Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
157 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
43 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Choosing Behind the Veil: Tight Bounds for Identity-Blind Online Algorithms (2402.17160v1)

Published 27 Feb 2024 in cs.GT and cs.DS

Abstract: In Bayesian online settings, every element has a value that is drawn from a known underlying distribution, which we refer to as the element's identity. The elements arrive sequentially. Upon the arrival of an element, its value is revealed, and the decision maker needs to decide, immediately and irrevocably, whether to accept it or not. While most previous work has assumed that the decision maker, upon observing the element's value, also becomes aware of its identity -- namely, its distribution -- practical scenarios frequently demand that decisions be made based solely on the element's value, without considering its identity. This necessity arises either from the algorithm's ignorance of the element's identity or due to the pursuit of fairness. We call such algorithms identity-blind algorithms, and propose the identity-blindness gap as a metric to evaluate the performance loss caused by identity-blindness. This gap is defined as the maximum ratio between the expected performance of an identity-blind online algorithm and an optimal online algorithm that knows the arrival order, thus also the identities. We study the identity-blindness gap in the paradigmatic prophet inequality problem, under the two objectives of maximizing the expected value, and maximizing the probability to obtain the highest value. For the max-expectation objective, the celebrated prophet inequality establishes a single-threshold algorithm that gives at least 1/2 of the offline optimum, thus also an identity-blindness gap of at least 1/2. We show that this bound is tight. For the max-probability objective, while the competitive ratio is tightly 1/e, we provide a deterministic single-threshold algorithm that gives an identity-blindness gap of $\sim 0.562$ under the assumption that there are no large point masses. Moreover, we show that this bound is tight with respect to deterministic algorithms.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (39)
  1. On optimal ordering in the optimal stopping problem. In P. Biró, J. D. Hartline, M. Ostrovsky, and A. D. Procaccia, editors, EC ’20: The 21st ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Virtual Event, Hungary, July 13-17, 2020, pages 187–188. ACM, 2020.
  2. M. Arsenis and R. Kleinberg. Individual fairness in prophet inequalities. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC ’22, page 245, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391504. doi:10.1145/3490486.3538301. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538301.
  3. Constrained-order prophet inequalities. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 2034–2046. SIAM, 2021.
  4. Prophet inequalities with limited information. In Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 1358–1377. SIAM, 2014.
  5. Prophet secretary: Surpassing the 1-1/e barrier. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 303–318, 2018.
  6. Improved approximations for free-order prophets and second-price auctions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03435, 2018.
  7. Max-weight online stochastic matching: Improved approximations against the online benchmark. In EC ’22: The 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Boulder, CO, USA, July 11 - 15, 2022, pages 967–985. ACM, 2022. doi:10.1145/3490486.3538315. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3490486.3538315.
  8. A. Bubna and A. Chiplunkar. Prophet inequality: Order selection beats random order. EC, 2023.
  9. Multi-parameter mechanism design and sequential posted pricing. In L. J. Schulman, editor, Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2010, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 5-8 June 2010, pages 311–320. ACM, 2010. doi:10.1145/1806689.1806733. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1806689.1806733.
  10. Fairness and bias in online selection. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’21), pages 2112–2121, 2021a.
  11. Prophet secretary through blind strategies. Math. Program., 190(1):483–521, 2021b.
  12. P. Dütting and R. Kleinberg. Polymatroid prophet inequalities. In Algorithms-ESA 2015, pages 437–449. Springer, 2015.
  13. An o (log log m) prophet inequality for subadditive combinatorial auctions. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 18(2):32–37, 2020.
  14. Prophet secretary against the online optimal. In K. Leyton-Brown, J. D. Hartline, and L. Samuelson, editors, Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2023, London, United Kingdom, July 9-12, 2023, pages 561–581. ACM, 2023. doi:10.1145/3580507.3597736. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3580507.3597736.
  15. Prophet secretary for combinatorial auctions and matroids. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual acm-siam symposium on discrete algorithms, pages 700–714. SIAM, 2018.
  16. Prophet secretary. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 31(3):1685–1701, 2017.
  17. Prophets, secretaries, and maximizing the probability of choosing the best. In S. Chiappa and R. Calandra, editors, The 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2020, 26-28 August 2020, Online [Palermo, Sicily, Italy], volume 108 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 3717–3727. PMLR, 2020. URL http://proceedings.mlr.press/v108/esfandiari20a.html.
  18. T. Ezra and T. Garbuz. The importance of knowing the arrival order in combinatorial bayesian settings. In J. Garg, M. Klimm, and Y. Kong, editors, Web and Internet Economics - 19th International Conference, WINE 2023, Shanghai, China, December 4-8, 2023, Proceedings, volume 14413 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 256–271. Springer, 2023. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_15. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48974-7_15.
  19. Prophets and secretaries with overbooking. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC, pages 319–320. ACM, 2018.
  20. Online stochastic max-weight matching: Prophet inequality for vertex and edge arrival models. In EC, pages 769–787. ACM, 2020.
  21. “who is next in line?” on the significance of knowing the arrival order in bayesian online settings. In Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 3759–3776. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2023.
  22. Combinatorial auctions via posted prices. In P. Indyk, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, January 4-6, 2015, pages 123–135. SIAM, 2015.
  23. C. Goldin and C. Rouse. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of "blind" auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4):715–741, September 2000. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.715. URL https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.90.4.715.
  24. N. Gravin and H. Wang. Prophet inequality for bipartite matching: Merits of being simple and non adaptive. In EC, pages 93–109. ACM, 2019.
  25. Automated online mechanism design and prophet inequalities. In AAAI, volume 7, pages 58–65, 2007.
  26. D. P. Kennedy. Optimal stopping of independent random variables and maximizing prophets. The Annals of Probability, pages 566–571, 1985.
  27. D. P. Kennedy. Prophet-type inequalities for multi-choice optimal stopping. Stochastic Processes and their applications, 24(1):77–88, 1987.
  28. R. P. Kertz. Comparison of optimal value and constrained maxima expectations for independent random variables. Advances in applied probability, 18(2):311–340, 1986.
  29. The stationary prophet inequality problem. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10516, 2021.
  30. R. Kleinberg and S. M. Weinberg. Matroid prophet inequalities. In Proceedings of the forty-fourth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 123–136, 2012.
  31. U. Krengel and L. Sucheston. Semiamarts and finite values. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 83(4):745–747, 1977.
  32. U. Krengel and L. Sucheston. On semiamarts, amarts, and processes with finite value. Probability on Banach spaces, 4:197–266, 1978.
  33. Online dependent rounding schemes. CoRR, abs/2301.08680, 2023.
  34. Prophet inequalities vs. approximating optimum online. In Web and Internet Economics: 14th International Conference, WINE 2018, Oxford, UK, December 15–17, 2018, Proceedings 14, pages 356–374. Springer, 2018.
  35. Online stochastic max-weight bipartite matching: Beyond prophet inequalities. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 763–764, 2021.
  36. B. Peng and Z. G. Tang. Order selection prophet inequality: From threshold optimization to arrival time design. In FOCS, pages 171–178. IEEE, 2022.
  37. A. Rubinstein. Beyond matroids: Secretary problem and prophet inequality with general constraints. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 324–332, 2016.
  38. A. Saberi and D. Wajc. The greedy algorithm is not optimal for on-line edge coloring. In ICALP, volume 198 of LIPIcs, pages 109:1–109:18. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2021.
  39. E. Samuel-Cahn. Comparison of threshold stop rules and maximum for independent nonnegative random variables. the Annals of Probability, pages 1213–1216, 1984.
Citations (2)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.