A Learning Perspective on Random-Order Covering Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the random-order online set cover problem, the instance with $m$ sets and $n$ elements is chosen in a worst-case fashion, but then the elements arrive in a uniformly random order. Can this random-order model allow us to circumvent the bound of $O(\log m \log n)$-competitiveness for the adversarial arrival order model? This long-standing question was recently resolved by Gupta et al. (2021), who gave an algorithm that achieved an $O(\log mn)$-competitive ratio. While their LearnOrCover was inspired by ideas in online learning (and specifically the multiplicative weights update method), the analysis proceeded by showing progress from first principles. In this work, we show a concrete connection between random-order set cover and stochastic mirror-descent/online convex optimization. In particular, we show how additive/multiplicative regret bounds for the latter translate into competitiveness for the former. Indeed, we give a clean recipe for this translation, allowing us to extend our results to covering integer programs, set multicover, and non-metric facility location in the random order model, matching (and giving simpler proofs of) the previous applications of the LearnOrCover framework.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".