MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117339766

Fairness in the k-Server Problem

2025· article· W7117339766 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mohammadreza Daneshvaramoli, Helia Karisani, Mohammad Hajiesmaili, Shahin Kamali, Cameron Musco

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCompetitive analysisOnline algorithmRandomized algorithmMetric (unit)Deterministic algorithmTree (set theory)AdversaryKey (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207