Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
129 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
28 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
42 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Efficiency of Self-Adjusting Heaps (2307.02772v1)

Published 6 Jul 2023 in cs.DS

Abstract: Since the invention of the pairing heap by Fredman et al., it has been an open question whether this or any other simple "self-adjusting" heap supports decrease-key operations on $n$-item heaps in $O(\log\log n)$ time. Using powerful new techniques, we answer this question in the affirmative. We prove that both slim and smooth heaps, recently introduced self-adjusting heaps, support heap operations on an $n$-item heap in the following amortized time bounds: $O(\log n)$ for delete-min and delete, $O(\log\log n)$ for decrease-key, and $O(1)$ for all other heap operations, including insert and meld. We also analyze the multipass pairing heap, a variant of pairing heaps. For this heap implementation, we obtain the same bounds except for decrease-key, for which our bound is $O(\log\log n \log\log\log n)$. Our bounds significantly improve the best previously known bounds for all three data structures. For slim and smooth heaps our bounds are tight, since they match lower bounds of Iacono and Ozkan; for multipass pairing heaps our bounds are tight except for decrease-key, which by the lower bounds of Fredman and Iacono and \"Ozkan must take $O(\log\log n)$ amortized time if delete-min takes $O(\log n)$ time.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (24)
  1. Gerth Stølting Brodal. A survey on priority queues. In Andrej Brodnik, Alejandro López-Ortiz, Venkatesh Raman, and Alfredo Viola, editors, Space-Efficient Data Structures, Streams, and Algorithms - Papers in Honor of J. Ian Munro on the Occasion of His 66th Birthday, volume 8066 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 150–163. Springer, 2013.
  2. The geometry of binary search trees. In SODA 2009, pages 496–505, 2009.
  3. Improved bounds for multipass pairing heaps and path-balanced binary search trees. In Yossi Azar, Hannah Bast, and Grzegorz Herman, editors, 26th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms, ESA 2018, August 20-22, 2018, Helsinki, Finland, volume 112 of LIPIcs, pages 24:1–24:13. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2018.
  4. Amr Elmasry. Pairing heaps with O⁢(log⁡log⁡n)𝑂𝑛{O}(\log\log n)italic_O ( roman_log roman_log italic_n ) decrease cost. In Proceedings of the twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 471–476. SIAM, 2009.
  5. Amr Elmasry. Toward optimal self-adjusting heaps. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 13(4):55:1–55:14, 2017.
  6. Kyle Fox. Upper bounds for maximally greedy binary search trees. In Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, pages 411–422. Springer, 2011.
  7. Michael L. Fredman. On the efficiency of pairing heaps and related data structures. J. ACM, 46(4):473–501, 1999.
  8. The pairing heap: A new form of self-adjusting heap. Algorithmica, 1(1):111–129, 1986.
  9. Fibonacci heaps and their uses in improved network optimization algorithms. J. ACM, 34(3):596–615, 1987.
  10. Analysis of Smooth Heaps and Slim Heaps. In Nikhil Bansal, Emanuela Merelli, and James Worrell, editors, 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021), volume 198 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), pages 79:1–79:20, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2021. Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik.
  11. John Iacono. Improved upper bounds for pairing heaps. In Magnús M. Halldórsson, editor, Algorithm Theory - SWAT 2000, 7th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, Bergen, Norway, July 5-7, 2000, Proceedings, volume 1851 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 32–45. Springer, 2000.
  12. A tight lower bound for decrease-key in the pure heap model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.6665, 2014.
  13. Smooth heaps and a dual view of self-adjusting data structures. SIAM J. Comput., 49(5), 2020.
  14. A back-to-basics empirical study of priority queues. In Catherine C. McGeoch and Ulrich Meyer, editors, 2014 Proceedings of the Sixteenth Workshop on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments, ALENEX 2014, Portland, Oregon, USA, January 5, 2014, pages 61–72. SIAM, 2014.
  15. Joan M. Lucas. Canonical forms for competitive binary search tree algorithms. Tech. Rep. DCS-TR-250, Rutgers University, 1988.
  16. Greedy is an almost optimal deque. In Algorithms and Data Structures: 14th International Symposium, WADS 2015, Victoria, BC, Canada, August 5-7, 2015. Proceedings, volume 9214, page 152. Springer, 2015.
  17. J.Ian Munro. On the competitiveness of linear search. In Mike S. Paterson, editor, Algorithms - ESA 2000, volume 1879 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 338–345. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2000.
  18. Seth Pettie. Towards a final analysis of pairing heaps. In 46th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2005), 23-25 October 2005, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Proceedings, pages 174–183. IEEE Computer Society, 2005.
  19. Corwin Sinnamon. Analysis of self-adjusting heaps. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 2022.
  20. A simpler proof that pairing heaps take O⁢(1)𝑂1O(1)italic_O ( 1 ) amortized time per insertion, 2022.
  21. A nearly-tight analysis of multipass pairing heaps. In Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 535–548. SIAM, 2023.
  22. A tight analysis of slim heaps and smooth heaps. In Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 549–567. SIAM, 2023.
  23. Robert Endre Tarjan. Data structures and network algorithms. SIAM, 1983.
  24. Robert Endre Tarjan. Amortized computational complexity. SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods, 6(2):306–318, 1985.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.