polynomial time approximation schemes (PTAS), (ii) before the term EPAS was invented some researchers call this type of approximation schemes a PTAS or simply an approximation scheme (in clustering, it is often assumed that k is small) [1], [2], and (iii) both EPAS and PTAS are implied by the existence of efficient polynomial time approximation schemes (EPTAS).

We study a variant of classical clustering formulations in the context of algorithmic fairness, known as diversity-aware clustering. In this variant we are given a collection of facility subsets, and a solution must contain at least a specified number of facilities from each subset while simultaneously minimizing the clustering objective (k-median or k-means). We investigate the fixed-parameter tractability of these problems and show several negative hardness and inapproximability results, even when we afford exponential running time with respect to some parameters.

This work investigates the hardness of computing sparse solutions to systems of linear equations over F_2. Consider the k-EvenSet problem: given a homogeneous system of linear equations over F_2 on n variables, decide if there exists a nonzero solution of Hamming weight at most k (i.e. a k-sparse solution). While there is a simple O(n^{k/2})-time algorithm for it, establishing fixed parameter intractability for k-EvenSet has been a notorious open problem. Towards this goal, we show that unless k-Clique can be solved in n^{o(k)} time, k-EvenSet has no poly(n)2^{o(sqrt{k})} time algorithm and no polynomial time algorithm when k = (log n)^{2+eta} for any eta > 0. Our work also shows that the non-homogeneous generalization of the problem -- which we call k-VectorSum -- is W[1]-hard on instances where the number of equations is O(k log n), improving on previous reductions which produced Omega(n) equations. We also show that for any constant eps > 0, given a system of O(exp(O(k))log n) linear equations, it is W[1]-hard to decide if there is a k-sparse linear form satisfying all the equations or if every function on at most k-variables (k-junta) satisfies at most (1/2 + eps)-fraction of the equations. In the setting of computational learning, this shows hardness of approximate non-proper learning of k-parities. In a similar vein, we use the hardness of k-EvenSet to show that that for any constant d, unless k-Clique can be solved in n^{o(k)} time there is no poly(m, n)2^{o(sqrt{k}) time algorithm to decide whether a given set of m points in F_2^n satisfies: (i) there exists a non-trivial k-sparse homogeneous linear form evaluating to 0 on all the points, or (ii) any non-trivial degree d polynomial P supported on at most k variables evaluates to zero on approx. Pr_{F_2^n}[P(z) = 0] fraction of the points i.e., P is fooled by the set of points.