[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

On the competitive ratio of evaluating priced functions

Published: 09 June 2011 Publication History

Abstract

Let f be a function on a set of variables V. For each xV, let c(x) be the cost of reading the value of x. An algorithm for evaluating f is a strategy for adaptively identifying and reading a set of variables UV whose values uniquely determine the value of f. We are interested in finding algorithms which minimize the cost incurred to evaluate f in the above sense. Competitive analysis is employed to measure the performance of the algorithms. We address two variants of the above problem. We consider the basic model in which the evaluation algorithm knows the cost c(x), for each xV. We also study a novel model where the costs of the variables are not known in advance and some preemption is allowed in the reading operations. This model has applications, for example, when reading a variable coincides with obtaining the output of a job on a CPU and the cost is the CPU time.
For the model where the costs of the variables are known, we present a polynomial time algorithm with the best possible competitive ratio γcf for each function f that is representable by a threshold tree and for each fixed cost function c(⋅). Remarkably, the best-known result for the same class of functions is a pseudo-polynomial algorithm with competitiveness 2 γcf. Still in the same model, we introduce the Linear Programming Approach (LPA), a framework that allows the design of efficient algorithms for evaluating functions. We show that different implementations of this approach lead in general to the best algorithms known so far—and in many cases to optimal algorithms—for different classes of functions considered before in the literature.
Via the LPA, we are able to determine exactly the optimal extremal competitiveness of monotone Boolean functions. Remarkably, the upper bound which leads to this result, holds for a much broader class of functions, which also includes the whole set of Boolean functions.
We also show how to extend the LPA (together with these results) to the model where the costs of the variables are not known beforehand. In particular, we show how to employ the extended LPA to design a polynomial-time optimal (with respect to competitiveness) algorithm for the class of monotone Boolean functions representable by threshold trees.

References

[1]
Angelov, S., Kunal, K., and McGregor, A. 2008. Sorting and selection with random costs. In Proceedings of the 8th Latin American Symposium on Theoretical Informatics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4957. Springer, 48--59.
[2]
Ausiello, G., Protasi, M., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Gambosi, G., Crescenzi, P., and Kann, V. 1999. Complexity and Approximation: Combinatorial Optimization Problems and Their Approximability Properties. Springer-Verlag.
[3]
Buhrman, H., and de Wolf, R. 2002. Complexity measures and decision tree complexity: A survey. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 288, 1, 21--43.
[4]
Charikar, M., Fagin, R., Guruswami, V., Kleinberg, J. M., Raghavan, P., and Sahai, A. 2002. Query strategies for priced information. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 64, 4, 785--819.
[5]
Cicalese, F., and Laber, E. S. 2005a. A new strategy for querying priced information. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 674--683.
[6]
Cicalese, F., and Laber, E. S. 2005b. An optimal algorithm for querying priced information: Monotone boolean functions and game trees. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3669. Springer, 664--676.
[7]
Cicalese, F., and Laber, E. S. 2006. On the competitive ratio of evaluating priced functions. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM/SIAM, 944--953.
[8]
Graham, R. L., Grötschel, M., and Lovász, L., Eds. 1996. Handbook of Combinatorics. The MIT Press - North-Holland.
[9]
Greiner, R., Hayward, R., Jankowska, M., and Molloy, M. 2006. Finding optimal satisficing strategies for and-or trees. Artif. Intell. 170, 1, 19--58.
[10]
Grötschel, M., Lovász, L., and Schrijver, A. 1981. The ellipsoid method and its consequences in combinatorial optimization. Combinatorica 1, 2, 169--197.
[11]
Gupta, A., and Kumar, A. 2001. Sorting and selection with structured costs. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 416--425.
[12]
Gupta, A., and Kumar, A. 2005. Where's the winner? max-finding and sorting with metric costs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Approximation, Randomization and Combinatorial Optimization (APPROX-RANDOM). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3624. Springer, 74--85.
[13]
Heiman, R., and Wigderson, A. 1991. Randomized vs. deterministic decision tree complexity for read-once Boolean functions. Computat. Complex. 1, 311--329.
[14]
Hellerstein, J. M. 1998. Optimization techniques for queries with expensive methods. ACM Trans. Datab. Syst. 23, 2, 113--157.
[15]
Jayram, T. S., Kumar, R., and Sivakumar, D. 2003. Two applications of information complexity. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 673--682.
[16]
Kannan, S., and Khanna, S. 2003. Selection with monotone comparison cost. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. ACM/SIAM, 10--17.
[17]
Kaplan, H., Kushilevitz, E., and Mansour, Y. 2005. Learning with attribute costs. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, 356--365.
[18]
Khanna, S., and Tan, W. C. 2001. On computing functions with uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. ACM, 171--182.
[19]
Laber, E. S. 2004. A randomized competitive algorithm for evaluating priced and/or trees. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2996. Springer, 501--512.
[20]
Maheshwari, A., and Smid, M. H. M. 2003. A dynamic dictionary for priced information with application. In Proceeding of the 14th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2906. Springer, 16--25.
[21]
Russell, S., and Norvig, P. 1995. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall.
[22]
Saks, M., and Wigderson, A. 1986. Probabilistic Boolean decision trees and the complexity of evaluating game trees. In Proceedings of the 27th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society, 29--38.
[23]
Snir, M. 1985. Lower bounds on probabilistic linear decision trees. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 38, 1, 69--82.
[24]
Tarsi, M. 1983. Optimal search on some game trees. J. ACM 30, 3, 389--396.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)Non-adaptive Stochastic Score Classification and Explainable Halfspace EvaluationInteger Programming and Combinatorial Optimization10.1007/978-3-031-06901-7_21(277-290)Online publication date: 27-May-2022
  • (2021)Query strategies for priced information, revisitedProceedings of the Thirty-Second Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms10.5555/3458064.3458163(1638-1650)Online publication date: 10-Jan-2021
  • (2017)Decision Trees for Function EvaluationAlgorithmica10.1007/s00453-016-0225-979:3(763-796)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of the ACM
Journal of the ACM  Volume 58, Issue 3
May 2011
122 pages
ISSN:0004-5411
EISSN:1557-735X
DOI:10.1145/1970392
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 09 June 2011
Accepted: 01 March 2011
Revised: 01 October 2010
Received: 01 April 2008
Published in JACM Volume 58, Issue 3

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. competitive analysis
  2. function evaluation
  3. monotone Boolean functions
  4. priced information

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 27 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media