Relaxing the Irrevocability Requirement for Online Graph Algorithms

Online graph problems are considered in models where the irrevocability requirement is relaxed. Motivated by practical examples where, for example, there is a cost associated with building a facility and no extra cost associated with doing it later, we consider the Late Accept model, where a request can be accepted at a later point, but any acceptance is irrevocable. Similarly, we also consider a Late Reject model, where an accepted request can later be rejected, but any rejection is irrevocable (this is sometimes called preemption). Finally, we consider the Late Accept/Reject model, where late accepts and rejects are both allowed, but any late reject is irrevocable. For Independent Set, the Late Accept/Reject model is necessary to obtain a constant competitive ratio, but for Vertex Cover the Late Accept model is sufficient and for Minimum Spanning Forest the Late Reject model is sufficient. The Matching problem has a competitive ratio of 2, but in the Late Accept/Reject model, its competitive ratio is 3/2

The Online Simple Knapsack Problem with Reservation and Removability

In the online simple knapsack problem, a knapsack of unit size 1 is given and an algorithm is tasked to fill it using a set of items that are revealed one after another. Each item must be accepted or rejected at the time they are presented, and these decisions are irrevocable. No prior knowledge about the set and sequence of items is given. The goal is then to maximize the sum of the sizes of all packed items compared to an optimal packing of all items of the sequence. In this paper, we combine two existing variants of the problem that each extend the range of possible actions for a newly presented item by a new option. The first is removability, in which an item that was previously packed into the knapsack may be finally discarded at any point. The second is reservations, which allows the algorithm to delay the decision on accepting or rejecting a new item indefinitely for a proportional fee relative to the size of the given item. If both removability and reservations are permitted, we show that the competitive ratio of the online simple knapsack problem rises depending on the relative reservation costs. As soon as any nonzero fee has to be paid for a reservation, no online algorithm can be better than 1.5-competitive. With rising reservation costs, this competitive ratio increases up to the golden ratio (? ? 1.618) that is reached for relative reservation costs of 1-?5/3 ? 0.254. We provide a matching upper and lower bound for relative reservation costs up to this value. From this point onward, the tight bound by Iwama and Taketomi for the removable knapsack problem is the best possible competitive ratio, not using any reservations

Online Budgeted Maximum Coverage

We study the Online Budgeted Maximum Coverage (OBMC) problem. Subsets of a weighted ground set U arrive one by one, where each set has a cost. The online algorithm has to select a collection of sets, under the constraint that their cost is at most a given budget. Upon arrival of a set the algorithm must decide whether to accept or to reject the arriving set, and it may also drop previously accepted sets (preemption). Rejecting or dropping a set is irrevocable. The goal is to maximize the total weight of the elements covered by the sets in the chosen collection. We present a deterministic 4/(1-r)-competitive algorithm for OBMC, where r is the maximum ratio between the cost of a set and the total budget. Building on that algorithm, we then present a randomized O(1)-competitive algorithm for OBMC. On the other hand, we show that the competitive ratio of any deterministic online algorithm is Omega(1/(sqrt{1-r})). We also give a deterministic O(Delta)-competitive algorithm, where Delta is the maximum weight of a set (given that the minimum element weight is 1), and if the total weight of all elements, w(U), is known in advance, we show that a slight modification of that algorithm is O(min{Delta,sqrt{w(U)}})-competitive. A matching lower bound of Omega(min{Delta,sqrt{w(U)}}) is also given. Previous to the present work, only the unit cost version of OBMC was studied under the online setting, giving a 4-competitive algorithm [Saha, Getoor, 2009]. Finally, our results, including the lower bounds, apply to Removable Online Knapsack which is the preemptive version of the Online Knapsack problem

Fully Dynamic Algorithms for Knapsack Problems with Polylogarithmic Update Time

Knapsack problems are among the most fundamental problems in optimization. In the Multiple Knapsack problem, we are given multiple knapsacks with different capacities and items with values and sizes. The task is to find a subset of items of maximum total value that can be packed into the knapsacks without exceeding the capacities. We investigate this problem and special cases thereof in the context of dynamic algorithms and design data structures that efficiently maintain near-optimal knapsack solutions for dynamically changing input. More precisely, we handle the arrival and departure of individual items or knapsacks during the execution of the algorithm with worst-case update time polylogarithmic in the number of items. As the optimal and any approximate solution may change drastically, we maintain implicit solutions and support polylogarithmic time query operations that can return the computed solution value and the packing of any given item. While dynamic algorithms are well-studied in the context of graph problems, there is hardly any work on packing problems (and generally much less on non-graph problems). Motivated by the theoretical interest in knapsack problems and their practical relevance, our work bridges this gap

An Optimal Algorithm for Online Multiple Knapsack

In the online multiple knapsack problem, an algorithm faces a stream of items, and each item has to be either rejected or stored irrevocably in one of n bins (knapsacks) of equal size. The gain of an algorithm is equal to the sum of sizes of accepted items and the goal is to maximize the total gain. So far, for this natural problem, the best solution was the 0.5-competitive algorithm FirstFit (the result holds for any n ? 2). We present the first algorithm that beats this ratio, achieving the competitive ratio of 1/(1+ln(2))-O(1/n) ? 0.5906 - O(1/n). Our algorithm is deterministic and optimal up to lower-order terms, as the upper bound of 1/(1+ln(2)) for randomized solutions was given previously by Cygan et al. [TOCS 2016]

Improved Online Algorithm for Fractional Knapsack in the Random Order Model

The fractional knapsack problem is one of the classical problems in combinatorial optimization, which is well understood in the offline setting. However, the corresponding online setting has been handled only briefly in the theoretical computer science literature so far, although it appears in several applications. Even the previously best known guarantee for the competitive ratio was worse than the best known for the integral problem in the popular random order model. We show that there is an algorithm for the online fractional knapsack problem that admits a competitive ratio of 4.39. Our result significantly improves over the previously best known competitive ratio of 9.37 and surpasses the current best 6.65-competitive algorithm for the integral case. Moreover, our algorithm is deterministic in contrast to the randomized algorithms achieving the results mentioned above

Online Bin Packing with Advice

We consider the online bin packing problem under the advice complexity model where the 'online constraint' is relaxed and an algorithm receives partial information about the future requests. We provide tight upper and lower bounds for the amount of advice an algorithm needs to achieve an optimal packing. We also introduce an algorithm that, when provided with log n + o(log n) bits of advice, achieves a competitive ratio of 3/2 for the general problem. This algorithm is simple and is expected to find real-world applications. We introduce another algorithm that receives 2n + o(n) bits of advice and achieves a competitive ratio of 4/3 + {\epsilon}. Finally, we provide a lower bound argument that implies that advice of linear size is required for an algorithm to achieve a competitive ratio better than 9/8.Comment: 19 pages, 1 figure (2 subfigures

オンラインナップサックと関連する諸問題に対するアルゴリズム論的研究

学位の種別:課程博士University of Tokyo(東京大学