skip to main content
article

Entropy-based bounds for online algorithms

Published:02 February 2007Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We focus in this work on an aspect of online computation that is not addressed by standard competitive analysis, namely, identifying request sequences for which nontrivial online algorithms are useful versus request sequences for which all algorithms perform equally poorly. The motivations for this work are advanced system and architecture designs which allow the operating system to dynamically allocate resources to online protocols such as prefetching and caching. To utilize these features, the operating system needs to identify data streams that can benefit from more resources.

Our approach in this work is based on the relation between entropy, compression, and gambling, extensively studied in information theory. It has been shown that in some settings, entropy can either fully or at least partially characterize the expected outcome of an iterative gambling game. Our goal is to study the extent to which the entropy of the input characterizes the expected performance of online algorithms for problems that arise in computer applications. We study bounds based on entropy for three classical online problems---list accessing, prefetching, and caching. Our bounds relate the performance of the best online algorithm to the entropy, a parameter intrinsic to characteristics of the request sequence. This is in contrast to the competitive ratio parameter of competitive analysis, which quantifies the performance of the online algorithm with respect to an optimal offline algorithm. For the prefetching problem, we give explicit upper and lower bounds for the performance of the best prefetching algorithm in terms of the entropy of the request sequence. In contrast, we show that the entropy of the request sequence alone does not fully capture the performance of online list accessing and caching algorithms.

References

  1. Albers, S., and Mitzenmacher, M. 1998. Average case analysis of list update algorithms, with applications to data compression. Algorithmica 21, 312--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Algoet, P. 1992. Universal schemes for prediction, gambling and portfolio selection. Ann. Probability 20, 2, 901--941.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Algoet, P. 1994. The strong law of large numbers for sequential decisions under uncertainty. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 40, 3, 609--633.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Algoet, P., and Cover, T. 1988. Asymptotic optimality and asymptotic equipartition property of log-optimal investment. Ann. Probability 16, 876--898.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bentley, J., Sleator, D., Tarjan, R. E., and Wei, V. 1986. A locally adaptive data compression scheme. Commun. ACM 29, 4, 320--330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Borodin, A., and El-Yaniv, R. 1998. Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Chiou, D., Jain, P., Devadas, S., and Rudolph, L. 2000. Dynamic cache partitioning via columnization. In Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference (Los Angeles).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cover, T., and Thomas, J. 1991. Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Curewitz, K., Krishnan, P., and Vitter, J. 1993. Practical prefetching via data compression. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data. 257--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Durrett, R. 1996. Probability: Theory and Examples, 2nd ed. Duxbury Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Elias, P. 1975. Universal codeword sets and the representation of the integers. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 21, 2, 194--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Feder, M., and Merhav, N. 1994. Relations between entropy and error probability. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 40, 1, 259--266.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Feder, M., Merhav, N., and Gutman, M. 1992. Universal prediction of individual sequences. Trans. Inf. Theory 38, 1258--1270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fiat, A., Karp, R., Luby, M., McGeoch, L. A., Sleator, D., and Young, N. 1991. On competitive algorithms for paging problems. J. Algorithms 12, 685--699. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Fonseca, R., Almeida, V., and Crovella, M. 2005. Localilty in a web of streams. Comun. ACM 48, 1, 82--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Franaszek, P., and Wagner, T. 1974. Some distribution-free aspects of paging performance. J. ACM 21, 31--39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Gallager, R. 1968. Information Theory and Reliable Communication. Wiley, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Gonnet, G., Munro, J., and Suwanda, H. 1982. Exegesis of self-organizing linear search. SIAM J. Comput. 10, 613--637.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Hannan, J. 1957. Approximation to Bayes risk in repeated plays. Contrib. Theory Games, Ann. Math. Studies 3, 97--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Hellman, M., and Raviv, J. 1970. Probability of error, equivocation and the Chernoff bound. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 16, 4, 368--372.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hennessey, J., and Patterson, D. 1996. Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach, 2nd ed. Morgan Kaufmann, San Fransisco. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Karlin, A., Phillips, S., and Raghavan, P. 2000. Markov paging. SIAM J. Comput. 30, 3, 906--922. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kelly, J. 1956. A new interpretation of information rate. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 35, 917--926.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Krishnan, P., and Vitter, J. 1998. Optimal prediction for prefetching in the worst case. SIAM J. Comput. 27, 6, 1617--1636. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Langdon, G. G. 1983. A note on the Ziv-Lempel model for compressing individual sequences. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 29, 284--287.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Lempel, A., and Ziv, J. 1976. On the complexity of finite sequences. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 22, 75--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Loomis, L. H. 1946. On a theorem of von Neumann. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 32, 213--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Lund, C., Phillips, S., and Reingold, N. 1999. Paging against a distribution and IP networking. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 58, 222--231. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Malleable Cache. 2006. The malleable caches project at MIT. http://www.csg.lcs.mit.edu/mcache/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Merhav, N., and Feder, M. 1993. Universal schemes for sequential decision from individual data sequences. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 39, 4, 1280--1292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Merhav, N., Ordentlich, E., Seroussi, G., and Weinberger, M. J. 2002. On sequential strategies for loss functions with memory. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 48, 7, 1947--1958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Merhev, N., and Feder, M. 1998. Universal prediction. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 44, 2124--2147. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Motwani, R., and Raghavan, P. 1995. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Pandurangan, G., and Szpankowski, W. 2005. A universal online caching algorithm based on pattern matching. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Pandurangan, G., and Upfal, E. 2001. Can entropy characterize performance of online algorithms? In Proceedings of the ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 727--734. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Sleator, D., and Tarjan, R. 1985. Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun. ACM 28, 2, 202--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Suh, E., and Rudolph, L. 2000. Adaptive cache partitioning. Tech. Rep. CSG-Memo 432, Laboratory for Computer Science, MIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Vitter, J., and Krishnan, P. 1996. Optimal prefetching via data compression. J. ACM 43, 5, 771--793. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Weinberger, M., and Ordentlich, E. 2000. On-Line decision making for a class of loss functions via Lempel-Ziv parsing. In Proceedings of the IEEE Data Compression Conference. 163--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ziv, J., and Lempel, A. 1978. Compression of individual sequences via variable rate coding. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 24, 5, 530--536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Entropy-based bounds for online algorithms

                Recommendations

                Comments

                Login options

                Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                Sign in

                Full Access

                • Published in

                  cover image ACM Transactions on Algorithms
                  ACM Transactions on Algorithms  Volume 3, Issue 1
                  February 2007
                  178 pages
                  ISSN:1549-6325
                  EISSN:1549-6333
                  DOI:10.1145/1186810
                  Issue’s Table of Contents

                  Copyright © 2007 ACM

                  Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 2 February 2007
                  Published in talg Volume 3, Issue 1

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • article

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader