In this paper, we address the selfish bin covering problem, which is greatly related both to the bin covering problem, and to the weighted majority game. What we are mainly concerned with is how much the lack of central coordination harms social welfare. Besides the standard PoA and PoS, which are based on Nash equilibrium, we also take into account the strong Nash equilibrium, and several new equilibrium concepts. For each equilibrium concept, the corresponding PoA and PoS are given, and the problems of computing an arbitrary equilibrium, as well as approximating the best one, are also considered.
Selfish bin packing (SBP for short), which combines the idea of decentralization into the classic bin packing problem, has a great analogy to SBC. In SBP, there are also @math items, each of which has a size and is controlled by a selfish agent, and sufficiently many bins with identical capacities @math . The difference is that the total size of items that are packed into a bin should not exceed @math , and every nonempty bin incurs a cost of 1, which is shared among its members proportional to their sizes. This model is introduced by Bil o ( @cite_3 ). The exact @math is still unknown up to now, and the current best lower bound and upper bound are 1.6416 (by Epstein and Kleiman ( @cite_18 ), Yu and Zhang ( @cite_21 ), independently) and 1.6428 (by Epstein and Kleiman ( @cite_18 )), respectively, with a narrow gap to cover. Epstein and Kleiman also show that @math , and @math . Yu and Zhang also show that computing an NE can be done in @math time.
@cite_18 @cite_21 @cite_3
2963083784 1975625792 2964205596 2011949460
We revisit the classic online bin packing problem studied in the half-century. In this problem, items of positive sizes no larger than 1 are presented one by one to be packed into subsets called bins of total sizes no larger than 1, such that every item is assigned to a bin before the next item is presented. We use online partitioning of items into classes based on sizes, as in previous work, but we also apply a new method where items of one class can be packed into more than two types of bins, where a bin type is defined according to the number of such items grouped together. Additionally, we allow the smallest class of items to be packed in multiple kinds of bins, and not only into their own bins. We combine this with the approach of packing of sufficiently big items according to their exact sizes. Finally, we simplify the analysis of such algorithms, allowing the analysis to be based on the most standard weight functions. This simplified analysis allows us to study the algorithm which we defined based on all these ideas. This leads us to the design and analysis of the first algorithm of asymptotic competitive ratio strictly below 1.58, specifically, we break this barrier by providing an algorithm AH (Advanced Harmonic) whose asymptotic competitive ratio does not exceed 1.57829. Our main contribution is the introduction of the simple analysis based on weight function to analyze the state of the art online algorithms for the classic online bin packing problem. The previously used analytic tool named weight system was too complicated for the community in this area to adjust it for other problems and other algorithmic tools that are needed in order to improve the current best algorithms. We show that the weight system based analysis is not needed for the analysis of the current algorithms for the classic online bin packing problem. The importance of a simple analysis is demonstrated by analyzing several new features together with all existing techniques, and by proving a better competitive ratio than the previously best one. Bin covering takes as input a list of items with sizes in (0, 1) and places them into bins of unit demand so as to maximize the number of bins whose demand is satisfied. This is in a sense a dual problem to the classical one-dimensional bin packing problem, but has for many years lagged behind the latter in terms of the quality of the best approximation algorithms. We design algorithms for this problem that close the gap, both in terms of worst- and average-case results. We present (1) the first asymptotic approximation scheme for the offline version, (2) algorithms that have bounded worst-case behavior for instances with discrete item sizes and expected behavior that is asymptotically optimal for all discrete “perfect-packing distributions” (ones for which optimal packings have sublinear expected waste), and (3) a learning algorithm that has asymptotically optimal expected behavior for all discrete distributions. The algorithms of (2) and (3) are based on the recently-developed online Sum-of-Squares algorithm for bin packing. We also present experimental analysis comparing the algorithms of (2) and suggesting that one of them, the Sum-of-Squares-with-Threshold algorithm, performs quite well even for discrete distributions that do not have the perfect-packing property. For bin packing, the input consists of n items with sizes s1,...,sn ∈ [0,1] which have to be assigned to a minimum number of bins of size 1. Recently, the second author gave an LP-based polynomial time algorithm that employed techniques from discrepancy theory to find a solution using at most OPT + O(logOPT·loglogOPT) bins. In this paper, we build on the techniques of Rothvoss to present an approximation algorithm that has an additive gap of only O(logOPT) bins. This gap matches certain combinatorial lower bounds, and any further improvement would have to use more algebraic structure. In this paper, we consider the variable sized bin packing problem where the objective is to minimize the total cost of used bins when the cost of unit size of each bin does not increase as the bin size increases. Two greedy algorithms are described, and analyzed in three special cases: (a) the sizes of items and bins are divisible, respectively, (b) only the sizes of bins are divisible, and (c) the sizes of bins are not divisible. Here, we say that a list of numbers a1,a2,…,am are divisible when aj exactly divides aj−1, for each 1<j⩽m. In the case of (a), the algorithms give optimal solutions, and in the case of (b), each algorithm gives a solution whose value is less than 119C(B*)+4119, where C(B*) is the optimal value. In the case of (c), each algorithm gives a solution whose value is less than 32C(B*)+1.