REVIEW 2 cited by
New Prophet Inequalities via Poissonization and Sharding
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
This work introduces \emph{sharding} and \emph{Poissonization} as a unified framework for analyzing prophet inequalities. Sharding involves splitting a random variable into several independent random variables, shards, that collectively mimic the original variable's behavior. We combine this with Poissonization, where these shards are modeled using a Poisson distribution. Despite the simplicity of our framework, we improve the competitive ratio analysis of a dozen well studied prophet inequalities in the literature, some of which have been studied for decades. This includes the \textsc{Top-$1$-of-$k$} prophet inequality, prophet secretary inequality, and semi-online prophet inequality, among others. This approach not only refines the constants but also offers a more intuitive and streamlined analysis for many prophet inequalities in the literature. Furthermore, it simplifies proofs of several known results and may be of independent interest for other variants of the prophet inequality, such as order-selection.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
The Competition Complexity of Prophet Secretary
The (1-epsilon)-competition complexity of prophet secretary is Theta(ln(1/epsilon)) for single-threshold algorithms, Theta(ln(1/epsilon)/ln ln(1/epsilon)) for time-based and activation-based algorithms, and Theta(sqrt...
-
TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability
The paper introduces TCS-Bench, a 300-task proof-generation benchmark from top TCS papers, and reports frontier LLM accuracies from 30% to 68% using an automated verifier.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.