A 4/3-competitive randomized algorithm for online scheduling of packets with agreeable deadlines

In 2005 Li et al. gave a phi-competitive deterministic online algorithm for scheduling of packets with agreeable deadlines with a very interesting analysis. This is known to be optimal due to a lower bound by Hajek. We claim that the algorithm by Li et al. can be slightly simplified, while retaining its competitive ratio. Then we introduce randomness to the modified algorithm and argue that the competitive ratio against oblivious adversary is at most 4/3. Note that this still leaves a gap between the best known lower bound of 5/4 by Chin et al. for randomised algorithms against oblivious adversary.Comment: 11 pages, 3-4 figures; new version due to STACS submissio

Mechanism design for aggregating energy consumption and quality of service in speed scaling scheduling

We consider a strategic game, where players submit jobs to a machine that executes all jobs in a way that minimizes energy while respecting the given deadlines. The energy consumption is then charged to the players in some way. Each player wants to minimize the sum of that charge and of their job's deadline multiplied by a priority weight. Two charging schemes are studied, the proportional cost share which does not always admit pure Nash equilibria, and the marginal cost share, which does always admit pure Nash equilibria, at the price of overcharging by a constant factor

A ϕ\phi-Competitive Algorithm for Scheduling Packets with Deadlines

In the online packet scheduling problem with deadlines (PacketScheduling, for short), the goal is to schedule transmissions of packets that arrive over time in a network switch and need to be sent across a link. Each packet has a deadline, representing its urgency, and a non-negative weight, that represents its priority. Only one packet can be transmitted in any time slot, so, if the system is overloaded, some packets will inevitably miss their deadlines and be dropped. In this scenario, the natural objective is to compute a transmission schedule that maximizes the total weight of packets which are successfully transmitted. The problem is inherently online, with the scheduling decisions made without the knowledge of future packet arrivals. The central problem concerning PacketScheduling, that has been a subject of intensive study since 2001, is to determine the optimal competitive ratio of online algorithms, namely the worst-case ratio between the optimum total weight of a schedule (computed by an offline algorithm) and the weight of a schedule computed by a (deterministic) online algorithm. We solve this open problem by presenting a $\phi$-competitive online algorithm for PacketScheduling (where $\phi\approx 1.618$ is the golden ratio), matching the previously established lower bound.Comment: Major revision of the analysis and some other parts of the paper. Another revision will follo

The (h,k)(h,k)-Server Problem on Bounded Depth Trees

We study the $k$-server problem in the resource augmentation setting i.e., when the performance of the online algorithm with $k$ servers is compared to the offline optimal solution with $h \leq k$ servers. The problem is very poorly understood beyond uniform metrics. For this special case, the classic $k$-server algorithms are roughly $(1+1/\epsilon)$-competitive when $k=(1+\epsilon) h$, for any $\epsilon >0$. Surprisingly however, no $o(h)$-competitive algorithm is known even for HSTs of depth 2 and even when $k/h$ is arbitrarily large. We obtain several new results for the problem. First we show that the known $k$-server algorithms do not work even on very simple metrics. In particular, the Double Coverage algorithm has competitive ratio $\Omega(h)$ irrespective of the value of $k$, even for depth-2 HSTs. Similarly the Work Function Algorithm, that is believed to be optimal for all metric spaces when $k=h$, has competitive ratio $\Omega(h)$ on depth-3 HSTs even if $k=2h$. Our main result is a new algorithm that is $O(1)$-competitive for constant depth trees, whenever $k =(1+\epsilon )h$ for any $\epsilon > 0$. Finally, we give a general lower bound that any deterministic online algorithm has competitive ratio at least 2.4 even for depth-2 HSTs and when $k/h$ is arbitrarily large. This gives a surprising qualitative separation between uniform metrics and depth-2 HSTs for the $(h,k)$-server problem, and gives the strongest known lower bound for the problem on general metrics.Comment: Appeared in SODA 201

Better Approximation Bounds for the Joint Replenishment Problem

The Joint Replenishment Problem (JRP) deals with optimizing shipments of goods from a supplier to retailers through a shared warehouse. Each shipment involves transporting goods from the supplier to the warehouse, at a fixed cost C, followed by a redistribution of these goods from the warehouse to the retailers that ordered them, where transporting goods to a retailer $\rho$ has a fixed cost $c_\rho$. In addition, retailers incur waiting costs for each order. The objective is to minimize the overall cost of satisfying all orders, namely the sum of all shipping and waiting costs. JRP has been well studied in Operations Research and, more recently, in the area of approximation algorithms. For arbitrary waiting cost functions, the best known approximation ratio is 1.8. This ratio can be reduced to 1.574 for the JRP-D model, where there is no cost for waiting but orders have deadlines. As for hardness results, it is known that the problem is APX-hard and that the natural linear program for JRP has integrality gap at least 1.245. Both results hold even for JRP-D. In the online scenario, the best lower and upper bounds on the competitive ratio are 2.64 and 3, respectively. The lower bound of 2.64 applies even to the restricted version of JRP, denoted JRP-L, where the waiting cost function is linear. We provide several new approximation results for JRP. In the offline case, we give an algorithm with ratio 1.791, breaking the barrier of 1.8. In the online case, we show a lower bound of 2.754 on the competitive ratio for JRP-L (and thus JRP as well), improving the previous bound of 2.64. We also study the online version of JRP-D, for which we prove that the optimal competitive ratio is 2