Efficiency of Self-Adjusting Heaps

July 06, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› ACM Trans. Algorithms

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Corwin Sinnamon, Robert E. Tarjan arXiv ID 2307.02772 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 1 Venue ACM Trans. Algorithms Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Since the invention of the pairing heap by Fredman, Sedgewick, Sleator, and Tarjan, it has been an open question whether this or any other simple "self-adjusting" heap supports decrease-key operations in $O(\log\log n)$ time, where $n$ is the number of heap items. 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 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, where $n$ is the number of heap items that are eventually deleted: Items inserted but never deleted do not count in the bounds. 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 $O(\log\log n \log\log\log n)$, where again items that are never deleted do not count in $n$. 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 Γ–zkan.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted