Source-linked AI summary

Hierarchical Clustering: a 0.585 Revenue Approximation

Noga Alon, Yossi Azar, Danny Vainstein

arXiv:2006.01933v1cs.DS

TL;DR

The paper studies approximation for the hierarchical-clustering revenue objective, where a pair's contribution depends on its weight and the size of its least-common-ancestor subtree. It proves a half-optimal bisection guarantee and uses a Max-Uncut Bisection first cut followed by random splitting to obtain a 0.585 approximation.

  • Problem

    The revenue objective asks for a hierarchical-clustering tree maximizing the weighted sum of n minus each pair's least-common-ancestor subtree size.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Method

    The paper proves a half-optimal bisection exists and uses a Max-Uncut Bisection first cut followed by random splitting.

    Source: §1 · p. 2, §4 · p. 7
  • Results

    0.585 approximation for the revenue problem improves on the earlier 0.4246 guarantee.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    A single Max-Uncut Bisection first cut followed by random refinement suffices for the reported approximation guarantee.

    Source: §1 · p. 3, §4 · p. 7

    The proof setup assumes an even number of leaves and allows restricting attention to binary optimal trees.

    Source: §3 · p. 4, §2 · p. 4

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Hierarchical Clustering trees have been widely accepted as a useful form of clustering data, resulting in a prevalence of adopting fields including phylogenetics, image analysis, bioinformatics and more. Recently, Dasgupta (STOC 16') initiated the analysis of these types of algorithms through the lenses of approximation. Later, the dual problem was considered by Moseley and Wang (NIPS 17') dubbing it the Revenue goal function. In this problem, given a nonnegative weight $w_{ij}$ for each pair $i,j \in [n]=\{1,2, \ldots ,n\}$, the objective is to find a tree $T$ whose set of leaves is $[n]$ that maximizes the function $\sum_{i<j \in [n]} w_{ij} (n -|T_{ij}|)$, where $|T_{ij}|$ is the number of leaves in the subtree rooted at the least common ancestor of $i$ and $j$. In our work we consider the revenue goal function and prove the following results. First, we prove the existence of a bisection (i.e., a tree of depth 2 in which the root has two children, each being a parent of $n/2$ leaves) which approximates the general optimal tree solution up to a factor of $\frac{1}{2}$ (which is tight). Second, we apply this result in order to prove a $\frac{2}{3}p$ approximation for the general revenue problem, where $p$ is defined as the approximation ratio of the Max-Uncut Bisection problem. Since $p$ is known to be at least 0.8776 (Wu et al., 2015, Austrin et al., 2016), we get a 0.585 approximation algorithm for the revenue problem. This improves a sequence of earlier results which culminated in an 0.4246-approximation guarantee (Ahmadian et al., 2019).

1 Introduction

The paper studies the revenue objective for hierarchical clustering and presents both a bisection guarantee and an improved approximation. Its analysis relates a single cut to the revenue of an arbitrarily deep optimal tree.

1 Introduction

  • Hierarchical clustering has applications including phylogenetics, and its algorithms commonly use bottom-up merging or top-down splitting.Average linkage is an example of an agglomerative procedure.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • The revenue objective rewards separating high-weight pairs low in the tree, with each pair's contribution depending on n minus its LCA-subtree leaf count.The objective is complementary to Dasgupta's cost function, with the same optimal tree but different objective values.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Earlier revenue algorithms progressed from 1/3 for RAND and average linkage to 0.3364 and then 0.4246.The paper places its result within hierarchical-clustering approximation work initiated by Dasgupta, with the revenue variant considered by Moseley and Wang.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • A bisection can achieve at least half the revenue of an optimal tree, even when that tree has arbitrary depth.The existence proof randomizes the ordering of the optimal tree's leaves and then generates a bisection.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • 0.585 approximation for the revenue problem improves on the earlier 0.4246 guarantee.The guarantee is expressed as 2/3 p, where p = 0.8776 is the best-known approximation for Max-Uncut Bisection.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • The approximation approach embeds the optimal tree's leaves on a line, using rank distance as a lower bound on the LCA-subtree leaf count.A randomly generated bisection is then compared with this upper bound on optimal revenue.Source: §1 · p. 3

2 Notation and Preliminaries

The preliminaries name the optimal revenue tree and define revenue at both tree and edge levels. They also specify the LCA-subtree notation and permit assuming an optimal tree is binary.

2 Notation and Preliminaries

  • OPT denotes the optimal revenue tree for a given revenue instance.The notation is also used for the revenue generated by that tree, with the intended meaning determined by context.Source: §2 · p. 4
  • R(T) is the revenue of a hierarchical-clustering tree T, and RT(e) is the revenue contributed by a similarity edge e.For edge e = {i, j}, Te denotes Tij, the subtree rooted at the least common ancestor of i and j.Source: §2 · p. 4
  • An edge's revenue is its weight times n minus the number of leaves in its LCA subtree, and an optimal tree may be assumed binary.The instance's data points are indexed as 1 through n.Source: §2 · p. 4

3 Existence of a High Revenue Bisection

The section proves that a depth-2 bisection can achieve at least half the revenue of an optimal tree, and that this bound is asymptotically tight. Its proof uses an ordering of the optimal tree and a distribution over bisections.

3 Existence of a High Revenue Bisection

  • R(X*) is at least half the optimal revenue, and the half-OPT bound is asymptotically tight.The theorem obtains a bisection from an ordering guaranteed by an earlier observation.Source: §3 · pp. 4, 6
  • For even n, a uniformly chosen contiguous block of n/2 leaves in the ordering defines one side of a random bisection.The remaining leaves form the other side.Source: §3 · pp. 4, 6
  • An ordering of OPT supports an upper bound on its revenue by comparing leaf distances with the corresponding least-common-ancestor subtree sizes.The ordering embeds the tree’s leaves on a line without crossing edges; the leaf distance is no greater than |T_ij|.Source: §3 · pp. 4–5
  • The proof combines the ordering guarantee with per-edge bounds over bisections, then sums across edges to obtain a bisection meeting the theorem’s guarantee.The distribution is defined for any ordering of OPT, and the resulting bounds are combined using the ordering guaranteed by Lemma 3.3.Source: §3 · p. 6

4 A 0.585 Approximation for the Revenue Goal Function

The algorithm first uses a Max-Uncut Bisection procedure to make an equal split, then randomly splits each cluster. This yields a 0.585 approximation for the revenue problem.

4 A 0.585 Approximation for the Revenue Goal Function

  • ALG first applies a black-box algorithm to produce a bisection, then continues by splitting each cluster randomly.The first step is the Max-Uncut Bisection algorithm, ALGMUB.Source: §4 · p. 7
  • Among revenue trees restricted to bisections, the optimal solution matches the Max-Uncut Bisection optimum; only edges uncut by the first cut gain revenue.A bisection splits the leaves into two equal sets, each cut once using a star subtree.Source: §4 · p. 7, Figure 2 · p. 8
  • 2/3p = 0.585 is the approximation ratio for the revenue problem, with p the Max-Uncut Bisection approximation ratio.The paper states that p is at least 0.8776.Source: §4 · p. 8
Loading 2006.01933v1…