Faster Update Time for Turnstile Streaming Algorithms
November 04, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Josh Alman, Huacheng Yu
arXiv ID
1911.01351
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Citations
6
Venue
ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
In this paper, we present a new algorithm for maintaining linear sketches in turnstile streams with faster update time. As an application, we show that $\log n$ \texttt{Count} sketches or \texttt{CountMin} sketches with a constant number of columns (i.e., buckets) can be implicitly maintained in \emph{worst-case} $O(\log^{0.582} n)$ update time using $O(\log n)$ words of space, on a standard word RAM with word-size $w=Ξ(\log n)$. The exponent $0.582\approx 2Ο/3-1$, where $Ο$ is the current matrix multiplication exponent. Due to the numerous applications of linear sketches, our algorithm improves the update time for many streaming problems in turnstile streams, in the high success probability setting, without using more space, including $\ell_2$ norm estimation, $\ell_2$ heavy hitters, point query with $\ell_1$ or $\ell_2$ error, etc. Our algorithm generalizes, with the same update time and space, to maintaining $\log n$ linear sketches, where each sketch partitions the coordinates into $k<\log^{o(1)} n$ buckets using a $c$-wise independent hash function for constant $c$, and maintains the sum of coordinates for each bucket. Moreover, if arbitrary word operations are allowed, the update time can be further improved to $O(\log^{0.187} n)$, where $0.187\approx Ο/2-1$. Our update algorithm is adaptive, and it circumvents the non-adaptive cell-probe lower bounds for turnstile streaming algorithms by Larsen, Nelson and Nguy{Γͺ}n (STOC'15). On the other hand, our result also shows that proving unconditional cell-probe lower bound for the update time seems very difficult, even if the space is restricted to be (nearly) the optimum. If $Ο=2$, the cell-probe update time of our algorithm would be $\log^{o(1)} n$. Hence, proving any higher lower bound would imply $Ο>2$.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Data Structures & Algorithms
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Route Planning in Transportation Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Hierarchical Clustering: Objective Functions and Algorithms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time
π
π
The Cartographer
Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted