Appendix (Paper ID: 1377)∗

1 Proof of Proposition 1 We further observe that Pi−1 − Pi is the set of requests

Proof. For each police team ak , in Step 6, to compute his op- covered by RiG , where Pi−1 − Pi ⊆ Qi and the cost of each
timal patrol plan, the DP must build an array of length κ. This request in Pi−1 − Pi is 1/|Qi |. Since Rj∗ = (P0 − P1 ) ∪
array is used to record two types of values: the optimal patrol (P1 − P2 ) ∪ . . . ∪ (Ph−1 − Ph ), we have
plan pk (τ (ri ), ri , Rk−1 ) at request ri , and the corresponding
h
maximal number of requests completed, Ωk (τ (ri ), ri , Rk−1 ). X X 1
For each array element, to compute the optimal plan, O(κ) c rj = [(ui−1 − ui ) ]
|Qi |
next requests need to be evaluated. Therefore, for each ak , rk ∈Rj∗ i=1

to complete the DP array, the running time of Step 6 is h h ui−1

1
1
O(κ2 ). Since there are at most mh police teams are used
X X X
≤ [(ui−1 − ui ) ]= [ 1 ]
for HSs patrolling, the total running time of Algorithm ?? is i=1
ui−1 i=1 j=ui +1
ui−1
O(mh κ2 ). h ui−1 h ui−1 ui
X X 1
X X 1 X 1

≤ = −
2 Proof of Theorem 1 i=1 j=u +1
j i=1 j=1
j j=1 j
i

Proof. Let g denote the number of police team used by Algo- h

rithm ?? and RG = {R1G , R2G , . . . , RgG } denote the request-
X
= (H(ui−1 ) − H(ui )) = H(u0 ) − H(uh )
s covered the these g teams. Let R∗ = {R1∗ , R2∗ , . . . , Rg∗ } i=1
denote the optimal request assignment. Next, we want to ≤ H(u0 ) ≤ H(T ).
prove |RG |/|R∗ | ≤ H(T ). Assume each request cover
RiG ∈ RG is associated with one unit police team cost, denot- Finally, we have this theorem.
ed by c(RiG ) = 1. Then, the total cost of RG is c(RG ) = g.
Now, we would divide the one unit cost of RiG into each re-
quest it covers, then every request rj ∈ R is associate with a 3 Proof of Proposition 2
cost c(rj ), and Proof. For each police team ak , in Step 4, to compute his
X X X optimal patrol plan, the DP must build a table of T columns
c(rk ) = c(rj ) = |RG | = g. (1) (i.e., T periods) and ml rows (i.e., ml non-hotspots). This
Rj∗ ∈R∗ rk ∈Rk
∗ rj ∈R
table is used to record two types of values: the optimal pa-
P trol plan pk (t, vil , Pk−1 ) for each period t and NHS vil , and
For Eq.(1), if rk ∈Rj∗ c(rk ) ≤ H(T ), we can derive
G
P P ∗
the corresponding optimal PVR, Φk (t, vil , Pk−1 ). For each
|R | = Rj∗ ∈R∗ rk ∈Rj∗ c(rk ) ≤ |R | · H(T ) as well table element, to compute the optimal plan and PVR, O(ml )
as |RG |/|R∗ | ≤ H(T ). Next, we prove rk ∈R∗ c(rk ) ≤ non-hotspots need to be evaluated. Therefore, for each ak , to
P

H(T ), where R∗j is any request cover of the optimal R∗ . complete the DP table, the running time of Step 4 is O(T m2l ).
Since there are nl police teams used for NHS patrol, the total
Let Pi = Rj∗ − (R1G ∪ R2G ∪ . . . RiG ) (i = 1, 2, . . . , h) and running time of Algorithm ?? is O(T nl m2l ).
P0 = Rj∗ , meaning the requests that is covered by Rj∗ but not
by R1G ∪ R2G ∪ . . . RiG . Let ui = |Pi |, we have ui−1 ≥ ui and
u0 ≥ u1 ≥ u2 ≥ . . . ≥ ug = 0. Based on the greedy rule, 4 Proof of Theorem 2
we have that the number of request in set Qi = RG i is larger Proof. Let P opt = hpopt opt opt
1 , p2 , . . . , pnl i be the optimal
the number of request in Pi−1 = Rj∗ −(R1G ∪R2G ∪. . . Ri−1 G
), (OPT) patrol plan for each police team ak (1 ≤ k ≤ nl ) and
where ui−1 ≤ |Qi |. PVRopt is its PVR value. Let P G = hpG G G
1 , p2 , . . . , pnl i be the
∗
We will buy additional pages to include the appendix in the final patrol plan for each ak derived from Algorithm ??, PVRG k is
version if the paper is accepted. its PVR value at the kth iteration and PVRG nl is its final PVR
value. Let Akl = aξ . For PVRG
S
1≤ξ≤k k , we have

PVRG G
k − PVRk−1 = max (PVRG G
ξ − PVRk−1 ) (2)
aξ ∈Al \Ak−1
l

PVRopt − PVRG
k−1
≥ (3)
nl
Eq.(2) holds for that at the kth iteration, police team ak
has the largest team size among the remaining police team-
s Al \ Ak−1
l . Ineq.(3) holds for that at the kth iteration, ak
uses DP to construct the optimal patrol plan pk . Combining
with the following two facts that 1) the total police teams in
Al \ Ak−1
l is bounded by nl , each of the team size is decreas-
ing, and 2) the PVR function satisfies the law of diminish-
ing marginal returns, we have the total optimal marginal PVR
PVRopt − PVRG k−1 contributed by the remaining police team-
k−1
s Al \ Al is at most nl · (PVRG G
k − PVRk−1 ). Combining
with the Lemma 2 and Theorem 3 proposed in [Khuller et
al., 1999] for budgeted maximum coverage problem, we can
achieve this (1 − 1/e)-approximation factor.

5 Proof of Proposition 3
Proof. For each police team ak ∈ Ah used for HS patrol, he
has at most T sub-plans (i.e., |pk | ≤ T (Step 4). For each
sub-plan pwk (1 ≤ w ≤ |pk |), checking whether it is feasible
for grafting needs to consider ml NHSs (Step 5). If pw k is
feasible, computing its optimal NHS grafting plan pw,Gk has
the computational complexity of order O(T ml ). Thus, for
each ak , computing all of his feasible NHS grafting plans
needs O(T ml + T 2 ml ) = O(T 2 ml ) computations. Since
there are nh police teams for HS patrol, the total computation
complexity of Algorithm ?? is O(T 2 nh ml ).

6 Confidential Interval Quantitative Analysis

Table 1 shows the 95% confidential interval on lower bound
accuracy rate, from which we can find that the results are sta-
tistically significant at 95% confidence level.

References
[Khuller et al., 1999] Samir Khuller, Anna Moss, and
Joseph (Seffi) Naor. The budgeted maximum coverage
problem. Information Processing Letters, 70(1):39–45,
1999.
Load #l Random Uniform ASC PASC
2 0.14±0.007 0.11±0.002 0.194±0.008 0.23±0.010
4 0.18±0.009 0.13±0.004 0.193±0.004 0.30±0.010
6 0.22±0.011 0.14±0.005 0.193±0.003 0.35±0.010
8 0.26±0.011 0.14±0.006 0.192±0.003 0.40±0.010
10 0.30±0.011 0.15±0.005 0.192±0.004 0.43±0.013
12 0.33±0.011 0.16±0.007 0.191±0.002 0.46±0.013
14 0.36±0.017 0.16±0.009 0.190±0.003 0.50±0.016
16 0.39±0.017 0.17±0.007 0.189±0.002 0.53±0.014
18 0.42±0.016 0.17±0.008 0.187±0.001 0.56±0.014
10 0.45±0.018 1.170±0.007 0.186±0.001 0.58±0.017

Table 1: The lower bound accuracy.