Optimization Problems Online with Random Demands

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lindsey Bleimes Charlie Garrod Adam Meyerson
Advertisements

Triangle partition problem Jian Li Sep,2005.  Proposed by Redstar in Algorithm board in Fudan BBS.  Motivated by some network design strategy.
Approximations for Min Connected Sensor Cover Ding-Zhu Du University of Texas at Dallas.
Lecture 24 Coping with NPC and Unsolvable problems. When a problem is unsolvable, that's generally very bad news: it means there is no general algorithm.
Approximation, Chance and Networks Lecture Notes BISS 2005, Bertinoro March Alessandro Panconesi University La Sapienza of Rome.
Centrality of Trees for Capacitated k-Center Hyung-Chan An École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne July 29, 2013 Joint work with Aditya Bhaskara & Ola.
Primal-Dual Algorithms for Connected Facility Location Chaitanya SwamyAmit Kumar Cornell University.
Approximation Algorithms for Stochastic Optimization
Combinatorial Algorithms
1 Online and Stochastic Survivable Network Design Ravishankar Krishnaswamy Carnegie Mellon University joint work with Anupam Gupta and R. Ravi.
Online Stochastic Matching Barna Saha Vahid Liaghat.
Algorithms for Max-min Optimization
1 Tree Embeddings for 2-Edge-Connected Network Design Problems Ravishankar Krishnaswamy Carnegie Mellon University joint work with Anupam Gupta and R.
Approximation Algorithms: Combinatorial Approaches Lecture 13: March 2.
1 Approximation Algorithms for Demand- Robust and Stochastic Min-Cut Problems Vineet Goyal Carnegie Mellon University Based on, [Golovin, G, Ravi] (STACS’06)
CPSC 689: Discrete Algorithms for Mobile and Wireless Systems Spring 2009 Prof. Jennifer Welch.
Online Algorithms for Network Design Adam Meyerson UCLA.
Robust Network Design with Exponential Scenarios By: Rohit Khandekar Guy Kortsarz Vahab Mirrokni Mohammad Salavatipour.
1 Vertex Cover Problem Given a graph G=(V, E), find V' ⊆ V such that for each edge (u, v) ∈ E at least one of u and v belongs to V’ and |V’| is minimized.
On Stochastic Minimum Spanning Trees Kedar Dhamdhere Computer Science Department Joint work with: Mohit Singh, R. Ravi (IPCO 05)
Primal-Dual Algorithms for Connected Facility Location Chaitanya SwamyAmit Kumar Cornell University.
Prize Collecting Cuts Daniel Golovin Carnegie Mellon University Lamps of ALADDIN 2005 Joint work with Mohit Singh & Viswanath Nagarajan.
1 Introduction to Approximation Algorithms Lecture 15: Mar 5.
Approximation Algorithms Motivation and Definitions TSP Vertex Cover Scheduling.
A General Approach to Online Network Optimization Problems Seffi Naor Computer Science Dept. Technion Haifa, Israel Joint work: Noga Alon, Yossi Azar,
Priority Models Sashka Davis University of California, San Diego June 1, 2003.
1 Krakow, Jan. 9, 2008 Approximation via Doubling Marek Chrobak University of California, Riverside Joint work with Claire Kenyon-Mathieu.
Packing Element-Disjoint Steiner Trees Mohammad R. Salavatipour Department of Computing Science University of Alberta Joint with Joseph Cheriyan Department.
Minimum Spanning Trees. Subgraph A graph G is a subgraph of graph H if –The vertices of G are a subset of the vertices of H, and –The edges of G are a.
Outline Introduction The hardness result The approximation algorithm.
Minimal Spanning Trees What is a minimal spanning tree (MST) and how to find one.
ICALP'05Stochastic Steiner without a Root1 Stochastic Steiner Trees without a Root Martin Pál Joint work with Anupam Gupta.
Approximation Algorithms for Stochastic Combinatorial Optimization Part I: Multistage problems Anupam Gupta Carnegie Mellon University.
1 Introduction to Approximation Algorithms. 2 NP-completeness Do your best then.
Approximating Minimum Bounded Degree Spanning Tree (MBDST) Mohit Singh and Lap Chi Lau “Approximating Minimum Bounded DegreeApproximating Minimum Bounded.
1 Introduction to Approximation Algorithms. 2 NP-completeness Do your best then.
Randomized Online Algorithm for Minimum Metric Bipartite Matching Adam Meyerson UCLA.
Primal-Dual Algorithms for Connected Facility Location Chaitanya SwamyAmit Kumar Cornell University.
Approximation Algorithms
Improved Approximation Algorithms for the Quality of Service Steiner Tree Problem M. Karpinski Bonn University I. Măndoiu UC San Diego A. Olshevsky GaTech.
1 Wroclaw University, Sept 18, 2007 Approximation via Doubling Marek Chrobak University of California, Riverside Joint work with Claire Kenyon-Mathieu.
A Optimal On-line Algorithm for k Servers on Trees Author : Marek Chrobak Lawrence L. Larmore 報告人:羅正偉.
Steiner Tree Problem Given: A set S of points in the plane = terminals
Approximation Algorithms by bounding the OPT Instructor Neelima Gupta
MCS 312: NP Completeness and Approximation Algorithms Instructor Neelima Gupta
Online Bipartite Matching with Augmentations Presentation by Henry Lin Joint work with Kamalika Chaudhuri, Costis Daskalakis, and Robert Kleinberg.
TU/e Algorithms (2IL15) – Lecture 11 1 Approximation Algorithms.
Steiner trees: Approximation Algorithms
New Characterizations in Turnstile Streams with Applications
Optimization problems such as
Approximating the MST Weight in Sublinear Time
Maximum Matching in the Online Batch-Arrival Model
Haim Kaplan and Uri Zwick
Lecture 18: Uniformity Testing Monotonicity Testing
Algorithms for Routing Node-Disjoint Paths in Grids
Approximation Algorithms for Stochastic Optimization
Dynamic and Online Algorithms for Set Cover
Coverage Approximation Algorithms
Introduction Wireless Ad-Hoc Network
The Byzantine Secretary Problem
NP-Completeness Yin Tat Lee
Metric Methods and Approximation Algorithms
Embedding Metrics into Geometric Spaces
Lecture 6: Counting triangles Dynamic graphs & sampling
Randomized Online Algorithm for Minimum Metric Bipartite Matching
the k-cut problem better approximate and exact algorithms
Clustering.
Zero-Skew Trees Zero-Skew Tree: rooted tree in which all root-to-leaf paths have the same length Used in VLSI clock routing & network multicasting.
Dynamic and Online Algorithms:
Presentation transcript:

Optimization Problems Online with Random Demands Anupam Gupta Carnegie Mellon University

SICOMP, 30(1):300--317, 2000

model ❶: random order arrivals the adversary chooses the set of requests the request sequence is just this set, in random order mitigates some of the hardness arising from the uncertainty [Kenyon (Mathieu) ’96] for bin-packing

maximum matching: random order Adversary chooses bipartite matching instance (hidden from algo) Algo starts off with n blue nodes right/request/red nodes arrive online They arrive in random order Edges added to the matching irrevocably a p b q c r d s e t a b c d e p q r s t

maximum matching: random order The greedy algorithm: match each request to “first” open blue node greedy is 2-competitive in general greedy is (1-1/e)-comp for random order Can we do better? a p b q c r d s e t Karp Vazirani Vazirani ’90 Goel Mehta ‘08 Birnbaum Mathieu ‘08 a b c d e p Devanur Jain Kleinberg ‘11 q r s t

maximum matching: random order The greedy algorithm: match each request to “first” open blue node greedy is 2-competitive in general greedy is (1-1/e)-comp for random order The Ranking algorithm: pick a random ranking on the blue nodes run greedy with this ranking Ranking is 0.673-comp for random order arrivals (but no better than 0.73) a p b q c r d s e t [KVV 90] a b c d e p q r s t Mahdian Yan ‘11 Karande Mehta Tripathi ‘11

e.g.: k-edge-connected networks online Algorithm: When terminal t arrives, find cheapest k edge-disjoint paths connecting t to the set of previously arrived terminals.

e.g.: k-edge-connected networks online Theorem [uses Mader’s splitting-off theorem] Given graph G that k-edge-connects a set of terminals S, can find k edge-disjoint paths P1s, P2s, …, Pks from each terminal t to the rest S – {t} such that every edge in G is used at most twice.  a random terminal in S can connect to others at cost 2 OPT/|S| Condition on first j arrivals, call this S S in random order, so cost of jth request is 2 OPT(S)/j ≤ 2 OPT / j  total expected cost ≤ O( OPT log n )

some other problems For Facility Location Access Network Design Buy-at-Bulk Network Design online algorithms are known for the random-order model that either beat the lower bounds for adversarial order online (Fac.Loc.) or beat the currently known algorithms for adversarial order. E.g., [Bahmani Chowdhury Goel 2011] show how to compute pagerank well using single pass over data, but viewing edges in random order. Work on streaming algorithms uses randomness in the order of the data stream And of course there’s the secretary algorithm (and its many variants) O(1)-comp. Meyerson ‘01 O(# of cables)-comp Meyerson Munagala Plotkin ‘01 sub-polynomial-comp. Charikar Karagiozova ‘05

model ❷: i.i.d. arrivals we are given a probability distribution over single requests each request is an i.i.d. draw from this distribution (clearly, this is a more restricted model than random-order) studied for paging/k-server/scheduling, here focus on different problems

maximum matching: i.i.d. arrivals Algo is given a “template” graph on blue/red nodes In real graph, only blue nodes known right/request/red nodes arrive online Each request (red) node is an independent uniformly random copy of a red template vertex (with replacement) a p b q c r d s e t a b c d e p_3 q_1 r_2 q_4

maximum matching: i.i.d. arrivals Results in this model beat those in the random order model. a p b q c r d s e t random order i.i.d easyness 0.673 0.702 “hardness” 0.823 a b c d e p_3 q_1 r_2 q_4 Feldman Mehta Mirrokni Muthukrishnan ‘09 Bahmani Kapralov ‘10 Manshadi Oveis-Gharan Saberi ‘11

objective function: i.i.d. arrivals Measure of Goodness: Usual measure is competitive ratio We can either consider or: a p b q EA [ cost of algorithm A on ¾ ] OPT(set ¾) max¾ c r d s e t a b c d e p_3 E¾,A [ cost of algorithm A on ¾ ] E¾ [ OPT(set ¾) ] q_1 r_2 q_4 cost of algorithm A on ¾ OPT(set ¾) E¾,A

Steiner tree: background Input: a metric space a root vertex r a subset R of terminals Output: a tree T connecting R to r of minimum length/cost. Facts: NP-hard and APX-hard MST is a 2-approximation cost(MST(R [ r)) ≤ 2 OPT(R) [Byrka et al. STOC ’10] give a 1.39-approximation

the online greedy algorithm [Imase Waxman ’91] in the standard online setting, the greedy algorithm is O(log k) competitive for sequences of length k. and this is tight.

Steiner tree online: i.i.d. arrivals Suppose demands are nodes in V drawn uniformly at random, independently of previous demands. uniformity: not important could have (given) probabilities p1, p2, …, pn independence: important, lower bounds otherwise Measure of goodness: E¾,A [ cost of algorithm A on ¾ ] E¾ [ OPT(set ¾) ] ≤ 4 Assume for this talk: know the length k of the sequence

Augmented greedy Sample k vertices S = {s1, s2, …, sk} independently. [Garg G. Leonardi Sankowski] Sample k vertices S = {s1, s2, …, sk} independently. Build an MST T0 on these vertices S [ root r. When actual demand points xt (for 1 · t · k) arrives, greedily connect xt to the tree Tt-1

Proof for augmented greedy Let X = {x1, x2, …, xk} be the actual demands Claim 1: E[ cost(T0) ] ≤ 2 £ E[ OPT(X) ] Claim 2: E[ cost of k augmentations in Step 3 ] ≤ E[ cost(T0) ] Sample k vertices S = {s1, s2, …, sk} independently. Build an MST T0 on these vertices S [ root r. When actual demand points xt (for 1 · t · k) arrives, greedily connect xt to the tree Tt-1 Proof: E[ OPT(S) ] = E[ OPT(X) ]  Ratio of expectations ≤ 4

Proof for augmented greedy Let X = {x1, x2, …, xk} be the sample Claim 2: ES,X[ augmentation cost ] ≤ ES[ MST(S [ r) ] Claim 2a: ES,X[  x2X d(x, S [ r) ] ≤ ES[ MST(S [ r) ] Claim 2b: ES,x[ d(x, S [ r) ] ≤ (1/k) ES[ MST(S [ r) ] Sample k vertices S = {s1, s2, …, sk} independently. Build an MST T0 on these vertices S [ root r. When actual demand points xt (for 1 · t · k) arrives, greedily connect xt to the tree Tt-1

Proof for augmented greedy Claim 2b: ES,x[ d(x, S [ r) ] ≤ (1/k) ES[ MST(S [ r) ] = E[ distance from one random point to (k random points [ r) ] ≥ (1/k) * k * Ey, S-y[ distance(y, (S-y) [ r) ] ≥ E[ distance from one random point to (k-1 random points [ r) ] ≥ E[ distance from one random point to (k random points [ r) ]

Proof for augmented greedy Let X = {x1, x2, …, xk} be the actual demands Claim 1: E[ cost(T0) ] ≤ 2 £ E[ OPT(X) ] Claim 2: E[ cost of k augmentations in Step 3 ] ≤ E[ cost(T0) ] Sample k vertices S = {s1, s2, …, sk} independently. Build an MST T0 on these vertices S [ root r. When actual demand points xt (for 1 · t · k) arrives, greedily connect xt to the tree Tt-1  Ratio of expectations ≤ 4

directions/questions [Grandoni G. Leonardi Mettienen Sankowski Singh] set cover in i.i.d. model O(log m + log n) instead of O(log m log n) (small) Markov chain generates the requests Koutsoupias & Papadimitriou showed positive results for k-server where requests drawn from small Markov chains. Bad news: For Steiner tree, this is as hard as general adversaries Can something interesting be said for matchings? other problems? how much randomness is “enough” randomness? even the two models discussed above still not completely understood don’t yet know the extent to which random order/i.i.d. models help us for various problems thank you!