AI summary · arXiv: 2203.00285v1 · cs.DS

Online Unit Profit Knapsack with Untrusted Predictions

Joan Boyar, Lene M. Favrholdt, Kim S. Larsen

Original paper · DOI Submitted to arXiv on 01 Mar. 2022 License: NONEXCLUSIVE-DISTRIB 1.0

The essentials

  • The paper studies the online knapsack problem in the context of trusted and untrusted predictions.
  • They consider a variant of the problem where items have unit profit, known as Unit Profit Knapsack.
  • It is easy to find an optimal solution offline by packing as many of the smallest items as possible into the knapsack.
  • For Online Unit Profit Knapsack, where predictions may be obtained from a machine learning source, the competitive ratio is unbounded.
  • The authors propose an algorithm that uses the prediction error ratio $r=\frac{a}{\hat{a}}$ to achieve a competitive ratio of $\frac{1}{2r}$ for $r\geq 1$ and $\frac{r}{2}$ for $r\leq 1$.
  • Using an adversary technique, they demonstrate that this result is optimal in some sense, providing a trade-off in attainable competitive ratios for different values of $r$.
  • While their result for accurate advice ($r=1$) yields only a competitive ratio of $\frac{1}{2}$, no algorithm knowing the value $a$ can achieve a better competitive ratio than $\frac{e-1}{e}\approx 0.6321$.
  • They present an algorithm with a matching upper bound which attains a competitive ratio of $r\frac{e-1}{e}$ for $r \leq 1$ and $\frac{e-r}{e}$ for $1 \leq r < e$, and show that no algorithm can be better for both cases when $r<1$ or when $1\leq r<e$.
  • Overall, this paper provides a thorough analysis of the online knapsack problem in the context of trusted and untrusted predictions. It proposes algorithms with provable competitive ratios and demonstrates optimality results.

Key points written by AI: they may contain errors, check them against the paper.

AI-generated keywords: Online Knapsack Unit Profit Untrusted Predictions Competitive Ratio Optimal Solution

Read further

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
  • Original abstract
The paper "Online Unit Profit Knapsack with Untrusted Predictions" presents a study of the online knapsack problem in the context of trusted and untrusted predictions. The authors consider a variant of the problem where items have unit profit, known as Unit Profit Knapsack, and show that it is easy to find an optimal solution offline by packing as many of the smallest items as possible into the knapsack. However, for Online Unit Profit Knapsack, where predictions may be obtained from a machine learning source, the competitive ratio is unbounded. Previous work on online algorithms with untrusted predictions generally studied problems where an online algorithm with a constant competitive ratio is known. In this paper, the authors propose an algorithm that uses the prediction error ratio $r=\frac{a}{\hat{a}}$, where $a$ is the actual value for the average size of those smallest items that fit in the knapsack and $\hat{a}$ is the prediction. The presented algorithm achieves a competitive ratio of $\frac{1}{2r}$ for $r\geq 1$ and $\frac{r}{2}$ for $r\leq 1$. Using an adversary technique, they demonstrate that this result is optimal in some sense, providing a trade-off in attainable competitive ratios for different values of $r$. The authors note that while their result for accurate advice ($r=1$) yields only a competitive ratio of $\frac{1}{2}$, no algorithm knowing the value $a$ can achieve a better competitive ratio than $\frac{e-1}{e}\approx 0.6321$. They present an algorithm with a matching upper bound which attains a competitive ratio of $r\frac{e-1}{e}$ for $r \leq 1$ and $\frac{e-r}{e}$ for $1 \leq r < e$, and show that no algorithm can be better for both cases when $r<1$ or when $1\leq r<e$. Overall, this paper provides a thorough analysis of the online knapsack problem in the context of trusted and untrusted predictions. It proposes algorithms with provable competitive ratios and demonstrates optimality results.

Was this synthesis useful?

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Save to a collection Group papers in collections to compare them, chat with them and export them. Create a free account Log in

Advanced tools Premium

For researchers who follow a field closely: citation alerts, journal-club slides, version comparison and Zotero export. Discover Premium

Zotero
Citation alerts
Journal club Slides to present it
For journalists Press kit and hype check

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.