arxiv: v2 [cs.ds] 17 Oct 2014

Transcription

1 On Uniform Capacitated k-median Beyond the Natral LP Relaxation Shi Li Toyota Technological Institte at Chicago arxiv: v2 [cs.ds] 17 Oct 2014 Abstract In this paper, we stdy the niform capacitated k-median problem. In the problem, we are given a set F of potential facility locations, a set C of clients, a metric d over F C, an pper bond k on the nmber of facilities we can open and an pper bond on the nmber of clients each facility can serve. We need to open a sbset S F of k facilities and connect clients in C to facilities in S so that each facility is connected by at most clients. The goal is to minimize the total connection cost over all clients. Obtaining a constant approximation algorithm for this problem is a notorios open problem; most previos works gave constant approximations by either violating the capacity constraints or the cardinality constraint. Notably, all these algorithms are based on the natral LP-relaxation for the problem. The LP-relaxation has nbonded integrality gap, even when we are allowed to violate the capacity constraints or the cardinality constraint by a factor of 2 ɛ. Or reslt is an exp(o(1/ɛ 2 ))-approximation algorithm for the problem that violates the cardinality constraint by a factor of 1 + ɛ. That is, we find a soltion that opens at most (1 + ɛ)k facilities whose cost is at most exp(o(1/ɛ 2 )) times the optimm soltion when at most k facilities can be open. This is already beyond the capability of the natral LP relaxation, as it has nbonded integrality gap even if we are allowed to open (2 ɛ)k facilities. Indeed, or reslt is based on a novel LP for this problem. We hope that this LP is the first step towards a constant approximation for capacitated k-median. The version as we described is the hard-capacitated version of the problem, as we can only open one facility at each location. This is as opposed to the soft-capacitated version, in which we are allowed to open more than one facilities at each location. The hard-capacitated version is more general, since one can convert a soft-capacitated instance to a hard-capacitated instance by making enogh copies of each facility location. We give a simple proof that in the niform capacitated case, the soft-capacitated version and the hard-capacitated version are actally eqivalent, p to a small constant loss in the approximation ratio. Moreover, we show that the given potential facility locations do not matter: we can assme F = C. 1 Introdction In the niform capacitated k-median (CKM) problem, we are given a set F of potential facility locations, a set C of clients, a metric d over F C, an pper bond k on the nmber of facilities we can open and an pper bond on the nmber of clients each facility can serve. The goal is to find a set S F of at most k open facilities and a connection assignment σ : C S of clients to open facilities sch that σ 1 (i) for every facility i S, so as to minimize the connection cost j C d(j, σ(j)). 1

2 When =, the problem becomes the classical NP-hard k-median (KM) problem. There has been extensive work on approximation algorithms for k-median. The first constant approximation, de to Charikar et al. [9], is an LP-based approximation. This factor was improved by a seqence of papers [18, 8, 17, 3, 22]. In particlar, Li and Svensson [22] gave a ɛ ɛ- approximation for k-median, improving the previos decade-old ratio of 3 + ɛ de to [3]. Their algorithm is based on a psdo-approximation algorithm that opens k +O(1) facilities, and a process that trns a psedo-approximation into a tre approximation. Based on this framework, Byrka et al. [7] improved the approximation ratio from ɛ to the crrent best ɛ very recently. On the negative side, it is NP-hard to approximate the problem within a factor of 1+2/e ɛ [17]. Little is known abot the niform CKM problem; all constant approximation algorithms are psedo-approximation algorithms, which prodce soltions that violate either the capacity constraints or the cardinality constraint (the constraint that at most k facilities are open). Charikar et al. [9] obtained a 16-approximation for the problem, by violating the capacity constraint by a factor of 3. Later, Chzhoy and Rabani [13] gave a 40-approximation with capacity violation 50, for the more general non-niform capacitated k-median, where different facilities can have different capacities. Recently, Byrka et al. [6] improved the capacity violation constant 3 of [9] for niform CKM to 2 + ɛ and achieved approximation ratio of O(1/ɛ 2 ). This factor was improved to O(1/ɛ) by Li [21]. Constant approximations for CKM can also be achieved by violating the cardinality constraint. Gijswijt and Li [14] designed a (7 + ɛ)-approximation algorithm for a more general version of CKM that opens 2k + 1 facilities. There are two slightly different versions of the (niform or non-niform) CKM problem. In the version as we described, we can open at most one facility at each location. This is sometimes called hard CKM. This is as opposed to soft CKM, where we can open more than one facilities at each location. Notice that hard CKM is more general as one can convert a soft CKM instance to a hard CKM instance by making enogh copies of each location. The reslt of Chzhoy and Rabani [13] is for soft CKM while the other mentioned reslts are for (niform or non-niform) hard CKM. Most previos approximation algorithms on CKM are based on the basic LP relaxation. A simple example shows that the LP has nbonded gap. This is the main barrier to a constant approximation for CKM. Moreover, the integrality gap is nbonded even if we are allowed to violate the cardinality constraint or the capacity constraint by a factor of 2 ɛ. Ths, for algorithms based on the basic LP relaxation, [21] and [14] almost gave the smallest capacity violation factor and cardinality violation factor, respectively. Closely related to KM and CKM are the ncapacitated facility location (UFL) and capacitated facility location (CFL) problems. UFL has similar inpts as KM bt instead of giving an pper bond k on the nmber of facilities we can open, it specifies an opening cost f i for each facility i F. The objective is the sm of the cost for opening facilities and the total connection cost. In CFL, every facility i F has a capacity i on the maximm nmber of clients it can serve. There has been a steady stream of papers giving constant approximations for UFL [23, 25, 18, 11, 19, 8, 16, 17, 24, 5]. The crrent best approximation ratio for UFL is de to Li [20], while the hardness of approximation is [15]. In contrast to CKM, constant approximations are known for CFL. Mahdian et al. [24] gave a 2-approximation for soft CFL. For niform hard CFL, Korpol et al. [19] gave an (8 + ɛ)- approximation, which was improved to 6 + ɛ by Chdak and Williamson [12] and to 3 by Aggarwal et al. [1]. For (non-niform) hard CFL, the best approximation ratio is 5 de to Bansal et al. [4], 2

3 which improves the ratio of by Zhang et al. [27]. All these algorithms for hard CFL are based on local search. Recently, An et al. gave an LP-based constant approximation algorithm for hard CFL [2], solving a long-standing open problem [26]. Or contribtions In this paper, we introdce a novel LP for niform CKM, that we call the rectangle LP. We give a ronding algorithm that achieves constant approximation for the problem, by only violating the cardinality constraint by a factor of 1 + ɛ, for any constant ɛ > 0. This is already beyond the approximability of the basic LP relaxation, as it has nbonded integrality gap even if we are allowed to violate the cardinality constraint by 2 ɛ. To be more specific, we prove Theorem 1.1. Given a niform capacitated k-median instance and a constant ɛ > 0, we can find in polynomial time a soltion with at most (1 + ɛ)k open facilities and total connection cost at most exp(o(1/ɛ 2 )) times the cost of the optimm soltion with k open facilities. The rnning time of or algorithm is n O(1), where the constant in the exponent does not depend on ɛ. If we allow the rnning time to be n O(1/ɛ), we can remove the ceiling in the nmber of open facilities: we can handle the case when k O(1/ɛ) by enmerating the k open facilities. As or LP overcomes the gap instance for the basic LP relaxation, we hope it is the first step towards a constant approximation for capacitated k-median. Or algorithm is for the hard capacitated version of the problem; namely, we open at most one facility at each location. Indeed, we give a simple proof that, p to a constant loss in the approximation ratio, we can assme the instance is soft-capacitated and F = C. Theorem 1.2. Let (k,, F, C, d) be a hard niform CKM instance, and C be the minimm connection cost of the instance when all facilities in F are open. 1 Then, given any soltion of cost C to the soft niform CKM instance (k,, C, C, d), we can find a soltion of cost at most C + 2C to the hard niform CKM instance (k,, F, C, d). C is a trivial lower bond on the cost of the hard niform CKM instance (k,, F, C, d). Moreover, the optimm cost of the soft niform CKM instance (k,, C, C, d) is at most twice the optimm cost of the hard niform CKM instance (k,, F, C, d). Ths, any α-approximation for the soft instance (k,, C, C, d) implies a 1 + 2(2α) = (1 + 4α)-approximation for the hard instance (k,, F, C, d). The redction works even if we are considering psedo-approximation algorithms by allowing violating the cardinality constraint by β 1 and the capacity constraint by γ 1; we can simply apply the above theorem to the instance ( βk, γ, F, C, d). Ths, we only focs on soft niform CKM instances with F = C in the paper. Thogh we have F = C, we keep both notions to indicate whether a set of facility locations or a set of clients is being considered. Most part of or algorithm works withot assming F = C; only a single step ses this assmption. The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introdce some sefl notations, the basic LP relaxation for niform CKM, the gap instance and the proof of Theorem 1.2. In Section 3, we describe or rectangle LP. Then in Section 4, we show how to rond a fractional soltion obtained from the rectangle LP. We leave some open qestions in Section 6. 1 Given the set of open facilities, finding the best connection assignment is a minimm cost bipartite matching problem. 3

4 2 Preliminaries Let Z +, Z, R + and R denote the set of positive integers, non-negative integers, positive real nmbers and non-negative real nmbers respectively. For any x R, let x and x denote the floor and ceiling of x respectively. Let x = x x and x = x x. Given two sets C, C C of points, define d(c, C ) = min j C,j C d(j, j ) be the minimm distance from points in C to points in C. We simply se d(j, C ) for d({j}, C ). Following is the basic LP for the niform CKM problem: min i F,j C d(i, j)x i,j s.t. (Basic LP) i F y i k, (1) j C x i,j y i, i F, (4) i F x i,j = 1, j C, (2) x i,j, y i 0, i F, j C. (5) x i,j y i, i F, j C, (3) In the above LP, y i is the nmber of open facilities at location i, and x i,j indicates whether a client j is connected to a facility at i. Constraint (1) says that we can open at most k facilities, Constraint (2) says that every client mst be connected to a facility, Constraint (3) says that a client can only be connected to an open facility and Constraint (4) is the capacity constraint. In the integer programming captring the problem, we reqire y i Z and x i,j {0, 1} for every i F, j C. In the LP relaxation, we relax the constraint to x i,j 0, y i 0. The basic LP has nbonded integrality gap, even if we are allowed to open (2 ɛ)k facilities. The gap instance is the following. k = + 1 and F = C = n = ( + 1). The n points are partitioned into grops, each containing +1 points. Two points in the same grop have distance 0 and two points in different grops have distance 1. The following LP soltion has cost 0: y i = 1/ for every i F and x i,j is 1/( + 1) if i is co-located with j and 0 otherwise. The optimm soltion is non-zero even if we are allowed to open 2 1 = 2k 3 facilities: there mst be a grop in which we open at most 1 facility and some client in the grop mst connect to a facility otside the grop Redction to Soft Capacitated Case: Proof of Theorem 1.2 Proof. Consider the soltion for the soft niform capacitated CKM instance (k,, C, C, d). We constrct a set S of size at most k as follows. Sppose we opened s facilities at some location j C, we add s facility locations collocated with j to S. By the assmption, we can find a matching of cost C between F and C (the cost of matching i F to j C is d(i, j)), where each facility in F is matched at most times and each client in C is matched exactly once. We are also given a matching of cost C between C and S, where each client in C is matched exactly once and each facility i S is matched t i times. By concatenating the two matchings and by triangle ineqalities, we obtain a matching between F and S of cost at most C + C, sch that every facility in F is matched at most times and every facility in i S is matched t i times. We then modify the matching between 2 Note that this gap instance is not bad when we are allowed to violate the capacity constraints by 1 + ɛ. However, if we are only allowed to violate the capacity constraints, there is a different bad instance: each grop has 2 1 clients and k = 2 1. Fractionally, we open 2 1/ facilities in each grop and the cost is 0. Bt if we want to open 2 1 facilities integrally, some grop contains at most 1 facility and ths the capacity violation factor has to be 2 1/. 4

5 F and S in iterations, so that finally at most S k facilities in F are matched. Moreover, the modifications do not increase the cost of the matching. Focs on the bipartite mlti-graph between F and S defined by the matching. Then we can assme the graph is a forest, when ignoring mltiplicities. If there is an even cycle, we can color the edges in the cycle alternatively in black and white. Assme the total length of black edges is at most that of white edges. Then, we can increase the mltiplicities of black edges by one and decrease the mltiplicities of white edges by one. This does not increase the cost of the matching. We can apply this operation ntil the cycle breaks. We can frther assme that in any tree of the forest, at most one facility in F is matched less than times. If there are two, we then take the path in the tree connecting the two facilities (path has even length), color the edges in the path alternatively in black and white. Assme the total length of black edges is at most that of white edges. Again we can increase the mltiplicities of black edges and decrease the mltiplicities of white edges. We can apply this operation ntil either some edge disappears from the tree, or one of the two facilities is matched exactly times. Now we claim that at most k facilities in F are matched. To see this, focs on each tree in the forest containing at least one edge. If facilities in S in the tree are matched t times in total, so are the facilities in F in the tree. Ths, there are exactly t/ facilities in F in this tree, since at most one facility in F in the tree is matched less than times. The nmber of facilities in S in this tree is at least t/ since each facility in S is matched t i times. This proves the claim. Let F F be the set of facilities that are matched. Then, F S k, and we have a matching between F and S of cost at most C + C, where each facility in F is matched at most times and each facility in S is matched t i times. By concatenating this matching with the matching between S and C of cost C, we obtain a soltion of cost C + 2C with open facilities F to the niform hard CKM instance (k,, F, C, d). This finishes the proof. 3 Rectangle LP Or rectangle LP is motivated by the gap instance described in Section 2. Focs on a grop of + 1 clients in the gap instance. The fractional soltion opens 1 + 1/ facilities for this grop and se them to serve the (1 + 1/) = + 1 clients in the grop. We interpret this fractional event as a convex combination of integral events: with probability 1 1/ we open 1 facility for the grop and serve clients; with probability 1/ we open 2 facilities and serve 2 clients. However, there are only + 1 clients in this grop; even if 2 facilities are open, we can only serve + 1 clients. Ths, we can only serve (1 1/) + (1/)( + 1) = + 1/ < + 1 clients sing 1 + 1/ open facilities. This motivates the following definition of f(p, q) for any p Z, q R. When q Z, let f(p, q) = min {q, p} be the pper bond on the nmber of clients in a set of cardinality p that can be connected to a set of q facilities. We then extend the range of q from Z to R sing linear interpolation(see Figre 1). Then the exact definition of f(p, q) is the following: q q p f(p, q) = p + p ( q p p ) < q < p p q. p 5

6 f(p, q) p p/ p/ p/ q Figre 1: The f fnction for a fixed p sch that p/ / Z. It contains three linear segments. The dashed line shows the fnction f defined by f = min {p, q}. Claim 3.1. Fixing p Z, f(p, ) is a concave fnction on R. Fixing q R, f(, q) is a concave fnction on Z. Proof. It is easy to see that f(p, q) = min{p, q, p/ + p/ (q p/ )}. Fix p, all the three terms are linear fnctions of q; ths the minimm of the three is concave. Now we fix q R. Then f(p, q) = p if p q, f(p, q) = q + (p q ) q if q < p < q, and f(p, q) = q if p q. All three segments are linear on p and their gradients are 1, q, 0 respectively. The gradients are decreasing from left to right. Moreover, the first segment and the second segment agree on p = q ; the second segment and the third segment agree on p = q. Ths, f(, q) is a concave fnction on Z. For any sbset B F of facility locations and sbset J C of clients, define y B := y(b) := i B y i and x B,J = i B,j J x i,j. We simply write x i,j for x {i},j and x B,j for x B,{j}. By the definition of f(p, q), j J x B,j f( J, y B ) is valid for every B F and J C. The constraint says that there can be at most f( J, y B ) clients in J connected to facilities in B. Notice the constraint with B = {i} and J = {j} implies x i,j f(1, y i ) y i. The constraint with B = {i} and J = C implies j C x i,j f( C, y i ) y i. Ths, Constraint (3) and (4) are implied. The constraints of or rectangle LP are Constraint (1),(2),(5) and the new constraint: minimize x i,j d(i, j) s.t. (Rectangle LP) i F,j C x F,j = 1, y F k, x i,j 0, y i 0, i F, j C, (6) x B,J f( J, y B ), B F, J C. (7) The LP is called the rectangle LP since we have a constraint for every rectangle (B F, J C). We se the concavity of f(p, ) to convert Constraint (7) to linear constraints. Since f(p, q) is the minimm of p, q and p/ + p/ (q p/ ), Constraint (7) is eqivalent to a combination of three linear constraints. For a fixed B F, the separation oracle for Constraint (7) is simple: for every p [ C ], we take the sm of the p largest vales in {x B,j : j C}; if it is larger than f(p, y B ) we find a separation. Since there are exponential nmber of sets B, we do not know how to find a separation oracle for the Constraint (7) efficiently. However, we can se the following standard trick: given {x i,j : i F, j C} and {y i : i F} satisfying Constraint (6), we either find a rectangle (B 6

7 F, J C) for which Constraint (7) is violated, or constrct an integral soltion with at most (1 + ɛ)k facilities and the desired approximation ratio. This is sfficient for s to rn the ellipsoid method. We also remark that the definition of f(p, q) for p/ < q < p/ is what makes the rectangle LP powerfl. If we change the definition of f(p, q) to f(p, q) = min {p, q}(see Figre 1), then the rectangle LP is eqivalent to the basic LP. 4 Ronding a Fractional Soltion of the Rectangle LP Throghot this section, let ( {x i,j : i F, j C}, {y i : i F} ) be a fractional soltion satisfying Constraints (6). Let LP := i F,j C x i,jd(i, j) be the cost of the fractional soltion. We then try to rond the fractional soltion to an integral one with at most (1 + ɛ)k open facilities. We either claim the constrcted integral soltion has connection cost at most exp(o(1/ɛ 2 ))LP, or otpt a rectangle (B F, J C) for which Constraint (7) is violated. We can assme Constraint (3) and (4) are satisfied by checking Constraint (7) for rectangles ({i}, {j}) and ({i}, C) respectively. Overall, the algorithm works as follows. Initially, we have 1 nit of demand at each client j C. Dring the exection of the algorithm, we move demands fractionally between clients. We pay a cost of xd(j, j ) for moving x nits of demand from client j to client j. Sppose or final moving cost is C, and each client j C has α j nits of demand. Then we se the fact that F = C. We open α j / facilities at the location j C = F. By the integrality of matching, there is an integral matching between the F and C, sch that each i F is matched at most α i / times and each j C is matched exactly once. The cost of the matching is at most C (cost of matching i and j is d(i, j)). Ths or goal is to bond C and j C α j/. 4.1 Moving Demands to Client Representatives In this section, we define a sbset of clients called client representatives (representatives for short) and move all demands to the representatives. The definition of client representatives is similar to that of Charikar and Li [10]. Let d av (j) = i F x i,jd(i, j) be the connection cost of j, for every client j C. Then LP = j C d av(j). Let l = Θ(1/ɛ) be an integer whose vale will be decided later. Let C = initially. Repeat the following process ntil C becomes empty. We select the client v C with the smallest d av (v) and add it to C. We remove all clients j sch that d(j, v) 2ld av (j) from C (ths, v itself is removed). Then the final set C is the set of client representatives. We shall se v and its derivatives to index representatives, and j and its derivatives to index general clients. We partition the set F of locations according to their nearest representatives in C. Let U v = for every v C initially. For each location i F, we add i to U v for the v C that is closest to i. Ths, {U v : v C } forms a Voronoi diagram of F with centers being C. For any sbset A C of representatives, we se U A = v A U v to denote the nion of Voronoi regions with centers in A. Claim 4.1. The following statements hold: (C1) for all v, v C, v v, we have d(v, v ) > 2l max {d av (v), d av (v )}; (C2) for all j C, there exists v C, sch that d av (v) d av (j) and d(v, j) 2ld av (j); (C3) y(u v ) 1 1/l for every v C ; 7

8 (C4) for any v C, i U v and j C, we have d(i, v) d(i, j) + 2ld av (j). Proof. First consider Property (C1). Assme d av (v) d av (v ). When we add v to C, we remove all clients j satisfying d(v, j) 2ld av (j) from C. Ths, v can not be added to C later. For Property (C2), jst consider the iteration in which j is removed from C. The representative v added to C in the iteration satisfy the property. Then consider Property (C3). By Property (C1), we have B := {i F : d(i, v) ld av (v)} U v. Since d av (v) = i F x i,vd(i, v) and i F x i,v = 1, we have d av (v) (1 x B,v )ld av (v), implying y(u v ) y B x B,v 1 1 l, de to Constraint (3). Finally, consider Property (C4). By Property (C2), there is a client v C sch that d av (v ) d av (j) and d(v, j) 2ld av (j). Notice that d(i, v) d(i, v ) since v C and i was added to U v. Ths, d(i, v) d(i, v ) d(i, j) + d(j, v ) d(i, j) + 2ld av (j). Now, we move demands to C. For every representative v C, every location i U v and every client j v sch that x i,j > 0, we move x i,j nits of demand from j to v. We bond the moving cost: Lemma 4.2. The total cost of moving demands in the above step is at most 2(l + 1)LP. Proof. The cost is bonded by x i,j (d(j, i) + d(i, v)) x i,j (2d(i, j) + 2ld av (j)) v C v C i U v j C i U v j C = 2 x i,j (d(i, j) + ld av (j)) = 2 (d av (j) + ld av (j)) = 2(l + 1)LP. j C v C,i U v j C The ineqality is by Property (C4). The second eqality sed the fact that {U v : v C } form a partition of F, i F x i,j = 1 and i F x i,jd(i, j) = d av (j). After the moving operation, all demands are at the set C of representatives. Every representative v C has i U v j C x i,j nits of demand. Let y i := j C x i,j for any facility location i F. for every B F. Obviosly y B y B. The amont of demand at v C is i U v y i = y (U v ). We have obtained an O(1) approximation with 2k open facilities: we set l = 2 and open y (U v ) facilities at each location v C C = F. By Lemma 4.2, the connection cost is Since Constraint (4) holds, we have y i y i. Define y B := y (B) := i B y i = j C x B,j at most 2(l + 1)LP = 6LP. The nmber of open facilities is at most 2k, as max v C y (U v) y(u v) y max y 1 1/l y 2. No matter how large l is, the bond is tight as 1+ɛ 1+ɛ approaches 2. This is as expected since we have not sed Constraint (7). In order to improve the factor of 2, we frther move demands between client representatives. 4.2 Bonding cost for moving demands ot of a set Sppose we are given a set A C of representatives sch that d(a, C \A) is large. If y (U A ) /y(u A ) is large then we can not afford to open y (U A ) open facilities inside A. (Recall that U A = v A U v is the nion of Voronoi regions with centers in A.) Ths, we need to move demands between A and C \ A. The goal of this section is to bond d(a, C \ A); this reqires Constraint (7). 8

9 To describe the main lemma, we need some notations. Let D i = j C x i,jd(i, j) and D i = j C x i,jd av (j) for any location i F. Let D F := D(F ) := i F D i and D F := D (F ) := i F D i for every sbset F F of locations. It is easy to see that LP = D F = D F ; this fact will be sed to bond the total moving cost. The main lemma we prove in this section is the following. Lemma 4.3. Let A C and S = U A. Sppose y S y S and Constraint (7) holds for B = S and every J C. Then, y S ys d(a, C \ A) 4 D S + 4l + 2 D S. We explain why this bond gives what we need. We can open y S facilities in A and move y S nits of demand from A to some close representatives in C \ A. If we garantee that the moving distance is roghly d(a, C \ A), then the moving cost is y S d(a, C \ A). When y S is not too small, the cost is bonded in terms of D S + D S. On the other hand, if y S is very small, we can simply open y S facilities in A as y S /y S is close to 1. The proof of Lemma 4.3 reqires the following lemma, which directly ses the power of Constraint (7). As the lemma is very technical, we defer its proof to Section 4.5. We shall prove Lemma 4.3 assming Lemma 4.4. Lemma 4.4. Sppose ({x i,j : i F, j C}, {y i : i F}) satisfies Constraint (7) for some set B F and every J C. Moreover, sppose y B y B. Then x B,j (1 x B,j ) y B yb. (8) j C To get an intition abot Ineqality (8), let s assme y B = y B Z and y B Z. Ths, B serves y B = y B fractional clients. Withot Constraint (7), it can happen that B serves y B integral clients, in which case the left side of (8) is 0 and (8) does not hold. In other words, Ineqality (8) prevents the case from happening. Indeed, we show that the left side of (8) is minimized when the following happens: B serves y B integral clients, and fractional clients, each with fraction y B. In this case, (8) holds with eqality. Proof of Lemma 4.3. Focs on some i S, i F \ S, j C. Sppose i U v for some v A and i U v for some v C \ A. Then d(a, C \ A) d(v, v ) d(v, i ) + d(v, i ) 2d(v, i ) 2(d(v, i) + d(i, j) + d(j, i )) 2[2d(i, j) + 2ld av (j) + d(i, j)]. In the above seqence, the third ineqality sed the fact that i U v and the fifth ineqality sed Property (C4) in Claim 4.1. Ths, y S ys d(a, C \ A) 1 x S,j (1 x S,j )d(a, C \ A) j C = 1 x i,j x i,jd(a, C \ A) 2 [ x i,j x i,j 2d(i, j) + 2ldav (j) + d(i, j) ] j C,i S,i F\S j,i,i = 4 x i,j (1 x S,j ) [d(i, j) + ld av (j)] + 2 x S,j x i,jd(i, j) j,i j,i 4 x i,j [d(i, j) + ld av (j)] + 2 x S,j d av (j) = 4 D S + 4l + 2 D S. i,j j 9

10 In above smmations, j is over all clients in C, i is over all locations in S and i is over all locations in F \ S. The first ineqality in the seqence sed Lemma 4.4. All other ineqalities and eqations follow from the definitions of the notations sed. 4.3 Constrcting family of neighborhood trees Lemma 4.3 gives a necessary bond for or analysis. Still, we need to garantee some other conditions when moving the demands. For example, when moving demands ot of an isolated set A, we shold make sre that the distance is roghly d(a, C \ A). If y (U A ) y(u A ), then we shold not move demands ot of A, as d(a, C \ A) may not be bonded any more. We garantee these conditions by bilding a set of rooted trees over C, called neighborhood trees. Roghly speaking, each neighborhood tree contains representatives that are nearby; moving demands within a neighborhood tree does not cost too mch. We se a triple T = (V, E, r) to denote a rooted tree, with vertex set V C, edge set E ( ) V 2 and root r V. Given a rooted tree T = (V, E, r) and a vertex v V, we se Λ T (v) to denote the set of vertices in the sb-tree of T rooted at v. If v r, we se ρ T (v) to denote the parent of v in T. Definition 4.5. A rooted tree T = (V C, E, r) is called a neighborhood tree if for every vertex v V \ r, d(v, C \ Λ T (v)) = d(v, ρ T (v)). In other words, T = (V, E, r) is a neighborhood tree if for every non-root vertex v of T, the parent ρ T (v) of v is the nearest vertex in C to v, except for v itself and its descendants. The next lemma shows that we can cover C sing a set of neighborhood trees of size between l and l 2. The vertex sets of these trees almost form a partition of C, except that trees may share the same root. Since the lemma is technical and peripheral to the spirit of or reslt, we defer the proof to Section 4.5. Lemma 4.6. Given any positive integer l sch that C l, we can find a set T of neighborhood trees sch that (T1) l V l 2 for every neighborhood-tree (V, E, r) T; (T2) (V,E,r) T V = C ; (T3) For two distinct trees T = (V, E, r), T = (V, E, r ) T, V \ {r} and V \ {r } are disjoint. 4.4 Moving demands within neighborhood trees Recall that all the demands are at the client representatives. Every representative v C has y (U v ) nits of demand. In this section, it is convenient for s to scale down the demands by. Ths a representative v C has y (U v ) nits of demand. De to the scaling, moving x nits of demand from v to v costs xd(v, v ). If finally some v has α v nits of demand, we need to open α v facilities at v. For analytical prposes, we also say that v C has y(u v ) y (U v ) nits of spply. The total spply is v C y(u v) = y F k. Assme C l for now. We apply Lemma 4.6 to constrct a set T of neighborhood trees satisfying Properties (T1) to (T3). We assign the spplies and demands to vertices in the set T. Notice that every representative in C appears in T, and it appears in T as a non-root at most 10

11 once. If v C appears as a non-root, we assign the y (U v ) nits of demand and the y(u v ) nits of spply to the non-root. Otherwise, we assign the y (U v ) nits of demand and the y(u v ) nits of spply to an arbitrary root v in T. Fix a neighborhood tree T = (V, E, r) T from now on. Each v V has α v nits of demand and β v nits of spply. For v V \ {r}, we have α v = y (U v ) and β v = y(u v ). We have either α r = y (U r ), β r = y(u r ) or α r = β r = 0. Define α V := v V α v and β V := v V β v for every V V. We shall move demands and spplies within T. Moving spplies is only for analytic prposes and costs nothing. When moving demands and spplies, we pdate {α v : v V} and {β v : v V} accordingly. Keep in mind that we always maintain the property that α v β v for every v V; we do not change α V and β V (we do not change the total demands or spplies in V). After the moving process for T, we add α v open facilities at v for every v V. We shall compare v V α v to α V. To define the moving process for T = (V, E, r), we give each edge in E a rank as follows. An edge e = (v, v ) E has length L e := d(v, v ). Sort edges in E according to their lengths; assme e 1, e 2,, e V 1 is the ordering. Let the rank of e 1 be 1. For each t = 2, 3,, e V 1, if L et 2 t 1 s=1 L e s, then let the rank of e t be the rank of e t 1 ; otherwise let the rank of e t be the rank of e t 1 pls 1. Let h be the rank of e V 1. For each i [h], let E i be the set of rank-i edges in E; for i = 0, 1,, h, let E i = i i E i be the set of edges of rank at most i. Claim 4.7. For any i [h] and e, e E i, we have L e /L e 3 V 1. Proof. It sffices to prove the lemma for the case where e is the shortest rank-i edge, and e is the longest rank-i edge. Sppose e = e t and e = e t for t < t. Let L = e E i 1 L e. Then, L e > 2L. For every s {t, t + 1,, t 1}, we have L es+1 2(L+L et +L et L es ). Ths, L + L et + L et L es + L es+1 3(L + L et + L et L es ). Ths, L e 3 t t (L + L e ) < 3 2 3t t L e 3 V 1 L e as t t V 2. For every i {0, 1,, h}, we call the set of vertices in a connected component of (V, E i ) a level-i set. The family of level-i sets forms a partition of V; and the nion of families over all i {0, 1,, h} is a laminar family. For every i [h] and every level-i set A, we check if Constraint (7) is satisfied for B = U A and every J C (recall that this can be checked efficiently). If not, we find a violation of Constraint (7); from now on, we assme Constraint (7) holds for all these rectangles (B, J ). Claim 4.8. If a level-i set A does not contain the root r, then d(a, C \ A) L 2, where L is the length of the shortest edge in E i+1. Proof. See Figre 2 for the notations sed in the proof. Let v be the highest vertex in A according to T, and L = e E i L e be the total length of edges of rank at most i. Notice that C \ A = (C \ Λ T (v)) (Λ T (v) \ A). d(v, C \ Λ T (v)) = d(v, ρ T (v)) L since T is a neighborhood tree and the rank of (v, ρ T (v)) is at least i + 1. Ths d(a, C \ Λ T (v)) L L L 2 as the distance from v to any vertex in A is at most L. We now bond d(a, Λ T (v) \ A). Consider each connected component in (Λ T (v) \ A, E i ). Let A be the set of vertices in the component and v be its root. Since d(v, ρ T (v )) L, we have d(v, v) L as ρ T (v ) is the nearest representative to v in C \ Λ T (v ) v. Since each of A and A is connected by edges in E i, v A, v A and the total length of edges in E i is L, we have that d(a, A ) L L L 2. As this is tre for any 11

12 C \ Λ T (v) Λ T (v) \ A A v r v A Figre 2: Notations sed in the proof of Claim 4.8. Solid circles are client representatives in C and solid lines give a neighborhood tree T. sch A, we have d(a, Λ T (v) \ A) L 2, which, combined with d(a, C \ Λ T (v)) L 2, implies the lemma. Recall that the family of all level-i sets, over all i = 0, 1, 2,, h form a laminar family. Level-0 sets are singletons and the level-h set is the whole set V. Or moving operation is level-by-level: for every i = 1, 2,, h in this order, for every level-i set A V, we define a moving process for A, in which we move demands and spplies within vertices in A. After the moving operation for A, we garantee the following properties. If r A, then either (N1) all bt one vertices v A have α v = β v Z ; or (N2) every vertex v A has β v α v 1/l. If r A, then (I1) every vertex v A \ {r} has β v α v 1/l. The above properties hold for all level-0 sets: they are all singletons; Property (N1) holds if r / A and Property (I1) holds if r A. Now, sppose the properties hold for all level-(i 1) sets. We define a moving operation for a level-i set A after which A satisfies the properties. The first step is a collection step, in which we collect demands and spplies from A. For every v A \ {r} sch that β v < α v 1/l, we collect α v nits of demand and β v α v nits of spply from v and keep them in a temporary holder. For all vertices v A with β v > α v, we collect β v α v nits of spply from v. Now, we have α v 1/l β v α v for every v A\{r}. The second step is a redistribtion step, in which we move the demand and spply in the temporary holder back to A. If r A, we simply move the demand and the spply in the holder to r and terminate the process. A will satisfy Property (I1). From now on we assme r / A. We try to move the demand and the spply in the holder to each v A continosly ntil we have α v = β v Z : we first move demand from the holder to v ntil α v = β v, then move demand and spply at the same rate ntil α v = β v Z. If we scceeded in making all vertices v A satisfy α v = β v Z, then we can move the remaining spplies and demands in the holder to an arbitrary vertex in A. In this case A satisfies Property (N1). Sppose we failed to make α v = β v Z for some v A. The failre is de to the insfficient demand in the holder: we have collected at least 12

13 the same amont of spply as demand; in the redistribtion step, we either move the demand from the holder or move the demand and the spply at the same rate. We then move all the remaining spply in the holder to an arbitrary vertex v A. Notice that dring the continos redistribtion process for v, we always maintain the property that α v 1/l β v α v. Moving the remaining spply to an arbitrary vertex v also maintain the property that α v 1/l β v. Ths A will satisfy Property (N2) in the end. After we finished the moving operation for the level-h set V, or set V satisfies Property (I1) as r V. Ths v V α v v V\{r} (β v + 1/l) + α r + 1 β V ( V 1)/l 2l 1 β (l 1) 2 V as β V ( V 1)(1 1/l) and V l. Taking this sm over all trees in T, we have that the nmber of open facilities is at most 2l 1 k. By setting l = 3/ɛ, the nmber of open facilities is at most (l 1) 2 (1 + ɛ)k. It sffices to bond the moving cost for T. Lemma 4.9. The moving cost of the operation for T = (V, E, r) T is at most exp ( O(l 2 ) ) ( D(U V\{r} ) + D (U V\{r} ) ). Proof. Consider the moving process for a level-i set A. Sppose we collected some demand from v A. It mst be the case that v r and β v < α v 1/l before the collection, as otherwise we wold not collect demand from v. If we let A A be the level-(i 1) set containing v, then A mst satisfy r / A and Property (N2) by the indction assmption. This implies that we did not collect demands from any other vertices in A. Notice that β v < α v 1/l implies α v > β v and β v > 1/l. Then, α A > β A and β A > 1/l as all vertices v A \ {v} have α v = β v Z. Since we never moved demands or spplies in or ot of A before, we have α A = y S and β A = y S, where S = U A. Then y S > y S and y S > 1/l. As we assmed that Constraint (7) is satisfied for B = S and every J C, we can apply. The demands collected from v will be moved to vertices in A. The moving distance is at most e E i L e V 3 V L by Claim 4.7, where L is the length of the shortest edge in E i. Now, by Claim 4.8, L 2d(A, C \ A ). Ths, the moving distance is at most Lemma 4.3 to show that y S y S d(a, C \ A ) 4 D S + 4l+2 D S 2 V 3 V d(a, C \ A ) 2 V 3 V 4 y S ys (2D S + (2l + 1)D S). Notice that y S > 1/l and V l 2. The distance is at most exp(o(l2 )) y S (D S + D S ). As we moved y S nits of demand from A, the moving cost is at most exp ( O(l 2 ) ) (D S + D S ). Taking the sm of the pper bonds over all level-(i 1) sets A A \ {r}, the cost is at most exp ( O(l 2 ) ) ( D(U A\{r} ) + D (U A\{r} ) ). Taking the sm over i [h] and all level-i sets A, the cost is at most exp ( O(l 2 ) ) ( D(U V\{r} ) + D (U V\{r} ) ), as the nmber h of levels is absorbed by exp ( O(l 2 ) ). This finishes the proof of Lemma 4.9. Finally, taking the bond over all neighborhood trees T = (V, E, r), the moving cost is at most exp(o(l 2 ))(D F + D F ) de to Property (T3) and the fact that {U v : v C } forms a partition of F. Since D F = D F = LP, the moving cost is at most exp(o(l2 ))LP. This finishes the proof of Theorem 1.1 for the case C l. When C < l, we only bild one neighborhood tree (C, E, r). Any minimm spanning tree over C will be a neighborhood tree. We rn the algorithm for this neighborhood tree. The argment for moving cost still works; it 13

14 sffices to bond the nmber of open facilities. After the moving process, we have β v α v 1/l for every v C \ {r}. Also β C k. Ths, β r k β C \{r} k v C \{r} ( α v 1/l) k v C \{r} α v + (l 2)/l as C < l. Ths, α r β r k v C \{r} α v + 1, implying v C α v k + 1. Ths, the nmber of open facilities is at most k + 1 (1 + ɛ)k. To finish the proof of Theorem 1.1, it remains to prove the two technical lemmas. 4.5 Proofs of Technical Lemmas Proof of Lemma 4.4. For simplicity we let y = y B, y = y B and x j = x B,j for every j C. Throghot the proof, y and y are fixed. We assme C = [n] and 1 x 1 x 2 x n 0. Let f(p) = min {f(p, y), y } for every integer p [0, n]. Notice that f is a non-decreasing concave fnction as f(, y) is concave and y is independent of p. The conjnction of Constraint (7) and y = n j=1 x j/ is eqivalent to p j=1 x j f(p) for every p [n]. Let g : [0, 1] R be any second-order differentiable concave fnction sch that g(0) = 0. We shall show that n j=1 g(x j) n j=1 g(x j ), where x j = f(j) f(j 1) for every j [n]. We se g and g to denote the first-order and second-order derivative fnctions of g respectively. For any x [0, 1], let ψ(x) = {j C : x j x}. Then g(x j ) = j C 1 0 = g (0) ψ(x)g (x)dx = 1 0 ψ(x)dx ( g (0) + x 0 ) g (t)dt ψ(x)dx [ 1 ] ψ(x)dx g (t)dt. Notice that the first term is eqal to g (0) j C x j = g (0)y, which is independent of x := (x 1, x 2,, x n ). Since g is concave, we have g (t) 0 for every t [0, 1]. We show that Q(t) := 1 t ψ(x)dx is maximized when x = x := (x 1, x 2,, x n), for every t [0, 1]. We now fix t [0, 1]. Notice that Q(t) = p t j=1 (x j t) where p t is the largest integer p sch that x p t. Then Q(t) f(p t ) tp t max n ( ) p=0 f(p) tp. We show that Q(t) = max n ( ) p=0 f(p) tp when x = x. Consider the seqence x 1 t, x 2 t,, x n t. The seqence is{ non-increasing; } f(p) tp is the sm of the first p nmber in the seqence by the definition of x j. Ths, the sm is maximized when f(p) tp is the largest nmber sch that x p t. This p is exactly the definition of p t. Ths, Q(t) is maximized when x = x. This proves that n i=1 g(x i) n i=1 g(x i ). Now we let g(x) x(1 x). Then g(0) = g(1) = 0. Ths, j C g(x j ) = y y ( ) ( ) g y y y. By the concavity of g and g(0) = 0, we have g y y y Ths j C g(x j) + ( y y t y y g ( y ) + g ( y ). ) y y g ( y ) = y y g( y ) = y y y (1 y ) = y y. The last eqation sed the fact that y + y = 1 if y is fractional and y = 0 if y is integral. Proof of Lemma 4.6. The first step is a simple iterative process. We maintain a spanning forest of rooted trees for C. Initially, we have C singletons. At each iteration, we arbitrarily choose a tree T = (V, E, r) of size less than l. Let v = arg min v C \V d(r, v) be the nearest neighbor of r in C \ V. Assme v is in some rooted tree T = (V, E, r ). Then, we merge T and T by adding an 14

15 edge (r, v ), and let v be the parent of r. i.e, the new tree will be (V V, E E {(r, v )}, r ). The process ends when all rooted trees have size at least l. Now we show that every rooted tree in the spanning forest is a neighborhood tree. Initially all trees are trivially neighborhood trees; it sffices to prove that the new tree formed by merging two neighborhood trees is also a neighborhood tree. Consider two neighborhood trees T = (V, E, r) and T = (V, E, r ), and sppose we obtain a merged tree T by adding an edge (r, v ) for some v V. Then, for every v V \ {r} we have d(v, C \ Λ T (v)) = d(v, ρ T (v)) since Λ T (v) = Λ T (v), ρ T (v) = ρ T (v) and T is a neighborhood tree. Also, we have d(r, C \ Λ T (r)) = d(r, ρ T (r)) since Λ T (r) = V and ρ(t )(r) = v is the nearest neighbor of r in C \ V. Finally, for every v V \ {r }, we have d(v, C \ T v ) = d(v, ρ T (v)) since ρ T (v) = ρ T (v) C \ Λ T (v) C \ Λ T (v) and T is a neighborhood tree. All neighborhood trees we constrcted have size at least l. However, they might have size mch larger than l 2. Ths, we need to break a large neighborhood tree. Focs on a neighborhood tree T = (V, E, r) of size more than l 2 and consider its growth in the iterative process. Initially it contains only a single vertex r. Dring the exection of the process, we merge it with some neighborhood tree T of size less than l, by hanging T at some vertex of T. We call T a treelet. When we hang T = (V, E, r ) at some vertex v of T, we have d(r, v ) = d(r, C \ V ). Let T be the tree obtained from T by contracting vertices of the same treelet into a sper-node (for convenience, the root r is a treelet). Ths, T is a tree rooted at r, where each sper-node corresponds to a treelet. Let the weight of a sper-node be the size of its correspondent treelet. Consider the deepest sper-node of T sch that the total weight of the sb-tree rooted at this sper-node is at least l(l 1). The treelet T = (V, E, r ) correspondent to this sper-node has size at most l 1. Then there mst be a vertex v V sch that the total weight hanging at this vertex is at least l(l 1) (l 1) l 1 = l 1. Then, we break T into two parts: the sb-tree T 1 of T rooted at v, and the sb-tree T 2 of T obtained by removing descendants of v. The two sb-trees share the vertex v. Then T 2 obviosly a neighborhood tree since it is the sb-tree of T rooted at v and T is a neighborhood tree. Also, T 1 is neighborhood tree since we can obtain T 1 from r by repeatedly hanging treelets. T 2 has size at least l and at most l(l 1) and T 1 has size at least l. Now we let T T 1 and repeat the process ntil the size of T is at most l 2. All neighborhood trees have size between l and l 2 and the nion of all neighborhood trees cover all vertices of C. Every vertex of C can appear at most once as a non-root of some neighborhood tree. 5 Integrality Gap for the Rectangle LP In this section, we show that the integrality gap of the rectangle LP is Ω(log n) if we are only allowed to open k facilities. The instance is as follows. Let G = (V, E) be a degree-3 expander of size V = and the metric is the graph metric defined by G. Each vertex i V is a facility location and there are + 1 clients at i. We are allowed to open k = + 1 facilities and each open facility has capacity. Ths, there are C = n := ( + 1) clients. Previosly we assmed F = C. Since we only need to keep one facility location for every set of + 1 co-located clients, we can assme F = V. We first show that the cost of the optimm integral soltion is Ω( log ). Intitively, an optimm soltion opens two facilities at some i F and one facility at each of the other locations. In this case, the cost of the optimm integral soltion is Ω( log ). However, it is a little bit 15

16 involved to prove this intition and ths we shall avoid it. If there are more than log locations in F withot open facilities, then the cost of the facilities is at least ( + 1) log = Ω( log ). Ths we assme there are less than log locations withot open facilities. If a location contains one open facility, we can assme it is connected by clients at this location. Then we remove this open facility and the clients. Now, we have at least one client left at each location and at most log + 1 open facilities left. It is easy to see that these clients will cost Ω( log ). We now trn to prove that the optimm fractional soltion to the rectangle LP is O(). We open y i = 1 + 1/ facilities at each location i F. Fix a client j C co-located with i. Let x i,j = 1 3γ/ for some large enogh constant γ. For each location i that is a neighbor of i, let x i,j = γ/. For all other locations i we have x i,j = 0. This is obviosly a valid soltion to the basic LP. Every client j has cost 3γ/. Ths the total cost is 3γ( + 1) = O(). We now show that Constraint (7) holds. Focs on a non-empty set B F of locations. Let t = B and q = y B = t(1 + 1/). We identify C with [n] and assme x B,1 x B,2 x B,n. It sffices to prove that for every p [n], we have x B,[p] f(p, q). Given a concave fnction g on {0, 1, 2,, n}, we say an integer t [0, n] is a corner point if either t {0, n} or 2g(t) > g(t 1) + g(t + 1). Notice that x B,[p] is a concave fnction of p. Since the + 1 clients at each location i are symmetric, a corner point of x B,[ ] mst be a mltiply of + 1. f(, q) has for corner points: 0, t, t + and n. Assme x B,[p] > f(p, q) for some p. Then this mst hold for some p which is either a corner point of x B,[ ], or a corner point of f(, q). As (x, y) is a valid soltion to the basic LP, we have x B,[p] min {p, q} for every p. From the definition of f, it mst be the case that p ( q, q ) = (t, t + ). The only possibility for p is p = ( + 1)t. In this case, [p ] contain the ( + 1)t clients co-located with facilities in B. First assme t /2. Then, x B,[p ] ( + 1)(t αt γ ) t + t γαt, where α is the expansion constant of G. The ineqality is de to the fact that E(B, F \ B) α B = αt. If γ 1/α, we have x B,[p ] t = f(t, t) f(p, q). Now assme t > /2. Then x B,[p ] ( + 1)(t α( t) γ ). If γ 1/α, we have x B,[p ] ( + 1)t ( t) = t + 2t t + t 2 / = f(p, q). This leads to a contradiction. Ths, the fractional soltion satisfies Constraint (7). Overall, we have showed an Ω(log ) = Ω(log n) integrality gap. 6 Discssion In this paper, we introdced a novel rectangle LP relaxation for niform CKM and gave a ronding algorithm which prodces exp ( O(1/ɛ 2 ) ) -approximate soltions by opening (1 + ɛ)k facilities. This is beyond the approximability of the natral LP relaxation, as it has nbonded integrality gap even if (2 ɛ)k facilities are allowed to be opened. There are many related open problems. First, can or rectangle LP give a constant approximation for niform CKM by violating capacity constraints by 1 + ɛ? The difficlty of this problem seems to be that each facility has a capacity constraint and we need to garantee that none of them is violated by too mch. While in or problem, we are only concerned with one cardinality constraint. Second, can we extend or reslt to non-niform CKM? Withot niform capacities, we can not even prove Theorem 1.2. Also, Constraint (7) crcially sed the niformity. Withot it, we may need to generalize Constraint (7). Finally, can we obtain a tre constant approximation for niform CKM? As we showed that the 16

17 integrality gap of the rectangle LP is Ω(log n), if the cardinality constraint can not be violated, we need a stronger LP to obtain a tre constant approximation. Acknowledgement I want to thank Ola Svensson for pointing ot a simplification for the rectangle LP. I also thank anonymos reviewers for many sefl comments over the extended abstract version of the paper. References [1] Ankit Aggarwal, L. Anand, Manisha Bansal, Naveen Garg, Neelima Gpta, Shbham Gpta, and Srabhi Jain. A 3-approximation for facility location with niform capacities. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, IPCO 10, pages , Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. [2] Hyng-Chan An, Mohit Singh, and Ola Svensson. LP-based algorithms for capacitated facility location. In Proceedings of the 55th Annal IEEE Symposim on Fondations of Compter Science, FOCS [3] V. Arya, N. Garg, R. Khandekar, A. Meyerson, K. Mnagala, and V. Pandit. Local search heristic for k-median and facility location problems. In Proceedings of the thirty-third annal ACM symposim on Theory of compting, STOC 01, pages 21 29, New York, NY, USA, ACM. [4] Manisha Bansal, Naveen Garg, and Neelima Gpta. A 5-approximation for capacitated facility location. In Proceedings of the 20th Annal Eropean Conference on Algorithms, ESA 12, pages , Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. [5] J. Byrka. An optimal bifactor approximation algorithm for the metric ncapacitated facility location problem. In APPROX 07/RANDOM 07: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Approximation and the 11th International Workshop on Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniqes, pages 29 43, Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. [6] Jaroslaw Byrka, Krzysztof Fleszar, Bartosz Rybicki, and Joachim Spoerhase. Bi-factor approximation algorithms for hard capacitated k-median problems. In Proceedings of the 26th Annal ACM-SIAM Symposim on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2015). [7] Jaroslaw Byrka, Thomas Pensyl, Bartosz Rybicki, Aravind Srinivasan, and Khoa Trinh. An improved approximation for k-median, and positive correlation in bdgeted optimization. In Proceedings of the 26th Annal ACM-SIAM Symposim on Discrete Algorithms (SODA 2015). [8] M. Charikar and S. Gha. Improved combinatorial algorithms for the facility location and k-median problems. In In Proceedings of the 40th Annal IEEE Symposim on Fondations of Compter Science, pages ,