Online Submodular Welfare Maximization: Greedy Beats 1/2 in Random Order

ABSTRACT

In the Submodular Welfare Maximization (SWM) problem, the input consists of a set of n items, each of which must be allocated to one of m agents. Each agent l has a valuation function v_l, where v_l(S) denotes the welfare obtained by this agent if she receives the set of items S. The functions v_l are all submodular; as is standard, we assume that they are monotone and v_l(∅) = 0. The goal is to partition the items into m disjoint subsets S₁, S₂, ... S_m in order to maximize the social welfare, defined as ∑_{l = 1}^m v_l(S_l). A simple greedy algorithm gives a 1/2-approximation to SWM in the offline setting, and this was the best known until Vondrak's recent (1-1/e)-approximation algorithm [34]. In this paper, we consider the online version of SWM. Here, items arrive one at a time in an online manner; when an item arrives, the algorithm must make an irrevocable decision about which agent to assign it to before seeing any subsequent items. This problem is motivated by applications to Internet advertising, where user ad impressions must be allocated to advertisers whose value is a submodular function of the set of users / impressions they receive. There are two natural models that differ in the order in which items arrive. In the fully adversarial setting, an adversary can construct an arbitrary / worst-case instance, as well as pick the order in which items arrive in order to minimize the algorithm's performance. In this setting, the 1/2-competitive greedy algorithm is the best possible. To improve on this, one must weaken the adversary slightly: In the random order model, the adversary can construct a worst-case set of items and valuations, but does not control the order in which the items arrive; instead, they are assumed to arrive in a random order. The random order model has been well studied for online SWM and various special cases, but the best known competitive ratio (even for several special cases) is 1/2 + 1/n [9,10], barely better than the ratio for the adversarial order. Obtaining a competitive ratio of 1/2 + Ω(1) for the random order model has been an important open problem for several years. We solve this open problem by demonstrating that the greedy algorithm has a competitive ratio of at least 0.505 for online SWM in the random order model. This is the first result showing a competitive ratio bounded above 1/2 in the random order model, even for special cases such as the weighted matching or budgeted allocation problems (without the so-called 'large capacity' assumptions). For special cases of submodular functions including weighted matching, weighted coverage functions and a broader class of "second-order supermodular" functions, we provide a different analysis that gives a competitive ratio of 0.51. We analyze the greedy algorithm using a factor-revealing linear program, bounding how the assignment of one item can decrease potential welfare from assigning future items. We also formulate a natural conjecture which, if true, would improve the competitive ratio of the greedy algorithm to at least 0.567.

In addition to our new competitive ratios for online SWM, we make two further contributions: First, we define the classes of second-order modular, supermodular, and submodular functions, which are likely to be of independent interest in submodular optimization. Second, we obtain an improved competitive ratio via a technique we refer to as gain linearizing, which may be useful in other contexts (see [26]): Essentially, we linearize the submodular function by dividing the gain of an optimal solution into gain from individual elements, compare the gain when it assigns an element to the optimal solution's gain from the element, and, crucially, bound the extent to which assigning elements can affect the potential gain of other elements.

References

1. Gagan Agarwal, Gagan Goel, Chinmay Karande, and Aranyak Mehta. Online vertex-weighted bipartite matching and single-bid budgeted allocation. In SODA. SIAM, 2011.
2. Shipra Agrawal, Zizhuo Wang, and Yinyu Ye. A dynamic near-optimal algorithm for online linear programming. Computing Research Repository, 2009.
3. Saeed Alaei, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, and Vahid Liaghat. Online prophet-inequality matching with applications to ad allocation. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 18--35. ACM, 2012.
4. Niv Buchbinder, Kamal Jain, and Joseph Seffi Naor. Online primal-dual algorithms for maximizing ad-auctions revenue. In ESA, pages 253--264. Springer, 2007.
5. Nikhil Devanur and Thomas Hayes. The adwords problem: Online keyword matching with budgeted bidders under random permutations. In EC, pages 71--78, 2009.
6. Nikhil R. Devanur, Zhiyi Huang, Nitish Korula, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Qiqi Yan. Whole-page optimization and submodular welfare maximization with online bidders. In ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 305--322, 2013.
7. Nikhil R. Devanur, Kamal Jain, Balasubramanian Sivan, and Christopher A. Wilkens. Near optimal online algorithms and fast approximation algorithms for resource allocation problems. In EC, pages 29--38. ACM, 2011.
8. Nikhil R Devanur, Balasubramanian Sivan, and Yossi Azar. Asymptotically optimal algorithm for stochastic adwords. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 388--404. ACM, 2012.
9. Shahar Dobzinski, Noam Nisan, and Michael Schapira. Approximation algorithms for combinatorial auctions with complement-free bidders. In STOC, pages 610--618, 2005.
10. Shahar Dobzinski and Michael Schapira. An improved approximation algorithm for combinatorial auctions with submodular bidders. In SODA, pages 1064--1073, 2006.
11. J. Feldman, N. Korula, V. Mirrokni, S. Muthukrishnan, and M. Pal. Online ad assignment with free disposal. In WINE, 2009.
12. Jon Feldman, Monika Henzinger, Nitish Korula, Vahab S. Mirrokni, and Cliff Stein. Online stochastic packing applied to display ad allocation. In ESA, pages 182--194. Springer, 2010.
13. Jon Feldman, Aranyak Mehta, Vahab Mirrokni, and S. Muthukrishnan. Online stochastic matching: Beating 1 - 1/e. In FOCS, pages 117--126, 2009.
14. M. L. Fisher, G. L. Nemhauser, and L. A. Wolsey. An analysis of the approximations for maximizing submodular set functions II. Mathematical Programming Study, 8:73--87, 1978.
15. Gagan Goel and Aranyak Mehta. Online budgeted matching in random input models with applications to adwords. In SODA, pages 982--991, 2008.
16. B. Haeupler, V. Mirrokni, and M. ZadiMoghaddam. Online stochastic weighted matching: Improved approximation algorithms. In WINE, pages 170--181, 2011.
17. Bala Kalyanasundaram and Kirk R. Pruhs. An optimal deterministic algorithm for online b -matching. Theoretical Computer Science, 233(1--2):319--325, 2000.
18. Michael Kapralov, Ian Post, and Jan Vondrák. Online submodular welfare maximization: Greedy is optimal. In SODA, pages 1216--1225, 2013.
19. Chinmay Karande, Aranyak Mehta, and Pushkar Tripathi. Online bipartite matching with unknown distributions. In STOC, pages 587--596, 2011.
20. R.M. Karp, U.V. Vazirani, and V.V. Vazirani. An optimal algorithm for online bipartite matching. In STOC, pages 352--358, 1990.
21. Lehman, Lehman, and N. Nisan. Combinatorial auctions with decreasing marginal utilities. Games and Economic Behaviour, pages 270--296, 2006.
22. Renato Paes Leme, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Éva Tardos. Sequential auctions and externalities. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 869--886. SIAM, 2012.
23. Mohammad Mahdian and Qiqi Yan. Online bipartite matching with random arrivals: A strongly factor revealing lp approach. In STOC, pages 597--606, 2011.
24. Aranyak Mehta, Amin Saberi, Umesh Vazirani, and Vijay Vazirani. Adwords and generalized online matching. J. ACM, 54(5):22, 2007.
25. Vahideh H. Menshadi, Shayan Oveis Gharan, and A. Saberi. Online stochastic matching: Online actions based on offline statistics. In SODA, pages 1285--1294, 2011.
26. Vahab Mirokni and Morteza Zadimoghaddam. Randomized composable core-sets for distributed submodular maximization. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Symposium on the Theory of Computing, 2015. To appear.
27. Vahab S. Mirrokni, Shayan Oveis Gharan, and Morteza ZadiMoghaddam. Simultaneous approximations of stochastic and adversarial budgeted allocation problems. In SODA, pages 1690--1701, 2011.
28. Vahab S. Mirrokni, Michael Schapira, and Jan Vondrák. Tight information-theoretic lower bounds for welfare maximization in combinatorial auctions. In ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 70--77, 2008.
29. Marco Molinaro and R Ravi. The geometry of online packing linear programs. Mathematics of Operations Research, 2013.
30. G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions. I. Math. Programming, 14(3):265--294, 1978.
31. Vasilis Syrgkanis and Eva Tardos. Bayesian sequential auctions. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 929--944. ACM, 2012.
32. Vasilis Syrgkanis and Eva Tardos. Composable and efficient mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 45th annual ACM symposium on Symposium on theory of computing, pages 211--220. ACM, 2013.
33. Erik Vee, Sergei Vassilvitskii, and Jayavel Shanmugasundaram. Optimal online assignment with forecasts. In EC, pages 109--118, 2010.
34. J. Vondrak. Optimal approximation for the submodular welfare problem in the value oracle model. In STOC, pages 67--74, 2008.

Index Terms

• Mathematics of computing

  • Discrete mathematics

    • Combinatorics

      • Combinatorial algorithms

• Theory of computation

  • Design and analysis of algorithms