New Bounds for Randomized List Update in the Paid Exchange Model
We study the fundamental list update problem in the paid exchange model P^d. This cost model was introduced by Manasse, McGeoch and Sleator [M.S. Manasse et al., 1988] and Reingold, Westbrook and Sleator [N. Reingold et al., 1994]. Here the given list of items may only be rearranged using paid exchanges; each swap of two adjacent items in the list incurs a cost of d. Free exchanges of items are not allowed. The model is motivated by the fact that, when executing search operations on a data structure, key comparisons are less expensive than item swaps.
We develop a new randomized online algorithm that achieves an improved competitive ratio against oblivious adversaries. For large d, the competitiveness tends to 2.2442. Technically, the analysis of the algorithm relies on a new approach of partitioning request sequences and charging expected cost. Furthermore, we devise lower bounds on the competitiveness of randomized algorithms against oblivious adversaries. No such lower bounds were known before. Specifically, we prove that no randomized online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than 2 in the partial cost model, where an access to the i-th item in the current list incurs a cost of i-1 rather than i. All algorithms proposed in the literature attain their competitiveness in the partial cost model. Furthermore, we show that no randomized online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than 1.8654 in the standard full cost model. Again the lower bounds hold for large d.
self-organizing lists
online algorithm
competitive analysis
lower bound
Theory of computation~Online algorithms
12:1-12:17
Regular Paper
Work supported by the European Research Council, Grant Agreement No. 691672, project APEG.
Susanne
Albers
Susanne Albers
Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Munich, Germany
Maximilian
Janke
Maximilian Janke
Department of Computer Science, Technical University of Munich, Germany
10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2020.12
S. Albers. Improved randomized on-line algorithms for the list update problem. SIAM J. Comput., 27(3):682-693, 1998.
S. Albers and S. Lauer. On list update with locality of reference. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 82(5):627-653, 2016.
S. Albers, B. von Stengel, and R. Werchner. A combined BIT and TIMESTAMP algorithm for the list update problem. Inf. Process. Lett., 56(3):135-139, 1995.
S. Albers and J. Westbrook. Self-organizing data structures. In Online Algorithms, The State of the Art, Springer LNCS 1442, pages 13-51, 1998.
C. Ambühl, B. Gärtner, and B. von Stengel. Optimal lower bounds for projective list update algorithms. ACM Trans. Algorithms, 9(4):31:1-31:18, 2013.
S. Angelopoulos and P. Schweitzer. Paging and list update under bijective analysis. J. ACM, 60(2):7:1-7:18, 2013.
A. Borodin and R. El-Yaniv. Online computation and competitive analysis. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
J. Boyar, S. Kamali, K.S. Larsen, and A. López-Ortiz. On the list update problem with advice. Inf. Comput., 253:411-423, 2017.
M. Burrows and D. Wheeler. A block sorting lossless data compression algorithm. Technical Report 124, 1994.
M. Crochemore, R. Grossi, J. Kärkkäinen, and G.M. Landau. Computing the Burrows-Wheeler transform in place and in small space. J. Discrete Algorithms, 32:44-52, 2015.
R. Dorrigiv, M.R. Ehmsen, and A. López-Ortiz. Parameterized analysis of paging and list update algorithms. Algorithmica, 71(2):330-353, 2015.
S. Irani. Two results on the list update problem. Inf. Process. Lett., 38(6):301-306, 1991.
S. Kamali, S. Ladra, A. López-Ortiz, and D. Seco. Context-based algorithms for the list-update problem under alternative cost models. In Proc. 2013 Data Compression Conference (DCC), IEEE, pages 361-370, 2013.
S. Kamali and A. López-Ortiz. A survey of algorithms and models for list update. In Space-Efficient Data Structures, Streams, and Algorithms - Papers in Honor of J. Ian Munro on the Occasion of his 66th Birthday, pages 251-266, 2013.
S. Kamali and A. López-Ortiz. Better compression through better list update algorithms. In Proc. 2014 Data Compression Conference (DCC), IEEE, pages 372-381, 2014.
R. Karp and P. Raghavan. Personal communication cited in [N. Reingold et al., 1994].
A. López-Ortiz, M.P. Renault, and A. Rosén. Paid exchanges are worth the price. In Proc. 32nd International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS15), LIPIcs 30, pages 636-648, 2015.
M.S. Manasse, L.A. McGeoch, and D.D. Sleator. Competitive algorithms for on-line problems. In Proc. 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 322-333, 1988.
G. Manzini. An analysis of the Burrows-Wheeler transform. J. ACM, 48(3):407-430, 2001.
C. Martínez and S. Roura. On the competitiveness of the move-to-front rule. Theor. Comput. Sci., 242(1-2):313-325, 2000.
J. McCabe. On serial files with relocatable records. Operations Research, 12:609-618, 1965.
J.I. Munro. On the competitiveness of linear search. In Proc. 8th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA00), Springer LNCS 1879, pages 338-345, 2000.
N. Reingold and J. Westbrook. Off-line algorithms for the list update problem. Inf. Process. Lett., 60(2):75-80, 1996.
N. Reingold, J. Westbrook, and D.D. Sleator. Randomized competitive algorithms for the list update problem. Algorithmica, 11(1):15-32, 1994.
J. Sirén. Burrows-Wheeler transform for terabases. In Proc. 2016 Data Compression Conference (DCC), IEEE, pages 211-220, 2016.
D.D. Sleator and R.E. Tarjan. Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun. ACM, 28(2):202-208, 1985.
B. Teia. A lower bound for randomized list update algorithms. IPL, 47(1):5-9, 1993.
A.C.C. Yao. Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity. In Proc. 18th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 222-227, 1977.
Susanne Albers and Maximilian Janke
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode