Zip-zip Trees: Making Zip Trees More Balanced, Biased, Compact, or Persistent

July 14, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures

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

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Ofek Gila, Michael T. Goodrich, Robert E. Tarjan arXiv ID 2307.07660 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 5 Venue Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
We define simple variants of zip trees, called zip-zip trees, which provide several advantages over zip trees, including overcoming a bias that favors smaller keys over larger ones. We analyze zip-zip trees theoretically and empirically, showing, e.g., that the expected depth of a node in an $n$-node zip-zip tree is at most $1.3863\log n-1+o(1)$, which matches the expected depth of treaps and binary search trees built by uniformly random insertions. Unlike these other data structures, however, zip-zip trees achieve their bounds using only $O(\log\log n)$ bits of metadata per node, w.h.p., as compared to the $Θ(\log n)$ bits per node required by treaps. In fact, we even describe a ``just-in-time'' zip-zip tree variant, which needs just an expected $O(1)$ number of bits of metadata per node. Moreover, we can define zip-zip trees to be strongly history independent, whereas treaps are generally only weakly history independent. We also introduce \emph{biased zip-zip trees}, which have an explicit bias based on key weights, so the expected depth of a key, $k$, with weight, $w_k$, is $O(\log (W/w_k))$, where $W$ is the weight of all keys in the weighted zip-zip tree. Finally, we show that one can easily make zip-zip trees partially persistent with only $O(n)$ space overhead w.h.p.
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