Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3618260.3649773acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

Prophet Inequalities Require Only a Constant Number of Samples

Published: 11 June 2024 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    In a prophet inequality problem, n independent random variables are presented to a gambler one by one. The gambler decides when to stop the sequence and obtains the most recent value as reward. We evaluate a stopping rule by the worst-case ratio between its expected reward and the expectation of the maximum variable. In the classic setting, the order is fixed, and the optimal ratio is known to be 1/2. Three variants of this problem have been extensively studied: the prophet-secretary model, where variables arrive in uniformly random order; the free-order model, where the gambler chooses the arrival order; and the i.i.d. model, where the distributions are all the same, rendering the arrival order irrelevant. Most of the literature assumes that distributions are known to the gambler. Recent work has considered the question of what is achievable when the gambler has access only to a few samples per distribution. Surprisingly, in the fixed-order case, a single sample from each distribution is enough to approximate the optimal ratio, but this is not the case in any of the three variants. We provide a unified proof that for all three variants of the problem, a constant number of samples (independent of n) for each distribution is good enough to approximate the optimal ratios. Prior to our work, this was known to be the case only in the i.i.d. variant. Previous works relied on explicitly constructing sample-based algorithms that match the best possible ratio. Remarkably, the optimal ratios for the prophet-secretary and the free-order variants with full information are still unknown. Consequently, our result requires a significantly different approach than for the classic problem and the i.i.d. variant, where the optimal ratios and the algorithms that achieve them are known. We complement our result showing that our algorithms can be implemented in polynomial time. A key ingredient in our proof is an existential result based on a minimax argument, which states that there must exist an algorithm that attains the optimal ratio and does not rely on the knowledge of the upper tail of the distributions. A second key ingredient is a refined sample-based version of a decomposition of the instance into “small” and “large” variables, first introduced by Liu et al. [EC’21]. The universality of our approach opens avenues for generalization to other sample-based models. Furthermore, we uncover structural properties that might help pinpoint the optimal ratios in the full-information cases.

    References

    [1]
    Saeed Alaei, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, and Vahid Liaghat. 2012. Online prophet-inequality matching with applications to ad allocation. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 18–35.
    [2]
    Pablo D Azar, Robert Kleinberg, and S Matthew Weinberg. 2014. Prophet inequalities with limited information. In SODA.
    [3]
    Yossi Azar, Ashish Chiplunkar, and Haim Kaplan. 2018. Prophet secretary: Surpassing the 1-1/e barrier. In EC.
    [4]
    Archit Bubna and Ashish Chiplunkar. 2023. Prophet Inequality: Order selection beats random order. In EC.
    [5]
    Constantine Caramanis, Paul Dütting, Matthew Faw, Federico Fusco, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, Orestis Papadigenopoulos, Emmanouil Pountourakis, and Rebecca Reiffenhäuser. 2022. Single-sample prophet inequalities via greedy-ordered selection. In SODA.
    [6]
    Shuchi Chawla, Nikhil Devanur, and Thodoris Lykouris. 2023. Static pricing for multi-unit prophet inequalities. Operations Research.
    [7]
    Shuchi Chawla, Jason D Hartline, David L Malec, and Balasubramanian Sivan. 2010. Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing. In STOC.
    [8]
    José Correa and Andrés Cristi. 2023. A Constant Factor Prophet Inequality for Online Combinatorial Auctions. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 686–697.
    [9]
    José Correa, Andrés Cristi, Boris Epstein, and José Soto. 2022. The two-sided game of googol. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23, 1 (2022), 4870–4906.
    [10]
    José Correa, Andrés Cristi, Boris Epstein, and José A Soto. 2023. Sample-driven optimal stopping: From the secretary problem to the iid prophet inequality. Mathematics of Operations Research.
    [11]
    José Correa, Andrés Cristi, Andrés Fielbaum, Tristan Pollner, and S Matthew Weinberg. 2023. Optimal item pricing in online combinatorial auctions. Mathematical Programming, 1–32.
    [12]
    José Correa, Patricio Foncea, Ruben Hoeksma, Tim Oosterwijk, and Tjark Vredeveld. 2017. Posted price mechanisms for a random stream of customers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 169–186.
    [13]
    José Correa, Patricio Foncea, Dana Pizarro, and Victor Verdugo. 2019. From pricing to prophets, and back!. Operations Research Letters, 47, 1 (2019), 25–29.
    [14]
    Jose Correa, Raimundo Saona, and Bruno Ziliotto. 2021. Prophet secretary through blind strategies. Mathematical Programming, 190, 1-2 (2021), 483–521.
    [15]
    Paul Dütting, Federico Fusco, Philip Lazos, Stefano Leonardi, and Rebecca Reiffenhäuser. 2021. Prophet inequalities for matching with a single sample. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.02050.
    [16]
    Paul Dütting and Thomas Kesselheim. 2019. Posted pricing and prophet inequalities with inaccurate priors. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 111–129.
    [17]
    Soheil Ehsani, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Thomas Kesselheim, and Sahil Singla. 2018. Prophet secretary for combinatorial auctions and matroids. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual acm-siam symposium on discrete algorithms. 700–714.
    [18]
    Hossein Esfandiari, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Vahid Liaghat, and Morteza Monemizadeh. 2017. Prophet secretary. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 31, 3 (2017), 1685–1701.
    [19]
    Michal Feldman, Nick Gravin, and Brendan Lucier. 2014. Combinatorial auctions via posted prices. In Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. 123–135.
    [20]
    Giordano Giambartolomei, Frederik Mallmann-Trenn, and Raimundo Saona. 2023. Prophet Inequalities: Separating Random Order from Order Selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04024.
    [21]
    Nick Gravin, Hao Li, and Zhihao Gavin Tang. 2022. Optimal Prophet Inequality with Less than One Sample. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics. 115–131.
    [22]
    Nikolai Gravin and Hongao Wang. 2019. Prophet inequality for bipartite matching: Merits of being simple and non adaptive. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 93–109.
    [23]
    Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, Robert Kleinberg, and Tuomas Sandholm. 2007. Automated online mechanism design and prophet inequalities. In AAAI. 7, 58–65.
    [24]
    Theodore P Hill and Robert P Kertz. 1982. Comparisons of stop rule and supremum expectations of iid random variables. The Annals of Probability, 336–345.
    [25]
    Jiashuo Jiang, Will Ma, and Jiawei Zhang. 2022. Tight Guarantees for Multi-unit Prophet Inequalities and Online Stochastic Knapsack. In Proceedings of the 2022 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). 1221–1246.
    [26]
    Haim Kaplan, David Naori, and Danny Raz. 2022. Online weighted matching with a sample. In SODA.
    [27]
    Robert P Kertz. 1986. Stop rule and supremum expectations of iid random variables: a complete comparison by conjugate duality. Journal of multivariate analysis, 19, 1 (1986), 88–112.
    [28]
    Robert Kleinberg and Seth Matthew Weinberg. 2012. Matroid prophet inequalities. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. 123–136.
    [29]
    Ulrich Krengel and Louis Sucheston. 1977. Semiamarts and finite values.
    [30]
    Allen Liu, Renato Paes Leme, Martin Pál, Jon Schneider, and Balasubramanian Sivan. 2021. Variable Decomposition for Prophet Inequalities and Optimal Ordering. In EC.
    [31]
    Bo Peng and Zhihao Gavin Tang. 2022. Order selection prophet inequality: From threshold optimization to arrival time design. In FOCS.
    [32]
    Aviad Rubinstein, Jack Z Wang, and S Matthew Weinberg. 2020. Optimal Single-Choice Prophet Inequalities from Samples. Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science.
    [33]
    Ester Samuel-Cahn. 1984. Comparison of threshold stop rules and maximum for independent nonnegative random variables. the Annals of Probability, 1213–1216.
    [34]
    Raghuvansh R Saxena, Santhoshini Velusamy, and S Matthew Weinberg. 2022. An Improved Lower Bound for Matroid Intersection Prophet Inequalities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.05614.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    STOC 2024: Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 2024
    2049 pages
    ISBN:9798400703836
    DOI:10.1145/3618260
    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 the author(s) 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].

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 11 June 2024

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. optimal stopping
    2. prophet inequality
    3. prophet secretary
    4. sample complexity
    5. sample-based algorithms

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • ANID-Chile
    • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
    • National Science Foundation
    • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

    Conference

    STOC '24
    Sponsor:
    STOC '24: 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
    June 24 - 28, 2024
    BC, Vancouver, Canada

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,469 of 4,586 submissions, 32%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 22
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)22
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media