A comparison of performance measures for online algorithms

DOI10.1007/978-3-642-03367-4_11zbMATH Open1319.68256arXiv0806.0983OpenAlexW2017441966MaRDI QIDQ494791FDOQ494791

Authors: Sandy Irani, Kim S. Larsen, Joan Boyar

Publication date: 2 September 2015

Published in: Algorithmica, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

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.

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0983

Recommendations

zbMATH Keywords

online algorithms performance measures \(K\)-server problem

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Online algorithms; streaming algorithms (68W27)

Cites Work

Cited In (25)

This page was built for publication: A comparison of performance measures for online algorithms

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q494791)