340 likes | 454 Views
Online Chasing Problems for Regular n-gons. Hiroshi Fujiwara* Kazuo Iwama Kouki Yonezawa. We consider 1-server Problem. Before that… Related Work: k-server problem Fundamental online problem introduced by Manasse, McGeoch, and Sleator [MMS90]. 3. Request 1. Server. 4. Server. Server.
E N D
Online Chasing Problemsfor Regular n-gons Hiroshi Fujiwara* Kazuo Iwama Kouki Yonezawa
We consider 1-server Problem • Before that… • Related Work: k-server problem • Fundamental online problem introduced by Manasse, McGeoch, and Sleator [MMS90]
3 Request 1 Server 4 Server Server 2 Related Work: k-server Problem Minimize: Total travel distance Input: Requests given online Output: How to move servers
Related Work: k-server Problem Minimize: Total travel distance Input: Requests given online Output: How to move servers 3 Request 1 ALG 4 Server 2 OPT (offline)
Related Work: k-server Problem Performance of algorithm: Competitive ratio of ALG is c, if for all request sequences Total travel distance Optimal offline total travel distance
Related Work: k-server Problem • Lower Bound k [MMS90] • Upper Bound 2k-1 achieved by Work Function Algorithm [KP95]
We consider 1-server Problem This is NOT k-server problem with a single server 3 Request 1 4 No choice! 2
1-server Problem Request := Region 3 1 4 Choice of next position! 2
1-server Problem Server may move like this…
Minimize: Total travel distance 3 1 4 ALG 2 1-server Problem Input: Request regions Output: How to chase
OPT Optimal Offline Algorithm To solve optimal offline distance involves convex programming 3 1 4 2
Competitive ratio of ALG is c, if for all request sequences ALG OPT Performance of Algorithm
Application Server = Relay broadcasting car Requests = Events ALG RIVF
Previous Works • Convex region • Existence of competitive online algorithm [FN93] • Lower bound [FN93] • Offline problem (convex programming) is solvable in polynomial time [NN93] • Non-convex set (more difficult) • E.g. CNN problem: Upper bound 879 [SS06]
Previous position , present request region • If , move to such that minimizes • If , do not move Greedy Algorithm (GRD) (i) (ii)
Theorem: Competitive ratio of greedy algorithm for regular n-gons is for odd n and for even n Our Results • 1.41 3.24 2 • (optimal)
Our Results Theorem: Competitive ratio of greedy algorithm for regular n-gons is for odd n and for even n • Tight analysis; Upper bound = Lower bound • Lower bound: Example of bad sequence • Upper bound: Amortized analysis
Lower Bound We found bad input like this: fixed (Case of hexagon) Zoom up sliding
Lower Bound 1 GRD: Always vertical to side 2
Lower Bound Intersection of all requests OPT
Lower Bound 1 3 5 7 GRD/OPT=2 2 4 6 8
Lower Bound even odd
Lower Bound • No worse input • Next we prove upper bound of this value Competitive ratio of GRD
Goal: Prove Basic idea: Compare for each request Upper Bound
Goal: Prove Basic idea: Compare for each request Upper Bound But is impossible to prove; and can happen at the same time
Goal: Prove Basic idea: Compare for each request Upper Bound Therefore, we prove instead To cancel
To prove is enough if Goal: Prove Amortized Analysis • Is called amortized analysis • Common technique for online problems • For example, list accessing [ST85] • is called potential function
To prove is enough if Goal: Prove Amortized Analysis • Then, choose potential function
should decrease, is canceled What is good ? Observation: Server of GRD always goescloser to server of OPT when So, some kind of distance between two servers works as potential function
What is good ? • Euclidean distance does not work • Manhattan distance does not work either • Finally, we found • Extension of Manhattan distance
Sum of ‘s What is good ?
Worst Case for Upper Bound (Case of hexagon)
Upper Bound Generally we have
Competitive ratio of GRD for regular n-gons is for odd n and for even n Conclusion • Improvement for large n • Work Function Algorithm? • Other shapes (esp. non-convex) • With 2 or more servers Future Works