A Little Clairvoyance Is All You Need

August 25, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Anupam Gupta, Haim Kaplan, Alexander Lindermayr, Jens SchlΓΆter, Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai arXiv ID 2508.17759 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 2 Venue IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
We revisit the classical problem of minimizing the total flow time of jobs on a single machine in the online setting where jobs arrive over time. It has long been known that the Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT) algorithm is optimal (i.e., $1$-competitive) when the job sizes are known up-front [Schrage, 1968]. But in the non-clairvoyant setting where job sizes are revealed only when the job finishes, no algorithm can be constant-competitive [Motwani, Phillips, and Torng, 1994]. We consider the $\varepsilon$-clairvoyant setting, where $\varepsilon \in [0,1]$, and each job's processing time becomes known once its remaining processing time equals an $\varepsilon$ fraction of its processing time. This captures settings where the system user uses the initial $(1-\varepsilon)$ fraction of a job's processing time to learn its true length, which it can then reveal to the algorithm. The model was proposed by Yingchareonthawornchai and Torng (2017), and it smoothly interpolates between the clairvoyant setting (when $Ξ΅= 1$) and the non-clairvoyant setting (when $\varepsilon = 0$). In a concrete sense, we are asking: how much knowledge is required to circumvent the hardness of this problem? We show that a little knowledge is enough, and that a constant competitive algorithm exists for every constant $\varepsilon > 0$. More precisely, for all $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, we present a deterministic $\smash{\lceil \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\rceil}$-competitive algorithm, which is optimal for deterministic algorithms. We also present a matching lower bound (up to a constant factor) for randomized algorithms. Our algorithm to achieve this bound is remarkably simple and applies the ``optimism in the face of uncertainty'' principle. The proof relies on maintaining a matching between the jobs in the optimum's queue and the algorithm's queue, with small prefix expansion.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted