Document Open Access Logo

The Group Access Bounds for Binary Search Trees

Authors Parinya Chalermsook , Manoj Gupta, Wanchote Jiamjitrak, Akash Pareek , Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

LIPIcs.ICALP.2024.38.pdf
  • Filesize: 1.31 MB
  • 18 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Parinya Chalermsook
  • Aalto University, Finland
Manoj Gupta
  • IIT Gandhinagar, India
Wanchote Jiamjitrak
  • University of Helsinki, Finland
Akash Pareek
  • IIT Gandhinagar, India
Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai
  • The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Funding

This research was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 759557.

Cite AsGet BibTex

Parinya Chalermsook, Manoj Gupta, Wanchote Jiamjitrak, Akash Pareek, and Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai. The Group Access Bounds for Binary Search Trees. In 51st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2024). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 297, pp. 38:1-38:18, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2024)
https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICALP.2024.38

Abstract

The access lemma (Sleator and Tarjan, JACM 1985) is a property of binary search trees (BSTs) that implies interesting consequences such as static optimality, static finger, and working set property on any access sequence X = (x_1,x_2,… ,x_m). However, there are known corollaries of the dynamic optimality that cannot be derived via the access lemma, such as the dynamic finger, and any o(log n)-competitive ratio to the optimal BST where n is the number of keys. In this paper, we introduce the group access bound that can be defined with respect to a reference group access tree. Group access bounds generalize the access lemma and imply properties that are far stronger than those implied by the classical access lemma. For each of the following results, there is a group access tree whose group access bound 1) Is O(√{log n})-competitive to the optimal BST. 2) Achieves the k-finger bound with an additive term of O(m log k log log n) (randomized) when the reference tree is an almost complete binary tree. 3) Satisfies the unified bound with an additive term of O(m log log n). 4) Matches the unified bound with a time window k with an additive term of O(m log k log log n) (randomized). Furthermore, we prove the simulation theorem: For every group access tree, there is an online BST algorithm that is O(1)-competitive with its group access bound. In particular, any new group access bound will automatically imply a new BST algorithm achieving the same bound. Thereby, we obtain an improved k-finger bound (reference tree is an almost complete binary tree), an improved unified bound with a time window k, and matching the best-known bound for Unified bound in the BST model. Since any dynamically optimal BST must achieve the group access bounds, we believe our results provide a new direction towards proving o(log n)-competitiveness of the Splay tree and Greedy, two prime candidates for the dynamic optimality conjecture.

Subject Classification

ACM Subject Classification
  • Theory of computation → Online algorithms
Keywords
  • Dynamic Optimality
  • Binary Search Tree
  • Online Algorithm

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

Related Versions

References

  1. Mihai Bădoiu, Richard Cole, Erik D Demaine, and John Iacono. A unified access bound on comparison-based dynamic dictionaries. Theoretical Computer Science, 382(2):86-96, 2007. Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin Aram Berendsohn, László Kozma, and Michal Opler. Optimization with pattern-avoiding input. CoRR, abs/2310.04236, 2023. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.04236.
  3. Prosenjit Bose, Karim Douïeb, Vida Dujmović, and Rolf Fagerberg. An o (log log n)-competitive binary search tree with optimal worst-case access times. In Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, pages 38-49. Springer, 2010. Google Scholar
  4. Prosenjit Bose, Karim Douïeb, Vida Dujmović, and John Howat. Layered working-set trees. Algorithmica, 63(1-2):476-489, 2012. Google Scholar
  5. Parinya Chalermsook, Mayank Goswami, László Kozma, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Greedy is an almost optimal deque. In Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, pages 152-165. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  6. Parinya Chalermsook, Mayank Goswami, László Kozma, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Pattern-avoiding access in binary search trees. In 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 410-423. IEEE, 2015. Google Scholar
  7. Parinya Chalermsook, Mayank Goswami, László Kozma, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Self-adjusting binary search trees: What makes them tick? In Algorithms-ESA 2015, pages 300-312. Springer, 2015. Google Scholar
  8. Parinya Chalermsook, Mayank Goswami, László Kozma, Kurt Mehlhorn, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Multi-finger binary search trees. arXiv preprint, 2018. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01759.
  9. Parinya Chalermsook, Manoj Gupta, Wanchote Jiamjitrak, Nidia Obscura Acosta, Akash Pareek, and Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai. Improved pattern-avoidance bounds for greedy bsts via matrix decomposition. In Proceedings of the 2023 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 509-534. SIAM, 2023. Google Scholar
  10. Parinya Chalermsook, Manoj Gupta, Wanchote Jiamjitrak, Nidia Obscura Acosta, Akash Pareek, and Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai. Improved pattern-avoidance bounds for greedy bsts via matrix decomposition. In SODA, pages 509-534. SIAM, 2023. Google Scholar
  11. Parinya Chalermsook and Wanchote Po Jiamjitrak. New binary search tree bounds via geometric inversions. In 28th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2020). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 2020. Google Scholar
  12. Parinya Chalermsook, Seth Pettie, and Sorrachai Yingchareonthawornchai. Sorting pattern-avoiding permutations via 0-1 matrices forbidding product patterns. In SODA, pages 133-149. SIAM, 2024. Google Scholar
  13. Richard Cole. On the dynamic finger conjecture for splay trees. part ii: The proof. SIAM Journal on Computing, 30(1):44-85, 2000. Google Scholar
  14. Erik D Demaine, Dion Harmon, John Iacono, Daniel Kane, and Mihai Patraşcu. The geometry of binary search trees. In Proceedings of the twentieth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 496-505. SIAM, 2009. Google Scholar
  15. Erik D Demaine, Dion Harmon, John Iacono, and Mihai Patraşcu. Dynamic optimality—almost. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(1):240-251, 2007. Google Scholar
  16. Erik D Demaine, John Iacono, Stefan Langerman, and Özgür Özkan. Combining binary search trees. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 388-399. Springer, 2013. Google Scholar
  17. Jonathan C Derryberry and Daniel D Sleator. Skip-splay: Toward achieving the unified bound in the bst model. In Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, pages 194-205. Springer, 2009. Google Scholar
  18. Jonathan Carlyle Derryberry. Adaptive binary search trees. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2009. Google Scholar
  19. Amr Elmasry, Arash Farzan, and John Iacono. On the hierarchy of distribution-sensitive properties for data structures. Acta informatica, 50(4):289-295, 2013. Google Scholar
  20. Kyle Fox. Upper bounds for maximally greedy binary search trees. In Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, pages 411-422, 2011. Google Scholar
  21. George F Georgakopoulos. Chain-splay trees, or, how to achieve and prove loglogn-competitiveness by splaying. Information Processing Letters, 106(1):37-43, 2008. Google Scholar
  22. Navin Goyal and Manoj Gupta. On dynamic optimality for binary search trees. arXiv preprint, 2011. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.4523.
  23. Navin Goyal and Manoj Gupta. Better analysis of binary search tree on decomposable sequences. Theoretical Computer Science, 776:19-42, 2019. Google Scholar
  24. John Iacono. Alternatives to splay trees with o (log n) worst-case access times. In Proceedings of the twelfth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 516-522. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2001. Google Scholar
  25. John Iacono. Key-independent optimality. Algorithmica, 42(1):3-10, 2005. Google Scholar
  26. John Iacono and Stefan Langerman. Weighted dynamic finger in binary search trees. In Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms, pages 672-691. SIAM, 2016. Google Scholar
  27. Elias Koutsoupias and Christos H Papadimitriou. On the k-server conjecture. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 42(5):971-983, 1995. Google Scholar
  28. László Kozma and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Smooth heaps and a dual view of self-adjusting data structures. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 801-814, 2018. Google Scholar
  29. James R Lee. Fusible hsts and the randomized k-server conjecture. In 2018 IEEE 59th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 438-449. IEEE, 2018. Google Scholar
  30. J Ian Munro. On the competitiveness of linear search. In European Symposium on Algorithms, pages 338-345. Springer, 2000. Google Scholar
  31. Daniel Sleator. Achieving the unified bound in the best model. Talk, 2011. Google Scholar
  32. Daniel Dominic Sleator and Robert Endre Tarjan. Self-adjusting binary search trees. J. ACM, 32(3):652-686, 1985. Google Scholar
  33. Robert Endre Tarjan. Sequential access in splay trees takes linear time. Combinatorica, 5(4):367-378, 1985. Google Scholar
  34. Chengwen Chris Wang. Multi-Splay Trees. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, USA, 2006. AAI3253576. Google Scholar
  35. Chengwen Chris Wang, Jonathan Derryberry, and Daniel Dominic Sleator. O (log log n)-competitive dynamic binary search trees. In SODA, volume 6, pages 374-383, 2006. Google Scholar
  36. Robert Wilber. Lower bounds for accessing binary search trees with rotations. SIAM journal on Computing, 18(1):56-67, 1989. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact