Fairness in the k-Server Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We initiate a formal study of fairness for the $k$-server problem, where the objective is not only to minimize the total movement cost, but also to distribute the cost equitably among servers. We first define a general notion of $(α,β)$-fairness, where, for parameters $α\ge 1$ and $β\ge 0$, no server incurs more than an $α/k$-fraction of the total cost plus an additive term $β$. We then show that fairness can be achieved without a loss in competitiveness in both the offline and online settings. In the offline setting, we give a deterministic algorithm that, for any $\varepsilon > 0$, transforms any optimal solution into an $(α,β)$-fair solution for $α= 1 + \varepsilon$ and $β= O(\mathrm{diam} \cdot \log k / \varepsilon)$, while increasing the cost of the solution by just an additive $O(\mathrm{diam} \cdot k \log k / \varepsilon)$ term. Here $\mathrm{diam}$ is the diameter of the underlying metric space. We give a similar result in the online setting, showing that any competitive algorithm can be transformed into a randomized online algorithm that is fair with high probability against an oblivious adversary and still competitive up to a small loss. The above results leave open a significant question: can fairness be achieved in the online setting, either with a deterministic algorithm or a randomized algorithm, against a fully adaptive adversary? We make progress towards answering this question, showing that the classic deterministic Double Coverage Algorithm (DCA) is fair on line metrics and on tree metrics when $k = 2$. However, we also show a negative result: DCA fails to be fair for any non-vacuous parameters on general tree metrics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".