A Back-to-Basics Empirical Study of Priority Queues

The theory community has proposed several new heap variants in the recent past which have remained largely untested experimentally. We take the field back to the drawing board, with straightforward implementations of both classic and novel structures using only standard, well-known optimizations. We study the behavior of each structure on a variety of inputs, including artificial workloads, workloads generated by running algorithms on real map data, and workloads from a discrete event simulator used in recent systems networking research. We provide observations about which characteristics are most correlated to performance. For example, we find that the L1 cache miss rate appears to be strongly correlated with wallclock time. We also provide observations about how the input sequence affects the relative performance of the different heap variants. For example, we show (both theoretically and in practice) that certain random insertion-deletion sequences are degenerate and can lead to misleading results. Overall, our findings suggest that while the conventional wisdom holds in some cases, it is sorely mistaken in others

Finding Dominators via Disjoint Set Union

The problem of finding dominators in a directed graph has many important applications, notably in global optimization of computer code. Although linear and near-linear-time algorithms exist, they use sophisticated data structures. We develop an algorithm for finding dominators that uses only a "static tree" disjoint set data structure in addition to simple lists and maps. The algorithm runs in near-linear or linear time, depending on the implementation of the disjoint set data structure. We give several versions of the algorithm, including one that computes loop nesting information (needed in many kinds of global code optimization) and that can be made self-certifying, so that the correctness of the computed dominators is very easy to verify

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

Optimal resizable arrays

A \emph{resizable array} is an array that can \emph{grow} and \emph{shrink} by the addition or removal of items from its end, or both its ends, while still supporting constant-time \emph{access} to each item stored in the array given its \emph{index}. Since the size of an array, i.e., the number of items in it, varies over time, space-efficient maintenance of a resizable array requires dynamic memory management. A standard doubling technique allows the maintenance of an array of size~$N$ using only $O(N)$ space, with $O(1)$ amortized time, or even $O(1)$ worst-case time, per operation. Sitarski and Brodnik et al.\ describe much better solutions that maintain a resizable array of size~$N$ using only $N+O(\sqrt{N})$ space, still with $O(1)$ time per operation. Brodnik et al.\ give a simple proof that this is best possible. We distinguish between the space needed for \emph{storing} a resizable array, and accessing its items, and the \emph{temporary} space that may be needed while growing or shrinking the array. For every integer $r\ge 2$, we show that $N+O(N^{1/r})$ space is sufficient for storing and accessing an array of size~$N$, if $N+O(N^{1-1/r})$ space can be used briefly during grow and shrink operations. Accessing an item by index takes $O(1)$ worst-case time while grow and shrink operations take $O(r)$ amortized time. Using an exact analysis of a \emph{growth game}, we show that for any data structure from a wide class of data structures that uses only $N+O(N^{1/r})$ space to store the array, the amortized cost of grow is $\Omega(r)$, even if only grow and access operations are allowed. The time for grow and shrink operations cannot be made worst-case, unless $r=2$.Comment: To appear in SOSA 202

On the Computational Complexity of Non-dictatorial Aggregation

We investigate when non-dictatorial aggregation is possible from an algorithmic perspective, where non-dictatorial aggregation means that the votes cast by the members of a society can be aggregated in such a way that the collective outcome is not simply the choices made by a single member of the society. We consider the setting in which the members of a society take a position on a fixed collection of issues, where for each issue several different alternatives are possible, but the combination of choices must belong to a given set $X$ of allowable voting patterns. Such a set $X$ is called a possibility domain if there is an aggregator that is non-dictatorial, operates separately on each issue, and returns values among those cast by the society on each issue. We design a polynomial-time algorithm that decides, given a set $X$ of voting patterns, whether or not $X$ is a possibility domain. Furthermore, if $X$ is a possibility domain, then the algorithm constructs in polynomial time such a non-dictatorial aggregator for $X$. We then show that the question of whether a Boolean domain $X$ is a possibility domain is in NLOGSPACE. We also design a polynomial-time algorithm that decides whether $X$ is a uniform possibility domain, that is, whether $X$ admits an aggregator that is non-dictatorial even when restricted to any two positions for each issue. As in the case of possibility domains, the algorithm also constructs in polynomial time a uniform non-dictatorial aggregator, if one exists. Then, we turn our attention to the case where $X$ is given implicitly, either as the set of assignments satisfying a propositional formula, or as a set of consistent evaluations of an sequence of propositional formulas. In both cases, we provide bounds to the complexity of deciding if $X$ is a (uniform) possibility domain.Comment: 21 page