Instance Specific Approximations for Submodular Maximization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
For many optimization problems in machine learning, finding an optimal solution is computationally intractable and we seek algorithms that perform well in practice. Since computational intractability often results from pathological instances, we look for methods to benchmark the performance of algorithms against optimal solutions on real-world instances. The main challenge is that an optimal solution cannot be efficiently computed for intractable problems, and we therefore often do not know how far a solution is from being optimal. A major question is therefore how to measure the performance of an algorithm in comparison to an optimal solution on instances we encounter in practice. In this paper, we address this question in the context of submodular optimization problems. For the canonical problem of submodular maximization under a cardinality constraint, it is intractable to compute a solution that is better than a 1-1/e ≈ 0.63 fraction of the optimum. Algorithms like the celebrated greedy algorithm are guaranteed to achieve this 1-1/e bound on any instance and are used in practice. Our main contribution is not a new algorithm for submodular maximization but an analytical method that measures how close an algorithm for submodular maximization is to optimal on a given problem instance. We use this method to show that on a wide variety of real-world datasets and objectives, the approximation of the solution found by greedy goes well beyond 1-1/e and is often at least 0.95. We develop this method using a novel technique that lower bounds the objective of a dual minimization problem to obtain an upper bound on the value of an optimal solution to the primal maximization problem.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 63 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Feb 2021.
Builds on
24 of 63 references.
References · 24
- 2014Lazier Than Lazy Greedycited by 97
- 2016Restricted Strong Convexity Implies Weak Submodularitycited by 51
- 2017Robust Optimization for Non-Convex Objectivescited by 34
- 2015Randomized Composable Core-sets for Distributed Submodular Maximizationcited by 18
- 2017Robust Submodular Maximization: A Non-Uniform Partitioning Approachcited by 15
- 2019Submodular Streaming in All its Glory: Tight Approximation, Minimum Memory and Low Adaptive Complexitycited by 14
- 2015The Limitations of Optimization from Samplescited by 13
- 2017Streaming Robust Submodular Maximization: A Partitioned Thresholding Approachcited by 13
- 2018An Exponential Speedup in Parallel Running Time for Submodular Maximization without Loss in Approximationcited by 13
- 2019The FAST Algorithm for Submodular Maximizationcited by 13
- 2018Do Less, Get More: Streaming Submodular Maximization with Subsamplingcited by 12
- 2016Submodular Optimization under Noisecited by 11
12 more
- 2018Non-monotone Submodular Maximization in Exponentially Fewer Iterationscited by 10
- 2018Submodular Maximization with Matroid and Packing Constraints in Parallelcited by 10
- 2015A New Framework for Distributed Submodular Maximizationcited by 9
- 2017Leveraging Sparsity for Efficient Submodular Data Summarizationcited by 8
- 2018Submodular Function Maximization in Parallel via the Multilinear Relaxationcited by 8
- 2018Submodular Optimization in the MapReduce Modelcited by 8
- 2018Unconstrained Submodular Maximization with Constant Adaptive Complexitycited by 8
- 2015Streaming Algorithms for Submodular Function Maximizationcited by 7
- 2020On the Unreasonable Effectiveness of the Greedy Algorithm: Greedy Adapts to Sharpnesscited by 3
- 2021Budget-Smoothed Analysis for Submodular Maximizationcited by 3
- 2017Stability and Recovery for Independence Systemscited by 1
- 2017A New Approximation Guarantee for Monotone Submodular Function Maximization via Discrete Convexitycited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.