Advertisement

Algorithmica

, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp 969–994 | Cite as

A Comparison of Performance Measures for Online Algorithms

  • Joan Boyar
  • Sandy Irani
  • Kim S. Larsen
Article

Abstract

This paper provides a systematic study of several proposed measures for online algorithms in the context of a specific problem, namely, the two server problem on three colinear points. Even though the problem is simple, it encapsulates a core challenge in online algorithms which is to balance greediness and adaptability. We examine Competitive Analysis, the Max/Max Ratio, the Random Order Ratio, Bijective Analysis and Relative Worst Order Analysis, and determine how these measures compare the Greedy Algorithm, Double Coverage, and Lazy Double Coverage, commonly studied algorithms in the context of server problems. We find that by the Max/Max Ratio and Bijective Analysis, Greedy is the best of the three algorithms. Under the other measures, Double Coverage and Lazy Double Coverage are better, though Relative Worst Order Analysis indicates that Greedy is sometimes better. Only Bijective Analysis and Relative Worst Order Analysis indicate that Lazy Double Coverage is better than Double Coverage. Our results also provide the first proof of optimality of an algorithm under Relative Worst Order Analysis.

Keywords

Online algorithms K-server problem Performance measures 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first and third author were supported in part by the Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences. Part of this work was carried out while these authors were visiting the University of California, Irvine, and the University of Waterloo, Canada. The second author was supported in part by NSF Grants CCR-0514082 and CCF-0916181. The authors would like to thank Christian Kudahl for calling their attention to two oversights in a previous version of this paper, one in the definition of the lazy version of an algorithm, and another in the modified definition of the Random Order Ratio.

References

  1. 1.
    Angelopoulos, S., Dorrigiv, R., López-Ortiz, A.: On the separation and equivalence of paging strategies. In: 18th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 229–237 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balakrishnan, N., Koutras, M.V.: Runs and Scans with Applications. Wiley, Hoboken (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bein, W.W., Iwama, K., Kawahara, J.: Randomized competitive analysis for two-server problems. In: 16th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5193, pp. 161–172. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ben-David, S., Borodin, A.: A new measure for the study of on-line algorithms. Algorithmica 11(1), 73–91 (1994)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borodin, A., El-Yaniv, R.: Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyar, J., Favrholdt, L.M.: The relative worst order ratio for on-line algorithms. ACM Trans. Algorithms 3(2), 22 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyar, J., Favrholdt, L.M., Larsen, K.S.: The relative worst order ratio applied to paging. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73(5), 818–843 (2007)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burr, E.J., Cane, G.: Longest run of consecutive observatons having a specified attribute. Biometrika 48(3/4), 461–465 (1961)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chrobak, M., Karloff, H.J., Payne, T.H., Vishwanathan, S.: New results on server problems. SIAM J Discret. Math. 4(2), 172–181 (1991)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorrigiv, R., López-Ortiz, A.: A survey of performance measures for on-line algorithms. SIGACT News 36(3), 67–81 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dorrigiv, R., López-Ortiz, A., Munro, J.I.: On the relative dominance of paging algorithms. Theor. Comput. Sci. 410(38–40), 3694–3701 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feller, W.: An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. 1, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (1968)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graham, R.L.: Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 45, 1563–1581 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coffman Jr, E.G., Csirik J., Rónyai, L., Zsbán, A.: Random-order bin packing. Discret. Appl. Math. 156(14), 2810–2816 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karlin, A.R., Manasse, M.S., Rudolph, L., Sleator, D.D.: Competitive snoopy caching. Algorithmica 3, 79–119 (1988)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kenyon, C.: Best-fit bin-packing with random order. In: 7th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 359–364 (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manasse, M.S., McGeoch, L.A., Sleator, D.D.: Competitive algorithms for on-line problems. In: 20th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pp. 322–333 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manasse, M.S., McGeoch, L.A., Sleator, D.D.: Competitive algorithms for server problems. J. Algorithms 11(2), 208–230 (1990)zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sleator, D.D., Tarjan, R.E.: Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun. ACM 28(2), 202–208 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations