Parallel Algorithm and Dynamic Exponent for Diffusion-limited Aggregation

A parallel algorithm for ``diffusion-limited aggregation'' (DLA) is described and analyzed from the perspective of computational complexity. The dynamic exponent z of the algorithm is defined with respect to the probabilistic parallel random-access machine (PRAM) model of parallel computation according to $T \sim L^{z}$, where L is the cluster size, T is the running time, and the algorithm uses a number of processors polynomial in L\@. It is argued that z=D-D_2/2, where D is the fractal dimension and D_2 is the second generalized dimension. Simulations of DLA are carried out to measure D_2 and to test scaling assumptions employed in the complexity analysis of the parallel algorithm. It is plausible that the parallel algorithm attains the minimum possible value of the dynamic exponent in which case z characterizes the intrinsic history dependence of DLA.Comment: 24 pages Revtex and 2 figures. A major improvement to the algorithm and smaller dynamic exponent in this versio

Tight bounds for some problems in computational geometry: the complete sub-logarithmic parallel time range

There are a number of fundamental problems in computational geometry for which work-optimal algorithms exist which have a parallel running time of $O(\log n)$ in the PRAM model. These include problems like two and three dimensional convex-hulls, trapezoidal decomposition, arrangement construction, dominance among others. Further improvements in running time to sub-logarithmic range were not considered likely because of their close relationship to sorting for which an $\Omega (\log n/\log\log n )$ is known to hold even with a polynomial number of processors. However, with recent progress in padded-sort algorithms, which circumvents the conventional lower-bounds, there arises a natural question about speeding up algorithms for the above-mentioned geometric problems (with appropriate modifications in the output specification). We present randomized parallel algorithms for some fundamental problems like convex-hulls and trapezoidal decomposition which execute in time $O( \log n/\log k)$ in an $nk$ ($k > 1$) processor CRCW PRAM. Our algorithms do not make any assumptions about the input distribution. Our work relies heavily on results on padded-sorting and some earlier results of Reif and Sen [28, 27]. We further prove a matching lower-bound for these problems in the bounded degree decision tree

Sorting Real Numbers in Constant Time Using n^2/log^cn Processors

We study the sorting of real numbers into a linked list on the PRAM (Parallel Random-Access Machine) model. We show that n real numbers can be sorted into a linked list in constant time using n2 processors. Previously n numbers can be sorted into a linked list using n2 processors in O(loglogn) time. We also study the time processor trade-off for sorting real numbers into a linked list on the PRAM (Parallel Random Access Machine) model. We show that n real numbers can be sorted into a linked list with n2/t processors in O(logt) time. Previously n real numbers can be sorted into a linked list using n3 processors in constant time and n2 processors in O(loglogn). And then we show that input array of n real numbers  can be sorted into linked list in constant time using n2/logcn  processors for any positive constant c. We believe that further reduction on the number of processors for sorting real numbers in constant time will be very difficult if not impossible

Parallel Merging and Sorting on Linked List

We study linked list sorting and merging on the PRAM model. In this paper we show that n real numbers can be sorted into a linked list in constant time with n2+e processors or in ) time with n2 processors. We also show that two sorted linked lists of n integers in {0, 1, …, m}  can be merged into one sorted linked list in O(log(c)n(loglogm)1/2) time using n/(log(c)n(loglogm)1/2)  processors, where c is an arbitrarily large constant

Transforming Comparison Model Lower Bounds to the PRAM

This note provides general transformations of lower bounds in Valiant'sparallel comparison decision tree model to lower bounds in the priorityconcurrent-read concurrent-write parallel-random-access-machine model.The proofs rely on standard Ramsey-theoretic arguments that simplifythe structure of the computation by restricting the input domain. Thetransformation of comparison model lower bounds, which are usually easierto obtain, to the parallel-random-access-machine, unifies some knownlower bounds and gives new lower bounds for several problems

A lower bound for linear approximate compaction

The {\em $\lambda$-approximate compaction} problem is: given an input array of $n$ values, each either 0 or 1, place each value in an output array so that all the 1's are in the first $(1+\lambda)k$ array locations, where $k$ is the number of 1's in the input. $\lambda$ is an accuracy parameter. This problem is of fundamental importance in parallel computation because of its applications to processor allocation and approximate counting. When $\lambda$ is a constant, the problem is called {\em Linear Approximate Compaction} (LAC). On the CRCW PRAM model, %there is an algorithm that solves approximate compaction in \order{(\log\log n)^3} time for $\lambda = \frac{1}{\log\log n}$, using $\frac{n}{(\log\log n)^3}$ processors. Our main result shows that this is close to the best possible. Specifically, we prove that LAC requires %$\Omega(\log\log n)$ time using \order{n} processors. We also give a tradeoff between $\lambda$ and the processing time. For $\epsilon < 1$, and $\lambda = n^{\epsilon}$, the time required is $\Omega(\log \frac{1}{\epsilon})$

Optimal parallel string algorithms: sorting, merching and computing the minimum

We study fundamental comparison problems on strings of characters, equipped with the usual lexicographical ordering. For each problem studied, we give a parallel algorithm that is optimal with respect to at least one criterion for which no optimal algorithm was previously known. Specifically, our main results are: % \begin{itemize} \item Two sorted sequences of strings, containing altogether $n$~characters, can be merged in $O(\log n)$ time using $O(n)$ operations on an EREW PRAM. This is optimal as regards both the running time and the number of operations. \item A sequence of strings, containing altogether $n$~characters represented by integers of size polynomial in~$n$, can be sorted in $O({{\log n}/{\log\log n}})$ time using $O(n\log\log n)$ operations on a CRCW PRAM. The running time is optimal for any polynomial number of processors. \item The minimum string in a sequence of strings containing altogether $n$ characters can be found using (expected) $O(n)$ operations in constant expected time on a randomized CRCW PRAM, in $O(\log\log n)$ time on a deterministic CRCW PRAM with a program depending on~$n$, in $O((\log\log n)^3)$ time on a deterministic CRCW PRAM with a program not depending on~$n$, in $O(\log n)$ expected time on a randomized EREW PRAM, and in $O(\log n\log\log n)$ time on a deterministic EREW PRAM. The number of operations is optimal, and the running time is optimal for the randomized algorithms and, if the number of processors is limited to~$n$, for the nonuniform deterministic CRCW PRAM algorithm as we

Optimal Circular Arc Representations: Properties, Recognition, and Construction

AbstractWe investigate some properties of minimal interval and circular arc representations and give several optimal sequential and parallel recognition and construction algorithms. We show that, among other things, given ans×tinterval or circular arc representation matrix, •deciding if the representation is minimal can be done inO(logs) time withO(st/logs) EREW PRAM processors, or inO(1) time withO(st) common CRCW PRAM processors; •constructing an equivalent minimum interval representation can be done inO(log(st)) time withO(st/log(st)) EREW PRAM processors, or inO(logt/loglogt) time withO(stloglogt/logt) common CRCW PRAM processors, or inO(1) time withO(st) BSR processors; •constructing an equivalent minimal circular arc representation can be done inO(st) time