Stochastic dominance is a technique for evaluating the performance of online algorithms that provides an intuitive, yet powerful stochastic order between the compared algorithms. Accordingly this holds for bijective analysis, which can be interpreted as stochastic dominance assuming the uniform distribution over requests. These techniques have been applied to some online problems, and have provided a clear separation between algorithms whose performance varies significantly in practice. However, there are situations in which they are not readily applicable due to the fact that they stipulate a stringent relation between the compared algorithms. In this paper, we propose remedies for these shortcomings. First, we establish sufficient conditions that allow us to prove the bijective optimality of a certain class of algorithms for a wide range of problems; we demonstrate this approach in the context of some well-studied online problems. Second, to account for situations in which two algorithms are incomparable or there is no clear optimum, we introduce the bijective ratio as a natural extension of (exact) bijective analysis. Our definition readily generalizes to stochastic dominance. This renders the concept of bijective analysis (and that of stochastic dominance) applicable to all online problems, and allows for the incorporation of other useful techniques such as amortized analysis. We demonstrate the applicability of the bijective ratio to one of the fundamental online problems, namely the continuous @math -server problem on metrics such as the line, the circle, and the star. Among other results, we show that the greedy algorithm attains bijective ratios of @math consistently across these metrics. These results confirm extensive previous studies that gave evidence of the efficiency of this algorithm on said metrics in practice, which, however, is not reflected in competitive analysis.
@cite_48 provided a systematic study of several measures for a simple version of the @math -server problem, namely, the two server problem on three colinear points. In particular, they showed that @math is bijectively optimal. Concerning the Max Max ratio, @cite_20 showed that the algorithm is asymptotically optimal up to a factor of 2 among all online algorithms and up to a factor of @math from the optimal offline algorithm.
@cite_48 @cite_20
2017441966 2069255833 2950469527 2097646889
This paper provides a systematic study of several proposed measures for online algorithms in the context of a specific problem, namely, the two server problem on three colinear points. Even though the problem is simple, it encapsulates a core challenge in online algorithms which is to balance greediness and adaptability. We examine Competitive Analysis, the Max Max Ratio, the Random Order Ratio, Bijective Analysis and Relative Worst Order Analysis, and determine how these measures compare the Greedy Algorithm, Double Coverage, and Lazy Double Coverage, commonly studied algorithms in the context of server problems. We find that by the Max Max Ratio and Bijective Analysis, Greedy is the best of the three algorithms. Under the other measures, Double Coverage and Lazy Double Coverage are better, though Relative Worst Order Analysis indicates that Greedy is sometimes better. Only Bijective Analysis and Relative Worst Order Analysis indicate that Lazy Double Coverage is better than Double Coverage. Our results also provide the first proof of optimality of an algorithm under Relative Worst Order Analysis. We prove that the work function algorithm for the k -server problem has a competitive ratio at most 2 k −1. [1988] conjectured that the competitive ratio for the k -server problem is exactly k (it is trivially at least k ); previously the best-known upper bound was exponential in k . Our proof involves three crucial ingredients: A quasiconvexity property of work functions, a duality lemma that uses quasiconvexity to characterize the configuration that achieve maximum increase of the work function, and a potential function that exploits the duality lemma. We consider a system of @math servers inter-connected by some underlying graph topology @math . Tasks arrive at the various servers as independent Poisson processes of rate @math . Each incoming task is irrevocably assigned to whichever server has the smallest number of tasks among the one where it appears and its neighbors in @math . Tasks have unit-mean exponential service times and leave the system upon service completion. The above model has been extensively investigated in the case @math is a clique. Since the servers are exchangeable in that case, the queue length process is quite tractable, and it has been proved that for any @math , the fraction of servers with two or more tasks vanishes in the limit as @math . For an arbitrary graph @math , the lack of exchangeability severely complicates the analysis, and the queue length process tends to be worse than for a clique. Accordingly, a graph @math is said to be @math -optimal or @math -optimal when the occupancy process on @math is equivalent to that on a clique on an @math -scale or @math -scale, respectively. We prove that if @math is an Erd o s-R 'enyi random graph with average degree @math , then it is with high probability @math -optimal and @math -optimal if @math and @math as @math , respectively. This demonstrates that optimality can be maintained at @math -scale and @math -scale while reducing the number of connections by nearly a factor @math and @math compared to a clique, provided the topology is suitably random. It is further shown that if @math contains @math bounded-degree nodes, then it cannot be @math -optimal. In addition, we establish that an arbitrary graph @math is @math -optimal when its minimum degree is @math , and may not be @math -optimal even when its minimum degree is @math for any @math . By the breakthrough work of Hastad [J ACM 48(4) (2001), 798–859], several constraint satisfaction problems are now known to have the following approximation resistance property: Satisfying more clauses than what picking a random assignment would achieve is NP-hard. This is the case for example for Max E3-Sat, Max E3-Lin, and Max E4-Set Splitting. A notable exception to this extreme hardness is constraint satisfaction over two variables (2-CSP); as a corollary of the celebrated Goemans-Williamson algorithm [J ACM 42(6) (1995), 1115–1145], we know that every Boolean 2-CSP has a nontrivial approximation algorithm whose performance ratio is better than that obtained by picking a random assignment to the variables. An intriguing question then is whether this is also the case for 2-CSPs over larger, non-Boolean domains. This question is still open, and is equivalent to whether the generalization of Max 2-SAT to domains of size d, can be approximated to a factor better than (1 − 1 d2). In an attempt to make progress towards this question, in this paper we prove, first, that a slight restriction of this problem, namely, a generalization of linear inequations with two variables per constraint, is not approximation resistant, and, second, that the Not-All-Equal Sat problem over domain size d with three variables per constraint, is approximation resistant, for every d ≥ 3. In the Boolean case, Not-All-Equal Sat with three variables per constraint is equivalent to Max 2-SAT and thus has a nontrivial approximation algorithm; for larger domain sizes, Max 2-SAT can be reduced to Not-All-Equal Sat with three variables per constraint. Our approximation algorithm implies that a wide class of 2-CSPs called regular 2-CSPs can all be approximated beyond their random assignment threshold. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg. 2004