Approximating Optimum Online for Capacitated Resource Allocation¹¹1This work was done in part while the authors were visiting the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing. Research supported in part in by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), Project No. 437739576, NSF Awards CCF2209520, CCF2312156, and a gift from CISCO.

We study an online capacitated allocation problem, in which users $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ should be assigned to resources arriving online. Specifically, at each timestep $t\in\{1,2,\ldots,T\}$, a new resource $t$ arrives and its capacity $c_{t}$ and the values $v_{i,t}\geq 0$ for every user $i\in[n]$ are sampled from a known distribution $\mathcal{D}_{t}$. Upon the arrival of a resource, we observe its realized capacity and values, and must irrevocably decide which users to allocate to it. Our goal is to maximize social welfare, i.e., the sum of the values of assigned user-resource pairs.

This problem naturally arises in a number of settings, for example in the context of ride-sharing: after a spike in demand (e.g. at the arrival of a flight, or at the end of a large concert), waiting passengers need to be assigned to cabs who become available online. Another example is online advertising, which initiated the vast literature on online Bayesian matching [FMMM09], where ads should be assigned to search queries arriving online. Further examples are abundant: the assignment of orders to trucks by a shipping fulfillment center, the procurement of goods for stores with limited inventories, etc. Our formulation goes beyond the intensely-studied setting where each online resource can be matched to at most one offline node (e.g. [BK10, HMZ11, MGS12, JL13, EFGT20, BSSX20, HS21, TWW22, HSY22]). In many cases resources have capacity larger than one; multiple passengers can share a cab and multiple ads can be displayed under a search query.

The literature has studied this problem from the “prophet inequality” perspective, designing algorithms which compare favorably to the optimum offline algorithm which sees all realizations upfront. In particular, for online capacitated allocation, it is possible to obtain $\nicefrac{{1}}{{2}}$ of the optimum offline benchmark [FGL15, DFKL20], and that is the best possible  [KS78].

Still, comparing to the optimum offline algorithm as a benchmark might be too pessimistic in Bayesian settings. Its “prophetic” access to future realizations is unattainable for online algorithms (see [PPSW21] for further discussion). Therefore, a recent line of work (also including, e.g., [ANSS19, BDL22, DGR⁺23]) has shifted attention towards the following question: how well can we approximate the optimal (computationally unbounded) online algorithm in polynomial time?

In other words, how much must we lose when restricting to efficient algorithms instead of solving the optimal dynamic program? On the one hand, even for unit capacities it is PSPACE-hard to approximate the optimum online algorithm within some absolute constant $1-\epsilon$ [PPSW21].

Luckily, approximations strictly better than $\nicefrac{{1}}{{2}}$ exist for unit capacities: [PPSW21] gave a $0.51$-approximate algorithm, later improved to 0.52 [SW21], $1-\nicefrac{{1}}{{\mathrm{e}}}\approx 0.632$ [BDL22], and $0.652$ [NSW23]. Motivated by this, we ask:

Our main result is to answer this question in the affirmative. In particular, we show that for online capacitated resource allocation problems, we can beat $\nicefrac{{1}}{{2}}$ by a constant.

Interestingly, through the lens of prophet inequalities, the unit-capacity and the general capacity variant of the problem behave nearly identically. These variants (and more general ones) can all be handled by the same algorithmic template and techniques for the unit-capacity case directly carry over (for example, applying a $\nicefrac{{1}}{{2}}$-balanced online contention resolution scheme (OCRS) to each offline user). As we will discuss, studying capacitated resource allocation with the optimum online benchmark leads to technical challenges distinct from the unit-capacity case, and reveals differences that do not arise in competitive analysis. Our work hence gives evidence for the richness of studying optimum online as a benchmark.

We also provide an extension to where allocations are probabilistically successful, motivated by our initial example of Internet advertising. As in the literature on online matching with stochastic rewards [MP12, HZ20, GU23], after displaying ads under a search request, typically the advertiser is only charged if the ad is eventually clicked. This is typically modeled as happening with known probability called the click-through-rate. We hence update our setting so that after allocating at most $c_{t}$ users to the resource $t$, each user $i$ is successfully allocated with known probability $q_{i,t}$. If an offline user $i$ is not successfully allocated, it remains available to be matched in future rounds; however, online arrivals do not get to adaptively pick new allocations.

Note Theorem 1.1 is the special case of Theorem 1.2 in which all successes are deterministic, i.e. success probabilities $q_{i,t}=1$ for every $i$, $t$.

In the following section, we will give a formal definition of a special case of our problem. For ease of exposition, in the first part of the main body of our paper we describe our algorithm and analysis for this special case, and list the additional details required to solve the general version only afterwards. We also will review some preliminaries including statements about our LP relaxation and the basics of pivotal sampling, an important ingredient for our algorithm.

We begin by a short description of our algorithm, before presenting the pseudocode in Algorithm 1. First we fix some useful definitions: we say user $i$ is “allocated to $t$” if it is one of the at most $c_{t}$ users served by the resource, and “successfully allocated to $t$” if it is allocated to $t$ and $(i,t)$ is successful (recall this is with probability $q_{i,t}$). We say user $i$ is “free at $t$” or “available at $t$” (or “free”/“available”, if the context is clear) if just before the arrival of resource $t$, user $i$ has not yet been successfully allocated to any previous resource.

Our algorithm uses an optimal solution $\{x_{i,t}\}$ to (LP_on) as input. After observing if resource $t$ arrives, if so, we sample a set of at most $c_{t}$ users $\mathsf{FP}_{t}$ (denoting the first proposal for $t$) using pivotal sampling, such that each user $i$ is selected with marginal probability $\nicefrac{{x_{i,t}}}{{p_{t}}}$. For every user $i\in\mathsf{FP}_{t}$, if $i$ is still available, we toss a coin independently with probability $\alpha_{i,t}:=\min\left(1,\frac{0.5+\kappa}{1-(0.5+\kappa)\cdot\sum_{t^{\prime}<t}x_{i,t^{\prime}}\cdot q_{i,t^{\prime}}}\right)$, and allocate user $i$ to resource $t$ if this coin toss is successful.

After this procedure, we have a number $A_{t}$ of users allocated to resource $t$, where $A_{t}$ is a random variable which can take values in $\{0,\dots,c_{t}\}$. In order to make use of the remaining space in the demand size of resource $t$, we allow $t$ to make a second proposal. Again via the pivotal sampling subroutine, this time with a reduced marginal probability of $(1-\frac{A_{t}}{c_{t}})\cdot x_{i,t}/p_{t}$ for every user $i$, we sample a set of users $\mathsf{SP}_{t}$, denoting the second proposal with size at most $c_{t}-A_{t}$. Among these users, we consider only those $i$ for which $\alpha_{i,t}=1$, $i$ was free at $t$, and $i$ was not yet allocated to $t$. For each such user $i$, we allocate to $t$ with probability $\beta_{i,t}$. The factor $\beta_{i,t}$ is chosen in a way to ensure that $\Pr[i\text{ allocated to }t]=(0.5+\kappa)\cdot x_{i,t}$, i.e., such that we don’t overmatch any $(i,t)$.

Concerning the definition of $\rho_{i,t}$, we note that the expectation is over the randomness in the arrivals and algorithm up to when it reaches 8 for arrival $t$ in Algorithm 1 (in particular, we consider “re-running” the algorithm as defined thus far on a fresh instance). The indicator $\mathbbm{1}[i\text{ available and unallocated after \lx@cref{creftypecap~refnum}{line:sample_defAt}}]$ refers to the event that $i$ was not successfully allocated to some $t^{\prime}<t$ and is also not allocated yet to $t$ (it could be the case that $i$ was allocated to some $t^{\prime}<t$, and this was unsuccessful). This indicator is potentially correlated with the number of allocated users $A_{t}$.

The $\min(1,\cdot)$ in the definition of $\beta_{i,t}$ is for convenience only; in particular, it is thus easy to see that the algorithm is well-defined. As a crux of our analysis, we will show that using $\kappa=0.0115$ ensures that the $\min(1,\cdot)$ in the definition of $\beta_{i,t}$ is actually redundant.

In the remainder of this section, we will argue that Algorithm 1 is well-defined and guarantees to respect the capacity constraints of online resources.

We also have that our algorithm respects capacity constraints for each online arrival.

We also note that every line except 12 can be implemented in polynomial time. Indeed, note 2 can be run efficiently as (LP_on) has polynomial size, and that our calls to pivotal sampling can be implemented efficiently [Sri01].

12 requires exponential time as written, and for ease of presentation, in the next section we analyze the above exponential time algorithm. In Section 5 we show that we can replace this computation with a sample average and appeal to concentration bounds, while only losing an arbitrarily small $\epsilon$ in the approximation ratio. The main point of care is to argue that $\rho_{i,t}$ is bounded away from 0 so that we can get a close multiplicative approximation.

Our main result is as follows.

This section is dedicated to the proof of our main result. As mentioned before, we analyze the algorithm which has access to the expectation $\rho_{i,t}$ exactly. Note that this requires exponential time; however, in Section 5 we show that our sampling-based estimation only results in an additional loss of $\epsilon$ in the approximation. To prove this, we will rely on a consequence of our analysis, namely that the quantity $\rho_{i,t}$ is always bounded away from zero by some constant. Using this, we can apply standard Chernoff-Hoeffding concentration bounds to get reasonably close to the exact $\rho_{i,t}$ within small multiplicative error.

To simplify the exposition, we will additionally assume that every allocation is successful, i.e., each success probability $q_{i,t}$ equals 1. In Appendix D we outline the necessary steps to generalize our analysis to the case of arbitrary success probabilities $\{q_{i,t}\}_{i,t}$.