A Las Vegas approximation algorithm for metric $1$-median selection

A metric space is a nonempty set $M$ endowed with a metric, i.e., a function $d\colon M\times M\to[\,0,\infty\,)$ such that

• •

  $d(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$ (identity of indiscernibles),

• •

  $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$ (symmetry), and

• •

  $d(x,y)+d(y,z)\geq d(x,z)$ (triangle inequality)

for all $x$, $y$, $z\in M$ [13].

For all $n\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$, define $[n]\equiv\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. Given $n\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$ and oracle access to a metric $d\colon[n]\times[n]\to[\,0,\infty\,)$, metric $1$-median asks for $\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{y\in[n]}\,\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d(y,x)$, breaking ties arbitrarily. It generalizes the classical median selection on the real line and has a brute-force $\Theta(n^{2})$-time algorithm. More generally, metric $k$-median asks for $c_{1}$, $c_{2}$, $\ldots$, $c_{k}\in[n]$ minimizing $\sum_{x\in[n]}\,\min_{i=1}^{k}\,d(x,c_{i})$. Because $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ defines $\binom{n}{2}=\Theta(n^{2})$ nonzero distances, only $o(n^{2})$-time algorithms are said to run in sublinear time [8]. For all $\alpha\geq 1$, an $\alpha$-approximate $1$-median is a point $p\in[n]$ satisfying

For all $\epsilon>0$, metric $1$-median has a Monte Carlo $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation $O(n/\epsilon^{2})$-time algorithm [8, 9]. Guha et al. [7] show that metric $k$-median has a Monte Carlo, $O(\exp(O(1/\epsilon)))$-approximation, $O(nk\log n)$-time, $O(n^{\epsilon})$-space and one-pass algorithm for all small $k$ as well as a deterministic, $O(\exp(O(1/\epsilon)))$-approximation, $O(n^{1+\epsilon})$-time, $O(n^{\epsilon})$-space and one-pass algorithm. Given $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^{D}$ with $D\geq 1$, the Monte Carlo algorithms of Kumar et al. [10] find a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median in $O(D\cdot\exp(1/\epsilon^{O(1)}))$ time and a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximate solution to metric $k$-median in $O(Dn\cdot\exp((k/\epsilon)^{O(1)}))$ time. All randomized $O(1)$-approximation algorithms for metric $k$-median take $\Omega(nk)$ time [11, 7]. Chang [2] shows that metric $1$-median has a deterministic, $(2h)$-approximation, $O(hn^{1+1/h})$-time and nonadaptive algorithm for all constants $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$, generalizing the results of Chang [1] and Wu [15]. On the other hand, he disproves the existence of deterministic $(2h-\epsilon)$-approximation $O(n^{1+1/(h-1)}/h)$-time algorithms for all constants $h\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\setminus\{1\}$ and $\epsilon>0$ [3, 4].

In social network analysis, the closeness centrality of a point $v$ is the reciprocal of the average distance from $v$ to all points [14]. So metric $1$-median asks for a point with the maximum closeness centrality. Given oracle access to a graph metric, the Monte-Carlo algorithms of Goldreich and Ron [6] and Eppstein and Wang [5] estimate the closeness centrality of a given point and those of all points, respectively.

All known sublinear-time algorithms for metric $1$-median are either deterministic or Monte Carlo, the latter having a positive probability of failure. For example, Indyk’s Monte Carlo $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm outputs with a positive probability a solution without approximation guarantees. In contrast, we show that metric $1$-median has a randomized algorithm that always outputs a $(2+\epsilon)$-approximate solution in expected $O(n/\epsilon^{2})$ time for all constants $\epsilon>0$. So, excluding the known deterministic algorithms (which are Las Vegas only in the degenerate sense), this paper gives the first Las Vegas approximation algorithm for metric $1$-median with an expected sublinear running time. Note that deterministic sublinear-time algorithms for metric $1$-median can be $4$-approximate but not $(4-\epsilon)$-approximate for any constant $\epsilon>0$ [1, 4]. So our approximation ratio of $2+\epsilon$ beats that of any deterministic sublinear-time algorithm. Inheriting Indyk’s algorithm, our algorithm outputs a $(1+\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median in $O(n/\epsilon^{2})$ time with probability $\Omega(1)$ for all constants $\epsilon>0$.

Below is our high-level and inaccurate sketch of proof, where $\epsilon$, $\delta>0$ are small constants:

1. (i)

   Run Indyk’s algorithm to find a probably $(1+\epsilon/10^{10})$-approximate $1$-median, $z$. Then let $r=\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d(z,x)/n$ be the average distance from $z$ to all points.

2. (ii)

   For all $R>0$, denote by $B(z,R)$ the open ball with center $z$ and radius $R$. Use the triangle inequality (with details omitted here) to show $z$ to be a solution no worse than the points in $[n]\setminus B(z,8r)$, i.e.,

   $\displaystyle\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d\left(z,x\right)\leq\inf_{y\in[n]\setminus B(z,8r)}\,\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d\left(y,x\right).$

   (1)

3. (iii)

   Take a uniformly random bijection $\pi\colon[\,|B(z,\delta nr)|\,]\to B(z,\delta nr)$. Then observe that

   	$\displaystyle\min_{y\in B(z,8r)}\,\sum_{x\in B(z,\delta nr)}\,d\left(y,x\right)$	$\displaystyle\geq$	$\displaystyle\min_{y\in B(z,8r)}\,\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor|B(z,\delta nr)|/2\rfloor}\,\left(d\left(y,\pi\left(2i-1\right)\right)+d\left(y,\pi\left(2i\right)\right)\right)\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$		(2)
   		$\displaystyle\geq$	$\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor|B(z,\delta nr)|/2\rfloor}\,d\left(\pi\left(2i-1\right),\pi\left(2i\right)\right),$		(3)

   where the first (resp., second) inequality follows from the injectivity of $\pi$ (resp., the triangle inequality).

4. (iv)

   Assume $B(z,\delta nr)=[n]$ for simplicity. So by inequalities (1)–(3), if the following inequality holds, then it serves as a witness that $z$ is $(2+\epsilon)$-approximate:

   $\displaystyle\sum_{x\in B(z,\delta nr)}\,d\left(z,x\right)\leq\left(2+\epsilon\right)\cdot\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor|B(z,\delta nr)|/2\rfloor}\,d\left(\pi\left(2i-1\right),\pi\left(2i\right)\right).$

   (4)

   ³³3Assuming $B(z,\delta nr)=[n]$, inequalities (2)–(4) imply $\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d(z,x)\leq(2+\epsilon)\cdot\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d(y,x)$ for all $y\in B(z,8r)$. Furthermore, $\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d(z,x)\leq\sum_{x\in[n]}\,d(y,x)$ for all $y\in[n]\setminus B(z,8r)$ by inequality (1).

   To guarantee outputting a $(2+\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median, output $z$ only when inequality (4) holds. Restart from item (i) whenever inequality (4) is false.

More details of item (iv) follow: For a $1$-median $z^{\prime}$ of $B(z,\delta nr)$, it will be easy to show

When $z$ in item (i) is indeed $(1+\epsilon/10^{10})$-approximate,

Assuming $B(z,\delta nr)=[n]$, inequalities (5)–(6) make inequality (4) hold with high probability as long as $\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor|B(z,\delta nr)|/2\rfloor}\,d(\pi(2i-1),\pi(2i))$ is highly concentrated around its expectation. The need for such concentration is why we restrict the radius of the codomain of $\pi$ to be $\delta nr$ in item (iii)—Large distances ruin concentration bounds. To accommodate for the points in $[n]\setminus B(z,\delta nr)$, our witness for the approximation ratio of $z$ actually differs slightly from inequality (4), unlike in item (iv).⁵⁵5Our witness for the approximation ratio of $z$ is as in line 6 of Las Vegas median in Fig. 1.

For a metric space $([n],d)$, $x\in[n]$ and $R>0$, define

to be the open ball with center $x$ and radius $R$. For brevity,

The pairs in $B^{2}(x,R)$ are ordered.

An algorithm $A$ with oracle access to $d\colon[n]\times[n]\to[\,0,\infty\,)$ is denoted by $A^{d}$ and may query $d$ on any $(x,y)\in[n]\times[n]$ for $d(x,y)$. In this paper, all Landau symbols (such as $O(\cdot)$, $o(\cdot)$, $\Theta(\cdot)$ and $\Omega(\cdot)$) are w.r.t. $n$. The following result is due to Indyk.

Henceforth, denote Indyk’s algorithm in Fact 1 by Indyk median. It is given $n\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$, $\epsilon>0$ and oracle access to a metric $d\colon[n]\times[n]\to[\,0,\infty\,)$. By convention, denote the expected value and the variance of a random variable $X$ by $\mathop{\mathrm{E}}[\,X\,]$ and $\mathop{\mathrm{var}}(X)$, respectively.

Throughout this paper, take any small constant $\epsilon>0$, e.g., $\epsilon=10^{-100}$. By line 1 of Las Vegas median in Fig. 1, $\delta>0$ is likewise a small constant. The following lemma implies that $z$ in line 3 of Las Vegas median is a solution (to metric $1$-median) no worse than those in $[n]\setminus B(z,8r)$, where $r$ is as in line 4.

Lemmas 2–3 and line 1 of Las Vegas median yield the following.

By Lemma 4, Las Vegas median outputs a $(2+\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median at termination.

This section analyzes the probability of running line 7 in any particular iteration of the while loop of Las Vegas median. The following lemma uses an easy averaging argument.

Henceforth, assume $n\geq 1/\delta+4$ without loss of generality; otherwise, find a $1$-median by brute force. So $|B(z,\delta nr)|\geq 4$ by Lemma 5. Define

to be the average distance in $B(z,\delta nr)$.