A deterministic polynomial-time approximation for Maximum Weighted $3-Set Packing, breaking the $\sqrt3$ locality-gap barrier of squared-weight local search and proving that $\sqrt3$ is a locality-gap lower bound for the squared-weight objective even with exchanges of arbitrary size.
Abstract
We give a deterministic polynomial-time $1.6908$-approximation for Maximum Weighted $3$-Set Packing, breaking the $\sqrt3$ locality-gap barrier of squared-weight local search. The approximation ratio for this problem progressed from Berman's $2$ [Ber00] to Neuwohner's $2-\frac{1}{63{,}700{,}992}+\epsilon$ [Neu21]. Thiery and Ward then obtained $1.786$ [TW23], while Thiery subsequently improved the bound to $1.761+\epsilon$ and finally to $\sqrt3 \approx 1.732051$ through a layered exchange analysis [Thi23]. Thiery also proved that $\sqrt3$ is a locality-gap lower bound for the squared-weight objective even with exchanges of arbitrary size. Our algorithm performs in two phases and combines two objectives. Phase~I computes a bounded-exchange local optimum for the squared-weight potential and analyzes it through Thiery's layered framework, while strengthening the terminal analysis by preserving internal tree-edge slack for nonsingleton components and exploiting the incidence structure of $3$-sets for final singletons. This yields an augmented structural inequality with residual positive claw gain under the original objective. Phase~II switches to the original objective and recovers sufficient residual gain through an auxiliary weighted $9$-Set Packing instance. A covering argument transfers the structural bound through the high-girth lift used only in the analysis.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.