ISAAC 2000: Algorithms and Computation pp 35-46 | Cite as

A New Competitive Analysis of Randomized Caching

(Extended Abstract)
  • Ching Law
  • Charles E. Leiserson
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1969)

Abstract

We provide new competitive upper bounds on the performance of the memoryless, randomized caching algorithm RAND. Our bounds are expressed in terms of the inherent hit rate α of the sequence of memory references, which is the highest possible hit rate that any algorithm can achieve on the sequence for a cache of a given size. Our results show that RAND is (1-αe-1/α)/(1-α)-competitive on any reference sequence with inherent hit rate α. Since our new competitive bound does not scale up with the size k of the cache, it beats the putative Ω(lg k) lower bound on the competitiveness of randomized caching algorithms.

Keywords

Competitive Ratio Online Algorithm Cache Size Competitive Analysis Replacement Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    D. Achlioptas, M. Chrobak, and J. Noga. Competitive analysis of randomized paging algorithms. In Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. A. Belady. A study of replacement algorithms for virtual storage computers. IBM Systems Journal, 5(2):78–101, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Ben-David and A. Borodin. A new measure for the study of on-line algorithms. Algorithmica, 11:73–91, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Allan Borodin and Ran El-Yaniv. Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Allan Borodin, Sandy Irani, Prabhakar Raghavan, and Baruch Schieber. Competitive paging with locality of reference. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 50(2):244–258, April 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Allan Borodin, Nathan Linial, and Michael E. Saks. An optimal on-line algorithm for metrical task system. Journal of the ACM, 39(4):745–763, October 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Edward G. Coffman, Jr and Peter J. Denning. Operating Systems Theory. Prentice Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    E. Dichterman. Randomized paging algorithms and measures for their performance. Technical Report 692, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel, October 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Fiat, Y. Rabani, and Y. Ravid. Competitive k-server algorithms. In 31st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 454–463, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Amos Fiat and Anna R. Karlin. Randomized and multipointer paging with locality of reference. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 626–634, Las Vegas, Nevada, 29 May-1 June 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Amos Fiat, Richard M. Karp, Michael Luby, Lyle A. McGeoch, Daniel D. Sleator, and Neal E. Young. Competitive paging algorithms. Journal of Algorithms, 12(4):685–699, December 1991.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Michel X. Goemans. Advanced algorithms lecture notes. September 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    E. F. Grove. The harmonic online K-server algorithm is competitive. In Lyle A. McGeoch and Daniel D. Sleator, editors, On-line Algorithms, volume 7 of DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, pages 65–77. AMS/ACM, February 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Sandy Irani, Anna R. Karlin, and Steven Phillips. Strongly competitive algorithms for paging with locality of reference. SIAM Journal on Computing, 25(3):477–497, June 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Anna R. Karlin, Mark S. Manasse, Larry Rudolph, and Daniel Dominic Sleator. Competitive snoopy caching. Algorithmica, 3:77–119, 1988.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H. Papadimitriou. Beyond competitive analysis. In 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 394–400, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 20–22 November 1994. IEEE.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H. Papadimitriou. On the k-server conjecture. Journal of the ACM, 42(5):971–983, September 1995.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H. Papadimitriou. The 2-evader problem. Information Processing Letters, 57(5):249–252, 11 March 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Mark S. Manasse, Lyle A. McGeoch, and Daniel D. Sleator. Competitive algorithms for on-line problems. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 322–333, Chicago, Illinois, 2–4 May 1988.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Lyle A. McGeoch. Algorithms for Two Graph Problems: Computing Maximum Genus Imbeddings and the Two-Server Problem. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Lyle A. McGeoch and Daniel D. Sleator. A strongly competitive randomized paging algorithm. Algorithmica, 6:816–825, 1991.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Prabhakar Raghavan and Marc Snir. Memory versus randomization in on-line algorithms. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 38(6):683–707, November 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Daniel D. Sleator and Robert E. Tarjan. Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Communications of the ACM, 28(2):202–208, February 1985.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Eric Torng. A unified analysis of paging and caching. In 36th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 194–203, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 23–25 October 1995. IEEE.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Neal E. Young. On-line caching as cache size varies. In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 241–250, San Francisco, California, 28–30 January 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Neal E. Young. The k-server dual and loose competitiveness for paging. Algorithmica, 11(6):525–541, June 1994.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Neal E. Young. On-line file caching. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA-98), pages 82–86, New York,January 25–27 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ching Law
    • 1
  • Charles E. Leiserson
    • 1
  1. 1.MIT Laboratory for Computer ScienceCambridge

Personalised recommendations