Approximation Algorithms for Movement Repairmen

Abstract

Abstract. In the Movement Repairmen (MR) problem we are given a metric space (V, d) along with a set R of k repairmen r1, r2, . . . , r k with their start depots s1, s2, . . . , s k ∈ V and speeds v1, v2, . . . , v k ≥ 0 respectively and a set C of m clients c1, c2, . . . , cm having start locations s 1 , s 2 , . . . , s m ∈ V and speeds v 1 , v 2 , . . . , v m ≥ 0 respectively. If t is the earliest time a client cj is collocated with any repairman (say, ri) at a node u, we say that the client is served by ri at u and that its latency is t. The objective in the (Sum-MR) problem is to plan the movements for all repairmen and clients to minimize the sum (average) of the clients latencies. The motivation for this problem comes, for example, from Amazon Locker Delivery [Ama10] and USPS gopost [Ser10]. We give the first O(log n)-approximation algorithm for the Sum-MR problem. In order to solve Sum-MR we formulate an LP for the problem and bound its integrality gap. Our LP has exponentially many variables, therefore we need a separation oracle for the dual LP. This separation oracle is an instance of Neighborhood Prize Collecting Steiner Tree (NPCST) problem in which we want to find a tree with weight at most L collecting the maximum profit from the clients by visiting at least one node from their neighborhoods. The NPCST problem, even with the possibility to violate both the tree weight and neighborhood radii, is still very hard to approximate. We deal with this difficulty by using LP with geometrically increasing segments of the time line, and by giving a tricriteria approximation for the problem. The rounding needs a relatively involved analysis. We give a constant approximation algorithm for Sum-MR in Euclidean Space where the speed of the clients differ by a constant factor. We also give a constant approximation for the makespan variant.

Coordinated Motion Planning: Reconfiguring a Swarm of Labeled Robots with Bounded Stretch

“…Their results are different from our results because the objective they consider is not closely related to the makespan. For other work, see [7,14,15,27] for particular examples.…”