https://papers.cool/arxiv/cs.DSData Structures and Algorithms2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00python-feedgenCool Papers - Immersive Paper Discoveryhttps://papers.cool/arxiv/2409.10772Provably Efficient Infinite-Horizon Average-Reward Reinforcement Learning with Linear Function Approximation2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00Woojin ChaeDabeen LeeThis paper proposes a computationally tractable algorithm for learning infinite-horizon average-reward linear Markov decision processes (MDPs) and linear mixture MDPs under the Bellman optimality condition. While guaranteeing computational efficiency, our algorithm for linear MDPs achieves the best-known regret upper bound of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(d^{3/2}\mathrm{sp}(v^*)\sqrt{T})$ over $T$ time steps where $\mathrm{sp}(v^*)$ is the span of the optimal bias function $v^*$ and $d$ is the dimension of the feature mapping. For linear mixture MDPs, our algorithm attains a regret bound of $\widetilde{\mathcal{O}}(d\cdot\mathrm{sp}(v^*)\sqrt{T})$. The algorithm applies novel techniques to control the covering number of the value function class and the span of optimistic estimators of the value function, which is of independent interest.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2409.11091Online Combinatorial Allocations and Auctions with Few Samples2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00Paul DÃ¼ttingThomas KesselheimBrendan LucierRebecca ReiffenhÃ¤userSahil SinglaIn online combinatorial allocations/auctions, n bidders sequentially arrive, each with a combinatorial valuation (such as submodular/XOS) over subsets of m indivisible items. The aim is to immediately allocate a subset of the remaining items to maximize the total welfare, defined as the sum of bidder valuations. A long line of work has studied this problem when the bidder valuations come from known independent distributions. In particular, for submodular/XOS valuations, we know 2-competitive algorithms/mechanisms that set a fixed price for each item and the arriving bidders take their favorite subset of the remaining items given these prices. However, these algorithms traditionally presume the availability of the underlying distributions as part of the input to the algorithm. Contrary to this assumption, practical scenarios often require the learning of distributions, a task complicated by limited sample availability. This paper investigates the feasibility of achieving O(1)-competitive algorithms under the realistic constraint of having access to only a limited number of samples from the underlying bidder distributions. Our first main contribution shows that a mere single sample from each bidder distribution is sufficient to yield an O(1)-competitive algorithm for submodular/XOS valuations. This result leverages a novel extension of the secretary-style analysis, employing the sample to have the algorithm compete against itself. Although online, this first approach does not provide an online truthful mechanism. Our second main contribution shows that a polynomial number of samples suffices to yield a $(2+\epsilon)$-competitive online truthful mechanism for submodular/XOS valuations and any constant $\epsilon>0$. This result is based on a generalization of the median-based algorithm for the single-item prophet inequality problem to combinatorial settings with multiple items.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2409.10575A Tie-breaking based Local Search Algorithm for Stable Matching Problems2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00Junyuan QiuThe stable marriage problem with incomplete lists and ties (SMTI) and the hospitals/residents problem with ties (HRT) are important in matching theory with broad practical applications. In this paper, we introduce a tie-breaking based local search algorithm (TBLS) designed to achieve a weakly stable matching of maximum size for both the SMTI and HRT problems. TBLS begins by arbitrarily resolving all ties and iteratively refines the tie-breaking strategy by adjusting the relative order within ties based on preference ranks and the current stable matching. Additionally, we introduce TBLS-E, an equity-focused variant of TBLS, specifically designed for the SMTI problem. This variant maintains the objective of maximizing matching size, while enhancing equity through two simple modifications. In comparison with ten other approximation and local search algorithms, TBLS achieves the highest matching size, while TBLS-E exhibits the lowest sex equality cost. Significantly, TBLS-E preserves a matching size comparable to that of TBLS. Both our algorithms demonstrate faster computational speed than other local search algorithms in solving large-sized instances.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2409.10908Clustering with Non-adaptive Subset Queries2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00Hadley BlackEuiwoong LeeArya MazumdarBarna SahaRecovering the underlying clustering of a set $U$ of $n$ points by asking pair-wise same-cluster queries has garnered significant interest in the last decade. Given a query $S \subset U$, $|S|=2$, the oracle returns yes if the points are in the same cluster and no otherwise. For adaptive algorithms with pair-wise queries, the number of required queries is known to be $\Theta(nk)$, where $k$ is the number of clusters. However, non-adaptive schemes require $\Omega(n^2)$ queries, which matches the trivial $O(n^2)$ upper bound attained by querying every pair of points. To break the quadratic barrier for non-adaptive queries, we study a generalization of this problem to subset queries for $|S|>2$, where the oracle returns the number of clusters intersecting $S$. Allowing for subset queries of unbounded size, $O(n)$ queries is possible with an adaptive scheme (Chakrabarty-Liao, 2024). However, the realm of non-adaptive algorithms is completely unknown. In this paper, we give the first non-adaptive algorithms for clustering with subset queries. Our main result is a non-adaptive algorithm making $O(n \log k \cdot (\log k + \log\log n)^2)$ queries, which improves to $O(n \log \log n)$ when $k$ is a constant. We also consider algorithms with a restricted query size of at most $s$. In this setting we prove that $\Omega(\max(n^2/s^2,n))$ queries are necessary and obtain algorithms making $\tilde{O}(n^2k/s^2)$ queries for any $s \leq \sqrt{n}$ and $\tilde{O}(n^2/s)$ queries for any $s \leq n$. We also consider the natural special case when the clusters are balanced, obtaining non-adaptive algorithms which make $O(n \log k) + \tilde{O}(k)$ and $O(n\log^2 k)$ queries. Finally, allowing two rounds of adaptivity, we give an algorithm making $O(n \log k)$ queries in the general case and $O(n \log \log k)$ queries when the clusters are balanced.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2409.11076Selective algorithm processing of subset sum distributions2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00Nick DawesThe efficiency of exact subset sum problem algorithms which compute individual subset sums is defined as $e=min(T/z, 1)$, where $z$ is the number of subset sums computed. $e$ is related to these algorithms' computational complexity. This system maps the sums into $kn$ bins to select its most efficient algorithm for each bin for each input value. These algorithms include additive, subtractive and repeated value dynamic programming. Cases which would otherwise be processed inefficiently (eg: all even values) are handled by modular arithmetic and by dynamically partioning the input values. The system's experimentally validated efficiency corresponds to O(max($T$, $n^2$)) with space complexity O(max($T$, $n$)), for $k=2$.https://papers.cool/arxiv/2409.11280Tight Bounds for Classical Open Addressing2024-09-18T00:00:00+00:00Michael A. BenderWilliam KuszmaulRenfei ZhouWe introduce a classical open-addressed hash table, called rainbow hashing, that supports a load factor of up to $1 - \varepsilon$, while also supporting $O(1)$ expected-time queries, and $O(\log \log \varepsilon^{-1})$ expected-time insertions and deletions. We further prove that this tradeoff curve is optimal: any classical open-addressed hash table that supports load factor $1 - \varepsilon$ must incur $\Omega(\log \log \varepsilon^{-1})$ expected time per operation. Finally, we extend rainbow hashing to the setting where the hash table is dynamically resized over time. Surprisingly, the addition of dynamic resizing does not come at any time cost -- even while maintaining a load factor of $\ge 1 - \varepsilon$ at all times, we can support $O(1)$ queries and $O(\log \log \varepsilon^{-1})$ updates. Prior to our work, achieving any time bounds of the form $o(\varepsilon^{-1})$ for all of insertions, deletions, and queries simultaneously remained an open question.