cs.DSOct 2, 2026

Geometry-Dependent Approximation for Non-Monotone kk-Submodular Maximization

Authors: Vaneet Aggarwal

Organizations: Purdue University

Abstract

We study nonnegative, non-monotone kk-submodular maximization with k≥2k\ge2 labels under support constraints, and show how the certified approximation coefficient improves as the support region permits more uniform selection. For a compact convex down-closed support region P⊆[0,1]nP\subseteq[0,1]^n, the diagonal level ζ(P)=max⁡{t∈[0,1]:t1∈P}ζ(P)=\max\{t\in[0,1]:t {\bf 1} \in P\} ranges from ζ=0ζ=0, which carries no geometric promise, to ζ=1ζ=1, which is unrestricted support. Our main structural result is a comparator-uniform linearization of the multilinear extension, built from an objective-independent action and a comparator-independent update field. For k≥3k\ge3, its validity reduces, independently of the number of elements, to four polynomial inequalities of degree at most three in one or two variables, only one of which depends on kk. Explicit parameter choices give a nondecreasing certified profile α‾k(ζ)\underlineα_k(ζ), in closed form on all of [0,1][0,1] when k=2k=2. At ζ=0ζ=0 we certify 0.4456…0.4456\ldots for k=2k=2 and 0.4541…0.4541\ldots for every k≥3k\ge3, improving the recent 2−1\sqrt2-1 guarantee for one matroid or one knapsack, as well as the 1/31/3-type guarantees for a fixed number of budgets; at ζ=1ζ=1 we certify 1/21/2 for k=2k=2, (17−3)/2(\sqrt{17}-3)/2 for k=3,4k=3,4, and k/(2k−1)k/(2k-1) for k≥5k\ge5, whose excess over 1/21/2 is of order 1/k1/k rather than the previous 1/k21/k^2. Value-retaining rounding transfers these guarantees to matroid and knapsack constraints, and the same field yields O(T)O(\sqrt T) approximate regret online under gradient or post-decision value feedback.

Explore similar work

Sep 30, 2026

Geometry-Dependent Online and Offline Approximation for Non-Monotone DR-Submodular Maximization

We study online and offline maximization of nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular functions over compact convex down-closed sets K⊆[0,1]dK\subseteq[0,1]^d. A supplied feasible diagonal point ζ1∈Kζ{\bf 1}\in K gives an upper-linearizable comparison with coefficient α‾(ζ)=12−(1−2ζ)+2/[2(3−2ζ)2]\underlineα(ζ)=\tfrac12-(1-2ζ)_+^2/[2(3-2ζ)^2]. This gives 4/94/9 at ζ=0ζ=0 and O(T)O(\sqrt T) expected online approximate regret with one gradient query and one projection per round, including stochastic gradients. The same coefficient admits O(T3/4)O(T^{3/4}) regret with one noisy value query, or O(T)O(\sqrt T) with two exact value queries. All objective queries lie in the cube. Our analytical offline upper bound at ζ=0ζ=0 improves the bound 2(e−1/2−e−1)2(e^{-1/2}-e^{-1}) established in 2011, even with exact values and full gradients. Two constructions extend it to positive diagonal levels; one has a finite representation below 1/81/8 and a piecewise rational formula above it. Online-to-batch conversion gives offline approximation and sample complexity, while a constant-objective reduction transfers the upper bound to online optimization. Both general-class coefficients equal 1/21/2 for ζ≥1/2ζ\ge1/2, and their deficits below this level have quadratic order. Analytic polynomial comparisons give coefficient 1/21/2 for quadratics and max⁡{8/17,23−4r/(1+3−4r)2}\max\{8/17,2\sqrt{3-4r}/(1+\sqrt{3-4r})^2\} for cubics, where r=min⁡{ζ,1/2}r=\min\{ζ,1/2\}, with online and offline query implementations. Finally, for discrete submodular maximization, multilinear extension and established rounding give α‾(ζ)−ε\underlineα(ζ)-\varepsilon under one matroid constraint and 4/9−ε4/9-\varepsilon under a fixed number of knapsack constraints.
Sep 9, 2026

A Sharp Barrier for Consistent Submodular Maximization: Any Improvement over 2−22-\sqrt{2} Entails Exponential Queries or Linear Recourse

Consistent submodular maximization studies the tradeoff between solution quality and stability when elements arrive over time. For a monotone submodular objective, which models diminishing returns, an algorithm maintains a set of at most kk available elements and changes only O(1)O(1) elements after each insertion. Dütting et al. [2025] established a tight 2/32/3 approximation with unrestricted computation and a polynomial-time 0.510.51 approximation. They left open at STOC 2025 whether efficient algorithms can match the offline 1−1/e1-1/e guarantee. We resolve this problem by proving that the supremum approximation achievable with polynomially many value queries and worst-case constant recourse is β=2−2≈0.5858<1−1/e.β=2-\sqrt2\approx0.5858<1-1/e. For every ε>0\varepsilon>0, our randomized algorithm attains β−εβ-\varepsilon with O(ε−2)O(\varepsilon^{-2}) changes per insertion. Any fixed improvement requires exponentially many queries before one critical insertion or linear recourse of Ω(k)Ω(k) changes at that insertion, even with unlimited queries afterwards. This gap quantifies the cost of consistency: the current oracle hides which elements will be needed after an arrival. We also determine the exact curvature-dependent threshold 1−(2−1)ϑ1-(\sqrt2-1)\vartheta, attain 1−1/e−ε1-1/e-\varepsilon for weighted coverage with O(ε−1)O(\varepsilon^{-1}) recourse, and separate the existence of universal future-price certificates from their efficient computation. Our algorithm has a bounded-bit polynomial-time implementation for polynomial-bit rational oracle answers; the lower bound uses only logarithmic-bit rational answers.
Jul 7, 2026

Data-dependent Evaluations for Budgeted Submodular Maximization

Submodular maximization is an important building block for developing algorithms in many areas such as machine learning and data mining. Due to the NP-hardness of the problem, analysis of submodular maximization algorithms typically provides pessimistic worst-case approximation factors only. It is not easy to evaluate how close a produced solution is to an optimal one for a given problem instance. In this paper, we develop new data-dependent upper bounds for submodular maximization with a knapsack constraint. We theoretically prove that they dominate the optimal solution and empirically demonstrate their advantages in certifying how close to optimal a solution is through experiments with real-world datasets.