problems To understand the class of polynomial-time solvable problems, we must first have a formal notion of what a "problem" is. We define an abstract problem Q to be a binary relation on a set I of problem instances and a set S of problem solutions. For example, an instance for SHORTEST-PATH is a triple consisting of a graph and two vertices. A solution is a sequence of vertices in the graph, with perhaps the empty sequence denoting that no path exists. The problem SHORTEST-PATH itself is the relation that associates each instance of a graph and two vertices with a shortest path in the graph that connects the two vertices. Since shortest paths are not necessarily unique, a given problem instance may have more than one solution. This formulation of an abstract problem is more general than is required for our purposes. As we saw above, the theory of NP-completeness restricts attention to decision problems: those having a yes/no solution. In this case, we can view an abstract decision problem as a function that maps the instance set I to the solution set {0, 1}. For example, a decision problem related to SHORTEST-PATH is the problem PATH that we saw earlier. If i = G, u, v, k is an instance of the decision problem PATH, then PATH(i) = 1 (yes) if a shortest path from u to v has at most k edges, and PATH(i) = 0 (no) otherwise. Many abstract problems are not decision problems, but rather optimization problems, in which some value must be minimized or maximized. As we saw above, however, it is usually a simple matter to recast an optimization problem as a decision problem that is no harder. Encodings If a computer program is to solve an abstract problem, problem instances must be represented in a way that the program understands. An encoding of a set S of abstract objects is a mapping e from S to the set of binary strings. For example, we are all familiar with encoding the natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4,...} as the strings {0, 1, 10, 11, 100,...}. Using this encoding, e(17) = 10001. Anyone who has looked at computer representations of keyboard characters is familiar with either the ASCII or EBCDIC codes. In the ASCII code, the encoding of A is 1000001. Even a compound object can be encoded as a binary string by combining the representations of its constituent parts. Polygons, graphs, functions, ordered pairs, programs-all can be encoded as binary strings. Thus, a computer algorithm that "solves" some abstract decision problem actually takes an encoding of a problem instance as input. We call a problem whose instance set is the set of binary strings a concrete problem. We say that an algorithm solves a concrete problem in time O(T (n)) if, when it is provided a problem instance i of length n = |i|, the algorithm can produce the solution in O(T (n)) time. A concrete problem is polynomial-time solvable, therefore, if there exists an algorithm to solve it in time O(n) for some constant k. We can now formally define the complexity class P as the set of concrete decision problems that are polynomial-time solvable. We can use encodings to map abstract problems to concrete problems. Given an abstract decision problem Q mapping an instance set I to {0, 1}, an encoding e : I → {0, 1}* can be used to induce a related concrete decision problem, which we denote by e(Q). If the solution to an abstract-problem instance i I is Q(i) {0, 1}, then the solution to the concreteproblem instance e(i) {0, 1}* is also Q(i). As a technicality, there may be some binary strings that represent no meaningful abstract-problem instance. For convenience, we shall assume that any such string is mapped arbitrarily to 0. Thus, the concrete problem produces the same solutions as the abstract problem on binary-string instances that represent the encodings of abstract-problem instances. We would like to extend the definition of polynomial-time solvability from concrete problems to abstract problems by using encodings as the bridge, but we would like the definition to be independent of any particular encoding. That is, the efficiency of solving a problem should not depend on how the problem is encoded. Unfortunately, it depends quite heavily on the encoding. For example, suppose that an integer k is to be provided as the sole input to an algorithm, and suppose that the running time of the algorithm is Θ(k). If the integer k is provided in unary-a string of k 1's-then the running time of the algorithm is O(n) on length-n inputs, which is polynomial time. If we use the more natural binary representation of the integer k, however, then the input length is n = ⌊lg k⌋ + 1. In this case, the running time of the algorithm is Θ (k) = Θ(2), which is exponential in the size of the input. Thus, depending on the encoding, the algorithm runs in either polynomial or superpolynomial time. The encoding of an abstract problem is therefore quite important to our under-standing of polynomial time. We cannot really talk about solving an abstract problem without first specifying an encoding. Nevertheless, in practice, if we rule out "expensive" encodings such as unary ones, the actual encoding of a problem makes little difference to whether the problem can be solved in polynomial time. For example, representing integers in base 3 instead of binary has no effect on whether a problem is solvable in polynomial time, since an integer represented in base 3 can be converted to an integer represented in base 2 in polynomial time. We say that a function f : {0, 1}* → {0,1}* is polynomial-time computable if there exists a polynomial-time algorithm A that, given any input x {0, 1}*, produces as output f (x). For some set I of problem instances, we say that two encodings e1 and e2 are polynomially related if there exist two polynomial-time computable functions f12 and f21 such that for any i I , we have f12(e1(i)) = e2(i) and f21(e2(i)) = e1(i). That is, the encoding e2(i) can be computed from the encoding e1(i) by a polynomial-time algorithm, and vice versa. If two encodings e1 and e2 of an abstract problem are polynomially related, whether the problem is polynomial-time solvable or not is independent of which encoding we use, as the following lemma shows. Lemma 34.1 Let Q be an abstract decision problem on an instance set I , and let e1 and e2 be polynomially related encodings on I . Then, e1(Q) P if and only if e2(Q) P. Proof We need only prove the forward direction, since the backward direction is symmetric. Suppose, therefore, that e1(Q) can be solved in time O(nk) for some constant k. Further, suppose that for any problem instance i, the encoding e1(i) can be computed from the encoding e2(i) in time O(n) for some constant c, where n = |e2(i)|. To solve problem e2(Q), on input e2(i), we first compute e1(i) and then run the algorithm for e1(Q) on e1(i). How long does this take? The conversion of encodings takes time O(n), and therefore |e1(i)| = O(n), since the output of a serial computer cannot be longer than its running time. Solving the problem on e1(i) takes time O(|e1(i)|) = O(n), which is polynomial since both c and k are constants. Thus, whether an abstract problem has its instances encoded in binary or base 3 does not affect its "complexity," that is, whether it is polynomial-time solvable or not, but if instances are encoded in unary, its complexity may change. In order to be able to converse in an encoding-independent fashion, we shall generally assume that problem instances are encoded in any reasonable, concise fashion, unless we specifically say otherwise. To be precise, we shall assume that the encoding of an integer is polynomially related to its binary representation, and that the encoding of a finite set is polynomially related to its encoding as a list of its elements, enclosed in braces and separated by commas. (ASCII is one such encoding scheme.) With such a "standard" encoding in hand, we can derive reasonable encodings of other mathematical objects, such as tuples, graphs, and formulas. To denote the standard encoding of an object, we shall enclose the object in angle braces. Thus, G denotes the standard encoding of a graph G. As long as we implicitly use an encoding that is polynomially related to this standard encoding, we can talk directly about abstract problems without reference to any particular encoding, knowing that the choice of encoding has no effect on whether the abstract problem is polynomial-time solvable. Henceforth, we shall generally assume that all problem instances are binary strings encoded using the standard encoding, unless we explicitly specify the contrary. We shall also typically neglect the distinction between abstract and concrete problems. The reader should watch out for problems that arise in practice, however, in which a standard encoding is not obvious and the encoding does make a difference. A formal-language framework One of the convenient aspects of focusing on decision problems is that they make it easy to use the machinery of formal-language theory. It is worthwhile at this point to review some definitions from that theory. An alphabet Σ is a finite set of symbols. A language L over Σ is any set of strings made up of symbols from Σ. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, the set L = {10, 11, 101, 111, 1011, 1101, 10001,...} is the language of binary representations of prime numbers. We denote the empty string by ε, and the empty language by Ø. The language of all strings over Σ is denoted Σ*. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, then Σ* = {ε, 0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000,...} is the set of all binary strings. Every language L over Σ is a subset of Σ*. There are a variety of operations on languages. Set-theoretic operations, such as union and intersection, follow directly from the set-theoretic definitions. We define the complement of L by . The concatenation of two languages L1 and L2 is the language L = {x1x2 : x1 L1 and x2 L2}. The closure or Kleene star of a language L is the language L*= {ε} L L L ···, where Lk is the language obtained by

Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition

In this paper we develop a new data structure for implementing heaps (priority queues). Our structure, Fibonacci heaps (abbreviated F-heaps), extends the binomial queues proposed by Vuillemin and studied further by Brown. F-heaps support arbitrary deletion from an n-item heap in O(log n) amortized time and all other standard heap operations in O(1) amortized time. Using F-heaps we are able to obtain improved running times for several network optimization algorithms. In particular, we obtain the following worst-case bounds, where n is the number of vertices and m the number of edges in the problem graph: O(n log n + m) for the single-source shortest path problem with nonnegative edge lengths, improved from O(mlog(m/n+2)n);O(n2log n + nm) for the all-pairs shortest path problem, improved from O(nm log(m/n+2)n);O(n2log n + nm) for the assignment problem (weighted bipartite matching), improved from O(nmlog(m/n+2)n);O(mβ(m, n)) for the minimum spanning tree problem, improved from O(mlog log(m/n+2)n); where β(m, n) = min {i | log(i)n ≤ m/n}. Note that β(m, n) ≤ log*n if m ≥ n.Of these results, the improved bound for minimum spanning trees is the most striking, although all the results give asymptotic improvements for graphs of appropriate densities.

/pdf/fibonacci-heaps-and-their-uses-in-improved-network-3s6u3e39gv.pdf

Fibonacci heaps and their uses in improved network optimization algorithms

B-trees have become, de facto, a standard for file organization. File indexes of users, dedicated database systems, and general-purpose access methods have all been proposed and nnplemented using B-trees This paper reviews B-trees and shows why they have been so successful It discusses the major variations of the B-tree, especially the B+-tree, contrasting the relatwe merits and costs of each implementatmn. It illustrates a general purpose access method whmh uses a B-tree.

http://people.cs.aau.dk/~simas/aalg06/UbiquitBtree.pdf

Ubiquitous B-Tree

In this paper we develop a new data structure for implementing heaps (priority queues). Our structure, Fibonacci heaps (abbreviated F-heaps), extends the binomial queues proposed by Vuillemin and studied further by Brown. F-heaps support arbitrary deletion from an n-item heap in 0(log n) amortized time and all other standard heap operations in 0(1) amortized time. Using F-heaps we are able to obtain improved running times for several network optimization algorithms.

Fibonacci Heaps And Their Uses In Improved Network Optimization Algorithms

The splay tree, a self-adjusting form of binary search tree, is developed and analyzed. The binary search tree is a data structure for representing tables and lists so that accessing, inserting, and deleting items is easy. On an n-node splay tree, all the standard search tree operations have an amortized time bound of O(log n) per operation, where by “amortized time” is meant the time per operation averaged over a worst-case sequence of operations. Thus splay trees are as efficient as balanced trees when total running time is the measure of interest. In addition, for sufficiently long access sequences, splay trees are as efficient, to within a constant factor, as static optimum search trees. The efficiency of splay trees comes not from an explicit structural constraint, as with balanced trees, but from applying a simple restructuring heuristic, called splaying, whenever the tree is accessed. Extensions of splaying give simplified forms of two other data structures: lexicographic or multidimensional search trees and link/cut trees.

Self-adjusting binary search trees

In this paper we explore the use of 2-3 trees to represent sorted lists. We analyze the worst-case cost of sequences of insertions and deletions in 2-3 trees under each of the following three assumptions: (i) only insertions are performed; (ii) only deletions are performed; (iii) deletions occur only at the small end of the list and insertions occur only away from the small end. Our analysis leads to a data structure for representing sorted lists when the access pattern exhibits a (perhaps time-varying) locality of reference. This structure has many of the properties of the representation proposed by Guibas, McCreight, Plass, and Roberts [1977], but it is substantially simpler and may be practical for lists of moderate size.

Design and analysis of a data structure for representing sorted lists

The binomial queue, a new data structure for implementing priority queues that can be efficiently merged, was recently discovered by Jean Vuillemin; we explore the properties of this structure in d...

Implementation and Analysis of Binomial Queue Algorithms

We give an algorithm which merges sorted lists represented as balanced binary trees. If the lists have lengths m and n (m $\leq$ n), then the merging procedure runs in O(m log n/m) steps, which is the same order as the lower bound on all comparison-based algorithms for this problem.

A Fast Merging Algorithm

The collection of nodes nearest to the external nodes in a random height-balanced tree is analyzed. We determine the proportion of balanced nodes in this section of the tree, and find the average number of single and double rotations which occur at the minimum height during insertions. If $\bar B_n $ denotes the average number of balanced nodes in a random height-balanced tree with n internal nodes, we show that $\frac{{10}}{{21}} (n + 1) \leqq \bar B_n \leqq \frac{6}{7}(n + 1) - 1$ for $n \geqq 6$.

A Partial Analysis of Random Height-Balanced Trees

This paper describes a data structure which is useful for representing linear lists when the pattern of accesses to a list exhibits a (perhaps time-varying) locality of reference. The structure has many of the properties of the representation proposed by Guibas, McCreight, Plass, and Roberts [4], but is substantially simpler and may be practical for lists of moderate size. The analysis of our structure includes a general treatment of the worst-case node splitting caused by consecutive insertions into a 2-3 tree.

Mark R. Brown

Papers

Design and analysis of a data structure for representing sorted lists

Implementation and Analysis of Binomial Queue Algorithms

A Fast Merging Algorithm

A Partial Analysis of Random Height-Balanced Trees

A representation for linear lists with movable fingers