Paper detail

Optimal competitiveness for Symmetric Rectilinear Steiner Arborescence and related problems

We present optimal competitive algorithms for two interrelated known problems involving Steiner Arborescence. One is the continuous problem of the Symmetric Rectilinear Steiner Arborescence (SRSA), studied by Berman and Coulston. A very related, but discrete problem (studied separately in the past) is the online Multimedia Content Delivery (MCD) problem on line networks, presented originally by Papadimitriu, Ramanathan, and Rangan. An efficient content delivery was modeled as a low cost Steiner arborescence in a grid of network*time they defined. We study here the version studied by Charikar, Halperin, and Motwani (who used the same problem definitions, but removed some constraints on the inputs). The bounds on the competitive ratios introduced separately in the above papers are similar for the two problems: O(log N) for the continuous problem and O(log n) for the network problem, where N was the number of terminals to serve, and n was the size of the network. The lower bounds were Omega(sqrt{log N}) and Omega(sqrt{log n}) correspondingly. Berman and Coulston conjectured that both the upper bound and the lower bound could be improved. We disprove this conjecture and close these quadratic gaps for both problems. We first present an O(sqrt{log n}) deterministic competitive algorithm for MCD on the line, matching the lower bound. We then translate this algorithm to become a competitive optimal algorithm O(sqrt{log N}) for SRSA. Finally, we translate the latter back to solve MCD problem, this time competitive optimally even in the case that the number of requests is small (that is, O(min{sqrt{log n},sqrt{log N}})). We also present a Omega(sqrt[3]{log n}) lower bound on the competitiveness of any randomized algorithm. Some of the techniques may be useful in other contexts.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.