text: For two matroids ( M _1 ) and ( M _2 ) defined on the same ground set E, the online matroid intersection problem is to design an algorithm that constructs a large common independent set in an online fashion. The algorithm is presented with the ground set elements one-by-one in a uniformly random order. At each step, the algorithm must irrevocably decide whether to pick the element, while always maintaining a common independent set. While the natural greedy algorithm—pick an element whenever possible—is half competitive, nothing better was previously known; even for the special case of online bipartite matching in the edge arrival model. We present the first randomized online algorithm that has a ( 1 2 + ) competitive ratio in expectation, where ( >0 ) is a constant. The expectation is over the random order and the coin tosses of the algorithm. As a corollary, we also obtain the first linear time algorithm that beats half competitiveness for offline matroid intersection.
  @cite_28: We consider the online bipartite matching problem in the unknown distribution input model. We show that the Ranking algorithm of [KVV90] achieves a competitive ratio of at least 0.653. This is the first analysis to show an algorithm which breaks the natural 1 - 1 e -barrier' in the unknown distribution model (our analysis in fact works in the stricter, random order model) and answers an open question in [GM08]. We also describe a family of graphs on which Ranking does no better than 0.727 in the random order model. Finally, we show that for graphs which have k > 1 disjoint perfect matchings, Ranking achieves a competitive ratio of at least 1 - √(1 k - 1 k2 + 1 n) -- in particular Ranking achieves a factor of 1 - o(1) for graphs with ω(1) disjoint perfect matchings.
  @cite_26: In a seminal paper, Karp, Vazirani, and Vazirani show that a simple ranking algorithm achieves a competitive ratio of 1-1 e for the online bipartite matching problem in the standard adversarial model, where the ratio of 1-1 e is also shown to be optimal. Their result also implies that in the random arrivals model defined by Goel and Mehta, where the online nodes arrive in a random order, a simple greedy algorithm achieves a competitive ratio of 1-1 e. In this paper, we study the ranking algorithm in the random arrivals model, and show that it has a competitive ratio of at least 0.696, beating the 1-1 e ≈ 0.632 barrier in the adversarial model. Our result also extends to the i.i.d. distribution model of , removing the assumption that the distribution is known. Our analysis has two main steps. First, we exploit certain dominance and monotonicity properties of the ranking algorithm to derive a family of factor-revealing linear programs (LPs). In particular, by symmetry of the ranking algorithm in the random arrivals model, we have the monotonicity property on both sides of the bipartite graph, giving good "strength" to the LPs. Second, to obtain a good lower bound on the optimal values of all these LPs and hence on the competitive ratio of the algorithm, we introduce the technique of strongly factor-revealing LPs. In particular, we derive a family of modified LPs with similar strength such that the optimal value of any single one of these new LPs is a lower bound on the competitive ratio of the algorithm. This enables us to leverage the power of computer LP solvers to solve for large instances of the new LPs to establish bounds that would otherwise be difficult to attain by human analysis.
  @cite_25: We study an online assignment problem, motivated by Adwords Allocation, in which queries are to be assigned to bidders with budget constraints. We analyze the performance of the Greedy algorithm (which assigns each query to the highest bidder) in a randomized input model with queries arriving in a random permutation. Our main result is a tight analysis of Greedy in this model showing that it has a competitive ratio of 1 - 1 e for maximizing the value of the assignment. We also consider the more standard i.i.d. model of input, and show that our analysis holds there as well. This is to be contrasted with the worst case analysis of [MSVV05] which shows that Greedy has a ratio of 1 2, and that the optimal algorithm presented there has a ratio of 1 - 1 e. The analysis of Greedy is important in the Adwords setting because it is the natural allocation algorithm for an auction-style process. From a theoretical perspective, our result simplifies and generalizes the classic algorithm of Karp, Vazirani and Vazirani for online bipartite matching. Our results include a new proof to show that the Ranking alforithm of [KVV90] has a ratio of 1 - 1 e in the worst case. It has been recently discovered [KV07] (independent of our results) that one of the crucial lemmas in [KVV90], related to a certain reduction, is incorrect. Our proof is direct, in that it does not go via such a reduction, which also enables us to generalize the analysis to our online assignment problem.
  @cite_7: There has been a great deal of interest recently in the relative power of on-line and off-line algorithms. An on-line algorithm receives a sequence of requests and must respond to each request as soon as it is receiveD. An off-line algorithm may wait until all requests have been received before determining its responses. One approach to evaluating an on-line algorithm is to compare its performance with that of the best possible off-line algorithm for the same problem. Thus, given a measure of "profit", the performance of an on-line algorithm can be measured by the worst-case ratio of its profit to that of the optimal off-line algorithm. This general approach has been applied in a number of contexts, including data structures [SITa], bin packing [CoGaJo], graph coloring [GyLe] and the k-server problem [MaMcSI]. Here we apply it to bipartite matching and show that a simple randomized on-line algorithm achieves the best possible performance.
summary: Goel and Mehta @cite_25 introduced the random vertex-arrival model. In this model, the adversary may choose the worst instance of a graph, but the online vertices arrive in a random order. The greedy algorithm is already @math -competitive for this problem, as the analysis reduces to @cite_7 . Later works @cite_26 @cite_28 showed that the ranking algorithm has a competitive ratio of at least @math , beating the bounds for adversarial vertex arrival model. There is still a gap between known upper and lower bounds, and closing this gap remains an open problem.