skip to main content
research-article

Competitive Online Optimization with Multiple Inventories: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 June 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We study an online inventory trading problem where a user seeks to maximize the aggregate revenue of trading multiple inventories over a time horizon. The trading constraints and concave revenue functions are revealed sequentially in time, and the user needs to make irrevocable decisions. The problem has wide applications in various engineering domains. Existing works employ the primal-dual framework to design online algorithms with sub-optimal, albeit near-optimal, competitive ratios (CR). We exploit the problem structure to develop a new divide-and-conquer approach to solve the online multi-inventory problem by solving multiple calibrated single-inventory ones separately and combining their solutions. The approach achieves the optimal CR of łn θ + 1 if Nłeq łn θ + 1, where N is the number of inventories and θ represents the revenue function uncertainty; it attains a CR of 1/[1-e^-1/(łnθ+1) ] in [łn θ +1, łn θ +2) otherwise. The divide-and-conquer approach reveals novel structural insights for the problem, (partially) closes a gap in existing studies, and generalizes to broader settings. For example, it gives an algorithm with a CR within a constant factor to the lower bound for a generalized one-way trading problem with price elasticity with no previous results. When developing the above results, we also extend a recent CR-Pursuit algorithmic framework and introduce an online allocation problem with allowance augmentation, both of which can be of independent interest.

References

  1. Shizhen Zhao, Xiaojun Lin, and Minghua Chen. Robust online algorithms for peak-minimizing ev charging under multistage uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 62(11):5739--5754, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bahram Alinia, Mohammad Sadegh Talebi, Mohammad H Hajiesmaili, Ali Yekkehkhany, and Noel Crespi. Competitive online scheduling algorithms with applications in deadline-constrained ev charging. In 2018 IEEE/ACM 26th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS), pages 1--10. IEEE, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Qiulin Lin, Hanling Yi, and Minghua Chen. Minimizing cost-plus-dissatisfaction in online ev charging under real-time pricing. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Shuoyao Wang, Suzhi Bi, Ying-Jun Angela Zhang, and Jianwei Huang. Electrical vehicle charging station profit maximization: Admission, pricing, and online scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 9(4):1722--1731, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Lian Lu, Jinlong Tu, Chi-Kin Chau, Minghua Chen, and Xiaojun Lin. Online energy generation scheduling for microgrids with intermittent energy sources and co-generation. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 41(1):53--66, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ying Zhang, Mohammad H Hajiesmaili, Sinan Cai, Minghua Chen, and Qi Zhu. Peak-aware online economic dispatching for microgrids. IEEE transactions on smart grid, 9(1):323--335, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Yanfang Mo, Qiulin Lin, Minghua Chen, and S. Joe Qin. Optimal online algorithms for peak-demand reduction maximization with energy storage. In Proc. ACM e-Energy, pages 73--83, 2021.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yanfang Mo, Qiulin Lin, Minghua Chen, and S. Joe Qin. Optimal peak-minimizing online algorithms for large-load users with energy storage. In IEEE INFOCOM, 2021. poster paper.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Minghong Lin, Adam Wierman, Lachlan LH Andrew, and Eno Thereska. Dynamic right-sizing for power-proportional data centers. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 21(5):1378--1391, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tan Lu, Minghua Chen, and Lachlan LH Andrew. Simple and effective dynamic provisioning for power-proportional data centers. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 24(6):1161--1171, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ming Shi, Xiaojun Lin, Sonia Fahmy, and Dong-Hoon Shin. Competitive online convex optimization with switching costs and ramp constraints. In IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pages 1835--1843. IEEE, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Linqi Guo, John Pang, and Anwar Walid. Joint placement and routing of network function chains in data centers. In IEEE INFOCOM 2018-IEEE Conference on Computer Communications, pages 612--620. IEEE, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Niv Buchbinder and Joseph Naor. The design of competitive online algorithms via a primal-dual approach. Now Publishers Inc, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Aranyak Mehta. Online matching and ad allocation. Foundations and Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, 8(4):265--368, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Yunhong Zhou, Deeparnab Chakrabarty, and Rajan Lukose. Budget constrained bidding in keyword auctions and online knapsack problems. In International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics, pages 566--576. Springer, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Ran El-Yaniv, Amos Fiat, Richard M Karp, and Gordon Turpin. Optimal search and one-way trading online algorithms. Algorithmica, 30(1):101--139, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Minghong Lin, Adam Wierman, Alan Roytman, Adam Meyerson, and Lachlan LH Andrew. Online optimization with switching cost. ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 40(3):98--100, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Nikhil Bansal, Anupam Gupta, Ravishankar Krishnaswamy, Kirk Pruhs, Kevin Schewior, and Cliff Stein. A 2-competitive algorithm for online convex optimization with switching costs. In Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques (APPROX/RANDOM 2015). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Jon Feldman, Nitish Korula, Vahab Mirrokni, S. Muthukrishnan, and Martin Pál. Online ad assignment with free disposal. In Stefano Leonardi, editor, Internet and Network Economics, pages 374--385, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Nikhil R. Devanur and Kamal Jain. Online matching with concave returns. In Proceedings of the Forty-Fourth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC '12, page 137--144, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Qiulin Lin, Hanling Yi, John Pang, Minghua Chen, Adam Wierman, Michael Honig, and Yuanzhang Xiao. Competitive online optimization under inventory constraints. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., 3(1), March 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Bo Sun, Ali Zeynali, Tongxin Li, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, Adam Wierman, and Danny H.K. Tsang. Competitive algorithms for the online multiple knapsack problem with application to electric vehicle charging. Proc. ACM Meas. Anal. Comput. Syst., 4(3), December 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yossi Azar and Arik Litichevskey. Maximizing throughput in multi-queue switches. Algorithmica, 45(1):69--90, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Bala Kalyanasundaram and Kirk R. Pruhs. An optimal deterministic algorithm for online b-matching. Theoretical Computer Science, 233(1):319--325, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Han Deng and I-Hong Hou. Optimal capacity provisioning for online job allocation with hard allocation ratio requirement. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 26(2):724--736, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Will Ma and David Simchi-Levi. Algorithms for online matching, assortment, and pricing with tight weight-dependent competitive ratios. Operations Research, 68(6):1787--1803, 2020.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Nikhil R. Devanur, Kamal Jain, and Robert D. Kleinberg. Randomized primal-dual analysis of ranking for online bipartite matching. SODA '13, page 101--107, USA, 2013. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Rad Niazadeh and Robert D. Kleinberg. A unified approach to online allocation algorithms via randomized dual fitting. CoRR, abs/1308.5444, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Julian Lorenz, Konstantinos Panagiotou, and Angelika Steger. Optimal algorithms for k-search with application in option pricing. Algorithmica, 55(2):311--328, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Richard M Karp, Umesh V Vazirani, and Vijay V Vazirani. An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the twenty-second annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 352--358, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Yossi Azar, Niv Buchbinder, TH Hubert Chan, Shahar Chen, Ilan Reuven Cohen, Anupam Gupta, Zhiyi Huang, Ning Kang, Viswanath Nagarajan, Joseph Naor, et al. Online algorithms for covering and packing problems with convex objectives. In 2016 IEEE 57th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 148--157. IEEE, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Han Deng, Tao Zhao, and I-Hong Hou. Online routing and scheduling with capacity redundancy for timely delivery guarantees in multihop networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 27(3):1258--1271, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Niv Buchbinder, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Ishai Menache, Joseph Naor, and Ariel Orda. Dynamic power allocation under arbitrary varying channels-an online approach. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 20(2):477--487, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Niv Buchbinder, Liane Lewin-Eytan, Ishai Menache, Joseph Naor, and Ariel Orda. Dynamic power allocation under arbitrary varying channels - the multi-user case. In 2010 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, pages 1--9, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Competitive Online Optimization with Multiple Inventories: A Divide-and-Conquer Approach

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems
            Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems  Volume 6, Issue 2
            POMACS
            June 2022
            499 pages
            EISSN:2476-1249
            DOI:10.1145/3543145
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2022 ACM

            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].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 6 June 2022
            Published in pomacs Volume 6, Issue 2

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader