Just Sort It! A Simple and Effective Approach to Active Preference Learning

We address the problem of learning a ranking by using adaptively chosen pairwise comparisons. Our goal is to recover the ranking accurately but to sample the comparisons sparingly. If all comparison outcomes are consistent with the ranking, the optimal solution is to use an efficient sorting algorithm, such as Quicksort. But how do sorting algorithms behave if some comparison outcomes are inconsistent with the ranking? We give favorable guarantees for Quicksort for the popular Bradley-Terry model, under natural assumptions on the parameters. Furthermore, we empirically demonstrate that sorting algorithms lead to a very simple and effective active learning strategy: repeatedly sort the items. This strategy performs as well as state-of-the-art methods (and much better than random sampling) at a minuscule fraction of the computational cost.Comment: Accepted at ICML 201

Analysis of pivot sampling in dual-pivot Quicksort: A holistic analysis of Yaroslavskiy's partitioning scheme

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00453-015-0041-7The new dual-pivot Quicksort by Vladimir Yaroslavskiy-used in Oracle's Java runtime library since version 7-features intriguing asymmetries. They make a basic variant of this algorithm use less comparisons than classic single-pivot Quicksort. In this paper, we extend the analysis to the case where the two pivots are chosen as fixed order statistics of a random sample. Surprisingly, dual-pivot Quicksort then needs more comparisons than a corresponding version of classic Quicksort, so it is clear that counting comparisons is not sufficient to explain the running time advantages observed for Yaroslavskiy's algorithm in practice. Consequently, we take a more holistic approach and give also the precise leading term of the average number of swaps, the number of executed Java Bytecode instructions and the number of scanned elements, a new simple cost measure that approximates I/O costs in the memory hierarchy. We determine optimal order statistics for each of the cost measures. It turns out that the asymmetries in Yaroslavskiy's algorithm render pivots with a systematic skew more efficient than the symmetric choice. Moreover, we finally have a convincing explanation for the success of Yaroslavskiy's algorithm in practice: compared with corresponding versions of classic single-pivot Quicksort, dual-pivot Quicksort needs significantly less I/Os, both with and without pivot sampling.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

QuickHeapsort: Modifications and improved analysis

We present a new analysis for QuickHeapsort splitting it into the analysis of the partition-phases and the analysis of the heap-phases. This enables us to consider samples of non-constant size for the pivot selection and leads to better theoretical bounds for the algorithm. Furthermore we introduce some modifications of QuickHeapsort, both in-place and using n extra bits. We show that on every input the expected number of comparisons is n lg n - 0.03n + o(n) (in-place) respectively n lg n -0.997 n+ o (n). Both estimates improve the previously known best results. (It is conjectured in Wegener93 that the in-place algorithm Bottom-Up-Heapsort uses at most n lg n + 0.4 n on average and for Weak-Heapsort which uses n extra-bits the average number of comparisons is at most n lg n -0.42n in EdelkampS02.) Moreover, our non-in-place variant can even compete with index based Heapsort variants (e.g. Rank-Heapsort in WangW07) and Relaxed-Weak-Heapsort (n lg n -0.9 n+ o (n) comparisons in the worst case) for which no O(n)-bound on the number of extra bits is known

Why Is Dual-Pivot Quicksort Fast?

I discuss the new dual-pivot Quicksort that is nowadays used to sort arrays of primitive types in Java. I sketch theoretical analyses of this algorithm that offer a possible, and in my opinion plausible, explanation why (a) dual-pivot Quicksort is faster than the previously used (classic) Quicksort and (b) why this improvement was not already found much earlier.Comment: extended abstract for Theorietage 2015 (https://www.uni-trier.de/index.php?id=55089) (v2 fixes a small bug in the pseudocode

Analysis of Quickselect under Yaroslavskiy's Dual-Pivoting Algorithm

There is excitement within the algorithms community about a new partitioning method introduced by Yaroslavskiy. This algorithm renders Quicksort slightly faster than the case when it runs under classic partitioning methods. We show that this improved performance in Quicksort is not sustained in Quickselect; a variant of Quicksort for finding order statistics. We investigate the number of comparisons made by Quickselect to find a key with a randomly selected rank under Yaroslavskiy's algorithm. This grand averaging is a smoothing operator over all individual distributions for specific fixed order statistics. We give the exact grand average. The grand distribution of the number of comparison (when suitably scaled) is given as the fixed-point solution of a distributional equation of a contraction in the Zolotarev metric space. Our investigation shows that Quickselect under older partitioning methods slightly outperforms Quickselect under Yaroslavskiy's algorithm, for an order statistic of a random rank. Similar results are obtained for extremal order statistics, where again we find the exact average, and the distribution for the number of comparisons (when suitably scaled). Both limiting distributions are of perpetuities (a sum of products of independent mixed continuous random variables).Comment: full version with appendices; otherwise identical to Algorithmica versio

Worst-Case Efficient Sorting with QuickMergesort

The two most prominent solutions for the sorting problem are Quicksort and Mergesort. While Quicksort is very fast on average, Mergesort additionally gives worst-case guarantees, but needs extra space for a linear number of elements. Worst-case efficient in-place sorting, however, remains a challenge: the standard solution, Heapsort, suffers from a bad cache behavior and is also not overly fast for in-cache instances. In this work we present median-of-medians QuickMergesort (MoMQuickMergesort), a new variant of QuickMergesort, which combines Quicksort with Mergesort allowing the latter to be implemented in place. Our new variant applies the median-of-medians algorithm for selecting pivots in order to circumvent the quadratic worst case. Indeed, we show that it uses at most $n \log n + 1.6n$ comparisons for $n$ large enough. We experimentally confirm the theoretical estimates and show that the new algorithm outperforms Heapsort by far and is only around 10% slower than Introsort (std::sort implementation of stdlibc++), which has a rather poor guarantee for the worst case. We also simulate the worst case, which is only around 10% slower than the average case. In particular, the new algorithm is a natural candidate to replace Heapsort as a worst-case stopper in Introsort