Computer Science Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for students, researchers and practitioners of computer science. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm trying to understand the approximation ratio for the Kenyon-Remila algorithm for the 2D cutting stock problem.

The ratio in question is $(1 + \varepsilon) \text{Opt}(L) + O(1/\varepsilon^2)$.

The first term is clear, but the second doesn't mean anything to me and I can't seem to figure it out.

share|cite|improve this question

migrated from Jan 3 '13 at 7:24

This question came from our site for theoretical computer scientists and researchers in related fields.

up vote 12 down vote accepted

The expression "$A(L) \le (1 + \varepsilon) \text{Opt}(L) + O(1/\varepsilon^2)$" is, as usual, shorthand for the following:

There exist constants $c>0$ and $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that for all $\varepsilon$ with $0<\varepsilon<\varepsilon_0$, the inequality $A(L) \le (1 + \varepsilon) \text{Opt}(L) + c/\varepsilon^2$ holds.

share|cite|improve this answer
I guess I was just looking into too much. Many thanks (and thanks to Jukka Suomela as well for that link). – Jacob Fogner Jan 2 '13 at 0:37

This seems a looser variant of polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS). If \epsilon is not small, you can achieve approximation with ratio very close to 1+\epsilon because O(\epsilon^{-2}) \le c \epsilon^{-2} is small. (c is a fixed positive real number independent of any other variable.) If \epsilon is small, the 2nd term gets larger.

However, OPT(L) is usually much larger than a constant. No matter how large O(\epsilon^{-2}) becomes, it is still a constant (since \epsilon is a given target real number for the approximation ratio). So Kenyon-Remila theorem means: "Constructed \le (1+\ep) OPT + O(1) for any given app ratio 1+\ep, where the O(1) term is a constant depending on \ep. It is actually O(\ep^{-2})."

share|cite|improve this answer

are you looking for explanation on Big O? if Yes, this link might help you

share|cite|improve this answer
Not in the usual sense as it describes a function asymptotically (at least I don't think so). I understand it in that sense. I don't understand when it's used as part of a sum, as it is here, or if that is even at all related to its normal usage. – Jacob Fogner Jan 1 '13 at 23:56

If I remember correctly, this usage you feel confused predated (and actually inspired) the usage of $O$ for asymptotic functions. For example, you can have a short look at

share|cite|improve this answer

In fact, the algorithm in question is a so-called "asymptotic polynomial time approximation scheme" (APTAS), which means that the approximation ratio is measured asymptotically in terms of the optimum; the approximation ratio of $(1+\epsilon)$ is approached as the optimal value gets larger since the additive term $O(\epsilon^{-2})$ is indepentent from both $n$ (the number of items in the instance $L$) and $Opt(L)$, the optimal value of the instance $L$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.