The Fresh-Finger Property

The unified property roughly states that searching for an element is fast when the current access is close to a recent access. Here, "close" refers to rank distance measured among all elements stored by the dictionary. We show that distance need not be measured this way: in fact, it is only necessary to consider a small working-set of elements to measure this rank distance. This results in a data structure with access time that is an improvement upon those offered by the unified property for many query sequences

A Static Optimality Transformation with Applications to Planar Point Location

Over the last decade, there have been several data structures that, given a planar subdivision and a probability distribution over the plane, provide a way for answering point location queries that is fine-tuned for the distribution. All these methods suffer from the requirement that the query distribution must be known in advance. We present a new data structure for point location queries in planar triangulations. Our structure is asymptotically as fast as the optimal structures, but it requires no prior information about the queries. This is a 2D analogue of the jump from Knuth's optimum binary search trees (discovered in 1971) to the splay trees of Sleator and Tarjan in 1985. While the former need to know the query distribution, the latter are statically optimal. This means that we can adapt to the query sequence and achieve the same asymptotic performance as an optimum static structure, without needing any additional information.Comment: 13 pages, 1 figure, a preliminary version appeared at SoCG 201

Combining Binary Search Trees

We present a general transformation for combining a constant number of binary search tree data structures (BSTs) into a single BST whose running time is within a constant factor of the minimum of any “well-behaved” bound on the running time of the given BSTs, for any online access sequence. (A BST has a well-behaved bound with f(n) overhead if it spends at most O(f(n)) time per access and its bound satisfies a weak sense of closure under subsequences.) In particular, we obtain a BST data structure that is O(loglogn) competitive, satisfies the working set bound (and thus satisfies the static finger bound and the static optimality bound), satisfies the dynamic finger bound, satisfies the unified bound with an additive O(loglogn) factor, and performs each access in worst-case O(logn) time

Smooth heaps and a dual view of self-adjusting data structures

We present a new connection between self-adjusting binary search trees (BSTs) and heaps, two fundamental, extensively studied, and practically relevant families of data structures. Roughly speaking, we map an arbitrary heap algorithm within a natural model, to a corresponding BST algorithm with the same cost on a dual sequence of operations (i.e. the same sequence with the roles of time and key-space switched). This is the first general transformation between the two families of data structures. There is a rich theory of dynamic optimality for BSTs (i.e. the theory of competitiveness between BST algorithms). The lack of an analogous theory for heaps has been noted in the literature. Through our connection, we transfer all instance-specific lower bounds known for BSTs to a general model of heaps, initiating a theory of dynamic optimality for heaps. On the algorithmic side, we obtain a new, simple and efficient heap algorithm, which we call the smooth heap. We show the smooth heap to be the heap-counterpart of Greedy, the BST algorithm with the strongest proven and conjectured properties from the literature, widely believed to be instance-optimal. Assuming the optimality of Greedy, the smooth heap is also optimal within our model of heap algorithms. As corollaries of results known for Greedy, we obtain instance-specific upper bounds for the smooth heap, with applications in adaptive sorting. Intriguingly, the smooth heap, although derived from a non-practical BST algorithm, is simple and easy to implement (e.g. it stores no auxiliary data besides the keys and tree pointers). It can be seen as a variation on the popular pairing heap data structure, extending it with a "power-of-two-choices" type of heuristic.Comment: Presented at STOC 2018, light revision, additional figure

Parallel Finger Search Structures

In this paper we present two versions of a parallel finger structure FS on p processors that supports searches, insertions and deletions, and has a finger at each end. This is to our knowledge the first implementation of a parallel search structure that is work-optimal with respect to the finger bound and yet has very good parallelism (within a factor of O(log p)^2) of optimal). We utilize an extended implicit batching framework that transparently facilitates the use of FS by any parallel program P that is modelled by a dynamically generated DAG D where each node is either a unit-time instruction or a call to FS. The work done by FS is bounded by the finger bound F_L (for some linearization L of D), i.e. each operation on an item with distance r from a finger takes O(log r+1) amortized work. Running P using the simpler version takes O((T_1+F_L)/p + T_infty + d * ((log p)^2 + log n)) time on a greedy scheduler, where T_1, T_infty are the size and span of D respectively, and n is the maximum number of items in FS, and d is the maximum number of calls to FS along any path in D. Using the faster version, this is reduced to O((T_1+F_L)/p + T_infty + d *(log p)^2 + s_L) time, where s_L is the weighted span of D where each call to FS is weighted by its cost according to F_L. FS can be extended to a fixed number of movable fingers. The data structures in our paper fit into the dynamic multithreading paradigm, and their performance bounds are directly composable with other data structures given in the same paradigm. Also, the results can be translated to practical implementations using work-stealing schedulers

Parallel Working-Set Search Structures

In this paper we present two versions of a parallel working-set map on p processors that supports searches, insertions and deletions. In both versions, the total work of all operations when the map has size at least p is bounded by the working-set bound, i.e., the cost of an item depends on how recently it was accessed (for some linearization): accessing an item in the map with recency r takes O(1+log r) work. In the simpler version each map operation has O((log p)^2+log n) span (where n is the maximum size of the map). In the pipelined version each map operation on an item with recency r has O((log p)^2+log r) span. (Operations in parallel may have overlapping span; span is additive only for operations in sequence.) Both data structures are designed to be used by a dynamic multithreading parallel program that at each step executes a unit-time instruction or makes a data structure call. To achieve the stated bounds, the pipelined data structure requires a weak-priority scheduler, which supports a limited form of 2-level prioritization. At the end we explain how the results translate to practical implementations using work-stealing schedulers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first parallel implementation of a self-adjusting search structure where the cost of an operation adapts to the access sequence. A corollary of the working-set bound is that it achieves work static optimality: the total work is bounded by the access costs in an optimal static search tree.Comment: Authors' version of a paper accepted to SPAA 201

Top-Down Skiplists

We describe todolists (top-down skiplists), a variant of skiplists (Pugh 1990) that can execute searches using at most $\log_{2-\varepsilon} n + O(1)$ binary comparisons per search and that have amortized update time $O(\varepsilon^{-1}\log n)$. A variant of todolists, called working-todolists, can execute a search for any element $x$ using $\log_{2-\varepsilon} w(x) + o(\log w(x))$ binary comparisons and have amortized search time $O(\varepsilon^{-1}\log w(w))$. Here, $w(x)$ is the "working-set number" of $x$. No previous data structure is known to achieve a bound better than $4\log_2 w(x)$ comparisons. We show through experiments that, if implemented carefully, todolists are comparable to other common dictionary implementations in terms of insertion times and outperform them in terms of search times.Comment: 18 pages, 5 figure