On the Hardness of Approximation of the Fair k-Center Problem
Abstract
Domain fit: Niche / domain-specific · No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
In this work, we study the hardness of approximation of the fair $k$-center problem. In this problem, we are given a set of data points in a metric space that is partitioned into groups and the task is to choose a subset of $k$-data points, called centers, such that a prescribed number of data points from each group are chosen while minimizing the maximum distance from any point to its closest center. Although a polynomial-time $3$-approximation is known for fair $k$-center in general metrics, it has remained open whether this approximation guarantee is tight or could be further improved, especially since the classical unconstrained $k$-center problem admits a polynomial-time factor-$2$ approximation. We resolve this open question by proving that, assuming $\mathsf{P} \neq \mathsf{NP}$, for any $ε>0$, no polynomial-time algorithm can approximate fair $k$-center to $(3-ε)$-factor. Our inapproximability results hold even when only two disjoint groups are present and at least one center must be chosen from each group. Further, it extends to the canonical one-per-group setting with $k$-groups (for arbitrary $k$), where exactly one center must be selected from each group. Consequently, the factor-$3$ barrier for fair $k$-center in general metric spaces is inherent, and existing $3$-approximation algorithms are optimal up to lower-order terms even in these restricted regimes. This result stands in sharp contrast to the $k$-supplier formulation, where both the unconstrained and fair variants admit factor-$3$ approximation in polynomial time.
Results and benchmarks
In this work, we study the hardness of approximation of the fair $k$-center problem.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPX