On ultrametric $1$-median selection

Abstract

Consider the problem of finding a point in an ultrametric space with the minimum average distance to all points. We give this problem a Monte Carlo $O((\log^{2}(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{3})$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for all $\epsilon>0$.

1 Introduction

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

$$d\left(x,z\right)\leq\max\left\{d\left(x,y\right),\,d\left(y,z\right)\right\},$$

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:

Theorem 1 ([5, 6]).

Metric $1$-median has a Monte Carlo $O(n/\epsilon^{2})$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm for all $\epsilon>0$.

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:

Theorem 2 ([1, Sec. 6]).

For all $\epsilon>0$, metric $1$-median has a Monte Carlo $O((\log^{2}(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{3})$-time $(2+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm with success probability greater than $1-\epsilon$.

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 $n$.

2 Algorithm

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

$$0=d\left(\text{OPT},p_{1}\right)\leq d\left(\text{OPT},p_{2}\right)\leq\cdots\leq d\left(\text{OPT},p_{n}\right).$$ (1)

Furthermore, let

$$r^{*}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{def.}}}{{=}}\frac{1}{n}\cdot\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{\rm OPT},p_{i}\right)$$ (2)

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.

Lemma 3.

For all $1\leq\ell\leq n$,

$$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(p_{\ell},p_{i}\right)\leq\left(1+\frac{\ell-1}{n-\ell+1}\right)\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{\rm OPT},p_{i}\right).$$

Proof.

We have

$$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(p_{\ell},p_{i}\right)$$

$$= \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,d\left(p_{\ell},p_{i}\right)+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^{n}\,d\left(p_{\ell},p_{i}\right)$$

$$\leq \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,\max\left\{d\left(\text{OPT},p_{\ell}\right),\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)\right\}+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^{n}\,\max\left\{d\left(\text{OPT},p_{\ell}\right),\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)\right\}$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{orderofincreasingdistances})}}}{{\leq}} \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{\ell}\right)+\sum_{i=\ell+1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)$$

$$\leq \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{\ell}\right)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)$$

$$= \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,\frac{1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot\sum_{j=\ell}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{\ell}\right)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{orderofincreasingdistances})}}}{{\leq}} \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,\frac{1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot\sum_{j=\ell}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{j}\right)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)$$

$$\leq \sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}\,\frac{1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{j}\right)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)$$

$$= \frac{\ell-1}{n-\ell+1}\cdot\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right)+\sum_{i=1}^{n}\,d\left(\text{OPT},p_{i}\right).$$

∎

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.

Fact 4 ([6, Sec. 6.1]).

Pick ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1}$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{2}$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{k}$ independently and uniformly at random from $[n]$, where $k\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}$. Then for all $a$, $b\in[n]$ satisfying $\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d(b,p_{j})>(1+\epsilon)\,\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d(a,p_{j})$,

$$\Pr\left[\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(b,{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\leq\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(a,{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\right]<\exp{\left(-\frac{\epsilon^{2}k}{64}\right)}.$$

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

Lemma 5.

Pick ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1}$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{2}$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{k}$ as in Fact 4, where $k=\lceil 10^{9}(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{2}\rceil$. Let $x_{1}$, $x_{2}$, $\ldots$, $x_{h}\in[n]$, where $h=\lceil 10^{9}(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon\rceil$, and

$$t=\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{i=1}^{h}\,\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right),$$ (3)

breaking ties arbitrarily. Then

$$\Pr\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{t},p_{j}\right)\leq\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\min_{i=1}^{h}\,\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i},p_{j}\right)\right]>1-\epsilon.$$

Proof.

Let

$$i^{*} = \mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{i=1}^{h}\,\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i},p_{j}\right),$$ (4)

breaking ties arbitrarily. Then

$$\Pr\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{t},p_{j}\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\min_{i=1}^{h}\,\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i},p_{j}\right)\right]$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{thebestfromthesamples})}}}{{=}} \Pr\left[\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{t},p_{j}\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},p_{j}\right)\right]$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{(\ref{thebestindexaccordingtorandomsamples})}}}{{=}} \Pr\left[\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{t},p_{j}\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},p_{j}\right)\right)\land\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{t},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)=\min_{i=1}^{h}\,\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\right)\right]$$

$$\leq \Pr\left[\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{t},p_{j}\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},p_{j}\right)\right)\land\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{t},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\leq\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\right)\right]$$

$$\leq \Pr\left[\exists i\in[h],\,\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i},p_{j}\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},p_{j}\right)\right)\land\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\leq\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\right)\right]$$

$$\leq \sum_{i=1}^{h}\,\Pr\left[\left(\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i},p_{j}\right)>\left(1+\epsilon\right)\cdot\sum_{j=1}^{n}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},p_{j}\right)\right)\land\left(\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\leq\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d\left(x_{i^{*}},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j}\right)\right)\right]$$

$$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{Fact~{}\ref{Indykkeyfact}}}}{{<}} \sum_{i=1}^{h}\,\exp{\left(-\frac{\epsilon^{2}k}{64}\right)}$$

$$= h\cdot\exp{\left(-\frac{\epsilon^{2}k}{64}\right)}$$

$$< \epsilon,$$

where the second inequality uses $t\in[h]$. ∎

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 $p_{1}$, $p_{2}$, $\ldots$, $p_{n}$.

1:  $h\leftarrow\lceil 10^{9}(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon\rceil$;

2:  $k\leftarrow\lceil 10^{9}(\log(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{2}\rceil$;

3:  Pick ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{1}$, ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{2}$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{h}$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{1}$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{2}$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol{v}}_{k}$ independently and uniformly at random from $[n]$;

4:  $t\leftarrow\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}_{i=1}^{h}\,\sum_{j=1}^{k}\,d({\boldsymbol{u}}_{i},{\boldsymbol{v}}_{j})$, breaking ties arbitrarily;

5:  return  ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{t}$;

Figure 1: Algorithm approx. median for ultrametric $1$-median

Lemma 6.

Algorithm approx. median in Fig. 1 outputs a $((1+\epsilon)(1+2\epsilon))$-approximate $1$-median with probability greater than $1-2\epsilon$.

Proof.

With $h$ and ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{1}$, ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{2}$, $\ldots$, ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{h}$ as in approx. median,

$$\Pr\left[\exists i\in[h],\,{\boldsymbol{u}}_{i}\in\left\{p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}\right\}\right]$$

$$= 1-\Pr\left[\forall i\in[h],\,{\boldsymbol{u}}_{i}\notin\left\{p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}\right\}\right]$$

$$= 1-\left(1-\frac{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}{n}\right)^{h}$$

$$> 1-\epsilon.$$ (6)

When there exists $1\leq i\leq h$ satisfying ${\boldsymbol{u}}_{i}\in\{p_{1},p_{2},\ldots,p_{\lceil\epsilon n\rceil}\}$, Lemma 3 asserts the existence of a $(1+2\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median in $\{{\boldsymbol{u}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{u}}_{2},\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}_{h}\}$. So Eqs. (2)–(6) force $\{{\boldsymbol{u}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{u}}_{2},\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}_{h}\}$ to contain a $(1+2\epsilon)$-approximate $1$-median with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$. By Lemma 5 (with $\{x_{i}\}_{i=1}^{h}$ substituted by $\{{\boldsymbol{u}}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{h}$), approx. median outputs a $((1+\epsilon)\kappa)$-approximate $1$-median with probability greater than $1-\epsilon$ if $\{{\boldsymbol{u}}_{1},{\boldsymbol{u}}_{2},\ldots,{\boldsymbol{u}}_{h}\}$ contains a $\kappa$-approximate $1$-median, for all $\kappa>0$. Now take $\kappa=1+2\epsilon$. ∎

Theorem 7.

Ultrametric $1$-median has a Monte Carlo $O((\log^{2}(1/\epsilon))/\epsilon^{3})$-time $(1+\epsilon)$-approximation algorithm with success probability greater than $1-\epsilon$.

Proof.

Invoke Lemma 6 (with $\epsilon$ substituted by $\epsilon/4$) and calculate the running time of approx. median. ∎