, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 73–91 | Cite as

A new measure for the study of on-line algorithms

  • S. Ben-David
  • A. Borodin


An accepted measure for the performance of an on-line algorithm is the “competitive ratio“ introduced by Sleator and Tarjan. This measure is well motivated and has led to the development of a mathematical theory for on-line algorithms.

We investigate the behavior of this measure with respect to memory needs and benefits of lookahead and find some counterintuitive features. We present lower bounds on the size of memory devoted to recording the past. It is also observed that the competitive ratio reflects no improvement in the performance of an on-line algorithm due to any (finite) amount of lookahead.

We offer an alternative measure that exhibits a different and, in some respects, more intuitive behavior. In particular, we demonstrate the use of our new measure by analyzing the tradeoff between the amortized cost of on-line algorithms for the paging problem and the amount of lookahead available to them. We also derive on-line algorithms for theK-server problem on any bounded metric space, which, relative to the new measure, are optimal among all on-line algorithms (up to a factor of 2) and are within a factor of 2K from the optimal off-line performance.

Key words

On-line algorithms Competitive analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [B]
    L. A. Belady. A study of replacement algorithms for virtual storage computers.IBM Systems J., 5:78–101, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. [BLS]
    A. Borodin, N. Linial, and M. Saks. An optimal online algorithm for metrical task systems.Proc. 19th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, New York, May 1987, pp. 373–382. Also inJ. Assoc. Comput. Mach., 39:745–763, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. [CKPV]
    M. Chrobak, H. Karloff, T. Payne, and S. Vishwanathan. New results on server problems.Proc. 1st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, San Francisco, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [FRR]
    A. Fiat, Y. Rabani, and Y. Ravid. CompetitiveK server algorithms.Proc. 31st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, St. Louis, MO, Oct. 1990, pp. 454–463.Google Scholar
  5. [G]
    E. Grove. The harmonick-server algorithm is competive.Proc. 23rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, May 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [HS]
    D. S. Hochbaum and D. B. Shmoys. Powers of graphs: a powerful approximation technique for bottleneck problems.Proc. ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1984, pp. 324–333.Google Scholar
  7. [KMRS]
    A. R. Karlin, M. S. Manasse, L. Rudolph, and D. D. Sleator. Competitive snoopy caching.Algorithmica, 3(1):79–119, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [MGSTjackie]
    R. L. Mattison, J. Gecsei, D. R. Slutz, and I. L. Traiger. Evaluation techniques for storage hierarchies.IBM Systems J., 9(2):78–117, 1970.Google Scholar
  9. [MMS1]
    M. S. Manasse, L. A. McGeoch, and D. D. Sleator. Competitive algorithms for on-line problems.Proc. 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, IL1, May 1988, pp. 322–333.Google Scholar
  10. [MMS2]
    M. S. Manasse, L. A. McGeoch, and D. D. Sleator. Competitive algorithms for on-line problems.Journal of Algorithms, 11:208–230, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [MS]
    L. A. McGeoch and D. D. Sleator. A strongly competitive randomized paging algorithm. Technical Report CMU-CS89-122, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1989. Also inAlgorithmica, 6(6):816–825, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [RS]
    P. Raghavan and M. Snir. Memory vs. randomization in on-line algorithms.Proc. 16th ICALP, Italy, July 1989, pp. 687–703. LNCS 372, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [ST]
    D. D. Sleator and R. E. Tarjan. Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules.Comm. ACM, 28(2):202–208, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [Y]
    N. Young. Thek-server dual and loose competitiveness for paging. To appear in Algorithmica.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Ben-David
    • 1
  • A. Borodin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations