Source-linked AI summary

A Group-Based Resource Allocation Model for the Fractional Knapsack Problem

Abhinaba Chakraborty

arXiv:2609.06470v3cs.DScs.CL

TL;DR

Dantzig’s ratio-based allocation can change abruptly when a small cost perturbation reverses the ordering of similar items. The paper groups items by attribute proximity, allocates budget across groups by representative ratio, then uses water-filling within the boundary group. Under order-compatibility, discrepancies are localized to that single group, while the reported experiments show loss depends on δ rather than n.

  • Problem

    Dantzig’s ratio ordering can make the allocation jump between extreme solutions after an arbitrarily small cost perturbation.

    Source: §I · p. 2
  • Method

    The method groups nearby items, orders groups by representative ratio, and distributes the boundary group’s share without ranking its members.

    Source: §II · p. 2
  • Results

    With order-compatible groups, allocation discrepancies are confined to the single budget-binding group, and experiments report that relative loss depends on δ rather than n.

    Source: §III · p. 7, §VI · p. 12
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    The tolerance can be chosen at the data’s resolution to avoid ranking items whose ratio differences fall below that resolution.

    Source: §I · p. 2, §VI · p. 12

Abstract

from arXiv · show

To solve the fractional knapsack problem, Dantzig's greedy rule orders items according to their value-to-cost ratio. This ordering introduces priority issues. An arbitrarily small perturbation to the input can change the allocation if the budget is exhausted between two items with very similar ratios. To mitigate that problem, we introduce a two-stage rule. We group items sharing attributes within a radius $\delta$. We then evaluate these groups in descending order of ratio and divide their group's budget share without further ranking. Consider a group featuring an aggregate capacity $U_G$, unit costs contained in $[w^-,w^+]$, and a representative value $\widehat{v}$. The group's loss relative to the exact optimum is bounded by $\widehat{v}\, U_G\frac{w^+-w^-}{w^++w^-}+\varepsilon_v U_G$, where $\varepsilon_v$ limits the group's internal value variation. Moreover, this harmonic factor remains tight for any group size. The overall loss becomes restricted to the single budget-binding group whenever the grouping remains order-compatible; thus, groups containing at most $K$ items suffer a per-item loss of $\mathcal{O}(\frac{K}{n})$. Should group ratio intervals exhibit an overlap of at most $\omega$, an additive term $\omega C$ degrades this bound. Within the separation margin between adjacent groups, the grouped allocation remains Lipschitz continuous with respect to cost data, exhibiting a modulus of $\frac{K}{w_{\min}}$. Computing this allocation takes $\mathcal{O}(n+m\log m+|\Gamma|\log|\Gamma|)$ time given $m$ groups and a boundary group $\Gamma$. Alternatively, the time complexity drops to $\mathcal{O}(n+m\log m)$ if a linear-time selection method identifies the boundary group's allocation.

I. MOTIVATION: DISCONTINUITY AND SPURIOUS RANKING

Dantzig’s greedy rule funds items by descending value-to-cost ratio, but its allocation can change abruptly when a tiny cost perturbation reverses two ratios. The paper motivates grouping items to avoid ranking differences below the data’s resolution.

I. MOTIVATION: DISCONTINUITY AND SPURIOUS RANKING

  • Optimality is characterized by a threshold ratio: items above it are filled, items below it receive zero, and items at it may be partially allocated.Source: §I · p. 1
  • The optimal value as a function of budget is strictly increasing, concave, and piecewise linear.Its slopes are non-increasing efficiency ratios.Source: §I · pp. 1–2
  • Dantzig’s rule funds items in descending value-to-cost ratio until the budget is exhausted, leaving at most one item fractional when ratios are distinct.The resulting allocation is a vertex determined by ratio ordering.Source: §I · p. 2
  • An arbitrarily small cost perturbation can reverse two ratios and switch the unique optimum between opposite extreme allocations.Dantzig’s allocation is determined by the relative ordering of ratios, not their precise values.Source: §I · p. 2
  • The proposed response is to group items whose attribute distances fall within δ, avoiding strict ranking within groups.The paper links this grouping to quantified efficiency loss and improved stability.Source: §I · p. 2

II. THE GROUPED ALLOCATION ALGORITHM

The grouped allocation orders groups by representative ratio, then distributes each group’s budget share without ranking its members. Within a group, water-filling gives the unique allocation satisfying feasibility, budget clearance, and equal protection.

II. THE GROUPED ALLOCATION ALGORITHM

  • Items are partitioned around attribute-space representatives within δ, and groups are ordered by their representative value-to-cost ratios.Every item lies within distance δ of its group representative, so pairwise within-group distances are at most 2δ.Source: §II · p. 2
  • Equal protection means an item can receive less than a peer only if its personal ceiling prevents further allocation.Source: §II · p. 3
  • Within a group, the unique water-filling allocation assigns each item min{u_i, ζ}, with ζ chosen to clear the group’s allocated budget share.The rule satisfies feasibility and equal protection; an item receives less than a peer only when its own ceiling is reached.Source: §II · p. 3
  • Groups above the boundary group are fully allocated, groups below it receive zero, and the boundary group receives the remaining budget share.The ordered group shares together exhaust the budget.Source: §II · p. 3

A. Algorithm and complexity

The algorithm finds the boundary group’s allocation by locating a water level among that group’s ceiling breakpoints. Sorting yields the stated complexity, while selection can reduce the boundary-group step to linear time.

A. Algorithm and complexity

  • Within the boundary group, W_Γ is continuous, strictly increasing, and piecewise linear, with breakpoints at item ceilings.The algorithm scans these ceiling-defined segments to locate the first one whose cumulative cost reaches the assigned share.Source: A. Algorithm and complexity · pp. 3–4
  • The algorithm runs in O(n + m log m + |Γ| log |Γ|) time, or O(n + m log m) when selection finds the boundary-group allocation.If representative ratios are already sorted, runtime drops to O(n).Source: A. Algorithm and complexity · p. 4
  • The boundary-group level can be found by sorting its |Γ| ceilings or by weighted-median selection in O(|Γ|) time.Source: A. Algorithm and complexity · p. 4

III. THEORETICAL GUARANTEES

The guarantees bound the loss from allocating within groups and show that the bound is tight. When groups preserve ratio order, discrepancies are confined to the budget-binding group; limited overlap adds an error term, while cost perturbations within the separation margin preserve stability.

Intra-group loss and tightness

  • Cost variation within a group incurs a harmonic cost-spread penalty that remains even when all item values are identical.The factor is described as the minimax relative error associated with the harmonic mean over [w−, w+].Source: §III · p. 5
  • For groups of k items, the supremum of actual loss divided by the Theorem 8 bound is 1, and the ratio can be made arbitrarily close to 1.Source: §III · pp. 5–6

Boundary localisation

  • With order-compatible groups, allocation discrepancies are confined to the single group where the budget is exhausted.At allocation saturation thresholds, both methods fully fund the same groups and the error is zero.Source: §III · pp. 7–8

Ratio overlap

  • Group ratio overlap of at most ω adds an error term bounded by ωC; when ω = 0, the bound reduces to the order-compatible case.The within-boundary-group loss is bounded by the intra-group loss result.Source: §III · pp. 5, 8

Stability

  • The grouped allocation is Lipschitz under cost perturbations that remain within the separation margin between adjacent groups.The stated perturbation quotient is bounded by K/wmin.Source: §III · pp. 8–9

IV. RELATED WORK

The paper situates grouped allocation among work on knapsack variants, bounded-variable programs, rationing, networking, aggregation, and uncertainty. It distinguishes its approach by retaining the feasible region and objective while restricting the allocation rule within each group.

Positioning of grouped allocation

  • Grouped allocation retains the feasible region and objective, restricting only the internal rule applied within each group.The paper contrasts this with robust optimisation, which sorts by nominal values, and smoothing methods, which abandon polyhedral sparsity.Source: §IV · p. 10

V. EVALUATION

The evaluation tests theoretical claims about loss, group size, and runtime by comparing grouped allocation with the exact greedy optimum on randomly generated instances. It measures relative loss against instance size and grouping radius, and runtime against instance size.

Evaluation goals

  • The evaluation compares grouped allocation with the exact greedy optimum, measuring relative loss against n and δ and runtime against n.These experiments test the stated loss and runtime claims.Source: §V · p. 10

A. Experimental setup

The experiments use C++17 implementations run single-threaded on an Intel i7, with Dantzig’s greedy rule as the optimal reference. Items are generated independently, the budget is binding, and the reported runtime includes the grouping step.

Experimental setup

  • Dantzig’s greedy rule provides the reference optimum, and the grouped method is run using Algorithm 1.Both implementations use optimised C++17 and run single-threaded on an Intel i7.Source: A. Experimental setup · p. 10
  • For each n, item values, costs, and capacity limits are drawn independently, and the budget is set below total demand.The grouping partitions the attribute space into cells of radius δ around fixed representatives; the number of groups is governed by the covering number and does not grow with n once n is large.Source: A. Experimental setup · p. 10
  • Relative loss is reported as 100 · E(C)/V⋆(C), runtime in milliseconds, and each point averages several independently generated instances.Source: A. Experimental setup · p. 10

B. Loss as a function of the instance size

At fixed grouping tolerance, relative loss eventually plateaus as instance size grows, while smaller instances show zero loss or substantial fluctuations. The plateau reflects the boundary group growing with the instance, not a contradiction of the per-item bound for bounded group sizes.

B. Loss as a function of the instance size

  • For n ≤ 2, loss is zero because every group is a singleton; for n roughly 3–50, loss rises and fluctuates as boundary groups acquire multiple items.Adding an item can change the boundary group, its size, and where the leftover budget share falls within it.Source: B. Loss as a function of the instance… · p. 10
  • For n ≥ 10^3, relative loss stays near 6% through n = 10^6, matching the predicted plateau at fixed δ.With fixed δ, the number of groups stays fixed as n grows, so the boundary group grows linearly with n.Source: B. Loss as a function of the instance… · pp. 10–11
  • Figure 1a plots relative loss against n at fixed δ, while Figure 1b shows the fixed-n tolerance sweep.The reported loss depends on δ but not on n in the large-instance plateau regime.Source: B. Loss as a function of the instance… · p. 11
  • At fixed δ, the plateau does not conflict with the O(K/n) per-item bound, because the group-size cap grows as K = Θ(n).Shrinking δ with n to keep K bounded would make per-item loss decay as O(K/n).Source: B. Loss as a function of the instance… · p. 11

C. Sensitivity to the grouping tolerance

At n = 100, relative loss grows as the grouping tolerance increases, then saturates when all items form one group. Very small tolerances keep loss negligible.

C. Sensitivity to the grouping tolerance

  • For the smallest δ values at n = 100, relative loss is about 10^-3%, with the grouped allocation described as practically the exact optimum.Most groups are singletons or pairs of nearly identical items, making the boundary group's cost spread and the bound small.Source: C. Sensitivity to the grouping tolerance · p. 11
  • Across the central δ range, loss grows polynomially, with a log–log slope noticeably steeper than one.Both the boundary group's cost spread and its aggregate capacity increase with δ.Source: C. Sensitivity to the grouping tolerance · p. 11
  • Beyond δ ≈ 1, loss saturates near 30% as grouping collapses to one group and the allocation becomes plain water-filling without ranking information.The saturated loss is bounded using the global cost extremes w− = wmin and w+ = wmax.Source: C. Sensitivity to the grouping tolerance · p. 11

D. Runtime

The grouped method's runtime approaches Dantzig's greedy rule on large instances despite a small-instance overhead. Its extra sorting is confined to groups and the boundary group.

D. Runtime

  • For n ≥ 10^4, the runtime curves are nearly indistinguishable, and the methods differ by less than a factor of two on the largest instances.On small instances, the grouped method sits above Dantzig's rule, but the gap closes as n increases.Source: D. Runtime · p. 11, Figure 2 · p. 12
  • The visible small-instance offset comes from Stage 1 computing representative ratios and demands and locating the boundary index.For n ≤ 10, the overhead appears as a vertical offset.Source: D. Runtime · p. 11
  • The grouped method takes O(n + m log m + |Γ| log |Γ|) time; median-based selection for the boundary group reduces this to O(n + m log m).The super-linear terms sort the m groups and the |Γ| ceilings in the boundary group; other steps are linear passes.Source: D. Runtime · p. 11

VI. SUMMARY

The experiments show that grouped-allocation loss is controlled by the grouping tolerance and remains independent of problem size at fixed tolerance. At data-resolution tolerances, loss stays below one per cent while perturbation sensitivity is bounded.

VI. SUMMARY

  • At data-resolution tolerances, loss is well below one per cent while the grouped allocation has bounded perturbation sensitivity.The exact solution has an unbounded perturbation quotient.Source: §VI · p. 12
  • For fixed δ, relative loss approaches a constant plateau as n grows, while refining δ reduces loss polynomially for fixed n.Loss is exactly zero when the boundary group is a singleton.Source: §VI · p. 12
  • The grouped allocation matches Dantzig’s empirical growth rate and runtime on large instances while providing Lipschitz stability that Dantzig’s rule lacks.The plateau in relative loss is the price paid for this stability.Source: §VI · p. 12
  • The tolerance should match the data’s resolution, below which attribute differences are indistinguishable from noise.Source: §VI · p. 12
Loading 2609.06470v3…