arxiv: v2 [cs.gt] 15 Oct 2015

Transcription

1 Prophet Secretary Hossen Esfandar MohammadTagh Hajaghay Vahd Laghat Morteza Monemzadeh arxv: v2 [cs.gt 15 Oct 215 October 16, 215 Abstract Optmal stoppng theory s a powerful tool for analyzng scenaros such as onlne auctons n whch we generally requre optmzng an objectve functon over the space of stoppng rules for an allocaton process under uncertanty. Perhaps the most classc problems of stoppng theory are the prophet nequalty problem and the secretary problem. The classcal prophet nequalty states that by choosng the same threshold OPT/2 for every step, one can acheve the tght compettve rato of.5. On the other hand, for the basc secretary problem, the optmal strategy acheves the tght compettve rato of1/e.36 In ths paper, we ntroduce prophet secretary, a natural combnaton of the prophet nequalty and the secretary problems. An example motvaton for our problem s as follows. Consder a seller that has an tem to sell on the market to a set of arrvng customers. The seller knows the types of customers that may be nterested n the tem and he has a prce dstrbuton for each type: the prce offered by a customer of a type s antcpated to be drawn from the correspondng dstrbuton. However, the customers arrve n a random order. Upon the arrval of a customer, the seller makes an rrevocable decson whether to sell the tem at the offered prce. We address the queston of fndng a strategy for sellng the tem at a hgh prce. In partcular, we show that by usng a sngle unform threshold one cannot break the.5 barrer of the prophet nequalty for the prophet secretary problem. However, we show that usngndstnct non-adaptve thresholds one can obtan a compettve rato that goes to(1 1/e.63) as n grows; and no onlne algorthm can acheve a compettve rato better than.75. Our results mprove the (asymptotc) approxmaton guarantee of sngle-tem sequental posted prcng mechansms from.5 to (1 1/e) when the order of agents (customers) s chosen randomly. We also consder the mnmzaton varants of stoppng theory problems and n partcular the prophet secretary problem. Interestngly, we show that, even for the smple case n whch the nput elements are drawn from dentcal and ndependent dstrbutons (..d.), there s no constant compettve onlne algorthm for the mnmzaton varant of the prophet secretary problems. We extend ths hardness result to the mnmzaton varants of both the prophet nequalty and the secretary problem as well. A prelmnary verson of ths paper s to appear n Proceedngs of the 23rd European Symposum on Algorthms (ESA 215), Patras, Greece. Unversty of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. Supported n part by NSF CAREER award 15365, NSF grant CCF , ONR YIP award N , DARPA/AFOSR grant FA hossen@cs.umd.edu. Unversty of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. Supported n part by NSF CAREER award 15365, NSF grant CCF , ONR YIP award N , DARPA/AFOSR grant FA Hajagha@cs.umd.edu. Management Scence and Engneerng and Insttute for Computatonal and Mathematcal Engneerng, Stanford Unversty. Supported n part by a Google PhD Fellowshp. vlaghat@stanford.edu. Computer Scence Insttute of Charles Unversty, Faculty of Mathematcs and Physcs, Prague, Czech Republc. Partally supported by the project 14-13S of GA ČR. Part of ths work was done when the author was at Department of Computer Scence, Goethe-Unverstät Frankfurt, Germany and supported n part by MO 22/1-1. monem@uuk.mff.cun.cz.

2 1 Introducton Optmal stoppng theory s a powerful tool for analyzng scenaros n whch we generally requre optmzng an objectve functon over the space of stoppng rules for an allocaton process under uncertanty. One such a scenaro s the onlne aucton whch s the essence of many modern markets, partcularly networked markets where nformaton about goods, agents, and outcomes s revealed over a perod of tme and the agents must make rrevocable decsons wthout knowng future nformaton. Combnng optmal stoppng theory wth game theory allows us to model the actons of ratonal agents applyng competng stoppng rules n an onlne market. Perhaps the most classc problems of stoppng theory are the prophet nequalty and the secretary problem. Research nvestgatng the relaton between onlne aucton mechansms and prophet nequaltes was ntated by Hajaghay, Klenberg, and Sandholm [17. They observed that algorthms used n the dervaton of prophet nequaltes, owng to ther monotoncty propertes, could be nterpreted as truthful onlne aucton mechansms and that the prophet nequalty n turn could be nterpreted as the mechansm s approxmaton guarantee. Later Chawla, Hartlne, Malec, and Svan [11 showed the applcatons of prophet nequaltes n Bayesan optmal mechansm desgn problems. The connecton between the secretary problem and onlne aucton mechansms has been explored by Hajaghay, Klenberg and Parkes [16 and ntated several follow-up papers (see e.g. [7, 8, 9, 18, 2). Prophet Inequalty. The classcal prophet nequalty has been studed n the optmal stoppng theory snce the 197s when ntroduced by Krengel and Sucheston [19, 22, 23 and more recently n computer scence Hajaghay, Klenberg and Sandholm [17. In the prophet nequalty settng, gven (not necessarly dentcal) dstrbutons {D 1,...,D n }, an onlne sequence of values X 1,,X n wherex s drawn from D, an onlooker has to choose one tem from the successon of the values, where X k s revealed at step k. The onlooker can choose a value only at the tme of arrval. The onlooker s goal s to maxmze her revenue. The nequalty has been nterpreted as meanng that a prophet wth complete foresght has only a bounded advantage over an onlooker who observes the random varables one by one, and ths explans the name prophet nequalty. An algorthm for the prophet nequalty problem can be descrbed by settng a threshold for every step: we stop at the frst step that the arrvng value s hgher than the threshold of that step. The classcal prophet nequalty states that by choosng the same threshold OPT/2 for every step, one acheves the compettve rato of1/2. Here the optmal soluton OPT s defned as E[maxX. Naturally, the frst queston s whether one can beat 1/2. Unfortunately, ths s not possble: let q 1 ǫ, and q. The frst value X 1 s always 1. The second value X 2 s ether q wth probablty ǫ or q wth probablty 1 ǫ. Observe that the expected revenue of any (randomzed) onlne algorthm s max(1,ǫ( 1 ǫ )) 1. However the prophet,.e., the optmal offlne soluton would choose q f t arrves, and he would choose the frst value otherwse. Hence, the optmal offlne revenue s(1 ǫ) 1+ǫ( 1 ǫ ) 2. Therefore we cannot hope to break the1/2 barrer usng any onlne algorthm. Secretary Problem. Imagne that you manage a company, and you want to hre a secretary from a pool of n applcants. You are very keen on hrng only the best and brghtest. Unfortunately, you cannot tell how good a secretary s untl you ntervew hm, and you must make an rrevocable decson whether or not to make an offer at the tme of the ntervew. The problem s to desgn a strategy whch maxmzes the probablty of hrng the most qualfed secretary. It s well-known snce 1963 by Dynkn n [12 that the optmal polcy s to ntervew the frst t 1 applcants, then hre the next one whose qualty exceeds that of the frst t 1 applcants, where t s defned by n jt+1 1 j 1 1 < n 1 jt j 1. As n, the probablty of hrng the best applcant approaches 1/e.36, as does the ratot/n. Note that a soluton to 1

3 the secretary problem mmedately yelds an algorthm for a slghtly dfferent objectve functon optmzng the expected value of the chosen element. Subsequent papers have extended the problem by varyng the objectve functon, varyng the nformaton avalable to the decson-maker, and so on, see e.g., [1, 15, 26, Further Related Work Prophet Inequalty. The frst generalzaton of the basc prophet nequalty ntroduced by Krengel and Sucheston [19, 22, 23 s the multple-choces prophet nequalty [6 n whch both the onlooker and the prophet have k > 1 choces. Currently, the best algorthm for ths settng s due to Alae [2, who gave an onlne algorthm wth (1 1 k+3 )-compettve rato for k-choce optmal stoppng. Besdes ths, we have two generalzatons for the (multple-choces) prophet nequalty that are matrod prophet nequalty [21 and matchng prophet nequalty [3. In the matrod prophet nequalty, we are gven a matrod whose elements have random weghts sampled ndependently from (not necessarly dentcal) probablty dstrbutons on R +. We then run an onlne algorthm wth knowledge of the matrod structure and of the dstrbuton of each element s weght. The onlne algorthm must then choose rrevocably an ndependent subset of the matrod by observng the sampled value of each element (n a fxed, prespecfed order). The onlne algorthm s payoff s defned to be the sum of the weghts of the selected elements. Klenberg and Wenberg [21 show that for every matrod, there s an onlne algorthm whose expected payoff s at least half of the expected weght of the maxmumweght bass. Observe that the orgnal prophet nequalty ntroduced by Krengel and Sucheston [19, 22, 23 corresponds to the specal case of rank-one matrods. The matchng prophet nequalty s due to Alae, Hajaghay, and Laghat [5, 3, 4. Indeed, they study the problem of onlne prophet-nequalty matchng n bpartte graphs. There s a statc set of bdders and an onlne stream of tems. The nterest of bdders n tems s represented by a weghted bpartte graph. Each bdder has a capacty,.e., an upper bound on the number of tems that can be allocated to hm. The weght of a matchng s the total weght of edges matched to the bdders. Upon the arrval of an tem, the onlne algorthm should ether allocate t to a bdder or dscard t. The objectve s to maxmze the weght of the resultng matchng. Here we assume we know the dstrbuton of the ncomng tems n advance and we may assume that the t th tem s drawn from dstrbuton D t. They generalze the 1 2-compettve rato of Krengel and Sucheston [22 by presentng an algorthm wth an approxmaton rato of1 1 k+3 whereks the mnmum capacty. Oberve that the classcal prophet nequalty s a specal case of ths model where we have only one bdder wth capacty one,.e., k 1 for whch they get the same 1 2-compettve rato. Secretary Problem. The frst generalzaton of the basc secretary problem [12 s the multple-choce secretary problem [8 (see a survey by Babaoff et al. [8)) n whch the ntervewer s allowed to hre up to k 1 applcants n order to maxmze performance of the secretaral group based on ther overlappng sklls (or the jont utlty of selected tems n a more general settng). More formally, assumng applcants of a set S {a 1,a 2,,a n } (applcant pool) arrvng n a unformly random order, the goal s to select a set of at most k applcants n order to maxmze a non-negatve proft functon f : 2 S R. For example, when f(t) s the maxmum ndvdual value [13, 14, or when f(t) s the sum of the ndvdual values n T [2, the problem has been consdered thoroughly n the lterature. Besde ths, two generalzatons for the (multple-choces) secretary problem are submodular secretary [1 and matrod secretary [9. The submodular secretary problem s ntroduced by Baten, Hajaghay, and Zadmoghaddam [1. Indeed, both of the maxmum ndvdual value [13, 14 and the sum of the ndvdual values [2 aforementoned are specal monotone non-negatve submodular functons. Baten, Hajaghay, and Zadmoghaddam 7 [1 gve an onlne algorthm wth ( 1 1/e )-compettve rato for the submodular secretary problem. We 2

4 should menton that there are more recent results wth better constant compettve rato (See for example the references n [1). In the matrod secretary problem consdered by Babaoff et al. [9, we are gven a matrod wth a ground set U of elements and a collecton of ndependent (feasble) subsets I 2 U descrbng the sets of elements whch can be smultaneously accepted. The goal s to desgn onlne algorthms n whch the structure of U and I s known at the outset (assume we have an oracle to answer whether a subset of U belongs to I or not), whle the elements and ther values are revealed one at a tme n a random order. As each element s presented, the algorthm must make an rrevocable decson to select or reject t such that the set of selected elements belongs to I at all tmes. Babaoff et al. [9 present ano(logr)-compettve algorthm for general matrods, where r s the rank of the matrod. However, they leave as a man open queston the exstence of constant-compettve algorthms for general matrods. On the other hand, there are several follow-up works ncludng the recent FOCS 214 paper due to Lachsh [24 whch gves O(log log rank)-compettve algorthm. 2 Our Contrbutons In ths paper, we ntroduce prophet secretary as a natural combnaton of the prophet nequalty problem and the secretary problem wth applcatons to the Bayesan optmal mechansm desgn. Consder a seller that has an tem to sell on the market to a set of arrvng customers. The seller knows the types of customers that may be nterested n the tem and he has a prce dstrbuton for each type: the prce offered by a customer of a type s antcpated to be drawn from the correspondng dstrbuton. However, the customers arrve n a random order. Upon the arrval of a customer, the seller makes an rrevocable decson to whether sell the tem at the offered prce. We address the queston of maxmzng the seller s gan. More formally, n the prophet secretary problem we are gven a set {D 1,...,D n } of (not necessarly dentcal) dstrbutons. A number X s drawn from each dstrbuton D and then, after applyng a random permutaton π 1,...,π n, the numbers are gven to us n an onlne fashon,.e., at step k, π k and X πk are revealed. We are allowed to choose only one number, whch can be done only upon recevng that number. The goal s to maxmze the expectaton of the chosen value, compared to the expectaton of the optmum offlne soluton that knows the drawn values n advance (.e., OPT E[max X ). For the ease of notaton, n what follows the ndex terates over the dstrbutons whle the ndex k terates over the arrval steps. An algorthm for the prophet secretary problem can be descrbed by a sequence of (possbly adaptve) thresholds τ 1,...,τ n : we stop at the frst step k that X πk. In partcular, f the thresholds are nonadaptve, meanng that they are decded n advance, the followng s a generc descrpton of an algorthm. The compettve rato of the followng algorthm s defned as E[Y OPT. Algorthm Prophet Secretary Input: A set of dstrbutons {D 1,...,D n }; a randomly permuted stream of numbers (X π1,...,x πn ) drawn from the correspondng dstrbutons. Output: A number Y. (1) Let τ 1,...,τ n be a sequence of thresholds. (2) For k 1 ton (a) If X πk then let Y X πk and ext the For loop. (3) Output Y as the soluton. 3

5 Recall that when the arrval order s adversaral, the classcal prophet nequalty states that by choosng the same threshold OPT/2 for every step, one acheves the tght compettve rato of 1/2. On the other hand, for the basc secretary problem where the dstrbutons are not known, the optmal strategy s to let τ 1 τn and e τn e +1 τ n max(x π1,...,x πne ). Ths leads to the optmal compettve rato of 1 e.36. Hence, our goal n the prophet secretary problem s to beat the1/2 barrer. We would lke to menton that n an extenson of ths problem, n whch the seller has B dentcal tems to sell, t s ndeed easer to track the optmal soluton snce we have multple choces. In fact, an algorthm smlar to that of [3, 4 can guarantee a compettve rato of1 1 B+3 whch goes to one asbgrows. We frst show that unlke the prophet nequalty settng, one cannot obtan the optmal compettve rato by usng a sngle unform threshold. Indeed, n Secton 4 we show that 1/2 s the best compettve rato one can acheve wth unform thresholds. To beat the 1 2 barrer, as a warm up we frst show n Secton 5 that by usng two thresholds one can acheve the compettve rato of 5/9.55. Ths can be acheved by choosng the threshold 5 OPT 9 OPT for the frst half of the steps and then decreasng the threshold to 3 for the second half of the steps. Later n Secton 6, we show that by settng n dstnct thresholds one can obtan the (1 1/e.63)-compettve rato for the prophet secretary problem. Theorem 1 Let τ 1,...,τ n be a non-ncreasng sequence ofnthresholds, such that () α k OPT for every k [n; () α n 1 n+1 ; and () α k nα k+1+1 n+1 for k [n 1. The compettve rato of Algorthm Prophet Secretary nvoked wth thresholds s s at least α 1. When n goes to nfnty, α 1 converges to 1 1/e.63. Remark 2 We should menton that Yan n [28 establshes a 1-1/e approxmaton when the desgner s allowed to choose the order of arrval. Thus, Theorem 1 can be vewed as mprovng that result by showng that a random arrval order s suffcent to obtan the same approxmaton. The crux of the analyss of our algorthm s to compute the probablty of pckng a value x at a step of the algorthm wth respect to the threshold factors α k s. Indeed one source of dffculty arses from the fundamental dependency between the steps: for any stepk, the fact that the algorthm has not stopped n the prevous steps leads to varous restrctons on what we expect to see at the step k. For example, consder the scenaro that D 1 s 1 wth probablty one and D 2 s ether 2 or wth equal probabltes. Now f the algorthm chooses τ 1 1, then t would never happen that the algorthm reaches step two and receves a number drawn from D 2! That would mean we have receved a value from D 1 at the frst step whch s a contradcton snce we would have pcked that number. In fact, the optmal strategy for ths example s to shoot ford 2! We set τ 1 2 so that we can gnore the frst value n the event that t s drawn fromd 1. Then we set τ 2 1 so that we can always pck the second value. Therefore n expectaton we get 5/4 whch s slghtly less than OPT 6/4. To handle the dependences between the steps, we frst dstngush between the events for k [n that we pck a value between +1 and. We show that the expected value we pck at such events s ndeed hghly dependent on θ(k), the probablty of passng the frst k elements. We then use ths observaton to analyze compettve rato wth respect to θ(k) s and the thresholds factors α k s. We fnally show that the compettve rato s ndeed maxmzed by choosng the threshold factors descrbed n Theorem 1. In Secton 5, we frst prove the theorem for the smple case of n 2. Ths enables us to demonstrate our technques wthout gong nto the more complcated dependences for general n. We then present the full proof of Theorem 1 n Secton 6. We would lke to emphasze that our algorthm only needs to know the value of OPT, thus requrng only a weak access to the dstrbutons themselves. 4

6 As mentoned before, Bayesan optmal mechansm desgn problems provde a compellng applcaton of prophet nequaltes n economcs. In such a Bayesan market, we have a set of n agents wth prvate types sampled from (not necessary dentcal) known dstrbutons. Upon recevng the reported types, a seller has to allocate resources and charge prces to the agents. The goal s to maxmze the seller s revenue n equlbrum. Chawla et al. [11 poneered the study the approxmablty of a specal class of such mechansms, sequental posted prcng (SPM): the seller makes a sequence of take-t-or-leave-t offers to agents, offerng an tem for a specfc prce. They show although smple, SPMs approxmate the optmal revenue n many dfferent settngs. Therefore prophet nequaltes drectly translate to approxmaton factors for the seller s revenue n these settngs through standard machneres. Indeed one can analyze the so-called vrtual values of wnnng bds ntroduced by Roger Myerson [25, to prove va prophet nequaltes that the expected vrtual value obtaned by the SPM mechansm approxmates an offlne optmum that s wth respect to the exact types. Chawla et al. [11 provde a type of prophet nequalty n whch one can choose the orderng of agents. They show that under matrod feasblty constrants, one can acheve a compettve rato of.5 n ths model, and no algorthm can acheve a rato better.8. Klenberg and Wenberg [21 later mproved there result by gvng an algorthm wth the tght compettve rato of.5 for an adversaral orderng. Our result can be seen as mprovng ther approxmaton guarantees to.63 for the case of sngle-tem SPMs when the order of agents are chosen randomly. On the other hand, from the negatve sde the followng theorem shows that no onlne algorthm can acheve a compettve rato better than.75. The proof s gven n Secton 7. Theorem 3 For any arbtrary small postve number ǫ, there s no onlne algorthm for the prophet secretary problem wth compettve rato.75 + ǫ. We also consder the mnmzaton varants of the prophet nequalty problem, the prophet secretary problem and the secretary problem. In the mnmzaton varant, we need to select one element of the nput and we am to mnmze the expected value of the selected element. In partcular, we show that, even for the smple case n whch numbers are drawn from dentcal and ndependent dstrbutons (..d.), there s no (1.11)n 6 compettve onlne algorthm for the mnmzaton varants of the prophet nequalty and prophet secretary problems. Theorem 4 The compettve rato of any onlne algorthm for the mnmzaton prophet nequalty wth n dentcal and ndependent dstrbutons s bounded by (1.11)n 6. Ths bound holds for the mnmzaton prophet secretary problem as well. Furthermore, we empower the onlne algorthm and assume that the onlne algorthm can wthdraw and change ts decson once. Indeed, for the mnmzaton varants of all, prophet secretary problem, secretary problem and prophet nequalty, we show that there s no C compettve algorthm, where C s an arbtrary large number. The proof of Theorem 4 and ths last result are gven n Secton Prelmnares We frst defne some notaton. For every k [n, let z k denote the random varable that shows the value we pck at the k th step. Observe that for a fxed sequence of drawn values and a fxed permutaton, at most one of z k s s non-zero snce we only pck one number. Let z denote the value chosen by the algorthm. By defnton, z n z k. In fact, snce all but one of z k s are zero, we have the followng proposton. We note that snce the thresholds are determnstc, the randomness comes from the permutaton π and the dstrbutons. 5

7 Proposton 5 Pr[z x k [n Pr[z k x. For every k [n, let θ(k) denote the probablty that Algorthm Prophet Secretary does not choose a value from the frst k steps. For every [n and k [n 1, let q (k) denote the probablty that event () happens condtoned on event (). () Algorthm Prophet Secretary does not choose a value from the frst k elements. () None of the frst k values are drawn from D. Proposton 6 If the thresholds of Algorthm Prophet Secretary are non-ncreasng, then for every [n and k [n 1, we have θ(k+1) q (k). Proof : In what follows let [n be a fxed value. The clam s n fact very ntutve: q (k) s the probablty of the event that the algorthm passeskvalues chosen from all dstrbutons butd. On the other hand, θ(k+1) corresponds to the event that the algorthm passesk+1 values chosen from all dstrbutons. Intutvely, n the latter we have surely passed k values chosen from all but D. Therefore θ(k+1) cannot be more than q (k). Formalzng the ntuton above, however, requres an exact formulaton of the probabltes. For a permutaton s of sze k of [n, let s(j), for j [k, denote the number at poston j of s. For k [n, let S(k) denote the set of permutatons of sze k of [n. Let S (k) denote the set of permutatons of sze k of [n\{}. Observe that S(k) n! (n k)! and S (k) (n 1)! (n 1 k)! In partcular, we note that S(k+1) n S (k). We can now wrte down the exact formula forq (k) and θ(k+1). θ(k+1) q (k) 1 S(k+1) 1 S (k) s S(k+1) j [k+1 s S (k) j [k Pr [ X s(j) < τ j Pr [ X s(j) < τ j We now show that θ(k + 1) can be wrtten down as a convex combnaton of terms that are less than q (k). For every l [k, let S(k+1,l) {s S(k+1) s(l) }. We have s:s(k+1,l) j [k+1 Pr [ X s(j) τ j s:s(k+1,l) j [k+1\{l} s:s(k+1,l) j [k\{l} s:s (k) j [k Pr [ X s(j) τ j Pr [ X s(j) τ j Pr [ Xs(k+1) τ l Pr [ X s(j) τ j, where the frst nequalty s snce Pr[X < τ l 1 and the second nequalty s because Pr [ X s(k+1) +1 Pr [ X s(k+1) τ l and snce τk+1 τ l. (1) (2) 6

8 Thus, usng Equaton 2 we have s:s(k+1,l) j [k+1 Pr [ X s(j) τ j s:s (k) j [k Pr [ X s(j) τ j S (k) q (k). (3) Equaton 3 establshes the relaton toq (k) for members of S(k+1) that contan n one of the frstk postons. Let S(k+1) S(k+1)\ l [k S(k+1,l). We then have s:s(k+1) j [k+1\{l} Pr [ X s(j) τ j s:s(k+1) j [k\{l} (n k) Pr [ X s(j) τ j Pr [ Xs(k+1) +1 s:s (k+1) j [k\{l} (n k) S (k) q (k), Pr [ X s(j) τ j where the nequalty s snce Pr [ X s(k+1) Fnally usng ths last equaton and Equatons 1 and 3 and snce S(k+1) n S (k) we obtan 1 θ(k+1) S(k+1) 1 S(k+1) l [k s S(k+1) j [k+1 s S(k+1,l) j [k+1 Pr [ X s(j) < τ j Pr [ X s(j) < τ j + s S(k+1) j [k+1 1 S(k+1) (k S (k) q (k)+(n k) S (k) q (k)) q (k). Pr [ X s(j) < τ j 4 One Threshold Cannot Break 1 Barrer for Prophet Secretary 2 To llustrate that consderng at least2 thresholds s necessary to beat 1 2 barrer for the prophet secretary problem, we frst gve an example that shows achevng better than 1 2-compettve rato for any onlne algorthm that uses only one threshold for the prophet secretary problem s not possble. Theorem 7 There s no onlne algorthm for the prophet secretary problem that uses one threshold and can acheve compettve rato better than n. 1 Proof : Suppose we have n + 1 dstrbutons where the frst n dstrbutons always gves 1 1/n (n + 1) th dstrbuton gves n wth probablty 1 n and gves wth probablty 1 1 n probablty 1 n, the maxmum s n, and wth probablty 1 1 n, the maxmum s 1 1 1/n and the. Therefore, wth. Thus, the expected outcome of the offlne optmum algorthm s 1 n n+(1 1 n ) 1 1 1/n 2. Now, suppose we have an onlne algorthm that uses one threshold, say T for a number T, that s the onlne algorthm accepts the frst number greater or equal to a threshold T. We consder two cases for T. 7

9 The frst case s f T > 1 1 1/n for whch the algorthm does not accept 1 1 1/n and thus, the expected outcome of such an algorthm s 1 n n 1. The second case s f T 1 1 1/n. Observe that, wth probablty n n+1, the frst number s 1 1 1/n and the onlne algorthm accepts t. And, wth probablty 1 n+1, the dstrbuton that gves n wth probablty 1 n wll be the frst and the outcome of the algorthm s1. Thus, the expected outcome of the onlne algorthm s n n /n + 1 n2 1 n+1 n n n. Therefore, the compettve rato of the onlne algorthms that uses only one threshold s bounded by 1+1/n n. 5 Two Thresholds Breaks 1 2 Barrer Snce usng one threshold s hopeless, we now try usng two thresholds. More formally, for the frst half of steps, we use a certan threshold, and then we use a dfferent threshold for the rest of steps. We note that smlar to the one-threshold algorthm, both thresholds should be proportonal to OPT. Furthermore, at the begnnng we should be optmstc and try to have a hgher threshold, but f we cannot pck a value n the frst half, we may need to lower the bar! We show that by usng two thresholds one can ndeed acheve the compettve rato of In fact, ths mprovement beyond 1/2 happens even at n 2. Thus as a warm up before analyzng the man algorthm wth n thresholds, we focus on the case of n 2. Let τ 1 α 1 OPT andτ 2 α 2 OPT for some1 α 1 α 2 to be optmzed later. Recall thatz 1 and z 2 are the random varables showng the values pcked up by the algorthm at step one and two, respectvely. We are nterested n comparng E[z wth OPT. By Proposton 5 we have E[z Pr[z xdx Pr[z 1 xdx+ Pr[z 2 xdx. Observe that z 1 (resp. z 2 ) s ether zero or has a value more than τ 1 (resp. τ 2 ). In fact, snce τ 1 τ 2, z s ether zero or has a value more than τ 2. Recall that θ(1) s the probablty of z 1 whle θ(2) s the probablty of z 1 z 2. Ths observaton leads to the followng smplfcaton: E[z τ2 τ2 Pr[z 1 xdx+ Pr[z xdx+ τ1 τ1 τ 2 Pr[z 1 xdx+ τ 2 Pr[z 1 xdx + τ 2 (1 θ(2))+(τ 1 τ 2 )(1 θ(1))+ τ 1 Pr[z 1 xdx+ τ 1 Pr[z 1 xdx+ τ 1 Pr[z 1 xdx+ τ2 Pr[z 2 xdx+ τ 2 Pr[z 2 xdx τ 2 Pr[z 2 xdx. τ 2 Pr[z 2 xdx Let us frst focus on Pr[z 1 x. The frst value may come from any of the two dstrbutons, thus we have Pr[z 1 x 1 2 Pr[X 1 x+ 1 2 Pr[X 2 x. On the other hand, z 2 s non-zero only f we do not pck anythng at the frst step. For {1,2}, we pck a value of at least x drawn from D at step two, f and only f: () the value drawn from D s at least x; and () our algorthm does not pck a value from the prevous step whch s drawn from the other dstrbuton. 8

10 By defntons, the former happens wth probablty Pr[X x, whle the latter happens wth probablty q (1). Snce these two events are ndependent we have Pr[z 2 x 1 2 {1,2} q (1) Pr[X x θ(2) 2 Pr[X x. where the last nequalty follows from Proposton 6, although the proposton s trval for n 2. We can now contnue analyzng E[z from before E[z τ 2 (1 θ(2))+(τ 1 τ 2 )(1 θ(1))+ Pr[z 1 xdx+ τ 1 τ 2 (1 θ(2))+(τ 1 τ 2 )(1 θ(1))+ θ(1) 2 τ 1 τ 2 Pr[z 2 xdx Pr[X xdx+ θ(2) 2 τ 2 Pr[X xdx. We note that although the θ(1) factor s not requred n the thrd term of the last nequalty, we nclude t so that the formulas can have the same formaton as n the general formula of the next sectons. It remans to bound Pr[X x for k {1,2}. Recall that OPT E[max X. Hence for every k {1,2} and snce Pr[maxX x 1 we have OPT τk Pr[maxX xdx+ Pr[maxX xdx + From α k OPT and snce Pr[maxX x Pr[X xdx we then have Therefore we get (1 α k )OPT Pr[maxX xdx E[z τ 2 (1 θ(2))+(τ 1 τ 2 )(1 θ(1))+ θ(1) 2 τ 1 Pr[maxX xdx. Pr[X xdx. Pr[X xdx+ θ(2) 2 τ 2 Pr[X xdx (α 2 OPT)(1 θ(2))+(α 1 α 2 )OPT(1 θ(1))+ θ(1) 2 (1 α 1)OPT + θ(2) 2 (1 α 2)OPT ( OPT α 1 +θ(1)( 1+2α 2 3α 1 )+θ(2)( 1 3α ) 2 ). 2 2 Therefore by choosng α 2 1/3 and α 1 5/9, the coeffcents of θ(1) and θ(2) become zero, leadng to the compettve rato of 5/9.55. In the next secton, we show how one can generalze the arguments to the case of n thresholds for arbtrary n. 6 (1 1.63)-Compettve Rato UsngnThresholds e In ths secton we prove our man theorem. In partcular, we nvoke Algorthm Prophet Secretary wth n dstnct thresholds τ 1,...,τ n. The thresholds τ 1,...,τ n that we consder are non-adaptve (.e., Algorthm Prophet Secretary s oblvous to the hstory) and non-ncreasng. Intutvely, ths s because as we move to the end of stream we should be more pessmstc and use lower thresholds to catch remanng hgher values. 9

11 Formally, for every k [n, we consder threshold α k OPT where the sequence α 1,...,α n s non-ncreasng that s,α 1 α 1... α n. We nvoke Algorthm Prophet Secretary wth these thresholds and analyze the compettve rato of Algorthm Prophet Secretary wth respect to coeffcentsα k. Theorem 1 shows that there exsts a sequence of coeffcents α k that leads to the compettve rato of (1 1/e).63. Proof of Theorem 1. We prove the theorem n two steps: Frst, we fnd a lower bound on E[z n terms of OPT and coeffcents α. Second, we set coeffcents α k so that (1) α 1 becomes the compettve rato of Algorthm Prophet Secretary and (2) α 1 converges to 1 1/e, when n goes to nfnty. We start by provng the followng auxlary lemmas. In the frst lemma, we fnd a lower bound for Pr[maxX xdx based onopt E[max X. Lemma 8 Pr[maxX xdx (1 α k )OPT. Proof : For an arbtrary k [n and snce Pr[maxX x 1, we have [ OPT E max Pr[maxX xdx τk + X Pr[maxX xdx+ Pr[maxX xdx. Pr[maxX xdx Snce, by defnton α k OPT, we have (1 α k ) OPT Pr[maxX xdx. Next, to fnd a lower bound for E[z, we frst splt t nto two terms. Later, we fnd lower bounds for each one of these terms based onopt E[max X. Lemma 9 Letz n z k denote the value chosen by Algorthm Prophet Secretary. For z we have E[z τk Pr[z k xdx+ Pr[z k xdx. Proof : By Proposton 5 we have E[z Pr[z xdx τk Pr[z k xdx+ Pr[z k xdx Pr[z k xdx, where we use ths fact that z n z k because we only pck one number for a fxed sequence of drawn values and a fxed permutaton and therefore, at most one of z k s s non-zero. Lemma 1 n τk Pr[z k xdx OPT n (1 θ(k))(α k α k+1 ). Proof : Suppose x. Observe that the event z k x occurs when Algorthm Prophet Secretary chooses a value at step k. In fact, snce the thresholds are non-ncreasng, whatever we pck at the frst k 1

12 steps would be at least x. Recall that for every k [n, θ(k) s the probablty that Algorthm Prophet Secretary does not choose a value from the frst k steps. Hence, for every k [n and x we have Pr[z j x 1 θ(k). (4) j k To smplfy the notaton, we assume that α whch means τ and we let α n+1 whch means τ n+1. Therefore we have τk Pr[z k xdx τk Next, we use Equaton (4) to prove the lemma as follows. τ n+1 Pr[z k xdx. τk Pr[z k xdx τk Pr[z k xdx τ n+1 τr Pr[z k xdx τ r+1 r τr Pr[z k xdx (1 θ(r))dx τ r+1 r1 τ r+1 (1 θ(r))(τ r τ r+1 ) OPT (1 θ(k))(α k α k+1 ). rk τr r1 r1 Lemma 11 n Pr[z k xdx OPT θ(k) k n (1 α k). Proof : Recall that for every dstrbuton D we draw a number X. Later, we randomly permute the numbersx 1,,X n. Let the sequence of ndces after the random permutaton beπ 1,...,π n that s, at step k, number X πk for π k [n s revealed. Suppose x. We break the event z k > to n dfferent scenaros dependng on whch ndex of the dstrbutons D 1,,D n s mapped to ndex π k n the random permutaton. Let us consder the scenaro n whch Algorthm Prophet Secretary chooses the value drawn from a dstrbuton at step k. Such a scenaro happens f () Algorthm Prophet Secretary does not choose a value from the frst k 1 steps whch are not drawn from, and () X. Observe that the two events are ndependent. Therefore, we have Pr[z k x Pr[π k Pr[X x q (k 1). Snce π k s an ndex n the random permutaton we obtan Pr[z k x Pr[π k Pr[X x q (k 1) 1 Pr[X xq (k 1). n 11

13 Usng Proposton 6 and an applcaton of the unon bound we then have Pr[z k x Pr[π k Pr[X x q (k 1) 1 Pr[X x q (k 1) n θ(k) Pr[X x θ(k) [ n n Pr maxx x. Therefore, we obtan the followng lower bound on n Pr[z k xdx. Pr[z k xdx k k θ(k) n Pr[maxX xdx θ(k) n Pr[maxX xdx. Fnally, we use the lower bound of Lemma 8 for Pr[maxX xdx to prove the lemma. Pr[z k xdx k k θ(k) n Pr[maxX xdx θ(k) n (1 α k) OPT OPT k θ(k) n (1 α k). Now we can plug n the lower bounds of Lemmas 1 and 11 nto Lemma 9 to obtan a lower bound for E[z. Corollary 12 Let z n z k denote the value chosen by Algorthm Prophet Secretary. For z we have E[z OPT (α 1 + θ(k)( 1 n α k n α k +α k+1 )). We fnsh the proof of the theorem by provng the followng clam. Lemma 13 The compettve rato of Algorthm Prophet Secretary s at least α 1 whch quckly converges to 1 1/e.63 when n goes to nfnty. Proof : Usng Corollary 12, for z we have ( E[z OPT α 1 + ( 1 θ(k) n α ) ) k n α k +α k+1, whch means that the compettve rato depends on the probabltes θ(k) s. However, we can easly get rd of the probabltes θ(k) s by choosng α k s such that for every k, ( 1 n α ) k n α k +α k+1. 12

14 More formally, by startng from α n+1 and choosng α k 1+nα k+1 1+n for k n, the compettve rato of the algorthm would be α 1. Below, we show that when n goes to nfnty, α 1 quckly goes to 1 1/e whch means that the compettve rato of Algorthm Prophet Secretary converges to 1 1/e.63. Frst, we show by the nducton that α k n k n (1+n) +1. For the base case we have α n 1+nα n+1 1+n 1+n 1+n n (1+n) 1. Gvenα k+1 n (k+1) n (1+n) +1 we show the equalty for α k as follows. α k 1+nα k+1 1+n 1+n( n (k+1) 1+n n (1+n) +1 ) n n (k+1) (1+n) 1 + n +1 (1+n) +2 n k n (1+n) +1. Now we are ready to show α 1 1 1/e when n goes to nfnty. lm α n 1 1 lm n n n lm (n+1) +1 n 1 n 1 lm e /n n n n 1 n+1 (1 1 n+1 ) e x dx 1 1/e. 7 Lower Bounds for Prophet Secretary and Mnmzaton Varants of Classcal Stoppng Theory Problems In ths secton we gve our lower bounds for the prophet secretary problem and the mnmzaton varants of the prophet nequalty and prophet secretary problems. Frst, n Secton 7.1 we show that no onlne algorthm for the prophet secretary problem can acheve a compettve rato better than.75. Later, n Secton 7.2 we consder the mnmzaton varant of the prophet nequalty problem. We show that, even for the smple case n whch numbers are drawn from dentcal and ndependent dstrbutons (..d.), there s no constant compettve onlne algorthm for the mnmzaton varants of the prophet nequalty and prophet secretary problems Lower Bound of Prophet Secretary Problem Now we prove Theorem 3 that mproves the above lower bound by showng that there s no algorthm for the prophet secretary problem wth compettve rato.75 + ǫ. 13

15 Proof of Theorem 3. It s known that no algorthm can guarantee a compettve rato better than.5+ǫ, whereǫs an arbtrary small postve number less than 1. A hard example that shows ths upper bound s as follow. We have two dstrbutons. The frst dstrbuton always gves 1, and the second dstrbuton gves 1 ǫ wth probablty ǫ and wth probablty 1 ǫ. Observe that f we ether accept the frst number or reject t our expected outcome s 1. On the other hand, the offlne optmum algorthm takes 1 ǫ wth probablty ǫ and 1 wth probablty 1 ǫ. Therefore, the expected outcome of the offlne optmum algorthm s ǫ 1 ǫ +1 (1 ǫ) 2 ǫ, and the compettve rato s at most 1 2 ǫ.5+ǫ. The above example contans exactly two dstrbutons. Thus, f the drawn numbers from these dstrbutons arrve n a random order, wth probablty.5 the arrval order s the worst case order. Ths means that n the prophet secretary, wth probablty.5 the expected outcome of any algorthm on ths example s at most 1, whle the offlne optmum algorthm s always 2 ǫ. Therefore, there s no algorthm for the prophet secretary problem wth compettve rato better than (2 ǫ) 2 ǫ.75+ǫ. 7.2 Lower Bounds for Mnmzaton Varants of Classcal Stoppng Theory Problems In ths secton, we consder the mnmzaton varant of the prophet secretary problem, n whch we need to select one element from the nput and we am to mnmze the value of the selected element. Indeed, we provde some hardness results for very smple and restrcted cases of ths problem. We extend our results to the mnmzaton varant of the classcal prophet nequalty or mnmzaton varant of secretary problem. Frst, we consder the smple case that numbers are drawn from dentcal and ndependent dstrbutons. In partcular, we prove Theorem 4 that shows, even for the smple case of dentcal and ndependent dstrbutons, there s no (1.11)n 6 compettve onlne algorthm for the mnmzaton varant of the prophet nequalty problem. Snce the nput tems come from dentcal dstrbutons, ndependently, randomly reorderng them do not change the dstrbuton of the tems n the nput. Thus, ths result holds for the mnmzaton varant of the prophet secretary problem as well. Later, we gve more power to the onlne algorthm and let t to change ts decson once; we call ths model onlne algorthm wth one exchange. In Theorem 14 we show that, for any large number C there s no C compettve onlne algorthm wth one exchange for the mnmzaton varant of the prophet nequalty. In Corollary 15 and Corollary 16 we extend ths hardness result to the mnmzaton varant of prophet secretary problem and secretary problem, respectvely. Proof of Theorem 4. Suppose we have n dentcal dstrbutons, each gves wth probablty 1 3, 1 wth probablty 1 3 and 2n wth probablty 1 3. One can see that wth probablty (1 3 )n, all of the numbers are 2 n and thus the mnmum number s 2 n. Also, wth probablty ( 2 3 )n ( 1 3 )n, there s no and there s at least one1, and thus, the mnmum s1. In all the other cases, the mnmum s. Therefore, the expected outcome of the offlne optmum algorthm s ( 1 3 )n 2 n +( 2 3 )n ( 1 3 )n < 2n+1 3. n For ths example, wthout loss of generalty we can assume that any onlne algorthm accept as soon as t appears, and also t does not accept 2 n except for the last tem. Assume + 1 s the frst tme that the algorthm s wllng to accept 1. The probablty that we arrve n ths pont s ( 2 3 ) and the probablty that we see 1 at that pont s 1 3. On the other hand, the probablty that such an algorthm does not accept anythng up to the last number and sees that the last number s 2 n s at least ( 2 3 ) ( 1 3 )n. Therefore, the expected outcome of the onlne algorthm s at least ( 2 3 )1 3 1+(2 3 ) ( 1 3 )n 2 n 2 3 n Thus, the n compettve rato s at least 2 3 n n+1 1 (3n n 2 n ). If.73n, the left term s at least (1.11)n 6 ; otherwse, the rght term s at least (1.11)n 6. 14

16 Theorem 14 For any large postve number C, there s no C-compettve algorthm for mnmzaton prophet nequalty wth one exchange. Proof : Suppose we have three dstrbutons as follows. The frst dstrbuton always gves 1. The second dstrbuton gves 1 ǫ ǫ wth probablty ǫ and gves 1 ǫ wth probablty 1 ǫ. The thrd dstrbuton gves 1 ǫ wth probablty ǫ and gves wth probablty 1 ǫ. We set ǫ later. ǫ We observe that the mnmum number s wth probablty 1 ǫ, s 1 ǫ wth probablty ǫ(1 ǫ) and s1wth probablty ǫ 2. Thus, the expected outcome of the optmum algorthm s (1 ǫ) +ǫ(1 ǫ) ǫ 1 ǫ +ǫ2 1 2ǫ 2. Now, we show that the outcome of any onlne algorthm wth one exchange for ths nput s at least ǫ. In fact, ths means that, the compettve rato can not be less than ǫ 1 1 2ǫ 2 2ǫ. If we set ǫ 2C, ths means that there s no C-compettve algorthm for the mnmzaton prophet nequalty wth one exchange. Recall that there s no uncertanty n the frst number. If an algorthm wthdraw the frst number, t can take the outcome of ether the second dstrbuton or the thrd dstrbuton. However, f we do ths, wth probablty ǫ 2 the outcome s 1 ǫ. Thus, the expected outcome s at least ǫ as desred. Now, we just need to show that f an algorthm does not select the frst number, ts expected outcome s at least ǫ. Observe that f ths happens, then the algorthm has only the opton of choosng ether the second and the thrd dstrbuton. We consder two cases. The frst case s f the algorthm does not select the second number, then t must select the thrd number. Therefore, wth probablty ǫ, the outcome of the algorthm s 1 and thus, the expected outcome s at least ǫ. The second case occurs f the algorthm selects the second ǫ ǫ number and that s 1 ǫ. Therefore, wth probablty 1 ǫ, the outcome of the algorthm s 1 ǫ and agan the expected outcome s (1 ǫ) ǫ. ǫ 1 ǫ Fnally, we show that even for the mnmzaton varant of the prophet secretary there s no hope to get a constant compettve rato. Corollary 15 For any large number C, there s no C-compettve algorthm for mnmzaton prophet secretary wth one exchange. Proof : In Theorem 14, we have three dstrbutons. Thus, n the prophet secretary model the worst case order happen wth probablty Thus, the compettve rato can not be more than 6 ǫ 1 2ǫ 2 12ǫ. If we set ǫ 1 12C, ths essentally means that there s no C-compettve algorthm for the mnmzaton prophet secretary wth one exchange. Corollary 16 For any large number C there s no C-compettve algorthm for the mnmzaton secretary problem wth one exchange. Proof : Suppose for the sake of contradcton that there exsts an algorthm Alg for the mnmzaton secretary problem whch s C-compettve. Consder all possble realzatons of the example n Theorem 14. Algorthm Alg s C-compettve when each of the these realzatons comes n a random order. Therefore, Algorthm Alg sc-compettve when the nput s a dstrbuton over these realzatons. Ths says that Alg s a C-compettve algorthm for the mnmzaton prophet secretary, whch contradcts Corollary 15 and completes the proof. Acknowledgments. We would lke to thank Robert Klenberg for frutful dscusson on early stages of ths project. 15

17 References [1 M. Ajta, N. Megddo, and O. Waarts. Improved algorthms and analyss for secretary problems and generalzatons. SIAM J. Dscrete Math., 14(1):1 27, 21. [2 S. Alae. Bayesan combnatoral auctons: Expandng sngle buyer mechansms to many buyers. In FOCS [3 S. Alae, M. Hajaghay, and V. Laghat. Onlne prophet-nequalty matchng wth applcatons to ad allocaton. In EC, 212. [4 S. Alae, M. Hajaghay, and V. Laghat. The onlne stochastc generalzed assgnment problem. In Approx. Sprnger, 213. [5 S. Alae, M. T. Hajaghay, V. Laghat, D. Pe, and B. Saha. Adcell: Ad allocaton n cellular networks. In ESA [6 D. Assaf, L. Goldsten, and E. Samuel-cahn. Rato prophet nequaltes when the mortal has several choces. Ann. Appl. Prob, 12: , 21. [7 M. Babaoff, N. Immorlca, D. Kempe, and R. Klenberg. A knapsack secretary problem wth applcatons. In APPROX, pages 16 28, 27. [8 M. Babaoff, N. Immorlca, D. Kempe, and R. Klenberg. Onlne auctons and generalzed secretary problems. SIGecom Exch., 7(2):1 11, 28. [9 M. Babaoff, N. Immorlca, and R. Klenberg. Matrods, secretary problems, and onlne mechansms. In SODA, pages , 27. [1 M. Baten, M. T. Hajaghay, and M. Zadmoghaddam. Submodular secretary problem and extensons. ACM Transactons on Algorthms, 9(4):32, 213. [11 S. Chawla, J. Hartlne, D. Malec, and B. Svan. Mult-parameter mechansm desgn and sequental posted prcng. 21. [12 E. B. Dynkn. The optmum choce of the nstant for stoppng a markov process. Sov. Math. Dokl., 4: , [13 P. R. Freeman. The secretary problem and ts extensons: a revew. Internat. Statst. Rev., 51(2):189 26, [14 J. P. Glbert and F. Mosteller. Recognzng the maxmum of a sequence. J. Amer. Statst. Assoc., 61:35 73, [15 K. S. Glasser, R. Holzsager, and A. Barron. The d choce secretary problem. Comm. Statst. C Sequental Anal., 2(3): , [16 M. T. Hajaghay, R. Klenberg, and D. C. Parkes. Adaptve lmted-supply onlne auctons. In EC, pages 71 8, 24. [17 M. T. Hajaghay, R. Klenberg, and T. Sandholm. Automated onlne mechansm desgn and prophet nequaltes. In AAAI, pages 58 65,

18 [18 N. Immorlca, R. D. Klenberg, and M. Mahdan. Secretary problems wth competng employers. In WINE, pages 389 4, 26. [19 D. P. Kennedy. Prophet-type nequaltes for mult-choce optmal stoppng. In In Stoch. Proc. Applc [2 R. Klenberg. A multple-choce secretary algorthm wth applcatons to onlne auctons. In SODA, pages , 25. [21 R. Klenberg and S. M. Wenberg. Matrod prophet nequaltes. In STOC, 212. [22 U. Krengel and L. Sucheston. Semamarts and fnte values. In Bull. Am. Math. Soc [23 U. Krengel and L. Sucheston. On semamarts, amarts, and processes wth fnte value. In In Kuelbs, J., ed., Probablty on Banach Spaces [24 O. Lachsh. o(log log rank)-compettve-rato for the matrod secretary problem. In FOCS [25 R. B. Myerson. Optmal aucton desgn. Mathematcs of operatons research, 6(1):58 73, [26 R. J. Vanderbe. The optmal choce of a subset of a populaton. Math. Oper. Res., 5(4): , 198. [27 J. G. Wlson. Optmal choce and assgnment of the best m of n randomly arrvng tems. Stochastc Process. Appl., 39(2): , [28 Q. Yan. Mechansm desgn va correlaton gap. In Proceedngs of the Twenty-Second Annual ACM- SIAM Symposum on Dscrete Algorthms, SODA 211, San Francsco, Calforna, USA, January 23-25, 211, pages ,