The basic goal of survivable network design is to build a cheap network that maintains the connectivity between given sets of nodes despite the failure of a few edges/nodes. The connectivity augmentation problem (CAP) is arguably one of the most basic problems in this area: given a k(-edge)-connected graph G and a set of extra edges (links), select a minimum cardinality subset A of links such that adding A to G increases its edge connectivity to k+1. Intuitively, one wants to make an existing network more reliable by augmenting it with extra edges. The best known approximation factor for this NP-hard problem is 2, and this can be achieved with multiple approaches (the first such result is in [G. N. Frederickson and J\'aj\' a, SIAM J. Comput., 10 (1981), pp. 270-283]. It is known [E. A. Dinitz, A. V. Karzanov, and M. V. Lomonosov, Studies in Discrete Optimization, Nauka, Moscow, 1976, pp. 290-306] that CAP can be reduced to the case k = 1, also known as the tree augmentation problem (TAP) for odd k, and to the case k = 2, also known as the cactus augmentation problem (CacAP) for even k. Prior to the conference version of this paper [J. Byrka, F. Grandoni, and A. Jabal Ameli, STOC'20, ACM, New York, 2020, pp. 815-825], several better than 2 approximation algorithms were known for TAP, culminating with a recent 1.458 approximation [F. Grandoni, C. Kalaitzis, and R. Zenklusen, STOC'18, ACM, New York, 1918, pp. 632-645]. However, for CacAP the best known approximation was 2. In this paper we breach the 2 approximation barrier for CacAP, hence, for CAP, by presenting a polynomial-time 2 ln(4) - ₁₁₂₀ ⁹⁶⁷ + ε < 1.91 approximation. From a technical point of view, our approach deviates quite substantially from previous work. In particular, the better-than-2 approximation algorithms for TAP either exploit greedy-style algorithms or are based on rounding carefully designed LPs. We instead use a reduction to the Steiner tree problem which was previously used in parameterized algorithms [Basavaraju et al., ICALP'14, Springer, Berlin, 2014, pp. 800-811]. This reduction is not approximation preserving, and using the current best approximation factor for a Steiner tree [Byrka et al., J. ACM, 60 (2013), 6] as a black box would not be good enough to improve on 2. To achieve the latter goal, we ``open the box"" and exploit the specific properties of the instances of a Steiner tree arising from CacAP. In our opinion this connection between approximation algorithms for survivable network design and Steiner-type problems is interesting, and might lead to other results in the area.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Byrka et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: