DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2107.10777V6 [Cs.DS] 19 Aug 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2107.10777V6 [Cs.DS] 19 Aug 2021 Randomized Online Algorithms for Adwords Vijay V. Vazirani*1 1University of California, Irvine Abstract The general adwords problem has remained largely unresolved. We define a subcase called k-TYPICAL, k ∈ Z+, as follows: the total budget of all the bidders is sufficient to buy k bids for each bidder. This seems a reasonable assumption for a “typical” instance, at least for moderate values of k. We give a randomized online algorithm, achieving a competitive ratio 1 1 of 1 − e − k , for this problem. Another subcase, when bids are small compared to budgets, has been of considerable practical significance in ad auctions [MSVV07]. For this case, we give an optimal randomized 1 online algorithm, achieving a competitive ratio of 1 − e . Previous algorithms for this case were based on LP-duality; the impact of our new approach remains to be seen. The key to these results is a simplification of the proof for RANKING, the optimal algo- rithm for online bipartite matching, given in [KVV90]. Our algorithms for adwords can be seen as natural extensions of RANKING. arXiv:2107.10777v9 [cs.DS] 19 Sep 2021 *Supported in part by NSF grant CCF-1815901. 1 1 Introduction The adwords problem captures a key computational issue that arises in the context of ad auctions, for instance in Google’s AdWords marketplace. Informally, this problem involves matching key- word queries, as they arrive online, to advertisers having budget limits. For formal statements of problems studied in this paper, see Section 2; for the sake of brevity, they will not be repeated in this section. For its small bids case, called SMALL in this paper, an optimal algorithm achieving 1 a competitive ratio of 1 − e was first given in [MSVV07]; for the impact of this result in the marketplace, see 1.1. However, the general adwords problem (GENERAL) has remained largely unresolved; see below for marginal progress made recently. We define a special case of GENERAL, called adwords under typical bidders, k-TYPICAL, k ∈ Z+, as follows: the total budget of all bidders is sufficient to buy k bids for each bidder. Observe that our definition is less restrictive than requiring that the budget of each bidder is sufficient to buy k bids. Even the latter seems a reasonable assumption for a “typical” bidder1, at least for moderate values of k. We give a randomized online algorithm achieving a competitive ratio of 1 1 1 1 − e − k for this problem. For example, our ratio is 0.9 − e = 0.5321 for 10-TYPICAL and 0.99 − 1 = 0.6221 for 100-TYPICAL. e The online bipartite matching (OBM) problem is a special case of GENERAL in which each bidder has a budget of $1 and the bids are 0/1. This problem has been of much consequence to theory and practice, see Sections 1.1 and 1.2. For OBM, a simple optimal randomized online algorithm, 1 called RANKING, was given in [KVV90]. Its competitive ratio is 1 − e and [KVV90] showed that no randomized online algorithm can achieve a better ratio than 1 − 1 + o(1); clearly, this e upper bound applies to GENERAL as well. The analysis of RANKING given in [KVV90] was considered “extremely difficult”. Over the years, several researchers contributed valuable ideas to simplifying its proof; indeed, our work would not have been possible without these ideas, see details in Section 1.2. Our paper starts by further simplifying the analysis, arriving at a proof that is suitable for a textbook2. Our simplification involves two main ideas, which are described in Section 1.3. These ideas turned out to be sufficiently powerful to give natural extensions of RANKING and its analysis to the following special cases of GENERAL, while still retaining its simplicity: k-TYPICAL and SMALL. Similar to the previous online algorithms for SMALL [MSVV07, BJN07], our algorithm is also op- 1 timal, with a competitive ratio of 1 − e . The difference lies in that the previous algorithms were obtained by viewing SMALL as a special case of b-matching, for which an optimal (deterministic) algorithm, called BALANCE, was given in [KP00]. In turn, the algorithms of [MSVV07, BJN07] can we viewed as extensions of BALANCE; both are LP-duality-based and are deterministic, see Section 1.2 for further details. In contrast, our algorithm for SMALL builds directly on RANKING and is randomized. It is more elementary than the previous algorithms — the effective bid of each bidder j for a query wj−1 is simply its bid multiplied by its price pj = e , where wj, called the rank of j, is picked at 1It is highly unlikely that an advertiser would want to buy only two or three queries in a day, since that may not result in the sale of even one item. Furthermore, our definition allows such bidders, as long as the average is fine. 2For a textbook-style exposition, see [EIV22]. 2 random from [0, 1]. Our new approach to SMALL is expected to provide new insights into this important problem. Will it also lead to new applications? That remains to be seen. For GENERAL, the greedy algorithm, which matches each query to the highest bidder, achieves a competitive ratio of 1/2. Until recently, that was the best possible. In [HZZ20] a marginally improved algorithm, with a ratio of 0.5016, was given. It is important to point out that this 60- page paper was a tour-de-force, drawing on a diverse collection of ideas — a testament to the difficulty of this problem. Part of the difficulty of GENERAL arises from an inherent structural issue, see Section 1.4. It turns out that these difficulties do not blend well with our proof technique, and as a result, the revenue generated by our algorithm needs to consist of real as well as “fake” money. Consequently, we are unable to ascertain the competitive ratio of our algorithm for GENERAL. However, for k- TYPICAL and SMALL, we manage to bound the fake money used, thereby giving the competitive ratio results mentioned above. Remark 1. The objective of all adwords problems studied in this paper is to maximize the total revenue accrued by the online algorithm. In economics, such a solution is referred to as efficient, since the amount bid by an advertiser is indicative of how useful the query is to it, and hence to the economy. 1.1 Significance and Practical Impact Google’s AdWords marketplace generates multi-billion dollar revenues annually and the current annual worldwide spending on digital advertising is almost half a trillion dollars. These revenues of Google and other Internet services companies enable them to offer crucial services, such as search, email, videos, news, apps, maps etc. for free – services that have virtually transformed our lives. We note that SMALL is the most relevant case of adwords for the search ads marketplace. A remarkable feature of Google, and other search engines, is the speed with which they are able to show search results, often in milliseconds. In order to show ads at the same speed, together with search results, the solution for SMALL needed to be minimalistic in its use of computing power, memory and communication. The online algorithm of [MSVV07] satisfied these criteria and therefore had a substantial impact in this marketplace. Furthermore, the idea underlying their algorithm was extracted into a simple heuristic, called bid scaling, which uses even less computation and is widely used by search engine companies today. Our randomized algorithm for SMALL is equally minimalistic as mentioned above. It will be useful to view the AdWords marketplace in the context of a bigger revolution, namely the advent of the Internet and mobile computing, and the consequent resurgence of the area of matching-based market design. The birth of this area goes back to the seminal 1962 paper of Gale and Shapley on stable matching [GS62]. Over the decades, this area became known for its highly successful applications, having economic as well as sociological impact. These included matching medical interns to hospitals, students to schools in large cities, and kidney exchange. 3 The resurgence led to a host of highly innovative and impactful applications. Besides the Ad- Words marketplace, which matches queries to advertisers, these include Uber, matching drivers to riders; Upwork, matching employers to workers; and Tinder, matching people to each other, see [Ins19] for more details. A successful launch of such markets calls for economic and game-theoretic insights, together with algorithmic ideas. The Gale-Shapley deferred acceptance algorithm and its follow-up works provided the algorithmic backbone for the “first life” of matching-based market design. The algorithm RANKING has become the paradigm-setting algorithmic idea in the “second life” of this area. Interestingly enough, this result was obtained in the pre-Internet days, over thirty years ago. 1.2 Related Works We start by describing simplifications3 to the proof of RANKING for OBM. The first simplifica- tions, in [GM08, BM08], got the ball rolling, setting the stage for the substantial simplification given in [DJK13], using a randomized primal-dual approach. [DJK13] introduced the idea of splitting the contribution of each matched edge into primal and dual contributions and lower- bounding each part separately. Their method for defining prices pj of goods, using randomiza- tion, was used by subsequent papers, including this one4. Interestingly enough, the next simplification involved removing the scaffolding of LP-duality and casting the proof in purely probabilistic terms5, using notions from economics to split the contribution of each matched edge into the contributions of the buyer and the seller. This elegant analysis was given by [EFFS21]. We note that when we move to generalizations of OBM, even this economic interpretation needs to be dropped, see Remark 15.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Expander Flows, Geometric Embeddings and Graph Partitioning
    Expander Flows, Geometric Embeddings and Graph Partitioning SANJEEV ARORA Princeton University SATISH RAO and UMESH VAZIRANI UC Berkeley We give a O(√log n)-approximation algorithm for the sparsest cut, edge expansion, balanced separator,andgraph conductance problems. This improves the O(log n)-approximation of Leighton and Rao (1988). We use a well-known semidefinite relaxation with triangle inequality constraints. Central to our analysis is a geometric theorem about projections of point sets in d, whose proof makes essential use of a phenomenon called measure concentration. We also describe an interesting and natural “approximate certificate” for a graph’s expansion, which involves embedding an n-node expander in it with appropriate dilation and congestion. We call this an expander flow. Categories and Subject Descriptors: F.2.2 [Theory of Computation]: Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity; G.2.2 [Mathematics of Computing]: Discrete Mathematics and Graph Algorithms General Terms: Algorithms,Theory Additional Key Words and Phrases: Graph Partitioning,semidefinite programs,graph separa- tors,multicommodity flows,expansion,expanders 1. INTRODUCTION Partitioning a graph into two (or more) large pieces while minimizing the size of the “interface” between them is a fundamental combinatorial problem. Graph partitions or separators are central objects of study in the theory of Markov chains, geometric embeddings and are a natural algorithmic primitive in numerous settings, including clustering, divide and conquer approaches, PRAM emulation, VLSI layout, and packet routing in distributed networks. Since finding optimal separators is NP-hard, one is forced to settle for approximation algorithms (see Shmoys [1995]). Here we give new approximation algorithms for some of the important problems in this class.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Computing : a Gentle Introduction / Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak
    QUANTUM COMPUTING A Gentle Introduction Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England ©2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. For information about special quantity discounts, please email [email protected] This book was set in Syntax and Times Roman by Westchester Book Group. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Rieffel, Eleanor, 1965– Quantum computing : a gentle introduction / Eleanor Rieffel and Wolfgang Polak. p. cm.—(Scientific and engineering computation) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-01506-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Quantum computers. 2. Quantum theory. I. Polak, Wolfgang, 1950– II. Title. QA76.889.R54 2011 004.1—dc22 2010022682 10987654321 Contents Preface xi 1 Introduction 1 I QUANTUM BUILDING BLOCKS 7 2 Single-Qubit Quantum Systems 9 2.1 The Quantum Mechanics of Photon Polarization 9 2.1.1 A Simple Experiment 10 2.1.2 A Quantum Explanation 11 2.2 Single Quantum Bits 13 2.3 Single-Qubit Measurement 16 2.4 A Quantum Key Distribution Protocol 18 2.5 The State Space of a Single-Qubit System 21 2.5.1 Relative Phases versus Global Phases 21 2.5.2 Geometric Views of the State Space of a Single Qubit 23 2.5.3 Comments on General Quantum State Spaces
    [Show full text]
  • Adwords in a Panorama
    2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) AdWords in a Panorama Zhiyi Huang Qiankun Zhang Yuhao Zhang Computer Science Computer Science Computer Science The University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong Hong Kong, China Hong Kong, China Hong Kong, China [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract—Three decades ago, Karp, Vazirani, and Vazi- with unit bids and unit budgets. Fifteen years later, rani (STOC 1990) defined the online matching problem Mehta et al. [36] formally formulated it as the AdWords and gave an optimal (1-1/e)-competitive (about 0.632) problem. They introduced an optimal 1− 1 -competitive algorithm. Fifteen years later, Mehta, Saberi, Vazirani, e and Vazirani (FOCS 2005) introduced the first general- algorithm under the small-bid assumption: an adver- ization called AdWords driven by online advertising and tiser’s bid for any impression is much smaller than its obtained the optimal (1-1/e) competitive ratio in the special budget. case of small bids. It has been open ever since whether Subsequently, AdWords has been studied under there is an algorithm for general bids better than the stochastic assumptions. Goel and Mehta [16] showed 0.5-competitive greedy algorithm. This paper presents a 0.5016-competitive algorithm for AdWords, answering this that assuming a random arrival order of the impressions 1− 1 open question on the positive end. The algorithm builds on and small bids, a e competitive ratio can be achieved several ingredients, including a combination of the online using the greedy algorithm: allocate each impression primal dual framework and the configuration linear pro- to the advertiser who would make the largest payment.
    [Show full text]
  • David C. Parkes John A
    David C. Parkes John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 33 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA www.eecs.harvard.edu/~parkes December 2020 Citizenship: USA and UK Date of Birth: July 20, 1973 Education University of Oxford Oxford, U.K. Engineering and Computing Science, M.Eng (first class), 1995 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA Computer and Information Science, Ph.D., 2001 Advisor: Professor Lyle H. Ungar. Thesis: Iterative Combinatorial Auctions: Achieving Economic and Computational Efficiency Appointments George F. Colony Professor of Computer Science, 7/12-present Cambridge, MA Harvard University Co-Director, Data Science Initiative, 3/17-present Cambridge, MA Harvard University Area Dean for Computer Science, 7/13-6/17 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Harvard College Professor, 7/12-6/17 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science, 7/08-6/12 Cambridge, MA Harvard University John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Natural Sciences, 7/05-6/08 Cambridge, MA and Associate Professor of Computer Science Harvard University Assistant Professor of Computer Science, 7/01-6/05 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Lecturer of Operations and Information Management, Spring 2001 Philadelphia, PA The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Research Intern, Summer 2000 Hawthorne, NY IBM T.J.Watson Research Center Research Intern, Summer 1997 Palo Alto, CA Xerox Palo Alto Research Center 1 Other Appointments Member, 2019- Amsterdam, Netherlands Scientific Advisory Committee, CWI Member, 2019- Cambridge, MA Senior Common Room (SCR) of Lowell House Member, 2019- Berlin, Germany Scientific Advisory Board, Max Planck Inst. Human Dev. Co-chair, 9/17- Cambridge, MA FAS Data Science Masters Co-chair, 9/17- Cambridge, MA Harvard Business Analytics Certificate Program Co-director, 9/17- Cambridge, MA Laboratory for Innovation Science, Harvard University Affiliated Faculty, 4/14- Cambridge, MA Institute for Quantitative Social Science International Fellow, 4/14-12/18 Zurich, Switzerland Center Eng.
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Aspects of Connectivity, Allocation and Design Problems
    ALGORITHMIC ASPECTS OF CONNECTIVITY, ALLOCATION AND DESIGN PROBLEMS A Thesis Presented to The Academic Faculty by Deeparnab Chakrabarty In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in Algorithms, Combinatorics, and Optimization College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology August 2008 ALGORITHMIC ASPECTS OF CONNECTIVITY, ALLOCATION AND DESIGN PROBLEMS Approved by: Professor Vijay V. Vazirani, Advisor Professor William Cook College of Computing School of Industrial Systems and Georgia Tech Engineering Georgia Tech Professor Robin Thomas Professor Adam Kalai School of Mathematics College of Computing Georgia Tech Georgia Tech Professor Prasad Tetali Date Approved: 15th May 2008 School of Mathematics Georgia Tech To those who probably will understand the least, but matter the most. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I thank my advisor, Vijay Vazirani, for his constant support, advice and help throughout these five years. I hope I have imbibed an of the infinite energy with which he does research. Thanks Vijay for everything! I thank Prasad Tetali for patiently listening to me ranting about my work and always advising me on how to proceed further. I will surely miss such an ideal sounding board. I thank Robin Thomas, William Cook and Adam Kalai for being on my committee. Thanks Robin for a careful reading of a paper of mine, Prof. Cook for being a careful reader of my thesis, and Adam for the chats and the margaritas! Many thanks to all the professors in Georgia Tech for their excellent lectures, both in and out of classes. The amount I have learnt in these five years is immeasurable.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation Algorithms Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Gmbh Vi Jay V
    Approximation Algorithms Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH Vi jay V. Vazirani Approximation Algorithms ~Springer Vi jay V. Vazirani Georgia Institute of Technology College of Computing 801 Atlantic Avenue Atlanta, GA 30332-0280 USA [email protected] http://www. cc.gatech.edu/fac/Vijay. Vazirani Corrected Second Printing 2003 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Vazirani, Vijay V. Approximation algorithms I Vi jay V. Vazirani. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-642-08469-0 ISBN 978-3-662-04565-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-04565-7 1. Computer algorithms. 2. Mathematical optimization. I. Title. QA76.g.A43 V39 2001 005-1-dc21 ACM Computing Classification (1998): F.1-2, G.l.2, G.l.6, G2-4 AMS Mathematics Classification (2000): 68-01; 68W05, 20, 25, 35,40; 68Q05-17, 25; 68R05, 10; 90-08; 90C05, 08, 10, 22, 27, 35, 46, 47, 59, 90; OSAOS; OSCOS, 12, 20, 38, 40, 45, 69, 70, 85, 90; 11H06; 15A03, 15, 18, 39,48 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broad­ casting, reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH. Violations are liable for prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
    [Show full text]
  • A Satisfiability Algorithm for AC0 961 Russel Impagliazzo, William Matthews and Ramamohan Paturi
    A Satisfiability Algorithm for AC0 Russell Impagliazzo ∗ William Matthews † Ramamohan Paturi † Department of Computer Science and Engineering University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA 92093-0404, USA January 2011 Abstract ing the size of the search space. In contrast, reducing We consider the problem of efficiently enumerating the problems such as planning or model-checking to the spe- satisfying assignments to AC0 circuits. We give a zero- cial cases of cnf Satisfiability or 3-sat can increase the error randomized algorithm which takes an AC0 circuit number of variables dramatically. On the other hand, as input and constructs a set of restrictions which cnf-sat algorithms (especially for small width clauses partitions {0, 1}n so that under each restriction the such as k-cnfs) have both been analyzed theoretically value of the circuit is constant. Let d denote the depth and implemented empirically with astounding success, of the circuit and cn denote the number of gates. This even when this overhead is taken into account. For some algorithm runs in time |C|2n(1−µc,d) where |C| is the domains of structured cnf formulas that arise in many d−1 applications, state-of-the-art SAT-solvers can handle up size of the circuit for µc,d ≥ 1/O[lg c + d lg d] with probability at least 1 − 2−n. to hundreds of thousands of variables and millions of As a result, we get improved exponential time clauses [11]. Meanwhile, very few results are known ei- algorithms for AC0 circuit satisfiability and for counting ther theoretically or empirically about the difficulty of solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximation Algorithms
    Vijay V. Vazirani College of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Copyright c 2001 Approximation Algorithms Springer Berlin Heidelberg NewYork Barcelona Hong Kong London Milan Paris Singapore Tokyo To my parents Preface Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) Most natural optimization problems, including those arising in important application areas, are NP-hard. Therefore, under the widely believed con- jecture that P = NP, their exact solution is prohibitively time consuming. Charting the landscape of approximability of these problems, via polynomial time algorithms, therefore becomes a compelling subject of scientific inquiry in computer science and mathematics. This book presents the theory of ap- proximation algorithms as it stands today. It is reasonable to expect the picture to change with time. The book is divided into three parts. In Part I we cover a combinato- rial algorithms for a number of important problems, using a wide variety of algorithm design techniques. The latter may give Part I a non-cohesive appearance. However, this is to be expected – nature is very rich, and we cannot expect a few tricks to help solve the diverse collection of NP-hard problems. Indeed, in this part, we have purposely refrained from tightly cat- egorizing algorithmic techniques so as not to trivialize matters. Instead, we have attempted to capture, as accurately as possible, the individual character of each problem, and point out connections between problems and algorithms for solving them. In Part II, we present linear programming based algorithms. These are categorized under two fundamental techniques: rounding and the primal– dual schema.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Scientists Optimize Innovative Ad Auction
    From SIAM News, Volume 38, Number 3, April 2005 Computer Scientists Optimize Innovative Ad Auction By Sara Robinson As one of the few Internet companies to make a mathematical idea pay off, Google has long been a darling of the research community. PageRank, the company’s sophisticated algorithm for ranking search results, is still a focus of mathematical research (see “The Ongoing Search for Efficient Web Search Algorithms,” SIAM News, November 2004, http://www.siam.org/siamnews/ 11-04/websearch.pdf). But a clever search algorithm alone did not create a multi-billion-dollar company. The key to Google’s financial success is an innovative auction system for selling the advertisements that appear alongside search results. Google’s auction advertising model, too, is now proving to be a source of interesting mathematical research problems. Recently, four computer scientists—Aranyak Mehta, Amin Saberi, Umesh Vazirani, and Vijay Vazirani—devised an algorithm for optimally ranking advertisements. The new algorithm is a generalization of a well-known theoretical result published 14 years earlier. “We were lucky,” Saberi says. “It’s a cute problem that also has a mathematically interesting answer.” The World’s Biggest Auction House Of the many search sites launched in the high-tech frenzy of the late 1990s, only Google, which went online in 1998, had an effective way of determining the most relevant sites for a given query. Whereas other search engines simply counted frequency and location of keywords, Google found a way to rank all Web sites in order of their popularity as indicated by the link topology of the Web, and used this master ranking list as a guide in determining relevancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Federated Computing Research Conference, FCRC’96, Which Is David Wise, Steering Being Held May 20 - 28, 1996 at the Philadelphia Downtown Marriott
    CRA Workshop on Academic Careers Federated for Women in Computing Science 23rd Annual ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Computing Computer Architecture FCRC ‘96 ACM International Conference on Research Supercomputing ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems 28th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing 11th Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity 15th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing 12th Annual ACM Symposium on Computational Geometry First ACM Workshop on Applied Computational Geometry ACM/UMIACS Workshop on Parallel Algorithms ACM SIGPLAN ‘96 Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation ACM Workshop of Functional Languages in Introductory Computing Philadelphia Skyline SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming 10th ACM Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation Invited Speakers Wm. A. Wulf ACM SIGMETRICS Symposium on Burton Smith Parallel and Distributed Tools Cynthia Dwork 4th Annual ACM/IEEE Workshop on Robin Milner I/O in Parallel and Distributed Systems Randy Katz SIAM Symposium on Networks and Information Management Sponsors ACM CRA IEEE NSF May 20-28, 1996 SIAM Philadelphia, PA FCRC WELCOME Organizing Committee Mary Jane Irwin, Chair Penn State University Steve Mahaney, Vice Chair Rutgers University Alan Berenbaum, Treasurer AT&T Bell Laboratories Frank Friedman, Exhibits Temple University Sampath Kannan, Student Coordinator Univ. of Pennsylvania Welcome to the second Federated Computing Research Conference, FCRC’96, which is David Wise, Steering being held May 20 - 28, 1996 at the Philadelphia downtown Marriott. This second Indiana University FCRC follows the same model of the highly successful first conference, FCRC’93, in Janice Cuny, Careers which nine constituent conferences participated.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Silvio Micali Recipient of the 2012 ACM A.M
    Interview with Silvio Micali Recipient of the 2012 ACM A.M. Turing Award Interviewer: Stephen Ibaraki August 5, 2016 Micali: = Silvio Micali Ibaraki: = Stephen Ibaraki Ibaraki: I’m Stephen Ibaraki. It is August 5th, 2016. We are at MIT in the office with Silvio Micali, who is being interviewed for the ACM Turing Award Winners project. Professor Silvio Micali is the 2012 ACM Turing Award recipient and a world-renowned distinguished researcher and professor at MIT. Thank you, Silvio, for coming in and sharing some of your insights today. Micali: Thank you, Stephen. It’s a real pleasure talking to you. Ibaraki: Now Silvio, we’ve got a lot to talk about, and we’re going to divide it into portions here. I’m going to first ask about your family background and early life. Then we’ll talk about the Turing Award and the research associated with it, followed by your amazing educational journey, which is going to be a lot of fun. Then some broader questions. First of all, starting with your family background, can you give us your family history? And I’m really also interested in your parents’ background as well. Micali: Alright. I was born in Palermo in Sicily. We were a family of four. My parents, Giovanni and Francesca, and my one-and-a-half-year-younger sister Aurea. It was a traditional family by the standard of the time. My father was the only one who worked outside the home. He was a civil law judge and actually retired as a member of Corte Suprema di Cassazione of Italy, and he himself was the son of a lawyer and a judge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Greedy Algorithm Is Not Optimal for On-Line Edge Coloring
    The Greedy Algorithm is not Optimal for On-Line Edge Coloring Amin Saberi and David Wajc Stanford University {saberi, wajc}@stanford.edu Abstract Nearly three decades ago, Bar-Noy, Motwani and Naor showed that no online edge-coloring algorithm can edge color a graph optimally. Indeed, their work, titled “the greedy algorithm is optimal for on-line edge coloring”, shows that the competitive ratio of 2 of the naïve greedy algorithm is best possible online. However, their lower bound required bounded-degree graphs, of maximum degree ∆ = O(log n), which prompted them to conjecture that better bounds are possible for higher-degree graphs. While progress has been made towards resolving this conjecture for restricted inputs and arrivals or for random arrival orders, an answer for fully general adversarial arrivals remained elusive. We resolve this thirty-year-old conjecture in the affirmative, presenting a (1:9 + o(1))- competitive online edge coloring algorithm for general graphs of degree ∆ = !(log n) under vertex arrivals. At the core of our results, and of possible independent interest, is a new online algorithm which rounds a fractional bipartite matching x online under vertex arrivals, guaranteeing that each edge e is matched with probability (1=2 + c) · xe, for a constant c > 0:027. 1 Introduction An edge coloring of a graph is a decomposition of its edge-set into few vertex-disjoint edge-sets (matchings), or colors. Edge coloring a graph of maximum degree ∆ trivially requires at least ∆ colors, and this is tight for bipartite graphs, by the century-old result of König [28]. For general graphs, ∆ colors are not always sufficient (e.g., in odd-length cycles), yet ∆ + 1 colors are always sufficient, by Vizing’s Theorem [35].
    [Show full text]