A Tight Lower Bound for Decrease-Key in the Pure Heap Model

We improve the lower bound on the amortized cost of the decrease-key operation in the pure heap model and show that any pure-heap-model heap (that has a \bigoh{\log n} amortized-time extract-min operation) must spend \bigom{\log\log n} amortized time on the decrease-key operation. Our result shows that sort heaps as well as pure-heap variants of numerous other heaps have asymptotically optimal decrease-key operations in the pure heap model. In addition, our improved lower bound matches the lower bound of Fredman [J. ACM 46(4):473-501 (1999)] for pairing heaps [M.L. Fredman, R. Sedgewick, D.D. Sleator, and R.E. Tarjan. Algorithmica 1(1):111-129 (1986)] and surpasses it for pure-heap variants of numerous other heaps with augmented data such as pointer rank-pairing heaps.Comment: arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1302.664

Improved Bounds for Multipass Pairing Heaps and Path-Balanced Binary Search Trees

We revisit multipass pairing heaps and path-balanced binary search trees (BSTs), two classical algorithms for data structure maintenance. The pairing heap is a simple and efficient "self-adjusting" heap, introduced in 1986 by Fredman, Sedgewick, Sleator, and Tarjan. In the multipass variant (one of the original pairing heap variants described by Fredman et al.) the minimum item is extracted via repeated pairing rounds in which neighboring siblings are linked. Path-balanced BSTs, proposed by Sleator (cf. Subramanian, 1996), are a natural alternative to Splay trees (Sleator and Tarjan, 1983). In a path-balanced BST, whenever an item is accessed, the search path leading to that item is re-arranged into a balanced tree. Despite their simplicity, both algorithms turned out to be difficult to analyse. Fredman et al. showed that operations in multipass pairing heaps take amortized O(log n * log log n / log log log n) time. For searching in path-balanced BSTs, Balasubramanian and Raman showed in 1995 the same amortized time bound of O(log n * log log n / log log log n), using a different argument. In this paper we show an explicit connection between the two algorithms and improve both bounds to O(log n * 2^{log^* n} * log^* n), respectively O(log n * 2^{log^* n} * (log^* n)^2), where log^* denotes the slowly growing iterated logarithm function. These are the first improvements in more than three, resp. two decades, approaching the information-theoretic lower bound of Omega(log n)

Hollow Heaps

We introduce the hollow heap, a very simple data structure with the same amortized efficiency as the classical Fibonacci heap. All heap operations except delete and delete-min take $O(1)$ time, worst case as well as amortized; delete and delete-min take $O(\log n)$ amortized time on a heap of $n$ items. Hollow heaps are by far the simplest structure to achieve this. Hollow heaps combine two novel ideas: the use of lazy deletion and re-insertion to do decrease-key operations, and the use of a dag (directed acyclic graph) instead of a tree or set of trees to represent a heap. Lazy deletion produces hollow nodes (nodes without items), giving the data structure its name.Comment: 27 pages, 7 figures, preliminary version appeared in ICALP 201

Why some heaps support constant-amortized-time decrease-key operations, and others do not

A lower bound is presented which shows that a class of heap algorithms in the pointer model with only heap pointers must spend Omega(log log n / log log log n) amortized time on the decrease-key operation (given O(log n) amortized-time extract-min). Intuitively, this bound shows the key to having O(1)-time decrease-key is the ability to sort O(log n) items in O(log n) time; Fibonacci heaps [M.L. Fredman and R. E. Tarjan. J. ACM 34(3):596-615 (1987)] do this through the use of bucket sort. Our lower bound also holds no matter how much data is augmented; this is in contrast to the lower bound of Fredman [J. ACM 46(4):473-501 (1999)] who showed a tradeoff between the number of augmented bits and the amortized cost of decrease-key. A new heap data structure, the sort heap, is presented. This heap is a simplification of the heap of Elmasry [SODA 2009: 471-476] and shares with it a O(log log n) amortized-time decrease-key, but with a straightforward implementation such that our lower bound holds. Thus a natural model is presented for a pointer-based heap such that the amortized runtime of a self-adjusting structure and amortized lower asymptotic bounds for decrease-key differ by but a O(log log log n) factor

Pairing heaps: the forward variant

The pairing heap is a classical heap data structure introduced in 1986 by Fredman, Sedgewick, Sleator, and Tarjan. It is remarkable both for its simplicity and for its excellent performance in practice. The "magic" of pairing heaps lies in the restructuring that happens after the deletion of the smallest item. The resulting collection of trees is consolidated in two rounds: a left-to-right pairing round, followed by a right-to-left accumulation round. Fredman et al. showed, via an elegant correspondence to splay trees, that in a pairing heap of size n all heap operations take O(log n) amortized time. They also proposed an arguably more natural variant, where both pairing and accumulation are performed in a combined left-to-right round (called the forward variant of pairing heaps). The analogy to splaying breaks down in this case, and the analysis of the forward variant was left open. In this paper we show that inserting an item and deleting the minimum in a forward-variant pairing heap both take amortized time O(log(n) * 4^(sqrt(log n))). This is the first improvement over the O(sqrt(n)) bound showed by Fredman et al. three decades ago. Our analysis relies on a new potential function that tracks parent-child rank-differences in the heap