Numerous combinatorial optimization problems (knapsack, maximum-weight matching, etc.) can be expressed as : One is given a ground set @math , a collection @math of subsets thereof such that @math , and an objective (profit) function @math . The task is to choose a set @math that maximizes @math . We consider the version (, , both ICALP 2014) of such problems: The profit function @math (and possibly the set of feasible solutions @math ) may change over time. Since in many applications changing the solution is costly, the task becomes to find a sequence of solutions that optimizes the trade-off between good per-time solutions and stable solutions taking into account an additional similarity bonus. As similarity measure for two consecutive solutions, we consider either the size of the intersection of the two solutions or the difference of @math and the Hamming distance between the two characteristic vectors. We study multistage subset maximization problems in the setting, that is, @math (along with possibly @math ) only arrive one by one and, upon such an arrival, the online algorithm has to output the corresponding solution without knowledge of the future. We develop general techniques for online multistage subset maximization and thereby characterize those models (given by the type of data evolution and the type of similarity measure) that admit a constant-competitive online algorithm. When no constant competitive ratio is possible, we employ lookahead to circumvent this issue. When a constant competitive ratio is possible, we provide almost matching lower and upper bounds on the best achievable one.
The Multistage Max-Min Fair Allocation problem has been studied in the offline and the online settings in @cite_12 . This problem corresponds to a multistage variant of the Santa Klaus problem. For the off-line setting, the authors showed that the multistage version of the problem is much harder than the static one. They provided constant factor approximation algorithms for the off-line setting. For the online setting they proposed a constant competitive ratio for SSFS-type evolving instances and they proved that it is not possible to find an online algorithm with bounded competitive ratio for GE-type evolving instances. Finally, they showed that in the 1-lookahead case, where at time step @math we know the instance of time step @math , it is possible to get a constant approximation ratio.
@cite_12
2808191361 2949121341 2593819652 2126143263
We consider the over-time version of the Max-Min Fair Allocation problem. Given a time horizon @math , with at each time t a set of demands and a set of available resources that may change over the time defining instance @math , we seek a sequence of solutions @math that (1) are near-optimal at each time t , and (2) as stable as possible (inducing small modification costs). We focus on the impact of the knowledge of the future on the quality and the stability of the returned solutions by distinguishing three settings: the off-line setting where the whole set of instances through the time horizon is known in advance, the on-line setting where no future instance is known, and the k -lookahead setting where at time t , the instances at times @math are known. We first consider the case without restrictions where the set of resources and the set of agents are the same for all instances and where every resource can be allocated to any agent. For the off-line setting, we show that the over-time version of the problem is much harder than the static one, since it becomes @math -hard even for families of instances for which the static problem is trivial. Then, we provide a @math -approximation algorithm for the off-line setting using as subroutine a ρ-approximation algorithm for the static version. We also give a @math -competitive algorithm for the online setting using also as subroutine a ρ-approximation algorithm for the static version. Furthermore, for the case with restrictions, we show that in the off-line setting it is possible to get a polynomial-time algorithm with the same approximation ratio as in the case without restrictions. For the online setting, we prove that it is not possible to find an online algorithm with bounded competitive ratio. For the 1-lookahead setting however, we give a @math -approximation algorithm using as subroutine a ρ-approximation algorithm for the static version. We study the problem of fair allocation for indivisible goods. We use the the maxmin share paradigm introduced by Budish as a measure for fairness. Procacciafirst (EC'14) were first to investigate this fundamental problem in the additive setting. In contrast to what real-world experiments suggest, they show that a maxmin guarantee (1- @math allocation) is not always possible even when the number of agents is limited to 3. While the existence of an approximation solution (e.g. a @math - @math allocation) is quite straightforward, improving the guarantee becomes subtler for larger constants. Procaccia provide a proof for existence of a @math - @math allocation and leave the question open for better guarantees. Our main contribution is an answer to the above question. We improve the result of ! to a @math factor in the additive setting. The main idea for our @math - @math allocation method is clustering the agents. To this end, we introduce three notions and techniques, namely reducibility, matching allocation, and cycle-envy-freeness, and prove the approximation guarantee of our algorithm via non-trivial applications of these techniques. Our analysis involves coloring and double counting arguments that might be of independent interest. One major shortcoming of the current studies on fair allocation is the additivity assumption on the valuations. We alleviate this by extending our results to the case of submodular, fractionally subadditive, and subadditive settings. More precisely, we give constant approximation guarantees for submodular and XOS agents, and a logarithmic approximation for the case of subadditive agents. Furthermore, we complement our results by providing close upper bounds for each class of valuation functions. Finally, we present algorithms to find such allocations for additive, submodular, and XOS settings in polynomial time. We consider Max-min Share (MmS) fair allocations of indivisible chores (items with negative utilities). We show that allocation of chores and classical allocation of goods (items with positive utilities) have some fundamental connections but also differences which prevent a straightforward application of algorithms for goods in the chores setting and viceversa. We prove that an MmS allocation does not need to exist for chores and computing an MmS allocation - if it exists - is strongly NP-hard. In view of these non-existence and complexity results, we present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm for MmS fairness for chores. We then introduce a new fairness concept called optimal MmS that represents the best possible allocation in terms of MmS that is guaranteed to exist. We use connections to parallel machine scheduling to give (1) a polynomial-time approximation scheme for computing an optimal MmS allocation when the number of agents is fixed and (2) an effective and efficient heuristic with an ex-post worst-case analysis. Max-min fairness is widely used in various areas of networking. In every case where it is used, there is a proof of existence and one or several algorithms for computing it; in most, but not all cases, they are based on the notion of bottlenecks. In spite of this wide applicability, there are still examples, arising in the context of wireless or peer-to-peer networks, where the existing theories do not seem to apply directly. In this paper, we give a unifying treatment of max-min fairness, which encompasses all existing results in a simplifying framework, and extend its applicability to new examples. First, we observe that the existence of max-min fairness is actually a geometric property of the set of feasible allocations. There exist sets on which max-min fairness does not exist, and we describe a large class of sets on which a max-min fair allo cation does exist. This class contains, but is not limited to the compact, convex sets of RN. Second, we give a general purpose centralized algorithm, called Max-min Programming, for computing the max-min fair allocation in all cases where it exists (whether the set of feasible allocations is in our class or not). Its complexity is of the order of N linear programming steps in RN, in the case where the feasible set is defined by linear constraints. We show that, if the set of feasible allocations has the free disposal property, then Max-min Programming reduces to a simpler algorithm, called Water Filling, whose complexity is much lower. Free disposal corresponds to the cases where a bottleneck argument can be made, andWater Filling is the general form of all previously known centralized algorithms for such cases. All our results apply mutatis mutandis to min-max fairness. Our results apply to weighted, unweighted and util-max-min and min-max fairness. Distributed algorithms for the computation of max-min fair allocations are outside the scope of this paper.