A General Framework for Learning-Augmented Online Allocation

Authors Ilan Reuven Cohen , Debmalya Panigrahi

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.83 MB
  • 21 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Ilan Reuven Cohen
  • Faculty of Engineering, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Debmalya Panigrahi
  • Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Cite AsGet BibTex

Ilan Reuven Cohen and Debmalya Panigrahi. A General Framework for Learning-Augmented Online Allocation. In 50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2023). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 261, pp. 43:1-43:21, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)


Online allocation is a broad class of problems where items arriving online have to be allocated to agents who have a fixed utility/cost for each assigned item so to maximize/minimize some objective. This framework captures a broad range of fundamental problems such as the Santa Claus problem (maximizing minimum utility), Nash welfare maximization (maximizing geometric mean of utilities), makespan minimization (minimizing maximum cost), minimization of 𝓁_p-norms, and so on. We focus on divisible items (i.e., fractional allocations) in this paper. Even for divisible items, these problems are characterized by strong super-constant lower bounds in the classical worst-case online model. In this paper, we study online allocations in the learning-augmented setting, i.e., where the algorithm has access to some additional (machine-learned) information about the problem instance. We introduce a general algorithmic framework for learning-augmented online allocation that produces nearly optimal solutions for this broad range of maximization and minimization objectives using only a single learned parameter for every agent. As corollaries of our general framework, we improve prior results of Lattanzi et al. (SODA 2020) and Li and Xian (ICML 2021) for learning-augmented makespan minimization, and obtain the first learning-augmented nearly-optimal algorithms for the other objectives such as Santa Claus, Nash welfare, 𝓁_p-minimization, etc. We also give tight bounds on the resilience of our algorithms to errors in the learned parameters, and study the learnability of these parameters.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Scheduling algorithms
  • Algorithms with predictions
  • Scheduling algorithms
  • Online algorithms


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Shipra Agrawal, Morteza Zadimoghaddam, and Vahab Mirrokni. Proportional allocation: Simple, distributed, and diverse matching with high entropy. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 99-108. PMLR, 2018. Google Scholar
  2. Antonios Antoniadis, Themis Gouleakis, Pieter Kleer, and Pavel Kolev. Secretary and online matching problems with machine learned advice. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, 2020. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/5a378f8490c8d6af8647a753812f6e31-Abstract.html.
  3. James Aspnes, Yossi Azar, Amos Fiat, Serge A. Plotkin, and Orli Waarts. On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling. J. ACM, 44(3):486-504, 1997. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/258128.258201.
  4. Baruch Awerbuch, Yossi Azar, Edward F. Grove, Ming-Yang Kao, P. Krishnan, and Jeffrey Scott Vitter. Load balancing in the l_p norm. In 36th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 383-391. IEEE Computer Society, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1995.492494.
  5. Yossi Azar, Stefano Leonardi, and Noam Touitou. Flow time scheduling with uncertain processing time. In STOC '21: 53rd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1070-1080. ACM, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451023.
  6. Yossi Azar, Stefano Leonardi, and Noam Touitou. Distortion-oblivious algorithms for minimizing flow time. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2022, pages 252-274. SIAM, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611977073.13.
  7. Yossi Azar, Joseph Naor, and Raphael Rom. The competitiveness of on-line assignments. J. Algorithms, 18(2):221-237, 1995. URL: https://doi.org/10.1006/jagm.1995.1008.
  8. Étienne Bamas, Andreas Maggiori, Lars Rohwedder, and Ola Svensson. Learning augmented energy minimization via speed scaling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, NeurIPS 2020, 2020. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/af94ed0d6f5acc95f97170e3685f16c0-Abstract.html.
  9. Siddhartha Banerjee, Vasilis Gkatzelis, Artur Gorokh, and Billy Jin. Online nash social welfare maximization with predictions. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2022, pages 1-19. SIAM, 2022. Google Scholar
  10. Siddharth Barman, Arindam Khan, and Arnab Maiti. Universal and tight online algorithms for generalized-mean welfare. In Thirty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4793-4800. AAAI Press, 2022. Google Scholar
  11. DK Callebaut. Generalization of the cauchy-schwarz inequality. Journal of mathematical analysis and applications, 12(3):491-494, 1965. Google Scholar
  12. Ioannis Caragiannis. Better bounds for online load balancing on unrelated machines. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2008, pages 972-981. SIAM, 2008. Google Scholar
  13. Justin Y. Chen and Piotr Indyk. Online bipartite matching with predicted degrees. CoRR, 2021. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.11439.
  14. MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, MohammadReza Khani, Debmalya Panigrahi, and Max Springer. Online algorithms for the santa claus problem. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, NeurIPS 2022, 2022. Google Scholar
  15. Sungjin Im, Ravi Kumar, Mahshid Montazer Qaem, and Manish Purohit. Non-clairvoyant scheduling with predictions. In SPAA '21: 33rd ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures, Virtual Event, USA, 6-8 July, 2021, pages 285-294. ACM, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3409964.3461790.
  16. Ravi Kumar, Manish Purohit, Aaron Schild, Zoya Svitkina, and Erik Vee. Semi-online bipartite matching. In 10th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2019, volume 124 of LIPIcs, pages 50:1-50:20. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2019.50.
  17. Silvio Lattanzi, Thomas Lavastida, Benjamin Moseley, and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Online scheduling via learned weights. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2020, pages 1859-1877. SIAM, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975994.114.
  18. Thomas Lavastida, Benjamin Moseley, R. Ravi, and Chenyang Xu. Learnable and instance-robust predictions for online matching, flows and load balancing. In 29th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, ESA 2021, volume 204 of LIPIcs, pages 59:1-59:17, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2021.59.
  19. Thomas Lavastida, Benjamin Moseley, R. Ravi, and Chenyang Xu. Using predicted weights for ad delivery. In Applied and Computational Discrete Algorithms, ACDA 2021, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976830.3.
  20. Shi Li and Jiayi Xian. Online unrelated machine load balancing with predictions revisited. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2021, 2021. URL: http://proceedings.mlr.press/v139/li21w.html.
  21. Thodoris Lykouris and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Competitive caching with machine learned advice. J. ACM, 68(4):24:1-24:25, 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3447579.
  22. Mohammad Mahdian, Hamid Nazerzadeh, and Amin Saberi. Online optimization with uncertain information. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 8(1):2:1-2:29, 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/2071379.2071381.
  23. EA Milne. Note on rosseland’s integral for the stellar absorption coefficient. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 85:979-984, 1925. Google Scholar
  24. Michael Mitzenmacher. Scheduling with predictions and the price of misprediction. In 11th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, ITCS 2020, volume 151 of LIPIcs, pages 14:1-14:18. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ITCS.2020.14.
  25. Michael Mitzenmacher and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Algorithms with predictions. In Beyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms, pages 646-662. Cambridge University Press, 2020. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108637435.037.
  26. Michael Mitzenmacher and Sergei Vassilvitskii. Algorithms with predictions. Commun. ACM, 65(7):33-35, 2022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/3528087.
  27. Manish Purohit, Zoya Svitkina, and Ravi Kumar. Improving online algorithms via ML predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, NeurIPS 2018, 2018. URL: https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2018/hash/73a427badebe0e32caa2e1fc7530b7f3-Abstract.html.