id int64 1 24.5M | paragraph_id int64 0 159k | content stringlengths 1 571k ⌀ | paper_arxiv_id stringlengths 10 13 | paper_section stringlengths 1 262 | section_id float64 4 360k ⌀ | paragraph_in_paper_id int64 1 29.8k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22,512,582 | 1 | \begin{quote}
We are given a graph $G = (V, E)$ and a multiset $B$ of drivers. Each driver is specified by a tuple $(u, v, b)$ consisting of two nodes in the graph $u, v \in V$ and a non-negative real number $b$, specifying the driver's budget. The goal is to find a pricing function $p : E \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ ... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 2 |
22,512,583 | 2 | Equivalently, the problem can be interpreted as a game between the algorithm setting the prices and the drivers: first, the algorithm observes $G$G and $B$B, and selects the pricing $p$p; then, each driver $(u, v, b) \in B$(u, v, b) \in B computes a lowest-cost $u$u-$v$v path and either pays its cost if it is at most $... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 3 |
22,512,584 | 3 | So far, a variety of special cases of this problem have been investigated:
\begin{enumerate}[nosep]
\item For $G$ being a path (\emph{``the highway problem''}), Grandoni and Rothvo{\ss} \cite{grandoni2016pricing} give a polynomial-time approximation scheme, while Briest and Krysta \cite{Briest06} show that finding ... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 4 |
22,512,585 | 4 | The case of general graphs $G$G is arguably less understood. If an approximation ratio that depends on the sizes of both $G$G and $B$B is sufficient, then a polynomial-time $O(\log |E| + \log |B|)$O(\log |E| + \log |B|)-ap\-prox\-i\-ma\-tion algorithm follows by the more general results of Balcan, Blum and Mansour \cit... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 5 |
22,512,586 | 5 | \textbf{Our Contribution.} We study the problem on the class of grid graphs, i.e., Manhattan-like networks, and prove that for any fixed (constant) width $\omega$\omega of the grid, there is a polynomial-time $\OO{\log |E|}$\OO{\log |E|}\log |E|-ap\-prox\-i\-ma\-tion algorithm for the maximum achievable revenue. While ... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 6 |
22,512,587 | 6 | \subsection{More Related Work} | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 7 |
22,512,588 | 7 | \textbf{Pricing for Envy-Free Revenue Maximization.}
The problem we study in this paper can be seen in the broader context of \emph{pricing for envy-free revenue maximization}. To explain the connection, let us quickly lay the foundations of the latter: there, one is given $k$k goods to sell and a multiset $B$B of buye... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 8 |
22,512,589 | 8 | Armed as such, our problem can be phrased as pricing for envy-free revenue maximization as follows: in the unlimited-supply setting, consider the goods to be the edges of the graph $G$G, and the buyers to be the drivers. The valuation of each driver $(u, v, b) \in B$(u, v, b) \in B for a set of edges $P$P is defined as... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 9 |
22,512,590 | 9 | Envy-free pricing has been studied in a variety of settings, not only for revenue maximization, but also for social welfare maximization \cite{largeMarkets, priceDoubling, impreciseDistribution}.
Assuming unlimited supply, Demaine et al.~\cite{demaine2008combination} proved a conditional lower bound of $\OMG{\log k}$\... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 10 |
22,512,591 | 10 | The case of limited supply (where each good is available in a certain number of copies) is also interesting and has yielded a number of polynomial-time approximation results for the maximum revenue. For the case of single-minded buyers, i.e., each buyer is only interested in a single set of goods, Cheung and Swamy \cit... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 11 |
22,512,592 | 11 | \noindent \textbf{Stackelberg Pricing.} In \emph{Stackelberg games}, the \emph{leader} takes an action, and then, with knowledge of the action, the \emph{follower} replies with an action of their own. In \emph{Stackelberg pricing games}, there are $m$m items, some of whose prices are set in advance; the leader sets the... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 12 |
22,512,593 | 12 | \subsection{Our Result and Technical Overview} | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 13 |
22,512,594 | 13 | For our result, we assume that the graph $G$G is a complete $m \times \omega$m \times \omega grid, where $\omega$\omega is considered to be fixed, and $m$m can vary as part of the problem instance. Moreover, for brevity, write $n := |B|$n := |B| for the number of drivers. Our main result is stated below: | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 14 |
22,512,595 | 14 | \begin{restatable}{theorem}{gridgraph}\label{thm:gridgraph} There exists a polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the maximum revenue for the class of graphs $G$ consisting of width-$\omega$ complete grids with approximation ratio $\OO{\log m}$.
\end{restatable}{theorem}theorem{gridgraph}gridgraph\label{thm:gridg... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 15 |
22,512,596 | 15 | The $\OO{\log m}$\OO{\log m}\log m approximation ratio is achieved as follows.
First, the algorithm partitions the drivers into $\OO{\log m}$\OO{\log m}\log m subsets.
Taking advantage of the additional structure of those subsets, we find a constant factor approximation of the optimal solution for each of the resulting... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 16 |
22,512,597 | 16 | Thanks to the properties of the partition of drivers into $\OO{\log m}$\OO{\log m}\log m subsets (denoted $B_1, B_2, \ldots$B_1, B_2, \ldots), each multiset (we allow multiple buyers with the same tuple $(u, v, b)$(u, v, b)) $B_j$B_j can be further subdivided into groups, yielding independent instances of the problem
w... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 17 |
22,512,598 | 17 | The `assume-implement' dynamic programming technique is showcased in \cref{sec:rooted}.
Normally, in a dynamic program for an optimization problem, in each state one considers
solutions to corresponding subproblems and chooses the one maximizing a certain objective function.
This becomes more complicated when the objec... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 18 |
22,512,599 | 18 | One interesting contribution concerns grid graph compression (\cref{lemma:compression}). We show that, given any weighted width-$\omega$\omega grid, another weighted width-$\omega$\omega grid of length bounded by a function of $\omega$\omega exists such that for any $1 \leq i \leq j \leq \omega$1 \leq i \leq j \leq \om... | 2502.11979 | Introduction | 228,320 | 19 |
22,512,600 | 0 | \label{sect:rooted}
\label{sec:rooted} | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 20 |
22,512,602 | 2 | In this section, we define a simpler variant of our problem and present a polynomial-time constant factor approximation algorithm for it, which will be a building block of the main algorithm. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 22 |
22,512,603 | 3 | \begin{definition}
An instance of our problem on a grid graph $G$ with driver multiset $B$ is \emph{rooted} if one of the vertices in the top row of $G$ (the \emph{root}, denoted $r$) is an endpoint of every path desired by drivers in the multiset $B$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
An instance of our probl... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 23 |
22,512,604 | 4 | We will prove the following: | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 24 |
22,512,605 | 5 | \begin{lemma}
\label{rooted_rev}
Assume a fixed grid width $\omega$. For any rooted instance with maximal revenue $\mathrm{OPT}_r$, a~price assignment generating at least $\frac{\mathrm{OPT}_r}{\Crounding}$ in revenue can be found in polynomial time.
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
\label{rooted_rev}
Assume a fixed gr... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 25 |
22,512,606 | 6 | \subsection{Rounding}
\label{sect:rounding} | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 26 |
22,512,607 | 7 | One of the crucial techniques used throughout the algorithm is price rounding.
Let us formalize the underlying observation. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 27 |
22,512,608 | 8 | \newcommand{\roundedSet}{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P} | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 28 |
22,512,609 | 9 | \begin{lemma}{\textbf{(Rounding)}}
\label{rounding_lemma}
For any instance ($G, B$) of the problem on a grid,
there exists a pricing of edges which results in revenue of at least $\frac{1}{\Crounding}$ of the optimal one such that the price of each edge belongs to the set:
$$ \roundedSet = \longset{\frac{b_{max}}{2... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 29 |
22,512,610 | 10 | \begin{proof}
Consider any price assignment $p$ generating the optimal revenue $\mathrm{OPT}$.
If a price of any edge is greater than $b_{max}$, it can be lowered to $b_{max}$ without loss of revenue.
We further round the price of each edge down to the nearest value from $P$.
Let us consider any edge $e$, its in... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 30 |
22,512,611 | 11 | Let $d$ and $d'$ be the distances (costs of a cheapest path) between any two vertices in $G$ with respect to the initial and rounded prices, respectively.
We have: $d \geq d' \geq \frac{d}{2} - \frac{b_{max}}{4 \cdot \abs{B}}$.
As the prices only decrease, no driver will be priced-out of the market by the roun... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 31 |
22,512,612 | 12 | Let $d$ and $d'$ be the distances (costs of a cheapest path) between any two vertices in $G$ with respect to the initial and rounded prices, respectively.
We have: $d \geq d' \geq \frac{d}{2} - \frac{b_{max}}{4 \cdot \abs{B}}$.
As the prices only decrease, no driver will be priced-out of the market by the roun... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 32 |
22,512,613 | 13 | Let $d$d and $d'$d' be the distances (costs of a cheapest path) between any two vertices in $G$G with respect to the initial and rounded prices, respectively.
We have: $d \geq d' \geq \frac{d}{2} - \frac{b_{max}}{4 \cdot \abs{B}}$d \geq d' \geq \frac{d}{2} - \frac{b_{max}}{4 \cdot \abs{B}}.
As the prices only ... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 33 |
22,512,614 | 14 | In the above proof we chose the constant scaling factor of $2$2 for the sake of clarity and ease of exposition.
It can be replaced with $1 + \epsilon$1 + \epsilon for any constant $\epsilon > 0$\epsilon > 0.
This, together with adjusting the smallest element in $\roundedSet$\roundedSet, would allow us to prove \cref{ro... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 34 |
22,512,615 | 15 | By this lemma we can restrict our attention to prices from $\mathcal{P}$\mathcal{P}.
An important consequence of this is that the costs of paths in $G$G will always be multiples of
$p_{min} = \frac{b_{max}}{2^{\ceil{\log \bra{4 m \cdot \abs{B}}}}}$p_{min}min = \frac{b_{max}}{2^{\ceil{\log \bra{4 m \cdot \abs{B}}}}}.
An... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 35 |
22,512,616 | 16 | \subsection{Assume-Implement Dynamic Programming} | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 36 |
22,512,617 | 17 | Before we proceed to the description of the algorithm, assume we index rows of $G$G top to bottom and introduce some notation:
\begin{itemize}[nosep]
\item $R_i$ -- the set of vertices in the $i$-th row of $G$.
\item $G_i$ -- the subgraph of $G$ consisting of vertices from rows $i$ and $i+1$ and edges in the $i$-th row... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 37 |
22,512,618 | 18 | Let us consider a subgrid $H$H consisting of some consecutive rows of $G$G.
For the purpose of paths that only pass through $H$H (have endpoints either outide of $H$H or on its boundary),
we do not need to consider all the edges inside $H$H.
It is enough to consider the distances between the vertices on the boundary of... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 38 |
22,512,619 | 19 | \begin{definition}
\label{def:distance_matrix}
Given a grid $H$ and a subset $S$ of its vertices,
a \emph{distance matrix} for $S$ is an $\abs{S} \times \abs{S}$ matrix $D$ indexed by vertices from $S$,
where $D_{a, b}$ is the assumed distance, i.e. sum of weights along a cheapest path, between $a$ and ... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 39 |
22,512,620 | 20 | We will say that a certain edge-weighting \emph{realizes} a distance matrix if it satisfies the above condition
(for all $a, b \in S$, $D_{a,b}$ is actually equal to the distance between $a$ and $b$ in $H$). | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 40 |
22,512,621 | 21 | \textbf{Note:}~We will frequently consider $H$ to be a subgraph of the (weighted) grid $G$.
In that case the distance matrix describes the cheapest paths in $H$ and not $G$.
Even though under some weight assignments $G$ may contain shorter paths between vertices in $S$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
\l... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 41 |
22,512,622 | 22 | We will say that a certain edge-weighting \emph{realizes} a distance matrix if it satisfies the above condition
(for all $a, b \in S$, $D_{a,b}$ is actually equal to the distance between $a$ and $b$ in $H$). | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 42 |
22,512,623 | 23 | \textbf{Note:}~We will frequently consider $H$ to be a subgraph of the (weighted) grid $G$.
In that case the distance matrix describes the cheapest paths in $H$ and not $G$.
Even though under some weight assignments $G$ may contain shorter paths between vertices in $S$.
\end{definition}
\label{def:distance_... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 43 |
22,512,624 | 24 | We will say that a certain edge-weighting \emph{realizes} a distance matrix if it satisfies the above condition
(for all $a, b \in S$a, b \in S, $D_{a,b}$D_{a,b}a,b is actually equal to the distance between $a$a and $b$b in $H$H). | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 44 |
22,512,625 | 25 | \textbf{Note:}~We will frequently consider $H$H to be a subgraph of the (weighted) grid $G$G.
In that case the distance matrix describes the cheapest paths in $H$H and not $G$G.
Even though under some weight assignments $G$G may contain shorter paths between vertices in $S$S. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 45 |
22,512,626 | 26 | In the algorithm we will often have to merge two graphs into a single one.
We will be interested in knowing the distances in the union of the two graphs
based on assumptions about the distances in the original graphs.
The following formalizes this operation. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 46 |
22,512,627 | 27 | \begin{definition}
\label{def:dist_product}
Let $G_A$ and $G_B$ be two same-width edge-disjoint weighted grids with (possibly) some edges missing that share a common row with vertex set $R$ that is the top row of one and the bottom row of the other.
Let $A$ and $B$ be distance matrices for vertices $S_A$ in graph $G_A$... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 47 |
22,512,628 | 28 | Sometimes, in order to limit the dimensionality, we will want the product of $A$ and $B$
to be defined only for a certain subset $S \subseteq S_A \cup S_B$, in which case we write $A \dpro{S} B$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
\label{def:dist_product}
Let $G_A$ and $G_B$ be two same-width edge-disjoint weighted gri... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 48 |
22,512,629 | 29 | Sometimes, in order to limit the dimensionality, we will want the product of $A$ and $B$
to be defined only for a certain subset $S \subseteq S_A \cup S_B$, in which case we write $A \dpro{S} B$.
\end{definition}
\label{def:dist_product}
Let $G_A$G_A and $G_B$G_B be two same-width edge-disjoint weighted grids with (pos... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 49 |
22,512,630 | 30 | Sometimes, in order to limit the dimensionality, we will want the product of $A$A and $B$B
to be defined only for a certain subset $S \subseteq S_A \cup S_B$S \subseteq S_A \cup S_B, in which case we write $A \dpro{S} B$A \dpro{S}S B. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 50 |
22,512,631 | 31 | Note that the product of two distance matrices is well-defined:
because $R$R is a separator of $G_A$G_A and $G_B$G_B, any shortest path between two vertices from $S_A \cup S_B$S_A \cup S_B can be partitioned into segments whose lengths are determined by either $A$A or $B$B.
Thus, $A$A and $B$B already determine all pai... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 51 |
22,512,632 | 32 | Each state of the dynamic program corresponds to a certain ($i$i-th) row of the grid
and two distance matrices (\cref{def:distance_matrix}):
\begin{itemize}[nosep]
\item \emph{lower matrix} $L$ --
a distance matrix for $R_i$ in the part of $G$ below and including row $i$,
\item \emph{upper matrix} $U$ --
a distance mat... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 52 |
22,512,633 | 33 | Thanks to the rounding technique, we can restrict out attention to distance matrices
with values equal to $0$0, $\infty$\infty or a multiple of $p_{min}$p_{min}min as argued in \cref{sect:rounding}. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 53 |
22,512,634 | 34 | The value of $dp_{i, L, U}$dp_{i, L, U}i, L, U is defined as the maximum revenue generated by the drivers
whose non-root endpoint lies on or below row $i$i under a price assignment
to the edges in $i$i-th row and below that realizes the matrix $L$L and assuming that
the price assignment to the edges above row $i$i real... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 54 |
22,512,635 | 35 | \end{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{dp_colors}
\caption{
Dynamic programming states for row $i+1$ (left) and $i$ (right).
For reference, here $i = 2$.
Black dotted edges represent the graph $G_i$.
Black vertices marked with asterisks are
non... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 55 |
22,512,636 | 36 | The left term denotes the best revenue that can be achieved by the
drivers from rows below $i$i assuming the distance matrices $L$L and $U$U are realized.
It is a maximum over all possible lower and upper distance matrices
$L'$L' and $U'$U' for the previous row and each possible way $W$W to price the edges in $G_i$G_i.... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 56 |
22,512,637 | 37 | Note that $E(G_i) = E(L) \setminus E(L')$E(G_i) = E(L) \setminus E(L') and $E(G_i) = E(U') \setminus E(U)$E(G_i) = E(U') \setminus E(U), where $E(M)$E(M) denotes the edges of the graph corresponding to the matrix $M$M.
Thus, it is clear that by pricing $E(G_i)$E(G_i) we extend the lower matrix $L'$L' to $L$L and the up... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 57 |
22,512,638 | 38 | The right term is the revenue from the drivers in $B_{R_i}$B_{R_i}R_i
(each driver contributes the distance between her endpoints provided it does not exceed her budget).
Note that $U \dpro{} \mathit{L}$U \dpro{} \mathit{L} is a distance matrix describing the whole grid $G$G with respect to $R_i \cup \set{r}$R_i \cup \... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 58 |
22,512,639 | 39 | The algorithm obtains the revenue $\max_{L} dp_{1, L, U_{\infty}}$\max_{L}L dp_{1, L, U_{\infty}}1, L, U_{\infty}\infty, i.e.
chooses the biggest revenue among the lower matrices and the
infinite upper matrix $U_{\infty}$U_{\infty}\infty which has $0$0's on the main diagonal and $\infty$\infty's elsewhere.
It is becaus... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 59 |
22,512,640 | 40 | The price assignment itself can retrieved by a simple backtracking procedure, because
the algorithm stores $W$W and the best previous state from \cref{eq:dp}
alongside the values of $dp$dp. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 60 |
22,512,641 | 41 | \begin{lemma}
The above algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\end{lemma}\begin{lemma}
The above algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\end{lemma}
The above algorithm runs in polynomial time. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 61 |
22,512,642 | 42 | \begin{proof}
The number of states in the dynamic programming is bounded by a product of $m$ (the number of rows in $G$) and the numbers of possible lower and upper matrices.
The upper and lower matrices are respectively of size $(\omega + 1) \times (\omega + 1)$, and $\omega \times \omega$,
both of which a... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 62 |
22,512,643 | 43 | Calculating the value of each state is also done in polynomial time.
As we have already shown, the number of different matrices $U'$ and $L'$ is polynomially bounded.
$\abs{\mathcal{W}_i}$ is also polynomially bounded, because we assign a polynomial number of weights (from $\roundedSet$) to a constant ($2\omega... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 63 |
22,512,644 | 44 | Since the number of states is polynomially bounded and the time to calculate the value of each state is polynomial, the algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\end{proof}\begin{proof}
The number of states in the dynamic programming is bounded by a product of $m$ (the number of rows in $G$) and the numbers of possible l... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 64 |
22,512,645 | 45 | Calculating the value of each state is also done in polynomial time.
As we have already shown, the number of different matrices $U'$ and $L'$ is polynomially bounded.
$\abs{\mathcal{W}_i}$ is also polynomially bounded, because we assign a polynomial number of weights (from $\roundedSet$) to a constant ($2\omega... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 65 |
22,512,646 | 46 | Since the number of states is polynomially bounded and the time to calculate the value of each state is polynomial, the algorithm runs in polynomial time.
\end{proof}
The number of states in the dynamic programming is bounded by a product of $m$m (the number of rows in $G$G) and the numbers of possible lower and up... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 66 |
22,512,647 | 47 | Calculating the value of each state is also done in polynomial time.
As we have already shown, the number of different matrices $U'$U' and $L'$L' is polynomially bounded.
$\abs{\mathcal{W}_i}$\abs{\mathcal{W}_i}\mathcal{W}_i is also polynomially bounded, because we assign a polynomial number of weights (from $\... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 67 |
22,512,648 | 48 | Since the number of states is polynomially bounded and the time to calculate the value of each state is polynomial, the algorithm runs in polynomial time. | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 68 |
22,512,649 | 49 | The above algorithm can be easily extended to work with incomplete grids (i.e. grids where some of the edges are missing).
Such a grid can be modeled as a complete grid, where we require some of the edges to have infinite weight ($b_{max}+1$b_{max}max+1).
Because no driver will be able to afford such edges, they will n... | 2502.11979 | Rooted Case | 228,321 | 69 |
22,512,650 | 0 | \newcommand{\MaxGadgetDepth}{\frac{\omega^5}{4}}\frac{\omega^5}{4}
\newcommand{\TwoMaxGadgetDepth}{\frac{\omega^5}{2}}\frac{\omega^5}{2}
\newcommand{\FourMaxGadgetDepth}{\omega^5}\omega^5 | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 70 |
22,512,652 | 2 | The algorithm first partitions the drivers using a recursive decomposition of the grid $G$G.
At each level of the decomposition, the grid is split into blocks, which are $\omega$\omega-wide subgrids (continuous subsequences of rows).
At the first level $\mathcal{L}_1$\mathcal{L}_1, the decomposition is trivial: the who... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 72 |
22,512,653 | 3 | Note that, although the blocks at a single level of the decomposition do not necessarily cover the whole grid, they are disjoint.
Also, all blocks across all $\mathcal{L}_j$\mathcal{L}_j's form a laminar family, i.e., any two blocks are either disjoint or one is fully contained in the other.
Furthermore, at the last le... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 73 |
22,512,654 | 4 | \begin{remark}
Block lengths at the same level of the decomposition differ by at most one.
\end{remark}\begin{remark}
Block lengths at the same level of the decomposition differ by at most one.
\end{remark}
Block lengths at the same level of the decomposition differ by at most one. | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 74 |
22,512,655 | 5 | \begin{proof}
At the first level, we only have one block, so the claim holds naturally.
At each of the following levels, assuming that we have blocks of sizes belonging to the set $\set{s, s+1}$ for some $s$,
in the next level we will have blocks of sizes ranging from $\cefrac{s}{2}$ to $\flfrac{s-1}{2}$.
It is because... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 75 |
22,512,656 | 6 | \begin{definition}
A driver $(u,v,b)$ is \emph{assigned} to a block $H$ iff $H$ is the smallest block containing vertices $u$ and $v$.
We will denote a multiset of those drivers as $B_H$.
\end{definition}\begin{definition}
A driver $(u,v,b)$ is \emph{assigned} to a block $H$ iff $H$ is the smallest block containing ver... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 76 |
22,512,657 | 7 | For each driver such a block is unique (from laminarity) and must exist because the whole grid is one of the blocks.
Also, for a driver $(u, v, b)$(u, v, b) assigned to $H$H, $u$u and $v$v must lie on opposite sides of the \emph{middle row} of $H$H
(or on the middle row itself). | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 77 |
22,512,658 | 8 | All drivers assigned to blocks from $\mathcal{L}_j$\mathcal{L}_j form $B_j$B_j.
From now on we focus on a single level of the decomposition $j$j and present a constant factor approximation algorithm for the problem restricted to $B_j$B_j.
In other words, we will arrive at a price assignment to all edges in $G$G whose r... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 78 |
22,512,659 | 9 | \subsection{Separating Subproblems} | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 79 |
22,512,660 | 10 | Intuitively, we would like to split the problem restricted to $B_j$B_j into subproblems corresponding to the blocks of $\mathcal{L}_j$\mathcal{L}_j (fragmentation of $G$G)
and drivers assigned to them (partition of $B_j$B_j).
Ideally, we would solve those subproblems independently and each of the solutions would yield ... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 80 |
22,512,661 | 11 | This, however, is not possible as the blocks of $\mathcal{L}_j$\mathcal{L}_j together with assigned drivers do not form independent subproblems.
Although, for any $H$H, both endpoints of all paths desired by a driver in $B_H$B_H are in block $H$H,
a cheapest path desired by her may contain edges outside of $H$H.
The so... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 81 |
22,512,663 | 12 | However, it turns out that extending a subproblem by adding only a constant number of rows adjacent to the corresponding block is enough.
This is because we can model any finite-length grid using a relatively shallow grid with the same width.
In other words, for any block $H$H, it makes no difference to the revenue whe... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 82 |
22,512,664 | 13 | \begin{restatable}{lemma}{compressionlemma}\label{lemma:compression}
For any weighted grid of width $\omega$ there exists another weighted grid of the same width and depth at most $\MaxGadgetDepth$
such that the distances between vertices in the first row of the original grid are preserved.
\end{restatable}... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 83 |
22,512,665 | 14 | For the sake of brevity, here we only present the main idea of the proof, while the full proof can be found in \cref{apx:compression_lemma}.
First, we identify a partial grid that has a simple structure, but maintains the distances between the vertices in the first row.
We realize this by finding a collection o... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 84 |
22,512,666 | 15 | \begin{restatable}{lemma}{crossingvtexlemma}
\label{lemma:crossing_vertices}
For any weighted graph $G$ and a subset $S$ of its vertices, there exists a collection
of shortest paths in $G$ between all pairs of vertices from $S$ that results in at most
${\abs{S} \choose 2} \cdot \bra{{\abs{S} \choose 2} ... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 85 |
22,512,667 | 16 | The proof of the above, which can also be found in \cref{apx:compression_lemma}, is based on the observation that
when two paths have multiple crossing vertices, one of them can be rerouted so that the number of crossing vertices is limited to two.
Unfortunately, because of the lack of a natural monovariant tha... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 86 |
22,512,668 | 17 | Based on \cref{lemma:compression}, we create independent subproblems using an odd- and even-step approach.
Let us index the blocks of $\mathcal{L}_j$\mathcal{L}_j from top to bottom.
In the odd-step (even-step), we extend all the odd-indexed (even-indexed) blocks by $\MaxGadgetDepth$\MaxGadgetDepth up and down.
Those e... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 87 |
22,512,669 | 18 | Note that some of the extensions could be shorter than $\MaxGadgetDepth$\MaxGadgetDepth.
This can only happen to the top and bottom blocks which are closer than $\MaxGadgetDepth$\MaxGadgetDepth to the top or bottom end of the grid.
Let $H$H be such a top (bottom) block.
The extension of $H$H to the top (bottom) is shor... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 88 |
22,512,670 | 19 | Each of the steps (odd and even) consists of independent and disjoint subproblems,
which are solved by the algorithm presented in \cref{sec:single_block}.
We ensure the separation of the subproblems within the same step by pricing the edges between them at $\infty$\infty (more specifically $b_{max} + 1$b_{max}max + 1).... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 89 |
22,512,671 | 20 | All subproblems for blocks in all levels of decomposition apart from the last one
have a special structure that we exploit in the algorithm.
Because such a block $H$H is divided into two blocks by the middle row,
only drivers ($u, v, b$u, v, b) whose vertices $u$u and $v$v are separated by or lying on the middle row of... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 90 |
22,512,672 | 21 | That does not hold for a block $H'$H' at the last level of the decomposition.
However, as we observed earlier, such a block $H'$H' is at most $\FourMaxGadgetDepth + 1$\FourMaxGadgetDepth + 1 long.
Even with extensions, it gives us a constant upper bound on the size of the instance associated with $H'$H'
($\frac{3}{2} \... | 2502.11979 | Decomposition | 228,322 | 91 |
22,512,673 | 0 | \label{sec:single_block}
\newcommand{\locrevab}[2]{\mathrm{#1}^{\mathrm{#2}}_{H, a, b}}\mathrm{#1}^{\mathrm{#2}}\mathrm{#2}_{H, a, b}H, a, b
\newcommand{\locreva}[2]{\mathrm{#1}^{\mathrm{#2}}_{H, a}}\mathrm{#1}^{\mathrm{#2}}\mathrm{#2}_{H, a}H, a
\newcommand{\locrev}[2]{\mathrm{#1}^{\mathrm{#2}}_{H}}\mathrm{#1}^{\mathr... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 92 |
22,512,674 | 1 | In this section, we focus on a single block $H$H from a certain level of the decomposition $\mathcal{L}_j$\mathcal{L}_j.
Blocks on the last level of the decomposition will be solved naively, as described in \cref{sec:decomp}, so we do not concern ourselves with them here. We consider the instance of our problem consist... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 93 |
22,512,675 | 2 | To begin, note that, by construction of the decomposition, for each driver $(u, v, b) \in B_H$(u, v, b) \in B_H, we have that one of $u$u and $v$v lies on or above the middle row of $H$H and the other on or below the middle row of $H$H. As a result, each $u$u-$v$v path contains at least one vertex from the middle row o... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 94 |
22,512,676 | 3 | Consider any $u$u-$v$v path and let $x$x be the first vertex from the middle row of $H$H on the path and $y$y be the last vertex from the middle row of $H$H on the path. Then, the path can be split into three sub-paths $u$u-$x$x, $x$x-$y$y and $y$y-$v$v, which we call the \emph{upper section}, \emph{middle section} and... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 95 |
22,512,677 | 4 | Consider an optimal solution $S^*$S^* for our instance. For each driver $(u, v, b) \in B_H$(u, v, b) \in B_H, there could be multiple lowest-cost $u$u-$v$v paths under the pricing $S^*$S^* --- choose one such path for each driver. Let $M$M be the set of vertices on the middle row of $H$H. For any two vertices $s, t \in... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 96 |
22,512,678 | 5 | From now on, consider two fixed vertices on the middle row $s, t \in M$s, t \in M. We want to construct a solution $S_{s, t}$S_{s, t}s, t generating revenue at least $\alpha R_{S^*}(B_{s, t}^*)$\alpha R_{S^*}S^*(B_{s, t}s, t^*).
To achieve this, let us more closely analyze the paths of drivers in $B_{s, t}^*$B_{s, t}s... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 97 |
22,512,679 | 6 | Edges from steps 1-3 are marked with black dotted lines in \cref{fig:pricing_scheme}, whereas the ones from step 4 are marked green. | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 98 |
22,512,680 | 7 | By the previous observations, we have that $R_{S_{s, t}'}(B_{s, t}^*) = R_{S^*}(B_{s, t}^*)$R_{S_{s, t}'}S_{s, t}s, t'(B_{s, t}s, t^*) = R_{S^*}S^*(B_{s, t}s, t^*), i.e., drivers in $B_{s, t}^*$B_{s, t}s, t^* generate exactly the same revenue under $S^*$S^* and $S'_{s, t}$S'_{s, t}s, t. Consequently, it would be enough... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 99 |
22,512,681 | 8 | \begin{enumerate}[nosep]
\item For $i = \mathrm{up}$, note that this is symmetric with $i = \mathrm{low}$, which we treat below.
\item For $i = \mathrm{mid}$, note that a revenue of at least $R_{S_{s, t}'}^\mathrm{mid} (B_{s, t}^*)$ can be obtained by a pricing derived from $S_{s, t}'$ by leaving the price of e... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 100 |
22,512,683 | 10 | \begin{lemma}
For the instance defined by drivers $B_H$ and the extended block $H_{\mathrm{ext}}$, let $\mathrm{REV}_H$ be the revenue of the solution returned by the described algorithm and
$\mathrm{OPT}_H$ be the revenue of an optimal solution. Then:
\[ \mathrm{REV}_H \geq \frac{1}{\Crounding \cdot 3 \cdot \omega^2}... | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 102 |
22,512,684 | 11 | Plugging
back into our main algorithm, we gain another factor of $2$2 from the odd-even splitting on each level, and a logarithmic factor from the decomposition, so our algorithm
achieves an approximation factor of $24 \omega^2 \log m$24 \omega^2 \log m in poly-time for any fixed
$\omega$\omega. | 2502.11979 | Algorithm for a Single Block | 228,323 | 103 |
22,512,685 | 0 | Having established our result for grids with bounded width, it would be interesting to see if our ideas extend to the case of bounded-pathwidth or bounded-treewidth graphs, or to grids with some edges removed. Moreover, solving grids without a bound on their width seems like a natural first step to understanding the co... | 2502.11979 | Conclusion and Future Work | 228,324 | 104 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.