On ultrametric $1$-median selection

A metric space is a nonempty set $M$ endowed with a distance function $d\colon M\times M\to[0,\infty)$ satisfying

• •

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

• •

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

• •

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

for all $x$, $y$, $z\in M$. With the triangle inequality strengthened to

we call $(M,d)$ an ultrametric space and $d$ an ultrametric (a.k.a. non-Archimedean metric or super-metric). The mathematical community studies ultrametrics extensively.

Given an $n$-point metric space $(M,d)$, metric $1$-median asks for a point in $M$, called a $1$-median, with the minimum average distance to all points. Metric $1$-median is a special case of the classical $k$-median clustering and a generalization to the classical median selection [3]. It can also be interpreted as finding the most important point because social network analysis often measures the importance of an actor $v$ by $v$’s closeness centrality, defined to be $v$’s average distance to all points [8]. Not surprisingly, metric $1$-median is extensively studied, e.g., in the general [5, 6], Euclidean [7], streaming [4] and deterministic [2] cases. Indyk [5, 6] has the currently best upper bound for metric $1$-median:

The greatest strengths of Theorem 1 are the sublinear time complexity (of $O(n/\epsilon^{2})$) and the optimal approximation ratio (of $1+\epsilon$), where “sublinear” means “$o(n^{2})$” by convention because there are $\Theta(n^{2})$ distances. Furthermore, except for the dependence of the time complexity on $\epsilon$, all parameters in Theorem 1 are easily shown to be optimal [1, Sec. 7].

Chang [1, Sec. 6] uses Indyk’s [6, Sec. 6.1] technique to give a Monte Carlo algorithm for metric $1$-median with time complexity independent of $n$ but at the cost of a worse approximation ratio:

Let ultrametric $1$-median be metric $1$-median restricted to ultrametric spaces. The approximation ratio of $2+\epsilon$ in Theorem 2 cannot be improved to $2-\epsilon$ even if we require the success probability only to be a small constant [1, Sec. 7]. In contrast, this paper gives a Monte Carlo $O((\log^{2}(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{3})$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for ultrametric $1$-median. So our algorithm has the optimal approximation ratio (of $1+\epsilon$) and a time complexity (of $O((\log^{2}(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{3})$) independent of $n$.

For all $n\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$, $[n]\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ by convention. Let $([n],d)$ be an ultrametric space, OPT a $1$-median of $([n],d)$ and $\epsilon>0$. Order the points in $[n]$ as $p_{1}=\text{\rm OPT}$, $p_{2}$, $\ldots$, $p_{n}$ so that

Furthermore, let

be the average distance from a $1$-median to all points. Because the brute-force algorithm for ultrametric $1$-median takes $\Theta(n^{2})$ time and we want an $O((\log^{2}(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{3})$-time algorithm, assume $\epsilon\geq n^{-2/3}$ W.L.O.G. Furthermore, assume $\epsilon\leq 0.0001$ W.L.O.G.²²2It is easy to see that if our result holds when $\epsilon=0.0001$, then it also holds for all $\epsilon>0.0001$.

In short, Lemma 3 says that $p_{\ell}$ is an approximate $1$-median for all small $\ell$. Below is the key of the proof of Theorem 1.

The following lemma uses Indyk’s [6, Sec. 6.1] technique that Chang [1, Sec. 6] uses to prove Theorem 2.

In short, Lemma 5 says how to find a $((1+\epsilon)\kappa)$-approximate $1$-median from $\{x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{h}\}$ with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$, where $\kappa$ is the best approximation ratio among $x_{1}$, $x_{2}$, $\ldots$, $x_{h}$. Note that computing $t$ in Eq. (3) requires no knowledge of the ordering $p_{1}$, $p_{2}$, $\ldots$, $p_{n}$.