\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In the metric multi-cover problem (MMC), the input consists of two point sets $Y$ (servers) and $X$ (clients) in an arbitrary metric
space $(X \cup Y, d)$, a positive integer $k$ that represents the coverage
demand of each client, and a constant $\alpha \geq 1$.

Consider an assignment $r: Y \rightarrow \Real^+$ of {\em radii} to each server
in $Y$. This can be viewed as specifying a ball of radius $r(y)$ at each server $y \in Y$. If, for each client $x \in X$, at least $j$ of the corresponding server balls contain $x$, then we say that $X$ is $j$-covered by $r$. That is, $X$ is $j$-covered if for each $x \in X$,
\[
    | \{ y \in Y \ | \ d(x, y) \leq r(y) \} | \geq j.
\]
The {\em cost} of assignment $r$ is defined to be the sum of the $\alpha$-th powers of radii of the corresponding balls. That is, $\texttt{cost}(r) = \sum_{y \in Y} \left ( r(y)
\right )^{\alpha}$.

Any assignment  $r: Y \rightarrow \Real^+$ that $k$-covers $X$ is a feasible
solution to the MMC problem. The objective to be minimized is the cost  $\sum_{y
\in Y} \left ( r(y) \right )^{\alpha}$.  We assume that $k \leq |Y|$, for
otherwise there is no feasible solution.

In this article, we consider the MMC as well as some more general variants. In
one variant, the {\em non-uniform MMC}, we allow each client to specify its own
coverage requirement. In another, called the {\em $t$-MMC problem}, we require
that the number of servers used is at most some input integer $t$. Here, the
algorithm will have to determine which subset $Y' \subseteq Y$ containing at
most $t$ servers to use, and then $k$-cover $X$ using that subset. These
problems are \textsf{NP}-hard in general, as we point out below, and we are
interested in approximation algorithms that run in polynomial time.

\subsection{Prior Work}
\label{ssec:related}
We review some of the previous works which considered the MMC problem and its
variants. A version of the MMC problem arises naturally in fault-tolerant
wireless sensor network design. The clients ($X$) and the servers ($Y$) are
points in the plane, and the requirement is to construct disks centered at the
servers such that each client is covered by at least $k$ distinct server disks.
A server disk corresponds to the area covered by some wireless antenna placed at
the server, whose power consumption is proportional to the area being serviced
by the antenna. The objective is to minimize the power consumption of
the antennas placed at the servers while meeting the coverage requirement of
each client. This problem is thus a special case of the MMC problem, with $X,
Y$ in the plane and $\alpha = 2$. This special case has been studied in several
recent works~\cite{Abu-AffashCKM11,BhowmickVX13,BhowmickVX15}.

~\CCite{Abu-AffashCKM11} considered the special case $\alpha = 2$ of the MMC problem where
$X$ and $Y$ are subsets of $\Real^2$ and the metric is the Euclidean distance.
They gave an $O(k)$ approximation for the problem. (Throughout the paper, it is
implicit that we only refer to polynomial time algorithms.) Following their
work, ~\CCite{BhowmickVX13} gave an $O(1)$ approximation, thus obtaining a
guarantee that is independent of the coverage demand. Their approximation
guarantee also holds for a {\em non-uniform} generalization of the MMC problem
where each client can have an arbitrary demand. The algorithm
in~\cite{BhowmickVX13} was further generalized in the journal article~\cite{BhowmickVX15}, in which
an approximation guarantee of $4 \cdot (27\sqrt{2})^{\alpha}$ was achieved for
the MMC problem in the plane, for any $\alpha \geq 1$.

In $\Real^d$, their approximation guarantee is $(2d) \cdot (27
\sqrt{d})^{\alpha}$, which depends on the dimension. Motivated by this,
\CCite{BhowmickVX15} ask whether an $O(1)$ guarantee is possible in an arbitrary metric
space. This is one of the questions considered in this article. The metric space setting generalizes not only the Euclidean distance in any dimension, but also the
shortest path distance amidst polygonal obstacles in $\Real^2$ or $\Real^3$, and
in graphs.

~\CCite{Bar-YehudaR13} were the first to give an approximation algorithm for the
MMC problem in which $X,Y$ are points in an arbitrary metric space.
They presented a $3^{\alpha}\cdot k$ approximation guarantee, using the
local-ratio technique. They also consider the non-uniform version of the
problem, where the coverage demand of each client is an arbitrary integer that is not necessarily related to the demands of the other clients. They obtain a $3^{\alpha}\cdot k_{\texttt{max}}$ approximation for this version, where $k_{\texttt{max}}$ is now the maximum client demand. Their guarantees also hold for minimizing a more general objective function  $\sum_{y
\in Y} \left ( w_y r(y) \right )^{\alpha}$, where weight $w_y \geq 0$ is specified for each server $y$ as part of the input; we do not address this objective function here.

The case $k = 1$ for the MMC problem is a traditional covering problem, and has
a much longer history. For the general metric setting (with $k =
1$), the primal-dual method has been successful in obtaining constant factor
approximations, as demonstrated in~\cite{CharikarP04,FreundR03}. In $\Real^d$ for any fixed $d$, a polynomial-time
approximation scheme (PTAS) using dynamic programming exists, as shown
by~\CCite{BiloCKK05} (improving on the work of~\CCite{Lev-TovP05} who obtained a
PTAS for the plane and $\alpha = 1$). The case $\alpha = 1$ is somewhat special -- as shown by \CCite{gibson2012clustering}, the problem can be solved exactly in polynomial time if the underlying metric is $\ell_{\infty}$ or $\ell_1$.

The MMC problem is known to be \textsf{NP}-hard even when $X, Y$ are point sets in the
plane and $k = 1$, for any $\alpha > 1$. This was established
by~\CCite{BiloCKK05} for $\alpha \geq 2$, and subsequently for $\alpha > 1$
by~\CCite{AltABEFKLMW06}.

\noindent {\bf MMC with cardinality constraints.} To our knowledge, the $t$-MMC  problem, where we are given a bound $t$ on the number of servers that can be
opened, has not been studied in its generality. The special case of $1$-covering ($k = 1$) has,
however, received considerable attention. Here, one wants to find $t$ server
balls to cover the clients, and minimize the sum of (the $\alpha$-th powers of) the radii of the balls; this
may be compared to the $t$-center problem, where one wants instead to minimize
the maximum radius. For this special case of $t$-MMC, Charikar and Panigrahy
\cite{CharikarP04} address the metric setting and give an $O(1)$ approximation.
Although they explicitly address only the case $\alpha = 1$, their guarantee
generalizes to any $\alpha \geq 1$. Exploiting the special structure for the case
$\alpha = 1$,~\CCite{gibson2012clustering} give a polynomial time algorithm for solving the problem exactly in $\Real^d$ if the underlying metric is $\ell_{\infty}$ or $\ell_1$; for the $\ell_2$ metric they obtain a polynomial time approximation scheme.

\noindent {\bf Related Results.} Fault tolerant versions of other related problems have also been studied in the literature -- facility location \cite{guha2003constant, swamy2008fault, byrka2010fault}, $t$-median \cite{hajiaghayi2016constant}, and $t$-center \cite{khuller2000fault}. Constant factor approximations are known for all these problems in the metric setting. In particular, the results for facility location solve the natural LP-relaxation and perform a clever rounding. These rounding methods do not readily extend to our setting. One reason for this is the fact that we are dealing with a covering problem; another reason is the additional constraint that one has to write in the LP saying that each server can house at most one ball.

Some recent results that involve geometric set multi-covering problems can be found in~\cite{ChekuriCH12, BansalP12}. Reducing to a set multi-covering problem does not seem to be an effective way to deal with the MMC, partly because in a feasible solution to the MMC each server can contribute only one ball. This issue is discussed in greater detail in~\cite{BhowmickVX15}.

\subsection{Our Results and Techniques}
We present a polynomial-time algorithm that reduces the MMC to several instances
of the $1$-covering version, where $k = 1$. This reduction preserves optimality
to within a constant multiplicative factor. More specifically, our reduction
outputs {\em pairwise disjoint} subsets $Y_1, Y_2, \ldots, Y_k$ of servers such
that computing an optimal $1$-cover of the clients $X$ using each $Y_i$ and
combining the $1$-covers results in a solution whose cost is $O(1)$ of the optimal cost.

Using a known constant factor approximation algorithm for computing a $1$-cover,
we obtain an $O(1)$ approximation for the MMC problem in any metric space,
achieving a guarantee that is independent of the coverage demand $k$. This
resolves a problem left open by Bhowmick et al.~\cite{BhowmickVX15}, whose
approximation guarantee in the Euclidean setting depends on the dimension.
Concretely, our approximation guarantee is $2 \cdot (108)^{\alpha}$. We have not attempted to optimize the constants, as our focus is on answering the question of whether a guarantee independent of $k$ and the dimension is possible.

Using the same paradigm of reducing to several $1$-covering instances, we obtain the first $O(1)$ approximation for the non-uniform MMC in the metric setting, as well as the first $O(1)$ approximation for the $t$-MMC.

We now explain some key ideas in this paper. For a client $x$, and any $1 \leq i
\leq |Y|$, let us define the $i$-neighborhood of $x$, $\YN{x}{i}$, to be the set
consisting of the $i$ nearest servers of $x$. At the core of our reduction is an
analysis of the neighborhoods of the clients that may be of independent
interest. In order to motivate this analysis, we first need to explain our high
level plan for the server subsets $Y_1, Y_2, \ldots, Y_k$ in the MMC. As
observed in \cite{BhowmickVX15}, the optimal MMC solution can be viewed, up to a
constant factor approximation, as a sequence $\rho_{1}, \rho_{2}, \ldots, \rho_{k}$, where each $\rho_{i}$ is a cover of $X$. In particular, $\rho_{i}$ is a special type of cover, called an outer cover of level $i$. This means that for each client $x$, there is a large ball in
$\rho_{i}$ that contains $x$ -- a ball whose radius is at least as large as
the distance from $x$ to its $i$-th nearest server.

Our plan for the server subsets $Y_1, Y_2, \ldots, Y_k$ is that for each $1 \leq
i \leq k$, $Y_i$ shall be ``almost'' a hitting set for $\rho_i$. If this can be achieved, then we can obtain a cover of $X$ using just the servers in $Y_i$ by moving each ball in $\rho_{i}$ to a server in $Y_i$ that hits it, and expanding the ball slightly. The cost of this cover is within a constant of that of $\rho_{i}$. Doing this for each $1 \leq i \leq k$, we get $k$ covers of $X$ whose total cost is within a constant of the optimal MMC solution. Furthermore, the fact that the subsets $Y_1, Y_2, \ldots, Y_k$ are pairwise disjoint implies that these $k$ covers together form a valid MMC solution.

Thus, we would like each $Y_i$ to be a hitting set for the corresponding outer cover $\rho_{i}$. Note, however, that we do not know anything about $\rho_{i}$, as it comes from the unknown MMC optimum. Therefore, we aim for an equivalent goal -- we would like $Y_i$ to be a hitting set for the $i$-neighborhoods of the clients. More concretely, we ask: can we extract $k$ pairwise disjoint server subsets $Y_1, Y_2, \ldots, Y_k$ such that for each $1 \leq i \leq k$ and each client $x$, $\YN{x}{i} \cap Y_i \neq \varnothing$?

This specification is too stringent, and the answer to this question is ``no''. Let $k = 2$, and suppose there are two clients at distance $1$ from each other, one server that is co-located with the first client, and a second server that is co-located with the second client. In this example, both servers would have to be in $Y_1$, leaving no server for $Y_2$.

Thus, we need a weaker specification for the $Y_i$ that is still sufficient for our purposes. To describe it, we need one more notion.  Let $G_i= (X, E_i)$ be the intersection graph of $i$-neighborhoods of $X$ i.e.\
$(x_1, x_2) \in E_i$ iff $\YN{x_1}{i} \cap \YN{x_2}{i} \neq \varnothing$. What we are able to show is the following.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:spec}
Assume $k$ is even. We can efficiently compute a set
\[ \left(\bigcup_{i = \frac{k}{2} + 1}^k Y_i^s\right) \cup \left(\bigcup_{i = \frac{k}{2} + 1}^k Y_i^p\right)  \]
of $k$ pairwise disjoint server subsets such that for each $\frac{k}{2} + 1 \leq i \leq k$ and each client $x \in X$, there is a client $x'$ within two hops of $x$ in $G_{i}$ such that $\YN{x'}{i} \cap Y_i^{s} \neq \varnothing$ (resp. $\YN{x'}{i} \cap Y_i^{p} \neq \varnothing$).
\end{lem}

Note that we have weakened the original specification in two ways. First, instead of considering $i$-neighborhoods for each $1 \leq i \leq k$, we only consider
$i$-neighborhoods for each $\frac{k}{2} + 1 \leq i \leq k$, but now require two
hitting sets for each such $i$. Second, for a fixed $\frac{k}{2} + 1 \leq i \leq
k$, we do not require that $Y_i^{s}$ hits the $i$-neighborhood of \emph{every} client in $X$. We only require that for any client $x$, there is some client $x'$ that is `near' $x$ such that $Y_i^{s}$ intersects the $i$-neighborhood of $x'$. The requirement for $Y_i^p$ is also relaxed in this way. The notion of `near' is a natural one -- that of being within a distance of $2$ in the intersection graph $G_i$ of the $i$-neighborhoods.

The proof of~\Cref{lem:spec}, which is given in~\Cref{sec:spec}, is delicate. We
construct the family $Y_k^{s}, Y_k^{p}, Y_{k-1}^{s}, Y_{k-1}^{p}, \ldots, Y_{\frac{k}{2} +
1}^{s}, Y_{\frac{k}{2} + 1}^{p}$ in that order, but we have to be careful while
picking the earlier subsets to ensure that there are suitable servers left for
building the later subsets.

The algorithm for the MMC, which builds on \Cref{lem:spec} as outlined above,
is given in \Cref{sec:algo}. In the case of the non-uniform MMC, the situation
is complicated by the fact that clients can have different demands. Nevertheless, we are able to extend the scheme of extracting disjoint server subsets and reducing to suitable $1$-covering instances.  Because of the varying coverage demands, a generated $1$-covering instance may only involve a subset of the clients. The algorithm for the non-uniform MMC is described in \Cref{sec:conc}.

For the $t$-MMC, which is addressed in \Cref{sec:tMMC}, the computation of
disjoint server subsets is identical to that of the MMC. However, the reduction
to $1$-covering is subtler as we have to worry about how many open servers are
allowed for each $1$-covering instance. One tool we develop to address this
issue is the extraction of $k$ outer covers from the optimal solution with
additional guarantees on the number of servers opened in each outer cover. It is
worth pointing out that in the case of $1$-covering in the context of $t$-MMC,
the only known approximation is the somewhat involved algorithm of Charikar and
Panigrahy \cite{CharikarP04}. Thus, it is especially fortuitous that we are able
to deal with the $t$-MMC by reducing to the $1$-covering case, for which we can
use their algorithm as a black box.

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:terminology}
In this section, we define some notation and some needed tools from prior work.

Let $\delta(p,r)$ denote the ball of radius $r$ centered at $p$, i.e., $\delta(p,
r) = \{ u \in X \cup Y \mid d(p, u) \leq r \}$. For brevity, we slightly abuse
the notation and write $\delta(p, d(p,q))$ as $\delta(p, q)$. The {\em cost} of a
set $B$ of balls, denoted $\texttt{cost}(B)$, is defined to be the sum of the
$\alpha$-th powers of the radii of the balls.

Any assignment $r: Y \rightarrow \Real^+$ corresponds to the set of balls $\{
\delta(y, r(y)) \mid y \in Y \}$. Note that the cost of assignment $r$ is the same
as the cost of the corresponding set of balls. Instead of saying that $r$
$j$-covers $X$, we will often say that the corresponding set of balls $j$-covers
$X$. We will say that a set of balls \emph{covers} $X$ instead of saying it $1$-covers $X$.

For each
$x \in X$ and $1 \leq j \leq |Y|$, we define $\yd{j}{x}$ to be the $j$-th
closest point in $Y$ to $x$ using distance $d$. The ties are broken arbitrarily. For any $x \in X$, we define the $i$-neighborhood ball of a
client $x$ as $\delta(x, \yd{i}{x})$. We define the
$i$-neighborhood of $x$, $\YN{x}{i}$,  as $\{ \yd{j}{x} \mid 1 \leq j \leq i
\}$.

For $1 \leq i \leq k$, let $G_i= (X, E_i)$ be the intersection graph of $i$-neighborhoods of $X$ i.e.\
$(x, x') \in E_i$ iff $\YN{x}{i} \cap \YN{x'}{i} \neq \varnothing$.

\subsection{Computing \texorpdfstring{$1$}{1}-covers}
We will need as a black-box an algorithm that, given subsets $X' \subseteq X$ and $Y' \subseteq Y$, computes a $1$-cover of $X'$ using servers in $Y'$. That is, the algorithm must return an assignment of
radii $r: Y' \rightarrow \Realp$ such that each client $x \in X'$ is contained in at least one ball centered on a server in $Y'$. Computing a  $1$-cover of minimum cost is thus the
special case for the MMC problem where $k = 1$. As mentioned
in~\Cref{ssec:related}, even this version is \textsf{NP}-hard, but it does admit
constant-factor approximations~\cite{CharikarP04,Bar-YehudaR13}. Let
$\text{Cover}(X', Y', \alpha)$ denote an algorithm that returns a $1$-cover of
$X'$ using servers in $Y'$ with cost at most
$3^{\alpha}$ times the cost of an optimal $1$-cover.

\subsection{Outer Cover}
Our work also relies on the notion of an \textit{outer cover}, which is
described in~\CCite{BhowmickVX15}. We adopt the definition of an outer cover
from~\cite{BhowmickVX15} as follows:
\begin{defn}
\label{def:OC}
Given point sets $X, Y$ in a metric space $(X \cup Y, d)$, positive integer $i$
and $\alpha \geq 1$, an outer cover of level $i$ is an assignment $\rho_i: Y
\rightarrow \Real^+$ of radii to the servers such that for each client $x \in
X$, there is a server $y \in Y$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
        \item The ball $\delta(y, \rhi{y})$ contains $x$ i.e.\ $d(y, x) \leq
            \rhi{y}$.
        \item Radius of the ball at $y$ is large, that is, $\rhi{y} \geq d(x, \yd{i}{x})$
\end{enumerate}
\end{defn}

Given a level $i$ outer cover $\rho_i$, and a client $x \in X$, any server $y$ that
satisfies the two conditions in the definition above is said to {\em serve} $x$;
we also say that the corresponding ball $\delta(y, \rhi{y})$ serves $x$.

To appreciate why outer covers play an important role, consider any $k$-cover of
the set $X$ of clients. Fix $1 \leq i \leq k$. Form a set $B$ of balls by
adding, for each client in $X$, the $i$-th largest ball in the $k$-cover that
covers the client. The set $B$ thus constructed is seen to be a level $i$ outer
cover.

The sum of the costs of the optimal $i$-th level outer covers, for $1 \leq i \leq k$,
gives a lower bound on the cost of the optimal solution to the MMC. This is
stated precisely in the theorem below. The proof can be found in
\cite{BhowmickVX15}, but for completeness, it is extracted and given
in~\Cref{sec:outer-cover}.

\begin{restatable}{theorem}{outercover}
    \label{lem:lbound}
    Let $r': Y \rightarrow \Real^+$ be any assignment that constitutes a
    feasible solution to the MMC problem. For each
    $1 \leq i \leq k$, let $\mu_i$ denote the cost of an optimal outer cover of level $i$. Then
 \[ \sum\limits_{i = 1}^k \mu_i \leq 3^{\alpha} \cdot
            \texttt{cost}(r').\]

\end{restatable}

\section{Partitioning Servers}
\label{sec:spec}
Suppose that we are given two point sets $Y$ (servers) and
$X$(clients) in an arbitrary metric space $(X \cup Y, d)$, and a positive
integer $k$ that represents the coverage demand of each client, and the constant $\alpha \geq 1$. In this section, we establish the following result, which is \Cref{lem:spec} restated so as to also address the case where $k$ is odd.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:spec-full}
Let $l = \lceil k/2 \rceil$. We can efficiently compute a family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ of $k$ server subsets such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ contains two subsets $Y_{i}^{s}$ and $Y_{i}^{p}$ for each $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$, and, if $k$ is odd, one additional subset $Y_{l}^{p}$.
\item $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ is a pairwise disjoint family, i.e., any two subsets in $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ are disjoint.
\item Suppose that (a) $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$ and $Y_i$ is either $Y_{i}^{s}$ or
$Y_{i}^{p}$, or (b) $k$ is odd, $i = l$, and $Y_i = Y_{i}^{p}$. For any client $x \in X$, there is a client $x'$ within two hops of $x$ in $G_{i}$ such that $\YN{x'}{i} \cap Y_i \neq \varnothing$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}

Before describing the algorithm for computing the family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$, we introduce needed concepts. For a positive integer $r$, an $r$-net of a graph $G = (V, E)$ is a set $S \subseteq V$
such that every path in $G$ between any two vertices in $S$ has at least
$r$ edges in it, and for every $u \in V \setminus S$, there exists a vertex
$v \in S$ such that $u$ is reachable from $v$ using a path in $G$ having at most
$r - 1$ edges. An $r$-net is a fairly well-known concept; for instance, a $2$-net is simply an independent set that is maximal by inclusion.

We note that for any $G_i$, $G_j$ such that $l \leq i < j \leq k$, $G_i$
is a sub-graph of $G_j$ since the $i$-neighborhood of any client is
contained within its $j$-neighborhood. Motivated by the statement of \Cref{lem:spec-full}, we would like to compute a $3$-net $X_i$ of $G_i$, for each $1 \leq i \leq k$. This would ensure that for any client $x \in X$, there is a client $x' \in X_i$ that is within two hops of $x$ in $G_i$.
For the rest of this section, we refer to a $3$-net as simply a net.

\begin{claim}
\label{cl:ruling}
There is a polynomial time algorithm that, given $X$, $Y$, and $k$, computes a
hierarchy
\[
    X_k \subseteq X_{k-1} \subseteq \dots \subseteq X_{2} \subseteq X_1,
\]
where each $X_i \subseteq X$ is a  $3$-net of $G_i$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
Given a net $X_i$ of $G_i$, we describe how to compute a net $X_{i-1}$ of
$G_{i-1}$ such that $X_i \subseteq X_{i-1}$. Since $G_{i-1}$ is a subgraph of
$G_i$, we have that the (hop) distance in $G_{i-1}$ between any two vertices  in
$X_i$ is at least $3$. We initialize $X_{i-1}$ with $X_i$ and assume that all
vertices in $G_{i-1}$ are initially unmarked. We repeat the following process
till $G_{i-1}$ does not contain any unmarked vertices: mark all vertices in
$G_{i-1}$ within distance $2$ of $X_{i-1}$, and then add an arbitrary unmarked
vertex from $G_{i-1}$ to $X_{i-1}$.

We can construct the hierarchy of nets by starting with an arbitrary net $X_k$ of the graph $G_k$, and then constructing the successive nets in the hierarchy by the process described above. To construct $X_k$ itself, we apply the above method after initializing $X_k$ to be the singleton set consisting of any vertex in $G_k$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Computing Disjoint Server Subsets}
\label{ssec:algo}

Our algorithm for computing the family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ of server subsets, as claimed in \Cref{lem:spec-full}, is described in~\Cref{alg:HC}. We begin by
setting parameter $l$ to be $\lceil k/2 \rceil$, just as in the statement of \Cref{lem:spec-full}. We then use \Cref{cl:ruling}
to compute a hierarchy of nets, truncating it at $l$: $X_k \subseteq X_{k-1} \subseteq \cdots
\subseteq X_l$. Any client that belongs to
$\bigcup\limits_{i = l}^k X_i$ is termed as a {\em net client}. For each
client $x$, we denote the $l$-neighborhood $\YN{x}{l}$ as the {\em
private servers} of $x$.

\begin{algorithm*}[hbt]
 \caption{\text{ComputeServerSubsets}\allowbreak\ensuremath{(X, Y, k)}}
 \label{alg:HC}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
 \setcounter{ALC@unique}{0}
    \STATE For each $y \in Y$, mark $y$ as available.
    \STATE $l \leftarrow \lceil k / 2 \rceil$ \label{line:l}
    \STATE Compute $X_k \subseteq X_{k-1} \subseteq \cdots \subseteq X_l$ using Claim~\ref{cl:ruling}.
    \FOR {$i = k$ \textbf{downto } $l$} \label{lin:outer-for-start}
        \STATE Let $Y^s_i \leftarrow \varnothing, Y^p_i \leftarrow \varnothing$.
        \FORALL {$x_c \in X_i$} \label{lin:inner-for-start}
           \IF {$i > l$}
              \STATE $y_s \leftarrow \mbox{ farthest available server in }
                      \YN{x_c}{i}$. \label{lin:shared-server}
              \STATE $Y^s_i \leftarrow Y^s_i \cup \{y_s\}$. Mark $y_s$ as not
                 available.
           \ENDIF
           \IF {$i > l$ or ($i = l$ and $k$ is odd)}
              \STATE $y_p \leftarrow \mbox{ any available server in }
                     \YN{x_c}{l}$. \label{lin:priv-server}
              \STATE $Y^p_i \leftarrow Y^p_i \cup \{y_p\}$. Mark $y_p$ as not
                 available. \label{lin:phase3-end}
           \ENDIF
        \ENDFOR
    \ENDFOR

    \STATE $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace \leftarrow \varnothing$.
    \FOR {$i = k$ \textbf{downto } $l + 1$}
       \STATE $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace \leftarrow \ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace \cup \{ Y^s_i, Y^p_i \}$.
    \ENDFOR

    \IF {$k$ is odd}
       \STATE $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace \leftarrow \ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace \cup \{ Y^p_l \}$.
    \ENDIF
    \RETURN The family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$
 \end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm*}

The disjoint server subsets are computed in
\Crefrange{lin:outer-for-start}{lin:phase3-end} of~\Cref{alg:HC} -- the for
loop, whose index $i$ goes down from $k$ to $l$. In each iteration $i \geq l + 1$, we extract two disjoint sets of servers $Y^p_i$ and $Y^s_i$, and if $k$ is odd, we extract one server set $Y^p_l$ in iteration $l$.  Notice that when
summed over all $i$ from $k$ to $l$, we get $k$ disjoint server sets. The algorithm then adds all these server subsets to
$\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ and returns it.

Observe that in iteration $i$ of \Cref{lin:outer-for-start}, we go through each client in $x_c \in X_i$, and use a carefully designed rule to pick two available servers from the $i$-neighborhood $\YN{x_c}{i}$ of $x_c$ to add to $Y^p_i$ and $Y^s_i$. Observe that we add the farthest available server from the $i$-neighborhood $\YN{x_c}{i}$ to $Y^s_i$, whereas we pick an available server from
$\YN{x_c}{l} \subseteq \YN{x_c}{i}$, i.e., a private server of $x_c$, to add to $Y^p_i$. These choices -- farthest and private -- are crucial to our algorithm. The two  added servers are immediately made unavailable. The fact that $X_i$ is a net of $G_i$
is useful in controlling the impact on server availability for later iterations
of the algorithm. The subsequent section is devoted to establishing the crucial
fact that such available servers can be found in iteration $i$.

Assuming that servers are available whenever the algorithm looks for them, we can now establish \Cref{lem:spec-full}. Fix an $i$ such that $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$, and consider any client $x \in X$. Since $X_i$ is a net of $G_i$, there is a client $x' \in X_i$ that is within two hops of $x$ in $G_i$.  From the inner loop (\Cref{lin:inner-for-start}) in iteration $i$ of the outer loop (\Cref{lin:outer-for-start}), it is evident that for each $x_c \in X_i$, there is (at least) one server in $Y^p_i$ (resp. $Y^s_i$) that belongs to the $i$-neighborhood $\YN{x_c}{i}$. In particular, $\YN{x'}{i} \cap Y_i^p \neq \varnothing$, and
$\YN{x'}{i} \cap Y_i^s \neq \varnothing$. If $k$ is odd, a similar argument
can be made for $i = l$ and $Y_l^p$. This establishes \Cref{lem:spec-full}, assuming server availability.

\subsection{Server Availability}
\label{sec:sa}
Fix an iteration $i$ of the for loop in \Cref{lin:outer-for-start} in \Cref{alg:HC}. In such an iteration, the algorithm considers each $x_c \in X_i$ in the inner for loop in \Cref{lin:inner-for-start}. For each $x_c$, it looks for up
to two available servers within $\YN{x_c}{i}$ and uses them. In order
for the algorithm to be correct, such available servers must exist when the
algorithm looks for them. In this section, which is the core of our analysis, we show that this is indeed the case.

Let us begin with a roadmap of this argument. Consider a client $x \in X_k$ that
belongs to the net for $G_k$. Since the nets form a hierarchy, the client $x$
also belongs to the net $X_i$ for each $i < k$. Since the $i$-neighborhoods of
clients in $X_i$ are disjoint, for each $i$, the server choices made by other
net clients do not affect $x$ at all, and so $x$ will be able to find available
servers within $\YN{x}{i}$ for each $i$. Now consider a server $x'$ that first
appears in the net $X_j$ for some $j < k$. That is, $x'$ is not in $X_i$ for any
$i > j$ but is in $X_i$ for every $i \leq j$. What we argue is that at the
beginning of iteration $j$ of the for loop in \Cref{lin:outer-for-start}, the
$j$-neighborhood of $x'$ is, from the perspective of available servers, similar
to that of the $j$-neighborhood of $x$. It is in this argument that we use the
fact that a private server is chosen in \Cref{lin:priv-server}.

\vspace{0.1in}

\noindent {\bf Properties of Nets.} We now state some straightforward
properties concerning the hierarchy of nets $X_k \subseteq X_{k-1} \subseteq \cdots
\subseteq X_l$.

\begin{claim}
   Let $x, x'$ be two distinct clients in $X_i$. Then $\YN{x}{i}
   \cap \YN{x'}{i} = \varnothing$.
   \label{cl:chosen-chosen}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
   Since $X_i$ is a $3$-net of $G_i$, any path between $x$ and $x'$ in $G_i$
   has at least three edges. Recall that the condition $\YN{x}{i} \cap
   \YN{x'}{i} \neq \varnothing$ is equivalent to $(x,x')$ being an edge in
   $G_i$.
\end{proof}

\begin{claim}
   Let $x \in X \setminus X_i$. Then there is at most one $x' \in X_i$ such
   that $\YN{x}{i} \cap \YN{x'}{i} \neq \varnothing$.
   \label{cl:chosen-unchosen}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
   If there are two clients $x_1$ and $x_2$ in $X_i$ such that $\YN{x}{i} \cap
   \YN{x_1}{i} \neq \varnothing$ and $\YN{x}{i} \cap \YN{x_2}{i} \neq
   \varnothing$, then there is a path in $G_i$ with at most two edges connecting
   $x_1$ and $x_2$. Since the clients $x_1$ and $x_2$ belong to $X_i$, this
   would contradict the fact that $X_i$ is a $3$-net.
\end{proof}

\begin{claim}
\label{cl:subset}
   Let $x_i \in X_i$ and $x_j \in X_j$ be any two distinct clients for $l
   \leq i < j \leq k$. Then, $\YN{x_i}{i} \cap \YN{x_j}{l} = \varnothing$.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
   Since $i < j$, we have $X_j \subseteq X_i$ and hence the clients $x_i$ and
   $x_j$ both belong to the net $X_i$, implying that $\YN{x_i}{i} \cap
   \YN{x_j}{i} = \varnothing$. Since $l \leq i$, the claim follows, as
   $\YN{x_j}{l}$, the $l$-neighborhood of $x_j$, is contained in $\YN{x_j}{i}$.
\end{proof}

We now proceed to the actual argument for server availability, beginning with some notation. For $x \in X$, let $\A{x}{i}$
denote the set of available servers within $\YN{x}{i} = \{\yd{j}{x} \ | 1
\leq j \leq i\}$ at the {\em beginning} of iteration $i$. Thus, $|\A{x}{k}| =
k$. Furthermore, $\A{x}{i-1} \subseteq \A{x}{i}$ for $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$.
Obviously, $\A{x}{i} \subseteq \YN{x}{i}$.

The {\em threshold level} of a net client $x$ (denoted by $\ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$) is
defined as:
\[
  \forall x \in \bigcup\limits_{i = l}^k X_i, \qquad \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x) =
     \begin {cases}
        k, & \mbox{if } x \in X_k \\
        j, & \mbox{if } x \in X_j \setminus X_{j+1}, \quad l \leq j < k
     \end {cases}
\]
The threshold level of $x$ denotes the iteration of the outer loop of the
algorithm in which client $x$ first enters the net. In any iteration $k \geq j \geq \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x) + 1$, the client $x$
can lose neighboring servers because of the server choices made by (the
algorithm for) other clients, i.e., clients in the net $X_j$. On the other hand, for $l+1 \leq j \leq \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$, $x$ is itself part
of the net $X_j$. In these iterations, it can only lose neighboring
servers because of its own server choices. The next two claims address these two
phases.

We now show that any net client $x$ has enough available
servers in its $\ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$ neighborhood at the iteration $i = \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$ of the
outer loop of~\Cref{alg:HC}.

\begin{claim}
\label{cl:loop-invariant}
Let $x$ be any net client, and let $i = \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$. Then
\begin{clenum}
    \item $|\A{x}{i} \cap \YN{x}{l}| \geq l - (k-i)$. \label{cl:loop-invariant.1}
    \item $|\A{x}{i}| \geq 2i - k = k - 2(k-i)$. \label{cl:loop-invariant.2}
\end{clenum}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
    We look at the servers chosen during iteration $j$ of the outer loop, for
    $i < j \leq k$. Note that $x$ didn't belong to the net $X_j$. Consider any
    client $x_j \in X_j$. By~\Cref{cl:subset}, $\YN{x}{i}$ does not intersect
    the $l$-neighborhood ball $\YN{x_j}{l}$. Hence, during the execution
    of~\Cref{lin:priv-server} in the inner for loop corresponding to $x_j$, no
    server is made unavailable from $\YN{x}{i}$. This is because the server
    chosen in~\Cref{lin:priv-server} belongs to $\YN{x_j}{l}$.

    Thus, during iteration $j$, servers from $\YN{x}{i}$ can become unavailable
    only during the execution of~\Cref{lin:shared-server} of the inner for loop.
    We note that by~\Cref{cl:chosen-unchosen}, there is at most one client
    $x_j \in X_j$ such that $\YN{x_j}{j} \cap \YN{x}{j} \neq \varnothing$.
    Thus, at most one server from  $\YN{x}{i}$ is made unavailable in iteration $j$.

    We conclude that across the $k - i$ iterations before iteration $i$, there
    can be at most $k - i$ servers from
    $\YN{x}{i}$ that have been made unavailable.  Hence, $|\A{x}{i}| \geq i - (k - i) = 2i - k$.  Since
    $|\YN{x}{i} \cap \YN{x}{l}| = l$ and at most $k - i$ servers are made
    unavailable from the $i$-neighborhood ball $\YN{x}{i}$, $|\A{x}{i} \cap
    \YN{x}{l}| \geq l - (k - i)$.
\end{proof}

For any net client $x$, \Cref{cl:loop-invariant} shows that in iteration $i =
\ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$, when $x$ first enters the net, there are enough available
servers in $\YN{x}{i}$. The following claim aids in asserting this for
subsequent iterations, by arguing that in any iteration $i \leq \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$, at
most $2$ available servers are made unavailable from $\YN{x}{i}$.

\begin{claim}
\label{cl:atmost-two}
Let $x$ be any net client and $l + 1 \leq i \leq \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$. Then
\begin{clenum}
    \item $|\A{x}{i - 1}| \geq |\A{x}{i}| - 2$
        \label{cl:atmost-two.1}
    \item If $|\A{x}{i - 1}| = |\A{x}{i}| - 2$, then one of the servers
        in $\A{x}{i} \setminus \A{x}{i-1}$ is the farthest server in $\A{x}{i}$
        from $x$. \label{cl:atmost-two.2}
\end{clenum}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
    Note that $x \in X_i$ since $i \leq \ensuremath{\texttt{th}}(x)$. Consider any $x_c \in X_i \setminus \{x\}$. In the iteration
    of the inner for loop (\Cref{lin:inner-for-start}) corresponding to $x_c$,
    any servers that are made unavailable belong to $\YN{x_c}{i}$ and are
    therefore not in $\YN{x}{i}$, by \Cref{cl:chosen-chosen} (since $x,x_c \in
    X_i$). Thus, if any servers in $\A{x}{i} \subseteq
    \YN{x}{i}$ become unavailable in iteration $i$, then this can happen only in
    the iteration of the inner for loop corresponding to $x$. In this iteration
    of the inner for loop, the servers that become unavailable are $y_s$, the
    farthest server from $x$ in $\A{x}{i}$, and $y_p$, a different server that
    is chosen from the available servers in $\YN{x}{l}$. Note that $\{y_p, y_s\}
    \subseteq \A{x}{i}$. Thus, only the two servers $y_s, y_p$ in $\A{x}{i}$
    become unavailable in iteration $i$. Furthermore, if $\yd{i}{x} \in
    \A{x}{i}$ then $\yd{i}{x}$ is the farthest server in $\A{x}{i}$ from $x$,
    and thus $\yd{i}{x} = y_s$. Thus $\A{x}{i} \setminus \A{x}{i-1} = \{y_s,
    y_p\}$, and~\Cref{cl:atmost-two.1} holds. Since $y_s$ is the farthest
    server in $\A{x}{i}$,~\Cref{cl:atmost-two.2} holds as well.
\end{proof}

The following two claims show that our algorithm always succeeds in finding available
servers.
\begin{restatable}{claim}{available}
    \label{cl:available}
    For any $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$, and any $x_c \in X_i$:
    \begin{clenum}
        \item There is an available server in $\YN{x_c}{i}$ when the algorithm
            executes \Cref{lin:shared-server} in the iteration of the inner for
            loop (\Cref{lin:inner-for-start}) corresponding to $x_c$.
            \label{cl:available.1}
        \item There is an available server in $\YN{x_c}{l}$ when the algorithm
            executes \Cref{lin:priv-server} in the iteration of the inner for
            loop (\Cref{lin:inner-for-start}) corresponding to $x_c$.
            \label{cl:available.2}
    \end{clenum}
\end{restatable}

The proof of this claim, which follows from the previous claims, is given in
\Cref{sec:server-avail-claim}.

If $k$ is even, the algorithm does not look for available servers in iteration $i =
l$. If $k$ is odd, the algorithm will look for available servers in iteration
$i = l$, in \Cref{lin:priv-server}. The following claim extends the previous one
to handle this. The proof is a straightforward extension of the proof of the previous claim, and is therefore omitted.

\begin{claim}
Suppose $k$ is odd. For iteration $i = l$, and any $x_c \in X_i$, there is
an available server in $\YN{x_c}{l}$ when the algorithm executes
\Cref{lin:priv-server} in the iteration of the inner for loop
(\Cref{lin:inner-for-start}) corresponding to $x_c$.
\label{cl:available-2}
\end{claim}

This completes the proof of \Cref{lem:spec-full}.

\section{Solving The MMC Problem}
\label{sec:algo}
In this section, we present \Cref{alg:MMC}, a constant factor approximation for the MMC
problem. Recall that our input consists of two point sets $Y$ (servers) and
$X$( clients) in an arbitrary metric space $(X \cup Y, d)$, a positive integer
$k$ that represents the coverage demand of each client, and the constant $\alpha
\geq 1$.

Our algorithm first computes a family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ consisting of $k$ pairwise disjoint
subsets of $Y$, using the algorithm of \Cref{lem:spec-full}. It then invokes
$\text{Cover}(X,Y',\alpha)$, for each $Y' \in \ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$, to compute a near-optimal
$1$-cover of $X$ using only the servers in $Y'$. Since there are $k$ server
subsets in $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$, we obtain $k$ 1-covers of $X$. The algorithm then returns $r$, the
union of the $k$ covers. Because server subsets in $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ are disjoint, this union
yields a $k$-cover of $X$.

\begin{algorithm*}[hbt]
 \caption{\text{MetricMultiCover}\allowbreak\ensuremath{(X, Y, k, \alpha)}}
 \label{alg:MMC}
 \begin{algorithmic}[1]
 \setcounter{ALC@unique}{0}
    \STATE For each $y \in Y$, assign $r(y) \leftarrow 0$.
    \STATE $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace \leftarrow \text{ComputeServerSubsets}\allowbreak\ensuremath{(X, Y, k)}$.
    \FORALL {$Y' \in \ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$}
       \STATE $\bar{r} \leftarrow \text{Cover}(X, Y', \alpha)$.
       \STATE Let $r(y') \leftarrow \bar{r}(y')$ for each $y' \in Y'$.
    \ENDFOR
    \RETURN The assignment $r: Y \rightarrow \Real^+$.
 \end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm*}

\subsection{Approximation Guarantee}
\label{sec:ag}
Note that \Cref{alg:MMC} computes the family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace = \{Y_k^s, Y_k^p, Y_{k-1}^s, Y_{k-1}^p, \ldots \}$ as detailed in \Cref{lem:spec-full}. Let $Y_i \in \ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace$ be one such subset, where $Y_i$ may be either $Y_i^p$ or $Y_i^s$. $Y_i$ has the property that for any $x \in X$, there is an $x' \in X$ that is within two hops of $x$ in $G_i$ such that $\YN{x'}{i} \cap Y_i \neq \varnothing$. The following claim uses this property to argue that there is an inexpensive $1$-cover of $X$ that only uses servers from $Y_i$. The $1$-cover is constructed by using the servers in $Y_i$ to ``host'' the balls in the outer cover $\rho_i$.

\begin{claim}
   Assume that either (a) $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$ and $Y_i$ is either $Y_i^p$ or $Y_i^s$, or (b) $k$ is odd, $i = l$, and $Y_i = Y_i^p$. Let $\rho_i$ be any
outer cover of level $i$ for $X$ using servers from $Y$. There is a $1$-cover of $X$ that uses servers from $Y_i$ and has cost at most $12^{\alpha} \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$.
\label{cl:Bi}
\label{cl:cost-lambda}
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
Consider the set $B$ of balls obtained by expanding each ball in the outer cover
$\rho_i$ to $6$ times its original radius. We claim
\begin{claim}
For any client $x \in X$, there is some ball in $B$ that contains $x$ as well as at least one server in $Y_i$.
\label{cl:assert}
\end{claim}

Before proving \Cref{cl:assert}, we first prove \Cref{cl:Bi} using it. We construct a set $B'$ of balls as follows. Consider any ball $b \in B$. If it does not contain a server from $Y_i$, we ignore it. If it does contain a server in $Y_i$, pick an arbitrary such server $y$, translate $b$ so that it is centered at $y$, double its radius, and add the resulting ball to $B'$.

It is possible at this stage that for a server $y \in Y_i$, there are several balls in $B'$ centered at $y$. From each such concentric family, discard from $B'$ all but the largest of the concentric balls.  It follows from \Cref{cl:assert} that $B'$ covers each client in $X$. Since each ball in $B'$ is obtained by translating and scaling some ball in the outer cover $\rho_i$ by a factor of $12$, the cost of $B'$ is at most
$12^{\alpha} \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$. This establishes \Cref{cl:Bi}.

We now turn to the proof of \Cref{cl:assert}. From the definition of $G_i$, we have that for any edge $(x',x'')$ in $G_i$,
\begin{equation}
    \label[ineq]{ineq:edge-in-Gi}
    d(x',x'') \leq d(x', \yd{i}{x'}) + d(x'',\yd{i}{x''}).
\end{equation}

Now consider an arbitrary client $x \in X$. By \Cref{lem:spec-full}, there is a path $\pi$ in $G_i$ with at most $2$ edges (and $3$ vertices) that connects $x$ to some vertex $\bar{x}$, with $\YN{\bar{x}}{i} \cap Y_i \neq \varnothing$.

 Let $\delta(y, \rho_i(y))$ be the largest ball in outer cover $\rho_i$ that
 serves at least one vertex on path $\pi$. Suppose that it serves vertex
 $\hat{x} \in \pi$. ($\hat{x}$ could be the same as $x$ or $\bar{x}$.)
 See~\Cref{fig:factor12} for an illustration. Using the definition of an outer cover of level $i$,
 and the way we pick the ball $\delta(y, \rho_i(y))$, it follows that for any
 vertex $x' \in \pi$,
\begin{equation}
\label[ineq]{ineq:rhi}
d(x', \yd{i}{x'}) \leq \rho_i(y).
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Figure.pdf}
\caption{Illustration for the proof of~\Cref{cl:assert}. For the client $x \in X$,
   the dashed edges correspond to a path $\pi$ in $G_i$ from $x$ to $\bar{x}$.
   Here, $y_1 \in N_i(x) \cap N_i(x_1)$, $y_2 \in N_i(x_1) \cap N_i(\bar x)$,
   and $\bar{y} \in Y_i \cap N_i(\bar{x})$. The ball $\delta(y, \rho_i(y))$
   serves $\hat{x}$. Here, $\hat{x}$ happens to be $\bar{x}$. Note that we can get
   from $y$ to $x$ using $5$ edges of the figure, and from $y$ to $\bar{y}$
   using $2$ edges. Therefore, expanding the ball at $y$ by a factor of $6$ will
   cover both $x$ and $\bar{y}$. (In this example, even a factor of $5$
   suffices.) }
\label{fig:factor12}
\end{figure}

Thus,
\[ d(y,x) \leq d(y,\hat{x}) + \left( \sum\limits_{(x',x'') \in \pi[\hat{x},x]} d(x',x'') \right)  \leq 5 \rho_i(y).\]
Here, we denote by $\pi[\hat{x},x]$ the sub-path of $\pi$ from $\hat{x}$ to $x$, and use Inequalities~\ref{ineq:edge-in-Gi} and~\ref{ineq:rhi} in the second step.

Now, $\YN{\bar{x}}{i} \cap Y_i \neq \varnothing$. Let $\bar{y} \in \YN{\bar{x}}{i} \cap Y_i$ be chosen arbitrarily. Clearly, $d(\bar{x},\bar{y}) \leq d(\bar{x}, \yd{i}{\bar{x}}) \leq \rho_i(y).$

We calculate that
\[ d(y,\bar{y}) \leq d(y,\hat{x}) + \left( \sum\limits_{(x',x'') \in \pi[\hat{x},\bar{x}]} d(x',x'') \right) + d(\bar{x},\bar{y}) \leq 6 \rho_i(y).\]

Thus, the ball $\delta(y, 6 \rho_i(y))$ contains both $x$ and $\bar{y} \in Y_i$, completing the proof of \Cref{cl:assert}.

\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
With a more detailed argument, the factor $12^{\alpha}$ can be improved. For instance, a bound of  $11^{\alpha}$ is almost immediate from the proof.
\end{remark}

We can now establish the approxmation guarantee for \Cref{alg:MMC} and our main result.

\begin{theorem}
    \label{thm:result}
    Given point sets $X$ and $Y$ in a metric space $(X \cup Y, d)$ and a
    positive integer $k \leq |Y|$, \Cref{alg:MMC} runs in polynomial
    time and returns a $k$-cover of $X$ with cost at most $2 \cdot {(12 \cdot 9)}^{\alpha}$ times that of an optimal $k$-cover.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
It is evident that the algorithm runs in polynomial time, and we have already noted that it returns a $k$-cover $r$. Let $r'$ be any optimal assignment. By \Cref{lem:lbound}, there exist outer covers $\rho_i$, for $1 \leq i \leq k$, such that
\[\sum\limits_{i = 1}^k  \texttt{cost}(\rho_i) \leq 3^{\alpha} \cdot \texttt{cost}(r').\]

Assume that either (a) $l + 1 \leq i \leq k$ and $Y_i$ is either or $Y_i^p$ or $Y_i^s$, or (b) $k$ is odd, $i = l$, and $Y_i = Y_i^p$. From \Cref{cl:Bi}, we conclude that there is a $1$-cover for $X$ that uses servers $Y_i$ and has cost at
most $12^{\alpha} \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$. Since $\text{Cover}(X,Y_i,\alpha)$, which is invoked in \Cref{alg:MMC}  returns
a $3^{\alpha}$ approximation, the cost of the $1$-cover it returns is at most
$(12 \cdot 3)^{\alpha} \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$.

At most two $1$-covers are computed for each $i$, once with server set $Y_i^s$ and once with server set $Y_i^p$. Thus,

\[
    \texttt{cost}(r)
    \leq 2 \cdot (12 \cdot 3)^{\alpha} \cdot \sum\limits_{i = l}^k \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)
    \leq 2 \cdot (12 \cdot 3)^{\alpha} \cdot \sum\limits_{i = 1}^k \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)
         \leq 2 \cdot {(12 \cdot 9)}^{\alpha} \cdot \texttt{cost}(r').
\]
\end{proof}

\section{The \texorpdfstring{$t$}{t}-MMC Problem}
\label{sec:tMMC}
In this section, we describe a natural generalization of the MMC problem, called the $t$-MMC problem. The input to this problem is similar to the MMC problem -- the two point sets $Y$ (servers) and $X$ (clients) in an arbitrary metric space $(X \cup Y, d)$, a positive integer $k$ that represents the coverage demand of each client, a constant $\alpha$. There is an additional input, an integer $t$, that represents the upper bound on the number servers that can be opened or \emph{used} in the solution.

A \emph{$k$-cover using at most $t$ servers} is a subset $Y' \subseteq Y$ such that $|Y'| \le t$, together with an assignment $r: Y' \to \mathbb{R}^+$ that $k$-covers $X$. Here, the cost of the solution is defined as $\texttt{cost}(r) = \sum_{y \in Y'} (r(y))^\alpha$. Intuitively, the restriction of $t$ is analogous to the cardinality restrictions imposed on the solutions in problems like $t$-center, $t$-median and so on.

Now, the goal of the $t$-MMC problem is to compute a minimum cost $k$-cover using at most $t$ servers. In comparison to the MMC problem, the additional complexity arises from having to decide which $t$ servers to use for $k$-covering $X$. We give an $O(1)$ approximation for this problem. Here, we assume that $k \le |Y|$ and $k \le t$, so that the given instance is feasible.

\subsection{Algorithm}
\label{subsec:tMMC-alg}
The $O(1)$ approximation algorithm for the $t$-MMC problem consists of the following steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We first compute a family $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace = \{Y_k^s, Y_k^p, Y_{k-1}^s, Y_{k-1}^p, \ldots \}$ consisting of $k$ pairwise disjoint subsets of $Y$, using the algorithm of \Cref{lem:spec-full}. For convenience, let us rename this family of servers as $\ensuremath{{\cal{F}}}\xspace = \{V_1, V_2, \cdots, V_k\}$ respectively.
\item For each $1 \le i \le k$, and for each $1 \le t_i \le t$, we compute a $1$-cover of $X$, using at most $t_i$ servers from $V_i$. Here, we use the polynomial time approximation algorithm of Charikar and Panigrahy \cite{CharikarP04} for computing $1$-cover using at most $t_i$ servers. Let us denote the solution returned by their algorithm by $S(V_i, t_i)$.
Even though their algorithm is stated for the case of $\alpha = 1$, it generalizes to any $\alpha \ge 1$. It can be shown that the approximation guarantee of their algorithm is $5^\alpha$.

\item Let us call a $k$-tuple $(t_1, t_2, \ldots, t_k)$ a \emph{valid $k$-tuple} if $1 \le t_i \le t$ for each $i$, and $\sum_{i = 1}^k t_i \le t$.

We compute a valid $k$-tuple $(t_1^*, t_2^*, \ldots, t_k^*)$ that minimizes $\sum_{i = 1}^k \texttt{cost}(S(V_i, t_i))$, over all valid $k$-tuples $(t_1, t_2, \cdots, t_k)$. Such a valid $k$-tuple can be computed in polynomial time using dynamic programming. We return $\bigcup_{i = 1}^k S(V_i, t_i^*)$ as our solution.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{Approximation Guarantee}
\label{subsec:tMMC-approx}
It is easy to see that the algorithm described above runs in polynomial time. Also, for each $1 \le i \le k$, $S(V_i, t_i^*)$ $1$-covers $X$ using disjoint servers. Since the final solution $\bigcup_{i = 1}^k S(V_i, t_i^*)$ obtained using dynamic programming is a valid $k$-tuple,  the algorithm computes a $k$-cover of $X$ that uses at most $t$ servers.

For proving the approximation guarantee, we extract from the optimal solution to the $t$-MMC problem, the outer covers $\rho_i$ for each $1 \le i \le k$ with some special properties. The following is an analogue of \Cref{lem:lbound}, however some new ideas are needed to handle the restriction on the number of servers that can be used in the resultant outer covers. The proof of the following theorem is given in \Cref{subsec:outercover-for-tMMC}.

\begin{restatable}{theorem}{toutercover}
\label{thm:tMMC-outercovers}
Let $r': Y' \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be an assignment that constitutes an optimal solution to the $t$-MMC problem, where $Y' \subseteq Y$ with $|Y'| \le t$. For each $l \le i \le k$, we can find level $i$ outer cover $\rho_i$ that uses $t_i'$ servers, such that
\begin{itemize}
\item If $k$ is even, then\ \vspace{0.1cm}\\
\begin{tabular}{cc}

\textbf{1.} $\sum_{i = l + 1}^k \texttt{cost}(\rho_i) \le 2 \cdot (3 \cdot 3)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(r')$, and\qquad  &\textbf{2. } $\sum_{i = l + 1}^k 2 \cdot t_i' \le t$. \\
\end{tabular}\vspace{0.1cm}

\item If $k$ is odd, then\ \vspace{0.1cm}\\
\begin{tabular}{cc}

\textbf{1.} $\sum_{i = l\ \ }^k \texttt{cost}(\rho_i) \le 2 \cdot (3 \cdot 3)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(r')$, and\qquad &\textbf{2. } $t_l' + \sum_{i = l + 1}^k 2 \cdot t_i' \le t$. \\
\end{tabular}

\end{itemize}
\end{restatable}

Given an outer cover $\rho_i$ that uses at most $t'_i$ servers, the following claim constructs an inexpensive $1$-cover of $X$ using at most $t'_i$ servers from $Y_i$. This will help us bound the cost of the solution returned by the algorithm from \Cref{subsec:tMMC-alg}. This claim strengthens \Cref{cl:cost-lambda}, but the proof generalizes easily.

\begin{claim}
\label{claim:cost-size-lambda}
Assume that either (a) $l + 1 \le i \le k$ and $Y_i$ is either $Y_i^p$ or $Y_i^s$, or (b) $k$ is odd, $i = l$ and $Y_i = Y_i^p$. Let $\rho_i$ be an outer cover of level $i$ using at most $t_i'$ servers from servers from $Y$. Then there is a $1$-cover of $X$ that uses at most $t_i'$ servers from $Y_i$, and has cost at most $12^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$ .
\end{claim}

Now, we establish the approximation guarantee for the algorithm described in \Cref{subsec:tMMC-alg}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:tMMC-main}
Given point sets $X$ and $Y$ is a metric space $(X \cup Y, d)$, and positive integers $k$ and $t$ such that $k \le |Y|$ and $k \le t$, the algorithm described in \Cref{subsec:tMMC-alg} runs in polynomial time, and returns a $k$-cover of $X$ using at most $t$ servers from $Y$, and with cost at most $4 \cdot (540)^\alpha$ times that of an optimal $k$-cover that uses at most $t$ servers from $Y$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We focus on the case where $k$ is even. The case where $k$ is odd is similar, and is therefore omitted.

We have already argued that the algorithm runs in polynomial time, and the solution produced by the algorithm $k$-covers $X$ using at most $t$ servers.

Let $r': Y' \to \mathbb{R}^+$ be any optimal assignment that $k$-covers $X$, where $Y' \subseteq Y$, with $|Y'| \le t$. By \Cref{thm:tMMC-outercovers}, there exist outer covers $\rho_i$ that use $t_i'$ servers such that $\sum_{i = l+1}^k \texttt{cost}(\rho_i) \le 2 \cdot (3 \cdot 3)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(r')$, with $\sum_{i = l+1}^k 2 \cdot t_i' \le t$.

For each of $(Y_i^p, t_i', \rho_i)$ and $(Y_i^s, t_i', \rho_i)$, we use \Cref{claim:cost-size-lambda}, to argue that there exist two $1$-covers from $Y_i^p$ and $Y_i^s$ respectively. These $1$-covers have cost at most $(12)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$ each, and each uses at most $t_i'$ servers. Since the $5^\alpha$ approximation of Charikar and Panigrahy \cite{CharikarP04} is used to get two $1$-covers $S(Y_i^p, t_i')$ and $S(Y_i^s, t_i')$, we have that $\texttt{cost}(S(Y_i^p, t_i')) \le (12 \cdot 5)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$ and $\texttt{cost}(S(Y_i^s, t_i')) \le (12 \cdot 5)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)$.

Note however that $\sum_{i = l+1}^k 2\cdot t_i' \le t$, so $(t_k', t_k', \cdots, t_l', t_l')$ is a valid $k$-tuple, and so the dynamic program of step 3 must have considered the solution
$$\left(\bigcup_{i = l+1}^k S(Y_i^p, t_i')\right) \cup \left(\bigcup_{i = l+1}^k S(Y_i^s, t_i')\right).$$
Since the cost of the solution output by the dynamic program is at most the cost of solution corresponding to this tuple, we have that,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i = 1}^k \texttt{cost}(S(V_i, t_i^*)) &\le \sum_{i = l+1}^k \left(\texttt{cost}(S(Y_i^p, t_i')) + \texttt{cost}(S(Y_i^s, t_i'))\ \right)
\\&\le 2 \cdot (12 \cdot 5)^\alpha \cdot \sum_{i = l+1}^k  \texttt{cost}(\rho_i)
\\&\le 2 \cdot (12 \cdot 5)^\alpha \cdot 2 \cdot 9^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(r') = 4 \cdot (540)^\alpha \cdot \texttt{cost}(r').
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{plainnat}