Tree Coloring: Random Order and Predictions

Abstract

Coloring is a notoriously hard problem, and even more so in the online setting, where each arriving vertex has to be colored immediately and irrevocably. Already on trees, which are trivially two-colorable, it is impossible to achieve anything better than a logarithmic competitive ratio. We show how to undercut this bound by a double-logarithmic factor in the slightly relaxed online model where the vertices arrive in random order. We then also analyze algorithms with predictions, showing how well we can color trees with machine-learned advice of varying reliability. We further extend our analysis to all two-colorable graphs and provide matching lower bounds in both cases. Finally, we demonstrate how the two mentioned approaches, both of which diminish the often unjustified pessimism of the classical online model, can be combined to yield even better results.

1 Introduction

We consider the well-known online coloring problem. A simple graph (i.e., a graph without weights, orientation, or multi-edges) is presented to an algorithm vertex by vertex, and each edge is revealed as soon as both endpoints are revealed. Both the input graph and its order $n$ are unknown to the algorithm, which must assign to each presented vertex a color, immediately and irrevocably. As usual for coloring, it is not allowed for neighboring vertices to have the same color. The goal is to minimize the number of colors used by the algorithm.

Computing the competitive ratio [6] is the classical way to analyze online algorithms. The competitive ratio is essentially the approximation ratio in an online setting; it measures the ratio between the cost of the online algorithm’s solution and an ideal solution that could have been computed had the entire input been known from the beginning. A competitive analysis is inherently a worst-case analysis. We can thus imagine the graph being revealed to the algorithm by an adversary that tries to maximize the number of colors used by the algorithm, which in turn tries to minimize it.

A useful albeit slightly outdated survey on online coloring was written by Kierstead [15], a more recent one is found in Komm’s textbook [16].

Throughout this paper, $\log$ denotes the binary logarithm, and we identify colors with the natural numbers $\mathds{N}=\{1,2,3,\dots\}$.

All bipartite graphs, and thus all trees, can be colored with two colors. (Bipartite graphs are exactly the $2$-colorable graphs, in fact.) This is of course easy if the complete instance is available but far from feasible in the online setting. It has been long known, for example, that deterministic online algorithms can be forced to use at least $\log n+1$ colors, even when instances are restricted to trees; for more details, see the papers be Bean [3] and Gyárfás and Lehel [14]. This yields a lower bound of $(\log n+1)/2$ on the competitive ratio of any deterministic online algorithm. In 1989, Lovász et al. [18] presented a deterministic algorithm, referred to as CBip, that uses $2\log n$ colors on bipartite graphs. There is an almost matching lower bound of $2\log n-10$ due to Gutowski et al. [13].

Arguably the most straightforward online algorithm to color any kind of graph is FirstFit, which implements the simply greedy first-fit strategy of assigning the smallest color to the presented vertex that maintains a valid coloring. For bipartite graphs, this strategy is exponentially worse than that of CBip, but both algorithms perform equally well on trees. Moreover, Li et al. [17] presented a new model, in which the number of connected components of an adversarial graph must be bounded after the reveal of each vertex. In this model, FirstFit even outperforms CBip on trees.

In this paper, we study coloring under two different lenses.

First, we consider the random-order model, where the power of the adversary is significantly restricted in that the vertices are revealed to the algorithm in random order. In other words, while the adversary decides which graph is presented, the vertex order is not under its control but chosen uniformly at random. More details about the random-order model can, e.g., be found in Chapter 11, written by Gupta and Singla [12], of the textbook “Beyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms.​” We show that FirstFit performs significantly better in this model, using $\mathcal{O}(\log n/(\log\log n))$ colors in expectation. A similar setting of adversarially chosen instances with randomized presentation is also investigated by Burjons et al. [8]. In their model, the adversary prepares a number of hard instances that are all known to the algorithm, but the presented instance is then selected randomly from the set of instances.

Second, we analyze online coloring by algorithms with predictions. Representing one approach to analyze the power of machine learning, the prediction model has garnered plenty of attention recently. Applied to coloring, the idea is that the algorithm receives together with each vertex a prediction stating to which color this vertex has in a fixed optimal solution. As known from the behaviour of artifical intelligence, these predictions do not necessarily have to be correct, however. Three desirable properties of algorithms dealing with this uncertainty are consistency, robustness, and smoothness: An algorithm is consistent if it is optimal for completely correct predictions, it is robust if it yields a decent competitive ratio even for predictions that are completely wrong, and it is smooth if the competitive ratio always increases with the prediction quality. The prediction model (also known as the model of machine-learned or untrusted advice) was introduced by Lykouris and Vassilvitskii [19] and Purohit et al. [20] in 2018 and generalized by Angelopoulos et al. [1]. It is based on the concept of online algorithms with advice, which was introduced a decade earlier [5, 9, 10], and has also been applied to coloring [4, 11, 21]. There is a useful survey on algorithms with advice by Boyar et al. [7]. More recently, Antoniadis et al. [2] analyzed the FirstFit algorithm in this model on general graphs. The approach we use is specifically oriented towards trees and, more generally, bipartite graphs, for which we can show stronger results.

After analyzing the two models of random order (Section 2) and predictions (Section 3) separately, we finally combine the two approaches in Section 4 by investigating coloring if the vertices of an adversarially chosen instance are presented in random order but still come with a prediction on what color should be chosen.

2 The Random-Order Model

In the random-order model, the order in which the vertices of the adversarially chosen tree $T$ are revealed is chosen uniformly at random, which gives quite some advantage to the algorithm. The simple algorithm FirstFit, which colors a vertex with the smallest color that is not already taken by one of its neighbors, uses at most $\log n+1$ colors on a tree if the order of the vertices is adversarially chosen. Since any tree can be colored with two colors, this corresponds to a competitive ratio of at most $(\log n+1)/2$. In this section, we will provide an upper bound of $\mathcal{O}(\log n/(\log\log n))$ for the competitive ratio of FirstFit in the random-order model.

We start with two technical lemmata.

Lemma 2.1.

Let $T=(V,E)$ be any tree. Let $v\in V$ be a vertex of $T$ and let $c(v)$ be the color assigned to $v$ by FirstFit. Then

$$\forall\ell\colon\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[\exists v\colon c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq\frac{n^{2}}{\ell!}\;.$$

Proof 2.2.

We first show that $\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq n/\ell!$ for all $v\in V$ and $\ell\geq 1$. The statement of the lemma then follows from a standard union bound over all vertices. To show this, we consider a fixed vertex $v$ with $c(v)\geq\ell$. For each edge $(x,y)$ of $T$ we assign an orientation $x\rightarrow y$ if $x$ arrived earlier than $y$. We denote by $T_{v}$ the subtree of $T$ consisting of edges pointing towards $v$.

Claim 1.

There is a path in $T_{v}$ ending in $v$ that contains at least $\ell$ vertices.

Proof 2.3.

We prove this by induction on $\ell$. For $\ell=1$, the path $(v)$ is clearly sufficient. Now let $\ell>1$ and assume that the claim holds for all $1\leq\ell^{\prime}<\ell$. If $c(v)=\ell$, $v$ must be connected to a vertex $v^{\prime}$ of color $\ell-1$ that arrived previously, so the edge $(v^{\prime}\rightarrow v)$ is contained in $T_{v}$ and $T_{v^{\prime}}$ is a subtree of $T_{v}$ that does not contain $v$. By the induction hypothesis, there is a path $(v_{1},\dots,v_{\ell-1}=v^{\prime})$ in $T_{v^{\prime}}$, which can be extended to the path $(v_{1},\dots,v^{\prime},v)$ containing $\ell$ vertices in $T_{v}$. This proves 1.

Now consider any vertex at the beginning of such a path, so any vertex $w$ of $T$ that has a distance from $v$ of at least $\ell-1$. Let $(w=w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{\ell^{\prime}}=v)$ be the (non-oriented) path in $T$ from $w$ to $v$ containing $\ell^{\prime}\geq\ell$ vertices. Vertex $w$ belongs to $T_{v}$ only if all the edges of this path are oriented towards $v$. There is a single order in which the vertices of this path must arrive; and there are $\ell^{\prime}!$ possible orderings of these vertices, each occurring with the same probability. Thus, the probability that $w$ belongs to $T_{v}$ is $1/\ell^{\prime}!\leq 1/\ell!$ and since there are at most $n$ such vertices $w$, we can apply a union bound to show that $\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq n/\ell!$ for all $v\in V$.

Lemma 2.4.

Let $c\geq\mathrm{e}$ with $\mathrm{e}$ being Euler’s number, and let $\ell\geq c\cdot(\log n)/(\log\log n)$. Then

$$\ell!\geq n^{c\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)}\geq n^{0.469\cdot c}\;.$$

Proof 2.5.

By Stirling’s formula,

$\ell!\geq 2^{\ell\cdot\log(\ell/\mathrm{e})}$. Our conditions on $c$ and $\ell$ imply that

$$\ell\cdot\log\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(\frac{\ell}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)\geq c\cdot\log n\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\log\log n}{\log\log n}}\right)\;,$$

and since $(\log\log\log n)/(\log\log n)$ is bounded from above by $(\log\mathrm{e})/\mathrm{e}$, it follows that

$$\ell!\geq 2^{c\cdot\log n\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)}=n^{c\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)}\;.$$

Theorem 2.6.

Let $c\geq 2\mathrm{e}/(\mathrm{e}-\log\mathrm{e})\approx 4.262$. The expected number of colors used by FirstFit in the random-order model on trees is at most

$$c\cdot\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}+3\;.$$

Proof 2.7.

Let $X$ denote a random variable that corresponds to the number of colors used, and let $s:=\lceil(c\cdot\log n)/(\log\log n)\rceil$. The expected number of colors used is

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right] =\sum_{\ell\geq 1}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]=\sum_{1\leq\ell\leq s}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]+\sum_{\ell>s}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]$$

$$\leq s+\sum_{\ell>s}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]\,.$$

We state the following simple claim.

Claim 2.

For any $s\geq 1$,

$$\sum_{\ell\geq s}\frac{1}{\ell!}\leq\frac{2}{s!}\;.$$

Proof 2.8.

We have

$$\sum_{\ell\geq s}\frac{1}{\ell!}=\frac{1}{s!}\cdot\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\frac{s!}{(\ell+s)!}=\frac{1}{s!}\cdot\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\prod_{i=1}^{\ell}\frac{1}{i+s}\leq\frac{1}{s!}\cdot\sum_{\ell\geq 0}\frac{1}{2^{\ell}}=\frac{2}{s!}\;,$$

which proves 2.

Since $X=\ell$ implies that there is a vertex $v$ with $c(v)\geq\ell$, we can bound the probability $\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]\leq\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[\exists v\colon c(v)\geq\ell}\right]$. This in turn is bounded by Lemma 2.1, which, together with 2, implies that

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right] \leq s+\sum_{\ell>s}\ell\cdot\frac{n^{2}}{\ell!}=s+n^{2}\cdot\sum_{\ell\geq s}\frac{1}{\ell!}\leq s+\frac{2n^{2}}{s!}\;.$$

Finally, we can apply Lemma 2.4 and get

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right]\leq s+2n^{2-c\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)}\leq s+2\leq c\cdot\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}+3$$

by our choice of $s$.

3 Algorithms with Predictions

In this section, we study online coloring of trees in the predictions model, which also reduces the overwhelming power of the adversary in the classical worst-case model, just like the random-order model already analyzed in Section 2. However, it does so in a completely orthogonal way. In the predictions model, there is no random order anymore; the adversary fully controls the order in which vertices are revealed. The algorithm does receive, however, from an oracle a powerful advice bit (a “prediction”) along with each vertex revealed. This bit tells the algorithm which color the revealed vertex has in a fixed $2$-coloring of the tree. This in turn allows the algorithm to reconstruct an optimal solution, of course, as long as the advice is flawless (this is the property commonly called consistency for prediction algorithms). The main goal of the predictions model is to examine what happens if the provided string of advice bits contains errors due to inaccurate predictions, for example if the advice is provided by some machine learning algorithm.

3.1 Bounds for Trees with Predictions

We restate our prediction model more formally. An unknown tree $T$ is revealed to an algorithm vertex by vertex. Say that it is a tree on the $n$ vertices $v_{1},\dots,v_{n}$, revealed in this order ($n$ is not known to the algorithm). The edges are revealed immediately when both endpoints have been revealed. Alongside each revealed vertex $v_{i}$, the algorithm receives an advice bit $p(v_{i})$, which is determined as follows. An oracle chooses a fixed optimal coloring for $T$ (that is, a $2$-coloring) and sets $p^{\ast}(v_{i})=1$ if $v_{i}$ has the first of the two colors, and $p^{\ast}(v_{i})=0$ otherwise. If the prediction is correct (that is, does not contain any errors), the algorithm receives the advice bits $p(v_{i})=p^{*}(v_{i})$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. But there might be, for some parameter $k$, up to $k$ indices from $\{1,\dots,n\}$ such that $p(v_{i})\neq p^{\ast}(v_{i})$.

3.1.1 An Upper Bound for Trees with Prediction

Consider the algorithm AdviceFirstFit that gradually chooses a coloring $c\colon T\to\mathds{N}$ (where $\mathds{N}=\{1,2,3,\dots\}$) as follows. If the newly revealed vertex $v_{i}$ is currently isolated in the graph $T[v_{1},\dots,v_{i}]$ revealed so far, then the algorithm completely relies on the advice and colors $v_{i}$ according to the parity of the delivered bit; that is, it assigns $c(v_{i})=1$ if $p(v_{i})=1$ and $c(v_{i})=2$ if $p(v_{i})=0$. In the other case, that is, if $v_{i}$ is connected to an already revealed vertex, then the algorithm ignores the advice bit and considers instead the revealed neighborhood of $v_{i}$, which we may denote by $N_{i}=N(v_{i})\cap\{v_{1},\dots,v_{i-1}\}$, and assigns to $v_{i}$ the lowest remaining color, that is, $c(v_{i})=\min(\mathds{N}\setminus\{c(v)\mid\,v\in N_{i}\}$).

Theorem 3.1.

For $k=0$ (that is, error-free advice), AdviceFirstFit colors the given tree optimally. For $k\geq 1$ errors, it uses at most $\log k+3$ colors. Independent of $k$, it uses at most $\log n+3-\log 3\approx\log n+1.415$ colors on a tree with $n$ vertices.

Proof 3.2.

We consider any fixed 2-coloring of the tree and fix $p^{*}(v)$ for all vertices $v$ according to this coloring. Denote by $I(\ell)$ the minimal number of advice bits that AdviceFirstFit ignores (because it comes along with a vertex neighboring an already revealed vertex) while coloring any node of any tree with the color $\ell\geq 1$. Analogously, denote by $F(\ell)$ the minimum number of advice bits that are not ignored (because the revealed vertex is currently isolated) but faulty (i.e., $p(v)\neq p^{*}(v)$) when AdviceFirstFit colors a node of a tree with the color $\ell$. Since any nontrivial tree requires at least two colors even with perfect advice, we have $F(1)=F(2)=I(1)=I(2)=0$. Since perfect advice always results in a $2$-coloring, we have $F(3)\geq 1$. And since the algorithm only uses colors greater than $2$ if it ignores at least one advice bit, we have $I(3)\geq 1$. We now prove that $F(\ell)\geq 2^{\ell-3}$ and $I(\ell)\geq 2^{\ell-3}$ for $\ell\geq 3$ by induction over $\ell$.

Let $\ell\geq 4$ and assume by induction that $I(\ell^{\prime})\geq 2^{\ell^{\prime}-3}$ and $F(\ell^{\prime})\geq 2^{\ell^{\prime}-3}$ for any $3\leq\ell^{\prime}<\ell$. Assume that AdviceFirstFit colors at least one vertex of some given tree with the color $\ell$. Let $v_{i}$ be the first such node. Its neighborhood must contain vertices $w_{1},w_{2},\dots,w_{\ell-1}$ that have previously received the colors $1,2,\dots,\ell-1$. Among all connected components of the subgraph $T[v_{1},\dots,v_{i-1}]$ that are already revealed right before the $v_{i}$ appears, denote one containing $w_{j}$ by $T_{j}$. Each connected component $T_{j}$ is of course still a tree, and each $w_{j}$ is in its own component: because $w_{\ell}$ is adjacent to all of them, having two neighbors in the same connected component would create a cycle. It follows that separate advice bits are provided alongside the vertices of each component. Since $T_{j}$ contains a vertex of color $j$, among the advice bits delivered together with the vertices of $T_{j}$ there must be at least $I(j)$ ignored ones and $F(j)$ heeded but faulty ones.

Additionally, we observe that the color of either $w_{1}$ or $w_{2}$ is wrong because they are both neighbors of $v_{i}$ in the completed tree and thus any optimal solution uses the same color for $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$. This implies that at least one faulty bit was used for a vertex in $T_{1}$ (the component of $w_{1}$) or $T_{2}$ (the component of $w_{2}$), which eventually led to the wrong color for $w_{1}$ or $w_{2}$. It follows that the number of faulty but heeded bits in $T$ is at least

$$F(\ell)\geq F(\ell-1)+\dots+F(3)+1\;.$$

We also know that the advice bit for $v_{i}$ is ignored because it is colored by $\ell>2$, which implies

$$I(\ell)\geq I(\ell-1)+\dots+I(3)+1\;.$$

By induction, we obtain

$$F(\ell)\geq 2^{\ell-4}+\dots+2^{0}+1=2^{\ell-3}\;.$$

and

$$I(\ell)\geq 2^{\ell-4}+\dots+2^{0}+1=2^{\ell-3}\;.$$

We conclude that for a fixed number of $k$ errors, the largest color that AdviceFirstFit uses is at most $\log k+3$.

Now recall that the analysis on the number of “faults” in the advice string was based on a fixed 2-coloring of the tree. Flipping every bit of a correct advice string for an optimal coloring results in another such advice string for the same solution with the two colors swapped. We can thus assume without loss of generality that at most half of the bits whose advice was followed to color the tree are faulty (by switching the optimal solution that we consider to decide which bits are faulty). The number of ignored advice bits remains unchanged; it is still equal to the number of vertices that are not isolated upon their reveal. The total number of vertices in the graph is therefore at least $2\cdot F(\ell)+I(\ell)\geq 3\cdot 2^{\ell-3}$. For a tree on $n$ vertices, the algorithm thus uses at most $\log n+3-\log 3\leq\log n+1.4151$ colors.

3.1.2 A Lower Bound for Trees with Predictions

We now provide a perfectly matching lower bound on the number of colors required to color graphs of up to $n$ vertices with a consistent algorithm.

Theorem 3.3.

There is no consistent prediction algorithm using fewer than $\log n+3-\log 3\approx\log n+1.415$ colors on trees.

Proof 3.4.

We will first consider how such an algorithm colors isolated vertices. Consider the case where an algorithm

3.2 Generalization to Bipartite Graphs

In this section we consider the generalization of our problems for trees to general bipartite graphs, which is a natural choice since these are precisely the two-colorable graphs. The algorithm CBip always colors a vertex with the smallest color that is not in the opposite partition of the connected component of that vertex when it is revealed [18]. In the model without predictions, this algorithm is (asymptotically) the best possible [13, 18]. We will extend CBip to an algorithm AdviceCBip that makes use of predictions.

3.2.1 Upper Bounds for Bipartite Graphs with Predictions

For upper bounds on the number of colors needed on bipartite graphs, we consider the algorithm AdviceCBip that receives the vertices $v_{1},\dots,v_{n}$ of graph $G$ and an advice bit $p(v_{i})$ for each vertex $v_{i}$ one after the other. If the vertex $v_{i}$ is isolated in the graph $G[v_{1},\dots,v_{i}]$, the algorithm colors $v_{i}$ according to the parity of the advice bit, so $c(v_{i})=1$ if $p(v_{i})=1$, and $c(v_{i})=2$ if $p(v_{i})=0$. If not, it looks at the connected component of $G[v_{1},\dots,v_{i}]$ containing $v_{i}$. This component can be partitioned into two independent sets. AdviceCBip then colors $v_{i}$ with the smallest color that is not represented in the independent set that does not contain $v_{i}$.

We now provide two different upper bounds, the first one depending on the number of errors in the provided prediction, the second one depending on the order of the input graph.

Theorem 3.5.

If there are no errors in the prediction, AdviceCBip colors bipartite graphs optimally. If there are at most $k\geq 1$ errors, AdviceCBip uses at most $2\cdot\log k+4$ colors.

Proof 3.6.

Let $F(\ell)$ be the number of errors in the advice string of a bipartite graph needed for the algorithm AdviceCBip to color at least one of its vertices with the color $\ell$. Clearly $F(1)=F(2)=0$. We now prove that $F(\ell)\geq\lceil 2^{\ell/2-2}\rceil$ for $\ell\geq 3$ by induction on $\ell$. We have $F(3)\geq 1$ and $F(4)\geq 1$ since no vertex will be colored by any other color than $1$ or $2$ if the advice string is correct (it can be easily checked that in fact $F(3)=F(4)=1$). For $\ell\geq 5$, assume that AdviceCBip colors at least one node with the color $\ell$. Let $v_{i}=w_{\ell}$ be the first such node. Let $S_{\ell}\cup\bar{S_{\ell}}$ be a partition of the connected component of $G[v_{1},\dots,v_{i}]$ that contains $v_{i}$, such that $v_{i}\in S_{\ell}$. There must be vertices $\bar{w}_{1},\dots,\bar{w}_{\ell-1}$ in $\bar{S}_{\ell}$ such that $\bar{w}_{j}$ is colored with color $j$ for all $1\leq j\leq\ell-1$. Now consider the moment when $v_{i^{\prime}}=\bar{w}_{\ell-1}$, $i^{\prime}<i$ was revealed and let $T_{\ell-1}\cup\bar{T}_{\ell-1}$ be a partition of the connected component of $G[v_{1},\dots,v_{i^{\prime}}]$ that contains $v_{i^{\prime}}$, such that $v_{i^{\prime}}\in\bar{T}_{\ell-1}$. There must be vertices $w_{1},\dots,w_{\ell-2}$ in $T_{\ell-1}\subseteq S_{\ell}$ such that $w_{j}$ is colored with color $j$ for all $1\leq j\leq\ell-2$. Now assume w.l.o.g. that $w_{\ell-2}$ is revealed after $\bar{w}_{\ell-2}$. Clearly, when $w_{\ell-2}$ is revealed, $w_{\ell-2}$ and $\bar{w}_{\ell-2}$ were in different connected components, otherwise they could not have received the same color. Hence AdviceCBip colored a vertex with color $\ell-2$ in two separate bipartite graphs with disjoint advice strings. By induction, there must be at least $F(\ell-2)$ errors in each advice string, and hence at least $2\cdot F(\ell-2)$ errors in the advice string for $G$. Thus

$$F(\ell)\geq 2\cdot F(\ell-2)\geq 2\cdot\lceil 2^{(\ell-2)/2-2}\rceil=2\cdot\lceil 2^{\ell/2-3}\rceil\geq\lceil 2^{\ell/2-2}\rceil\;.$$

So for any fixed number of $k$ errors, the largest color that AdviceCBip uses to color the graph is at most $2\cdot\log k+4$.

We now provide for the same algorithm AdviceCBip an upper bound on the number of used colors depending on the number of vertices of the input graph.

Theorem 3.7.

On a bipartite graph with $n$ vertices, AdviceCBip uses at most $2\cdot\log(n)-1.64$ colors for any $n\geq 1500$.

Proof 3.8.

Denote by $N(\ell)$ the minimal number of vertices a graph must contain for AdviceCBip to color at least one of its vertices with the color $\ell$. We will first show that $N(\ell)\geq 5\cdot 2^{(\ell-3)/2}-2$ for odd $\ell\geq 3$, and that $N(\ell)\geq 2\cdot 2^{\ell/2+1}-2$ for even $\ell\geq 4$. Clearly, $N(3)\geq 3=5\cdot 2^{(3-3)/2}-2$, since AdviceCBip will always color the second vertex of a graph with either $1$ or $2$. We also have $N(4)\geq 6=2^{4/2+1}-2$ because for any vertex to be assigned color $4$, there must be vertices of color $1$, $2$ and $3$ on the opposite shore of the connected component, which in turn implies that there are vertices of color $1$ and $2$ on the shore where to vertex of color $4$ lies, a total of at least $6$ vertices. We now argue by induction on $\ell$. Assume that AdviceCBip colors a vertex of some bipartite graph with the color $\ell\geq 5$. As seen in the proof of Theorem 3.5, AdviceCBip must have colored two disjoint bipartite graphs with at least $\ell-2$ colors each, and additionally there must be at least one vertex of color $\ell-1$ and on vertex of color $\ell$. This implies that

$$N(\ell)\geq 2\cdot N(\ell-2)+2\;.$$

By induction, we have for even $\ell$,

$$N(\ell)\geq 2\cdot(2^{(\ell-2)/2+1}-2)+2=2\cdot(2^{\ell/2}-2)+2=2^{\ell/2+1}-2\;,$$

and for odd $\ell$,

$$N(\ell)\geq 2\cdot(5\cdot 2^{(\ell-5)/2}-2)+2=5\cdot 2^{(\ell-3)/2}-4+2=5\cdot 2^{(\ell-3)/2}-2\;.$$

Since $5\cdot 2^{(\ell-3)/2}=(5/\sqrt{8})\cdot 2^{\ell/2}<2\cdot 2^{\ell/2}=2^{\ell/2+1}$, we can further conclude that for all $\ell\geq 3$, $N(\ell)\geq 5\cdot 2^{(\ell-3)/2}-2$. In particular, for a fixed $n$, AdviceCBip will color any bipartite graph on $n$ vertices using at most $2\cdot\log(n+2)+3-2\cdot\log(5)$ colors, which is less than $2\cdot\log n-1.64$ for all $n\geq 1500$.

3.2.2 Lower Bounds for Bipartite Graphs with Predictions

We mainly recall here the lower bound of $2\log n-10$ colors for bipartite graphs due to Gutowski et al. [13], which neatly complemented the upper bound of the $\log n$-competitive deterministic algorithm CBip by Lovász et al. [18]. In the following lemma, we improve the upper bound slightly by an improved analysis for CBip and show that a consistent algorithm with predictions cannot beat CBip on all instances.

Proposition 3.9.

The algorithm CBip uses at most $2\cdot\log n-1.999$ colors on graphs with $n\geq 5770$ vertices, and a consistent algorithm with predictions cannot perform better than CBip on all graphs.

Proof 3.10.

For the deterministic algorithm CBip we can see as in the proof of Theorem 3.7 that for graphs to be colored in $\ell$ colors, $2^{\ell/2+1}-2$ vertices are needed if $\ell$ is even and $3\cdot 2^{(\ell-1)/2}-2$ vertices are needed if $\ell$ is odd, so at least $2^{\ell/2+1}-2$ vertices are needed in either case. For a fixed number $n$ of vertices, this implies that CBip requires at most $2\cdot\log(n+2)-2$ colors, which is at most $2\cdot\log n-1.999$ for $n\geq 5770$ and $2\cdot\log n-2+\varepsilon$ for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $n$ large enough. To show that a consistent prediction algorithm cannot beat CBip, it suffices to show with the argument from the proof of Theorem 3.3 that any consistent algorithm can be forced to use three colors on an instance with three vertices, while CBip only ever uses two colors on such instances, independent of the order in which the vertices are presented.

4 Algorithms with Predictions in the Random-Order Model

We now combine the two ways of diminishing the overly pessimistic assumptions of the classical online coloring model by considering an adversary that has no control over the order in which vertices arrive, and an algorithm that receives predictions of the type described in Section 3.

Let $T$ be an arbitrary tree. We have a prediction function that assigns a 1-bit prediction $p(v)$ to every vertex $v$ of $T$. We fix consider a fixed $2$-coloring of $T$ and denote by $p^{*}(v)\in\{0,1\}$ the parity of the color of $v$ in that coloring. We assume that $p(v)$ approximates $p^{*}(v)$ with $k$ errors. We assume that vertices of $T$ arrive in random order together with their predictions. The predictions thus do not depend on the random order of vertices. We analyze the algorithm ParityFirstFit, which colors a vertex $v$ with the smallest possible color that has the same parity as $p(v)$. Let $c(v)$ be the color assigned to $v$ by ParityFirstFit.

As in Section 2, for each edge $(x,y)$ of $T$ we assign an orientation $x\rightarrow y$ if $x$ arrived earlier than $y$ and denote by $T_{v}$ the subtree of $T$ consisting of edges pointing towards $v$.

Lemma 4.1.

Consider any $T_{v}$ such that ParityFirstFit colors $v$ with color $\ell$. Then there exists a path in $T_{v}$ ending in $v$ that contains at least $\lfloor(\ell-1)/4\rfloor$ vertices with incorrect predictions.

Proof 4.2.

We prove this claim by induction on $\ell$. For $\ell\leq 4$, we have $\lfloor(\ell-1)/4\rfloor=0$, so the path $(v)$ is sufficient. Now assume by induction that the claim holds for $1\leq\ell^{\prime}<\ell$ and suppose a vertex $v$ is colored with $c(v)=\ell\geq 5$. Then $v$ must be connected to a previously revealed vertex $v^{\prime}$ with $c(v^{\prime})=\ell-2$. Since $v$ and $v^{\prime}$ are connected and are colored with the same parity, either $p(v)\neq p^{*}(v)$ or $p(v^{\prime})\neq p^{*}(v^{\prime})$. The vertex $v^{\prime}$ in turn must be connected to a vertex $v^{\prime\prime}\neq v$ with $c(v^{\prime\prime})=\ell-4$ and $T_{v^{\prime\prime}}$ is a subtree of $T_{v}$. By induction, there must be a path containing at least $\lfloor(\ell-5)/4\rfloor$ vertices with incorrect predictions in $T_{v^{\prime\prime}}$ ending in $v^{\prime\prime}$. By extending this path with the vertices $v^{\prime}$ and $v$, we can construct a path in $T_{v}$ that contains at least $\lfloor(\ell-5)/4\rfloor+1=\lfloor(\ell-1)/4\rfloor$ vertices with incorrect predictions ending in $v$.

Lemma 4.3.

For any color $\ell\geq 7$, if there are a total of $k$ vertices in $T$ whose predictions are incorrect, then

$$\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[\exists v:c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq\frac{k^{2}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-3}{4}}\right\rfloor!}\;.$$

Proof 4.4.

We first show that for any color $\ell\geq 5$ and for any vertex $v\in V$

$$\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq\frac{k}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-1}{4}}\right\rfloor!}\,.$$

To prove this, consider a fixed vertex $v$ such that $c(v)\geq\ell\geq 5$. Due to Lemma 4.1, there must be a path $(w_{1},\dots,w_{r-1},v)$ in $T_{v}$ containing at least $\lfloor(\ell-1)/4\rfloor$ vertices whose predictions are incorrect. By shortening the path from the front, we can assume that $p(w_{1})\neq p^{*}(w_{1})$.

Now consider any vertex $w_{1}$ whose path to $v$ in $T$ contains $r\geq\lfloor(\ell-1)/4\rfloor$ vertices. Then $w_{1}$ is in $T_{v}$ if and only if the vertices $w_{1},\dots,w_{r-1},v$ arrived in order. Since every order of these vertices is equally likely, we have

$$\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[w\in T_{v}}\right]=\frac{1}{r!}\leq\frac{1}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-1}{4}}\right\rfloor!}\;.$$

By a union bound over all vertices $w_{1}$ of $T$ whose predictions are incorrect, we can see that

$$\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq\frac{k}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-1}{4}}\right\rfloor!}\;.$$

To prove the lemma, note that if there is a vertex $v\in T$ with $c(v)\geq\ell\geq 7$, then $v$ is connected to a vertex $v^{\prime}$ with $c(v^{\prime})=\ell-2\geq 5$. Since $v$ and $v^{\prime}$ were colored with the same parity, one of them must have received an incorrect prediction. In either case there is a vertex whose prediction was incorrect and that was colored with a color at least $\ell-2$.

Applying a union bound over all vertices $v^{\prime}\in T$ with incorrect predictions, we get that

$$\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[\exists v:c(v)\geq\ell}\right]\leq\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[\exists v^{\prime}:c(v^{\prime})\geq\ell-2,p(v^{\prime})\neq p^{*}(v^{\prime})}\right]\leq\frac{k^{2}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-3}{4}}\right\rfloor!}\;.$$

Theorem 4.5.

Let $c\geq\frac{2\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}-\log\mathrm{e}}\approx 4.262$. The expected number of colors used by the algorithm ParityFirstFit on trees is at most

$$4c\cdot\frac{\log k}{\log\log k}+71\;.$$

Proof 4.6.

Let $X$ be the number of colors used and let

$$s:=\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lceil\frac{4c\cdot\log k}{\log\log k}+10}\right\rceil\;.$$

The expected number of colors used is

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right] =\sum_{\ell\geq 1}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]$$

$$=\sum_{1\leq\ell\leq s}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]+\sum_{l>s}l\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]$$

$$\leq s+\sum_{\ell>s}\ell\cdot\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]\;.$$

Note that $X=\ell$ implies that $\exists v:c(v)\geq\ell$. Thus $\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X=\ell}\right]\leq\mathop{\mathrm{Prob}}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[\exists v:c(v)\geq\ell}\right]$, which is bounded by Lemma 4.3, so

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right] \leq s+\sum_{\ell>s}\ell\cdot\frac{k^{2}}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-3}{4}}\right\rfloor!}$$

$$=s+k^{2}\cdot\sum_{\ell\geq s+1}\frac{\ell}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{\ell-3}{4}}\right\rfloor!}$$

$$\leq s+k^{2}\cdot\sum_{i\geq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-2}{4}}\right\rfloor}\frac{16i+14}{i!}$$

$$=s+16k^{2}\cdot\sum_{i\geq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-2}{4}}\right\rfloor-1}\frac{1}{i!}+14k^{2}\cdot\sum_{i\geq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-2}{4}}\right\rfloor}\frac{1}{i!}$$

$$\leq s+30k^{2}\cdot\sum_{i\geq\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-2}{4}}\right\rfloor-1}\frac{1}{i!}$$

By 2 we have

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right]\leq s+60k^{2}\cdot\frac{1}{\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-6}{4}}\right\rfloor!}\;,$$

and since

$$\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-6}{4}}\right\rfloor\geq\frac{c\log k}{\log\log k}$$

by our choice of $s$, we can invoke Lemma 2.4 to obtain

$$\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left\lfloor\frac{s-6}{4}}\right\rfloor!\geq k^{c\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)}\;.$$

Thus,

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right]\leq s+60k^{2-c\cdot\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left(1-\frac{\log\mathrm{e}}{\mathrm{e}}}\right)}$$

and by our choice of $c$ we have

$$\mathds{E}\mathopen{}\mathclose{{}\left[X}\right]\leq s+60\leq 4c\cdot\frac{\log k}{\log\log k}+71\;.$$

5 Conclusion

We have analyzed the behavior of the FirstFit algorithm on trees in the random-order model and showed that its competitive ratio improves from $\Theta(\log n)$ to $\mathcal{O}(\log n/(\log\log n))$. We further looked into algorithms with predictions for the colors of the vertices and provided consistent and smooth algorithms with a robustness that matches the best algorithms without predictions on trees and bipartite graphs, respectively. Lastly, we combined the random-order model with predictions and gave a consistent and smooth algorithm with a robustness of $\mathcal{O}(\log n/(\log\log n))$, which matches our algorithm without predictions.

The performance of algorithms such as FirstFit and CBip on bipartite graphs in the random-order model remains as an open problem. The most interesting question, however, is whether we can prove a matching lower bound for the improved competitive ratio in the random-order model.