Advertisement

Computer Science - Research and Development

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 207–216 | Cite as

Optimizing two-sequence functionals in competitive analysis

  • Elmar LangetepeEmail author
Special Issue Paper
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

The efficiency of an on-line motion planning strategy often is measured by a constant competitive factor C. Competitivity means that the cost of a C-competitive on-line strategy with incomplete information is only C times worse than the optimal offline solution under full information. If a strategy is represented by an infinite sequence X=f 1,f 2,… of steps or values, the problem of finding a strategy with minimal C often results in minimizing functionals F k in X. For example \(F_{k}(f_{1},f_{2},\ldots):=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}f_{i}}{f_{k}}\) represents a functional for the 2-ray search problem. There are two main paradigms for finding an optimal sequence f 1,f 2,… that minimizes F k for all k. Namely, optimality of the exponential function and equality approach.

If the strategy has to be defined by more than one interacting sequence both approaches may fail. In this paper we show that for such more sophisticated situations a combination of the paradigms is a good choice. As an example we consider an extension of the 2-ray search problem that can be formalized by two sequences.

Keywords

Computational geometry On-line navigation Competitive analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alpern S, Gal S (2003) The theory of search games and rendezvous. Kluwer Academic, Norwell zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeza-Yates R, Culberson J, Rawlins G (1993) Searching in the plane. Inf Comput 106:234–252 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck A, Newman DJ (1970) Yet more on the linear search problem. Isr J Math 8:419–429 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beck A, Warren P (1973) The return of the linear search problem. Isr J Math 14(2):169–183 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bellman R (1963) An optimal search problem. SIAM Rev 274(5) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borodin A, El-Yaniv R (1998) Online computation and competitive analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fiat A, Woeginger G (eds) (1998) On-line algorithms: the state of the art. Lecture notes comput sci, vol 1442. Springer, Berlin Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gal S (1974) Minimax solutions for linear search problems. SIAM J Appl Math 27:17–30 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gal S (1980) Search games. Mathematics in science and engineering, vol 149. Academic Press, New York zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gal S, Chazan D (1976) On the optimality of the exponential functions for some minimax problems. SIAM J Appl Math 30:324–348 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Graham RL, Knuth DE, Patashnik O (1994) Concrete mathematics, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hammar M, Nilsson BJ, Schuierer S (1999) Parallel searching on m rays. In: Proc 16th sympos theoret aspects comput sci. Lecture notes comput sci, vol 1563. Springer, Berlin, pp 132–142 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hipke C, Icking C, Klein R, Langetepe E (1999) How to find a point on a line within a fixed distance. Discrete Appl Math 93:67–73 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Icking C, Kamphans T, Klein R, Langetepe E (2002) On the competitive complexity of navigation tasks. In: Bunke H, Christensen HI, Hager GD, Klein R (eds) Sensor based intelligent robots. Lecture notes comput sci, vol 2238. Springer, Berlin, pp 245–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kamphans T, Langetepe E (2005) On optimizing multi-sequence functionals for competitive analysis. In: Abstracts 21st European workshop comput geom, pp 111–114 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kamphans T, Langetepe E (2005) Optimal competitive online ray search with an error-prone robot. In: Proc 4th internat workshop efficient experim algorithms. Lecture notes comput sci, vol 3503. Springer, Berlin, pp 593–596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kao M-Y, Reif JH, Tate SR (1993) Searching in an unknown environment: an optimal randomized algorithm for the cow-path problem. In: Proc 4th ACM-SIAM sympos discrete algorithms, pp 441–447 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langetepe E (2000) Design and analysis of strategies for autonomous systems in motion planning. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, FernUniversität Hagen Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Langetepe E (2010) On the optimality of spiral search. In: SODA 2010: Proc 21st annu ACM-SIAM symp disc algor, pp 1–12 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    López-Ortiz A (1996) On-line target searching in bounded and unbounded domains. PhD thesis, Univ Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    López-Ortiz A, Schuierer S (2001) The ultimate strategy to search on m rays? Theor Comput Sci 261(2):267–295 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    López-Ortiz A, Schuierer S (2004) Online parallel heuristics, processor scheduling, and robot searching under the competitive framework. Theor Comput Sci 310:527–537 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao NSV, Kareti S, Shi W, Iyengar SS (1993) Robot navigation in unknown terrains: introductory survey of non-heuristic algorithms. Technical Report ORNL/TM-12410, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schuierer S (1998) Searching on m bounded rays optimally. Technical Report 112, Institut für Informatik, Universität Freiburg, Germany Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schuierer S (2001) Lower bounds in on-line geometric searching. Comput Geom Theory Appl 18:37–53 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schuierer S (2003) A lower bound for randomized searching on m rays. In: Klein R, Six HW, Wegner L (eds) Computer science in perspective: essays dedicated to Thomas Ottoman. Lecture notes comput sci, vol 2598. Springer, Berlin, pp 264–277 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sleator DD, Tarjan RE (1985) Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun ACM 28:202–208 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science IUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations