Though competitive analysis is often a very good tool for the analysis of online algorithms, sometimes it does not give any insight and sometimes it gives counter-intuitive results. Much work has gone into exploring other performance measures, in particular targeted at what seems to be the core problem with competitive analysis: The comparison of the performance of an online algorithm is made with respect to a too powerful adversary. We consider a new approach to restricting the power of the adversary, by requiring that when judging a given online algorithm, the optimal offline algorithm must perform at least as well as the online algorithm, not just on the entire final request sequence, but also on any prefix of that sequence. This is limiting the adversary’s usual advantage of being able to exploit that it knows the sequence is continuing beyond the current request. Through a collection of online problems, including machine scheduling, bin packing, dual bin packing, and seat reservation, we investigate the significance of this particular offline advantage.
KeywordsOnline algorithms Quality measures Machine scheduling Bin packing
Funding was provided by The Danish Council for Independent Research (Grant No. DFF-1323-00247) and The Villum Foundation (Grant No. VKR023219).
- Angelopoulos, S., Dorrigiv, R., & López-Ortiz, A. (2007). On the separation and equivalence of paging strategies. In 18th ACM–SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA) (pp. 229–237)Google Scholar
- Bansal, N., & Sviridenko, M. (2006). The Santa Claus problem. In 38th annual ACM symposium on the theory of computing (STOC) (pp. 31–40)Google Scholar
- Boyar, J., Favrholdt, L., Mikkelsen, J., & Kudahl, C. (2015). Advice complexity for a class of online problems. In 32nd international symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science (STACS), Leibniz international proceedings in informatics (Vol. 30) (pp. 116–129).Google Scholar
- Boyar, J., & Favrholdt, L. M. (2007). The relative worst order ratio for on-line algorithms. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 3(2), article 22, 24 p.Google Scholar
- Karlin, A. R., Phillips, S. J., & Raghavan, P. (2000). Markov paging. SIAM Journal on Computing, 30(3), 906–922.Google Scholar
- Kenyon, C. (1996). Best-fit bin-packing with random order. In 7th ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA) (pp. 359–364)Google Scholar
- Miyazaki, S., & Okamoto, K. (2010). Improving the competitive ratios of the seat reservation problem. In 6th IFIP TC 1/WG 2.2 international conference on theoretical computer science (IFIP TCS), IFIP advances in information and communication technology (Vol. 323) (pp. 328–339). Springer.Google Scholar
- Raghavan, P. (1992). A statistical adversary for on-line algorithms. In On-line algorithms, Series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science (Vol. 7) (pp. 79–83). American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
- Young, N. (1991). Competitive paging and dual-guided algorithms for weighted caching and matching (thesis). Tech. rep. CS-TR-348-91, Computer Science Department, Princeton University.Google Scholar