Paper detail

Towards the k-server conjecture: A unifying potential, pushing the frontier to the circle

The $k$-server conjecture, first posed by Manasse, McGeoch and Sleator in 1988, states that a $k$-competitive deterministic algorithm for the $k$-server problem exists. It is conjectured that the work function algorithm (WFA) achieves this guarantee, a multi-purpose algorithm with applications to various online problems. This has been shown for several special cases: $k=2$, $(k+1)$-point metrics, $(k+2)$-point metrics, the line metric, weighted star metrics, and $k=3$ in the Manhattan plane. The known proofs of these results are based on potential functions tied to each particular special case, thus requiring six different potential functions for the six cases. We present a single potential function proving $k$-competitiveness of WFA for all these cases. We also use this potential to show $k$-competitiveness of WFA on multiray spaces and for $k=3$ on trees. While the DoubleCoverage algorithm was known to be $k$-competitive for these latter cases, it has been open for WFA. Our potential captures a type of lazy adversary and thus shows that in all settled cases, the worst-case adversary is lazy. Chrobak and Larmore conjectured in 1992 that a potential capturing the lazy adversary would resolve the $k$-server conjecture. To our major surprise, this is not the case, as we show (using connections to the $k$-taxi problem) that our potential fails for three servers on the circle. Thus, our potential highlights laziness of the adversary as a fundamental property that is shared by all settled cases but violated in general. On the one hand, this weakens our confidence in the validity of the $k$-server conjecture. On the other hand, if the $k$-server conjecture holds, then we believe it can be proved by a variant of our potential.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.