Efficient Caching with Reserves via Marking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Online caching is among the most fundamental and well-studied problems in the area of online algorithms. Innovative algorithmic ideas and analysis -- including potential functions and primal-dual techniques -- give insight into this still-growing area. Here, we introduce a new analysis technique that first uses a potential function to upper bound the cost of an online algorithm and then pairs that with a new dual-fitting strategy to lower bound the cost of an offline optimal algorithm. We apply these techniques to the Caching with Reserves problem recently introduced by Ibrahimpur et al. [10] and give an O(log k)-competitive fractional online algorithm via a marking strategy, where k denotes the size of the cache. We also design a new online rounding algorithm that runs in polynomial time to obtain an O(log k)-competitive randomized integral algorithm. Additionally, we provide a new, simple proof for randomized marking for the classical unweighted paging problem.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".