1 Finite-State Online Algorithms and Their Automated Competitive Analysis Takashi Horiyama Kazuo Iwama Jun Kawahara Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tight Bounds for Online Class- constrained Packing Hadas Shachnai Bell Labs and The Technion IIT Tami Tamir The Technion IIT.
Advertisements

Primal Dual Combinatorial Algorithms Qihui Zhu May 11, 2009.
Sequences and Mathematical Induction
1 LP Duality Lecture 13: Feb Min-Max Theorems In bipartite graph, Maximum matching = Minimum Vertex Cover In every graph, Maximum Flow = Minimum.
1 SOFSEM 2007 Weighted Nearest Neighbor Algorithms for the Graph Exploration Problem on Cycles Eiji Miyano Kyushu Institute of Technology, Japan Joint.
Approximation Algorithms Chapter 14: Rounding Applied to Set Cover.
Prompt Mechanisms for Online Auctions Speaker: Shahar Dobzinski Joint work with Richard Cole and Lisa Fleischer.
1 Modeling and Optimization of VLSI Interconnect Lecture 9: Multi-net optimization Avinoam Kolodny Konstantin Moiseev.
1 Learning with continuous experts using Drifting Games work with Robert E. Schapire Princeton University work with Robert E. Schapire Princeton University.
Online Scheduling with Known Arrival Times Nicholas G Hall (Ohio State University) Marc E Posner (Ohio State University) Chris N Potts (University of Southampton)
Outline. Theorem For the two processor network, Bit C(Leader) = Bit C(MaxF) = 2[log 2 ((M + 2)/3.5)] and Bit C t (Leader) = Bit C t (MaxF) = 2[log 2 ((M.
Part 3: The Minimax Theorem
2007/3/6 1 Online Chasing Problems for Regular n-gons Hiroshi Fujiwara* Kazuo Iwama Kouki Yonezawa.
Chernoff Bounds, and etc.
The number of edge-disjoint transitive triples in a tournament.
Greedy vs Dynamic Programming Approach
The Growth of Functions
Dealing with NP-Complete Problems
1 Ecole Polytechnque, Nov 7, 2007 Scheduling Unit Jobs to Maximize Throughput Jobs:  all have processing time (length) = 1  release time r j  deadline.
The k-server Problem Study Group: Randomized Algorithm Presented by Ray Lam August 16, 2003.
Randomized Competitive Analysis for Two Server Problems Wolfgang Bein Kazuo Iwama Jun Kawahara.
Integer Programming Difference from linear programming –Variables x i must take on integral values, not real values Lots of interesting problems can be.
Chapter 11: Limitations of Algorithmic Power
Competitive Analysis of Incentive Compatible On-Line Auctions Ron Lavi and Noam Nisan SISL/IST, Cal-Tech Hebrew University.
Online Packet Switching Techniques and algorithms Yossi Azar Tel Aviv University.
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.
Network Formation Games. Netwok Formation Games NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models:
1 10. Joint Moments and Joint Characteristic Functions Following section 6, in this section we shall introduce various parameters to compactly represent.
Asaf Cohen (joint work with Rami Atar) Department of Mathematics University of Michigan Financial Mathematics Seminar University of Michigan March 11,
Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View
Diophantine Approximation and Basis Reduction
Competitive On-Line Admission Control and Routing By: Gabi Kliot Presentation version.
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power. Lower Bounds Lower bound: an estimate on a minimum amount of work needed to solve a given problem Examples:
Bold Stroke January 13, 2003 Advanced Algorithms CS 539/441 OR In Search Of Efficient General Solutions Joe Hoffert
Mehdi Kargar Aijun An York University, Toronto, Canada Discovering Top-k Teams of Experts with/without a Leader in Social Networks.
THE STABILITY BOX IN INTERVAL DATA FOR MINIMIZING THE SUM OF WEIGHTED COMPLETION TIMES Yuri N. Sotskov Natalja G. Egorova United Institute of Informatics.
MS 305 Recitation 11 Output Analysis I
C&O 355 Mathematical Programming Fall 2010 Lecture 4 N. Harvey TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you delete this box.: A A A.
Online Paging Algorithm By: Puneet C. Jain Bhaskar C. Chawda Yashu Gupta Supervisor: Dr. Naveen Garg, Dr. Kavitha Telikepalli.
Trust-Aware Optimal Crowdsourcing With Budget Constraint Xiangyang Liu 1, He He 2, and John S. Baras 1 1 Institute for Systems Research and Department.
1 Lesson 8: Basic Monte Carlo integration We begin the 2 nd phase of our course: Study of general mathematics of MC We begin the 2 nd phase of our course:
Design of Algorithms using Brute Force Approach. Primality Testing (given number is n binary digits)
On a Network Creation Game PoA Seminar Presenting: Oren Gilon Based on an article by Fabrikant et al 1.
Routing In Socially Selfish Delay Tolerant Networks Chan-Myung Kim
Section 2.4. Section Summary Sequences. Examples: Geometric Progression, Arithmetic Progression Recurrence Relations Example: Fibonacci Sequence Summations.
Sequences and Summations Section 2.4. Section Summary Sequences. – Examples: Geometric Progression, Arithmetic Progression Recurrence Relations – Example:
CSE 589 Part VI. Reading Skiena, Sections 5.5 and 6.8 CLR, chapter 37.
Mathematics.
NP-Complete Problems. Running Time v.s. Input Size Concern with problems whose complexity may be described by exponential functions. Tractable problems.
A Optimal On-line Algorithm for k Servers on Trees Author : Marek Chrobak Lawrence L. Larmore 報告人:羅正偉.
Lecture.6. Table of Contents Lp –rounding Dual Fitting LP-Duality.
Non-Preemptive Buffer Management for Latency Sensitive Packets Moran Feldman Technion Seffi Naor Technion.
The bin packing problem. For n objects with sizes s 1, …, s n where 0 < s i ≤1, find the smallest number of bins with capacity one, such that n objects.
Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Auctions with Complement-Free Bidders Speaker: Shahar Dobzinski Joint work with Noam Nisan & Michael Schapira.
1 Online algorithms 叶德仕 2 Online & offline Traditional theoretical analysis is concerned with off-line problems where the complete.
CS 361 – Chapter 10 “Greedy algorithms” It’s a strategy of solving some problems –Need to make a series of choices –Each choice is made to maximize current.
Network Formation Games. NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models: Global Connection Game.
Computational Geometry
Theory of Computational Complexity M1 Takao Inoshita Iwama & Ito Lab Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University.
Network Formation Games. NFGs model distinct ways in which selfish agents might create and evaluate networks We’ll see two models: Global Connection Game.
Chapter 5. Optimal Matchings
Analysis and design of algorithm
The Subset Sum Game Revisited
A new and improved algorithm for online bin packing
3-4: Vocabulary perpendicular bisector distance from a point to a line
Chapter 11 Limitations of Algorithm Power
NP-Complete Problems.
3-4: Vocabulary perpendicular bisector distance from a point to a line
Motion Planning for a Point Robot (1/2)
Presentation transcript:

1 Finite-State Online Algorithms and Their Automated Competitive Analysis Takashi Horiyama Kazuo Iwama Jun Kawahara Graduate School of Informatics, Kyoto University, Japan

2 What is the Automated Analysis? Analysis of algorithms Automated Analysis by a computer. We construct a general framework for automated analysis. Apply to … Online Knapsack Problem the competitive ratio upper bound this method tight from the theoretical point of view, we need comprehensive performance analysis reduce # of cases by professional sense and techniques ordinary approach our approach (explained later)

3 Online Knapsack Problem (OKP) The player has a bin (size: 1.0) Input items: u 1, u 2,… (0 < u i <= 1.0) The player does not know next item. Action : puts it into the bin or discards it Goal: to maximize the content of the bin Online Ex.) 0.6, 0.7, 0.4 are given in this order. If he knows his future inputs …

4 Evaluation Measure The online algorithm is evaluated by the Competitive Ratio (CR). CR = the benefit of Offline the benefit of Online Ex) 0.6, 0.7, 0.4 are given in this order. CR = Online 0.7 If Offline choose … this benefit is 0.7 this benefit is 1 worst case of

Relaxation of the Condition The optimal CR of the 1-bin Online Knapsack Problem (OKP) is [Iwama, Taketomi, 2002] We introduce a buffer bin which allows exchanging items between the two bins. Revocable Online Knapsack Problem (ROKP) relaxation of the condition main binbuffer bin benefit = main bin

6 Our Main Results upper case analysis by hand [ Iwama, Masanishi 2003 ] lower lower upper automated analysis old new result CR OKP upper bound lower bound CR ROKP

7 Brief History of Our Project upper lower old (by hand) CR [ Iwama, Masanishi 2003 ] automated analysis By improving the base algorithm important hint

8 Automated Proof by a Computer This is the theoretical and mathematical proof. two major difficulties –Each input item takes a real value between 0 and 1. –The number of states must be finite (# of items in the bin also). cf) a numerical simulation … generate random values as item sizes, and calculate the CR

9 Past Results Using a Computer The four color problem [Appel and Haken, 1977] Kepler conjecture [Hales 1997] A 7/8-approximation algorithm for MAX 3SAT [Zwick, 2002] A computer is used to enumerate the finite pattern in above problems. our method We deal with infinite items directly. (representing finite states)

10 Proof of the lower bound (1.301) The player X discards… (Case 1) item. (Case 2) item. (Case 3) item. (t: a real root of 4x 3 + 5x 2 – x – 4 = 0) Theorem 1 Let X be any online algorithm for ROKP. Then CR(X) > 1/t – ε = Proof: The adversary inputs 0.608, 0.409,

11 Proof of the lower bound (1.301) 0.680, 0.409, CR= input discard input (Case 1) discards The Adversary inputs (and stops). CR = = adversary (Offline) player X (Online)

12 Proof of the lower bound (1.301) 0.680, 0.409, CR= input discard input CR= input (Case 1) discards (Case 2) discards (Case 3) discards The Adversary inputs CR = = The Adversary inputs CR = = The next input is input

13 Adversary’s Strategy for the lower bound (1.301) CR= , CR= CR= CR= CR= CR= CR= discard input CR= input input input input input , 0.409, input

14 Outline of the Proof lower upper prove by using a computer ROKP Design an online algorithm A. Theorem2 The online algorithm A achieves the CR CR 1. Enumerate all states 2. Prove CR < for each state The process of the proof already proved now proving

15 Designing Online Algorithm A When the item u is given... ・ If room exists for the current item, hold u. ・ If the main bin has benefit >= t, then discard all the other items. ・ Otherwise discard some item(s). t =1 / = 0.77 XSSSXL MM ML LL 1-t1-t 1-t21-t2 t2t2 t 2t MS 2-2t ALG decides discarding item(s) into bins. the classification on the sizes of the items

16 How to Discard items If there are two or more items in the same class, the player discards one of them. ex) LL, LL, MM --> discard LL If there are two items in SS and an item in LL, SS + SS discard LL. SS + SS >= LL for all combinations --> discard SS. Otherwise (exception), –MS, ML, LL --> discard ML. –MM, ML, LL --> discard ML.

17 Proof of the upper bound State 0 SS is given SS State 1 MS is given MS State 2 … LL is given … LL State 3 2. Prove CR < for each state. 1. Enumerate all states (making state diagram). SS State 4 SS CR < …

18 1. Enumerate all states. empty SSMSMMMLLLSS, SSSS, MSSS, MM MS SS MM END STATE ML LL SS, LL ? t ≦ SS + ML ≦ 1 SS MS MM ML LL

19 Can SS and LL be held in the same bin? case by case SS LL SS LL SS + LL <= 1SS + LL > 1 can hold the twocannot other case division SS + MS < t SS + MS >= t SS : 0.23 ~ 0.41 L L : 0.59 ~ 0.77

20 Can SS and LL be held in the same bin? SS 1 State i SS 1 State j LL 1 LL 1 is given, and SS 1 + LL 1 ≦ 1 LL 1 is given, and SS 1 + LL 1 > 1 SS 1 State k LL 1 SS 1 + LL 1 ≦ 1 SS 1 + LL 1 > 1 necessary to memorize as ‘condition’ END_STATE

21 If items are discarded,… empty LLSS, LL … SS … SS, LL LL LL H ALG selects discarding item(s) among SS, LL, LL. … … necessary to memorize as ‘history’ LL

22 Why states are finite? state : current items, history, and condition “Current items” are finite clearly (XS can be ignored). “History” is finite. Because we need not memorize more number. For example, the player can put at most two items in MS into one bin. We memorize “MS + H2 ” which means “MS × two or more”. t =1 / = 0.77 XSSSXL MM ML LL 1-t1-t 1-t21-t2 t2t2 t 2t MS 2-2t

23 Why states are finite? state : current items, history, and condition “Current items” are finite clearly. “History” is finite. Because we need not to memorize more number. “Condition” is also finite. Because the form of the inequality is given below. t =1 / = 0.77 XSSSXL MM ML LL 1-t1-t 1-t21-t2 t2t2 t 2t MS 2-2t ○ + ○ ≦ 1○ + ○ < t○ ≦ ○ ○ + ○ > 1 ○ + ○ ≧ t

24 Generated the State Diagram generated by the Java Program our state diagram has 276 states.

25 Outline of the Proof lower upper prove by using a computer ROKP Design online algorithm A. Theorem2 The online algorithm A achieves the CR CR 1. Enumerate all states 2. Prove CR < for each state The process of the proof already proved now proving

26 the proof of CR<1.301 (1) CR = the best possible sum of the items in the bin the best possible sum of the items in the history for checking CR < αset up to inequalities the benefit of Offline the benefit of Online (α = 1.301)

27 ∀ the combination G in the history, ∃ the combination A in the bin, and is satisfied. the proof of CR<1.301 (2) ∀ the combination G in the history, ∀ the combination A in the bin, and (sum of items in G) ≧ α× (sum of items in A) is satisfied. converse of the The summation of items in G The summation of items in A < α< α is never satisfied

28 the proof of CR<1.301 (3) Ex) state : current SS 1, SS 2, LL 1, history SS H 1, condition SS 1 + LL 1 > 1, SS H 1 + LL 1 > 1,… We suppose G = {SS 2,SS H 1 } as the comb. in history. possible comb. of Online is {SS 1 },{SS 2 },{SS 1,SS 2 },{LL 1 }. SS 2 + SS H 1 ≧ α × (SS 1 ) SS 2 + SS H 1 ≧ α × (SS 2 ) SS 2 + SS H 1 ≧ α × (SS 1 + SS 2 ) SS 2 + SS H 1 ≧ α × (LL 1 ) further, the range of class 1-t < SS 1 ≦ 1-t 2 1-t < SS 2 ≦ 1-t 2 1-t < SS H 1 ≦ 1-t 2 t 2 < LL 1 ≦ t inequalities of the condition SS 1 + LL 1 > 1 SS H 1 + LL 1 > 1 … Our purpose is to prove these inequalities are never satisfied. We prove this for all comb. in history.

29 t = -5/12 + 1/12( Sqrt[10293])^(1/3) + 1/12( Sqrt[10293])^(1/3) α = 1 / t Developer`InequalityInstance[ {a (SS1) <= SS2 + Ll1,a (SS2) <= SS2 + Ll1,a (SS1 + SS2) <= SS2 + Ll1,a (Ll1) <= SS2 + Ll1, SS1 + SS2 1, SS1 + Ll1>1, SS1 + Ll2>1, SS2 + Ll1>1, SS2 + Ll2>1, SS3 + Ll1>1, SS3 + Ll2>1, Ll1 Ll2, …continue -t + 1 < SS1 <= -t^2 + 1, -t + 1 < SS2 <= -t^2 + 1, -t + 1 < SS3 <= -t^2 + 1, t^2 < Ll1 <= t, t^2 < Ll2 <= t }, {SS1, SS2, SS3, Ll1, Ll2} ] We check the existence of the solutions of the inequalities by Mathematica. There are 1715 cases.

30 Results and Conclusion Generate state diagram: at less than 10 seconds by Athlon XP Our state diagram has 276 states. checking CR < 1.301: 1715 sets of inequalities. solved by Mathematica at 30 minutes. We prove CR < for all states. Are there any application which can use this method?