DOCSLIB.ORG

Data Structures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Data Structures Chapter 4 Data Structures Algorithm Theory WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn Fibonacci Heaps Lacy‐merge variant of binomial heaps: • Do not merge trees as long as possible… Structure: A Fibonacci heap consists of a collection of trees satisfying the min‐heap property. Variables: • . : root of the tree containing the (a) minimum key • . : circular, doubly linked, unordered list containing the roots of all trees • . : number of nodes currently in Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 2 Example Figure: Cormen et al., Introduction to Algorithms Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 3 Cost of Delete‐Min & Decrease‐Key Delete‐Min: 1. Delete min. root and add . to . time: 1 2. Consolidate . time: length of . • Step 2 can potentially be linear in (size of ) Decrease‐Key (at node ): 1. If new key parent key, cut sub‐tree of node time: 1 2. Cascading cuts up the tree as long as nodes are marked time: number of consecutive marked nodes • Step 2 can potentially be linear in Exercises: Both operations can take time in the worst case! Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 4 Cost of Delete‐Min & Decrease‐Key • Cost of delete‐min and decrease‐key can be Θ… – Seems a large price to pay to get insert and merge in 1 time • Maybe, the operations are efficient most of the time? – It seems to require a lot of operations to get a long rootlist and thus, an expensive consolidate operation – In each decrease‐key operation, at most one node gets marked: We need a lot of decrease‐key operations to get an expensive decrease‐key operation • Can we show that the average cost per operation is small? • We can requires amortized analysis Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 5 Amortization • Consider sequence ,,…, of operations (typically performed on some data structure ) • : execution time of operation • ≔ ⋯: total execution time • The execution time of a single operation might vary within a large range (e.g., ∈1, ) • The worst case overall execution time might still be small average execution time per operation might be small in the worst case, even if single operations can be expensive Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 6 Analysis of Algorithms • Best case • Worst case • Average case • Amortized worst case What it the average cost of an operation in a worst case sequence of operations? Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 7 Example: Binary Counter Incrementing a binary counter: determine the bit flip cost: Operation Counter Value Cost 00000 1 00001 1 2 00010 2 3 00011 1 400100 3 5 00101 1 6 00110 2 7 00111 1 801000 4 9 01001 1 10 01010 2 11 01011 1 12 01100 3 13 01101 1 Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 8 Accounting Method Observation: • Each increment flips exactly one 0 into a 1 001001111 ⟹ 001000000 Idea: • Have a bank account (with initial amount 0) • Paying to the bank account costs • Take “money” from account to pay for expensive operations Applied to binary counter: • Flip from 0 to 1: pay 1 to bank account (cost: 2) • Flip from 1 to 0: take 1 from bank account (cost: 0) • Amount on bank account = number of ones We always have enough “money” to pay! Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 9 Accounting Method Op. Counter Cost To Bank From Bank Net Cost Credit 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 1 20 0 0 1 0 2 30 0 0 1 1 1 40 0 1 0 0 3 50 0 1 0 1 1 60 0 1 1 0 2 70 0 1 1 1 1 80 1 0 0 0 4 90 1 0 0 1 1 10 0 1 0 1 0 2 Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 10 Potential Function Method • Most generic and elegant way to do amortized analysis! – But, also more abstract than the others… • State of data structure / system: ∈(state space) Potential function : → • Operation : – : actual cost of operation – : state after execution of operation (: initial state) – ≔Φ: potential after exec. of operation – : amortized cost of operation : ≔ Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 11 Potential Function Method Operation : actual cost: amortized cost: Φ Φ Overall cost: ≔ Φ Φ Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 12 Binary Counter: Potential Method • Potential function: : • Clearly, Φ 0and Φ 0for all 0 • Actual cost : . 1 flip from 0 to 1 . 1flips from 1 to 0 • Potential difference: Φ Φ 1 1 2 • Amortized cost: Φ Φ 2 Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 13 Back to Fibonacci Heaps • Worst‐case cost of a single delete‐min or decrease‐key operation is Ω • Can we prove a small worst‐case amortized cost for delete‐min and decrease‐key operations? Remark: • Data structure that allows operations ,…, • We say that operation has amortized cost if for every execution the total time is ⋅ , where is the number of operations of type Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 14 Amortized Cost of Fibonacci Heaps • Initialize‐heap, is‐empty, get‐min, insert, and merge have worst‐case cost • Delete‐min has amortized cost • Decrease‐key has amortized cost • Starting with an empty heap, any sequence of operations with at most delete‐min operations has total cost (time) . • We will now need the marks… • Cost for Dijkstra: || || log || Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 15 Simple (Lazy) Operations Initialize‐Heap : • . ≔ . ≔ Merge heaps and ′: • concatenate root lists • update . Insert element into : • create new one‐node tree containing H′ • merge heaps and ′ Get minimum element of : • return . Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 16 Operation Delete‐Min Delete the node with minimum key from and return its element: 1. ≔.; 2. if . 0 then 3. remove . from . ; 4. add . (list) to . 5. ; // Repeatedly merge nodes with equal degree in the root list // until degrees of nodes in the root list are distinct. // Determine the element with minimum key 6. return Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 17 Rank and Maximum Degree Ranks of nodes, trees, heap: Node : • : degree of Tree : • : rank (degree) of root node of Heap : • : maximum degree of any node in Assumption (: number of nodes in ): – for a known function Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 18 Operation Decrease‐Key Decrease‐Key, : (decrease key of node to new value ) 1. if .then return; 2. ≔ ; update . ; 3. if ∈ . ∨ . then return 4. repeat 5. ≔ . ; 6. ; 7. ≔; 8. until . ∨ ∈ . ; 9. if ∉ . then . ≔ ; Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 19 Fibonacci Heaps: Marks Cycle of a node: 1. Node is removed from root list and linked to a node . 2. Child node of is cut and added to root list . 3. Second child of is cut node is cut as well and moved to root list The boolean value .. indicates whether node has lost a child since the last time was made the child of another node. Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 20 Potential Function System state characterized by two parameters: • : number of trees (length of . ) • : number of marked nodes that are not in the root list Potential function: ≔ Example: 5 18 9 1 2 15 17 14 20 22 12 25 13 3 8 31 19 7 • 7, 2 Φ11 Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 21 Actual Time of Operations • Operations: initialize‐heap, is‐empty, insert, get‐min, merge actual time: 1 – Normalize unit time such that ,,,, 1 • Operation delete‐min: – Actual time: length of . – Normalize unit time such that length of . • Operation descrease‐key: – Actual time: length of path to next unmarked ancestor – Normalize unit time such that lengthof path to next unmarked ancestor Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 22 Amortized Times Assume operation is of type: • initialize‐heap: – actual time: 1, potential: Φ Φ 0 – amortized time: Φ Φ 1 • is‐empty, get‐min: – actual time: 1, potential: Φ Φ (heap doesn’t change) – amortized time: Φ Φ 1 • merge: – Actual time: 1 – combined potential of both heaps: Φ Φ – amortized time: Φ Φ 1 Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 23 Amortized Time of Insert Assume that operation is an insert operation: • Actual time: 1 • Potential function: – remains unchanged (no nodes are marked or unmarked, no marked nodes are moved to the root list) – grows by 1 (one element is added to the root list) , 1 Φ Φ 1 • Amortized time: Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 24 Amortized Time of Delete‐Min Assume that operation is a delete‐min operation: Actual time: . Potential function : • : changes from . to at most • : (# of marked nodes that are not in the root list) – no new marks – if node is moved away from root list, . is set to false value of does not increase! , . Φ Φ |. | Amortized Time: Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 25 Amortized Time of Decrease‐Key Assume that operation is a decrease‐key operation at node : Actual time: length of path to next unmarked ancestor Potential function : • Assume, node and nodes ,…, are moved to root list – ,…, are marked and moved to root list, . mark is set to true • marked nodes go to root list, 1node gets newly marked • grows by 1, grows by 1 and is decreased by 1, 1 Φ Φ 1 2 1 Φ 3 Amortized time: Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 26 Complexities Fibonacci Heap • Initialize‐Heap: • Is‐Empty: • Insert: • Get‐Min: • Delete‐Min: amortized • Decrease‐Key: • Merge (heaps of size and , ): • How large can get? Algorithm Theory, WS 2014/15 Fabian Kuhn 27 Rank of Children Lemma: Consider a node of rank and let ,…,be the children of in the order in which they were linked to .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Alternative to Fibonacci Heaps with Worst Case Rather Than Amortized Time Bounds∗
    Relaxed Fibonacci heaps: An alternative to Fibonacci heaps with worst case rather than amortized time bounds¤ Chandrasekhar Boyapati C. Pandu Rangan Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Madras 600036, India Email: [email protected] November 1995 Abstract We present a new data structure called relaxed Fibonacci heaps for implementing priority queues on a RAM. Relaxed Fibonacci heaps support the operations find minimum, insert, decrease key and meld, each in O(1) worst case time and delete and delete min in O(log n) worst case time. Introduction The implementation of priority queues is a classical problem in data structures. Priority queues find applications in a variety of network problems like single source shortest paths, all pairs shortest paths, minimum spanning tree, weighted bipartite matching etc. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] In the amortized sense, the best performance is achieved by the well known Fibonacci heaps. They support delete and delete min in amortized O(log n) time and find min, insert, decrease key and meld in amortized constant time. Fast meldable priority queues described in [1] achieve all the above time bounds in worst case rather than amortized time, except for the decrease key operation which takes O(log n) worst case time. On the other hand, relaxed heaps described in [2] achieve in the worst case all the time bounds of the Fi- bonacci heaps except for the meld operation, which takes O(log n) worst case ¤Please see Errata at the end of the paper. 1 time. The problem that was posed in [1] was to consider if it is possible to support both decrease key and meld simultaneously in constant worst case time.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Data Structures
    Advanced Data Structures PETER BRASS City College of New York CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521880374 © Peter Brass 2008 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2008 ISBN-13 978-0-511-43685-7 eBook (EBL) ISBN-13 978-0-521-88037-4 hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents Preface page xi 1 Elementary Structures 1 1.1 Stack 1 1.2 Queue 8 1.3 Double-Ended Queue 16 1.4 Dynamical Allocation of Nodes 16 1.5 Shadow Copies of Array-Based Structures 18 2 Search Trees 23 2.1 Two Models of Search Trees 23 2.2 General Properties and Transformations 26 2.3 Height of a Search Tree 29 2.4 Basic Find, Insert, and Delete 31 2.5ReturningfromLeaftoRoot35 2.6 Dealing with Nonunique Keys 37 2.7 Queries for the Keys in an Interval 38 2.8 Building Optimal Search Trees 40 2.9 Converting Trees into Lists 47 2.10
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Algorithms and Data Structures
    Introduction to Algorithms and Data Structures Markus Bläser Saarland University Draft—Thursday 22, 2015 and forever Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Binary search . .1 1.2 Machine model . .3 1.3 Asymptotic growth of functions . .5 1.4 Running time analysis . .7 1.4.1 On foot . .7 1.4.2 By solving recurrences . .8 2 Sorting 11 2.1 Selection-sort . 11 2.2 Merge sort . 13 3 More sorting procedures 16 3.1 Heap sort . 16 3.1.1 Heaps . 16 3.1.2 Establishing the Heap property . 18 3.1.3 Building a heap from scratch . 19 3.1.4 Heap sort . 20 3.2 Quick sort . 21 4 Selection problems 23 4.1 Lower bounds . 23 4.1.1 Sorting . 25 4.1.2 Minimum selection . 27 4.2 Upper bounds for selecting the median . 27 5 Elementary data structures 30 5.1 Stacks . 30 5.2 Queues . 31 5.3 Linked lists . 33 6 Binary search trees 36 6.1 Searching . 38 6.2 Minimum and maximum . 39 6.3 Successor and predecessor . 39 6.4 Insertion and deletion . 40 i ii CONTENTS 7 AVL trees 44 7.1 Bounds on the height . 45 7.2 Restoring the AVL tree property . 46 7.2.1 Rotations . 46 7.2.2 Insertion . 46 7.2.3 Deletion . 49 8 Binomial Heaps 52 8.1 Binomial trees . 52 8.2 Binomial heaps . 54 8.3 Operations . 55 8.3.1 Make heap . 55 8.3.2 Minimum . 55 8.3.3 Union . 56 8.3.4 Insert .
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 6 — February 9, 2017 1 Wrapping up on Hashing
    CS 224: Advanced Algorithms Spring 2017 Lecture 6 | February 9, 2017 Prof. Jelani Nelson Scribe: Albert Chalom 1 Wrapping up on hashing Recall from las lecture that we showed that when using hashing with chaining of n items into m C log n bins where m = Θ(n) and hash function h :[ut] ! m that if h is from log log n wise family, then no C log n linked list has size > log log n . 1.1 Using two hash functions Azar, Broder, Karlin, and Upfal '99 [1] then used two hash functions h; g :[u] ! [m] that are fully random. Then ball i is inserted in the least loaded of the 2 bins h(i); g(i), and ties are broken randomly. log log n Theorem: Max load is ≤ log 2 + O(1) with high probability. When using d instead of 2 hash log log n functions we get max load ≤ log d + O(1) with high probability. n 1.2 Breaking n into d slots n V¨ocking '03 [2] then considered breaking our n buckets into d slots, and having d hash functions n h1; h2; :::; hd that hash into their corresponding slot of size d . Then insert(i), loads i in the least loaded of the h(i) bins, and breaks tie by putting i in the left most bin. log log n This improves the performance to Max Load ≤ where 1:618 = φ2 < φ3::: ≤ 2. dφd 1.3 Survey: Mitzenmacher, Richa, Sitaraman [3] Idea: Let Bi denote the number of bins with ≥ i balls.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Structures and Programming Spring 2016, Final Exam
    Data Structures and Programming Spring 2016, Final Exam. June 21, 2016 1 1. (15 pts) True or False? (Mark for True; × for False. Score = maxf0, Right - 2 Wrongg. No explanations are needed. (1) Let A1;A2, and A3 be three sorted arrays of n real numbers (all distinct). In the comparison model, constructing a balanced binary search tree of the set A1 [ A2 [ A3 requires Ω(n log n) time. × False (Merge A1;A2;A3 in linear time; then pick recursively the middle as root (in linear time).) (2) Let T be a complete binary tree with n nodes. Finding a path from the root of T to a given vertex v 2 T using breadth-first search takes O(log n) time. × False (Note that the tree is NOT a search tree.) (3) Given an unsorted array A[1:::n] of n integers, building a max-heap out of the elements of A can be performed asymptotically faster than building a red-black tree out of the elements of A. True (O(n) for building a max-heap; Ω(n log n) for building a red-black tree.) (4) In the worst case, a red-black tree insertion requires O(1) rotations. True (See class notes) (5) In the worst case, a red-black tree deletion requires O(1) node recolorings. × False (See class notes) (6) Building a binomial heap from an unsorted array A[1:::n] takes O(n) time. True (See class notes) (7) Insertion into an AVL tree asymptotically beats insertion into an AA-tree. × False (See class notes) (8) The subtree of the root of a red-black tree is always itself a red-black tree.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Structures Binary Trees and Their Balances Heaps Tries B-Trees
    Data Structures Tries Separated chains ≡ just linked lists for each bucket. P [one list of size exactly l] = s(1=m)l(1 − 1=m)n−l. Since this is a Note: Strange structure due to finals topics. Will improve later. Compressing dictionary structure in a tree. General tries can grow l P based on the dictionary, and quite fast. Long paths are inefficient, binomial distribution, easily E[chain length] = (lP [len = l]) = α. Binary trees and their balances so we define compressed tries, which are tries with no non-splitting Expected maximum list length vertices. Initialization O(Σl) for uncompressed tries, O(l + Σ) for compressed (we are only making one initialization of a vertex { the X s j AVL trees P [max len(j) ≥ j) ≤ P [len(i) ≥ j] ≤ m (1=m) last one). i j i Vertices contain -1,0,+1 { difference of balances between the left and T:Assuming all l-length sequences come with uniform probability and we have a sampling of size n, E[c − trie size] = log d. j−1 the right subtree. Balance is just the maximum depth of the subtree. k Q (s − k) P = k=0 (1=m)j−1 ≤ s(s=m)j−1=j!: Analysis: prove by induction that for depth k, there are between Fk P:qd ≡ probability trie has depth d. E[c − triesize] = d d(qd − j! k P and 2 vertices in every tree. Since balance only shifts by 1, it's pretty qd+1) = d qd. simple. Calculate opposite event { trie is within depth d − 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes of CSCI5610 Advanced Data Structures
    Lecture Notes of CSCI5610 Advanced Data Structures Yufei Tao Department of Computer Science and Engineering Chinese University of Hong Kong July 17, 2020 Contents 1 Course Overview and Computation Models 4 2 The Binary Search Tree and the 2-3 Tree 7 2.1 The binary search tree . .7 2.2 The 2-3 tree . .9 2.3 Remarks . 13 3 Structures for Intervals 15 3.1 The interval tree . 15 3.2 The segment tree . 17 3.3 Remarks . 18 4 Structures for Points 20 4.1 The kd-tree . 20 4.2 A bootstrapping lemma . 22 4.3 The priority search tree . 24 4.4 The range tree . 27 4.5 Another range tree with better query time . 29 4.6 Pointer-machine structures . 30 4.7 Remarks . 31 5 Logarithmic Method and Global Rebuilding 33 5.1 Amortized update cost . 33 5.2 Decomposable problems . 34 5.3 The logarithmic method . 34 5.4 Fully dynamic kd-trees with global rebuilding . 37 5.5 Remarks . 39 6 Weight Balancing 41 6.1 BB[α]-trees . 41 6.2 Insertion . 42 6.3 Deletion . 42 6.4 Amortized analysis . 42 6.5 Dynamization with weight balancing . 43 6.6 Remarks . 44 1 CONTENTS 2 7 Partial Persistence 47 7.1 The potential method . 47 7.2 Partially persistent BST . 48 7.3 General pointer-machine structures . 52 7.4 Remarks . 52 8 Dynamic Perfect Hashing 54 8.1 Two random graph results . 54 8.2 Cuckoo hashing . 55 8.3 Analysis . 58 8.4 Remarks . 59 9 Binomial and Fibonacci Heaps 61 9.1 The binomial heap .
    [Show full text]
  • 18.415 Advanced Algorithms Contents
    18.415 Advanced Algorithms Notes from Fall 2020. Last Updated: November 27, 2020. Contents Introduction 6 1 Lecture 1: Fibonacci Heaps7 1.1 MST problem review.................................7 1.2 Using d-heaps for MST................................8 1.3 Introduction to Fibonacci Heaps...........................8 2 Lecture 2: Fibonacci Heaps, Persistent Data Structs 12 2.1 Fibonacci Heaps Continued.............................. 12 2.2 Applications of Fibonacci Heaps........................... 14 2.2.1 Further Improvements............................ 15 2.3 Introduction to Persistent Data Structures...................... 15 3 Lecture 3: Persistent Data Structs, Splay Trees 16 3.1 Persistent Data Structures Continued........................ 16 3.2 The Planar Point Location Problem......................... 17 3.3 Introduction to Splay Trees.............................. 19 4 Lecture 4: Splay Trees 20 4.1 Heuristics of Splay Trees............................... 20 4.2 Solving the Balancing Problem............................ 20 4.3 Implementation and Analysis of Operations..................... 21 4.4 Results with the Access Lemma........................... 23 5 Lecture 5: Splay Updates, Buckets 25 5.1 Wrapping up Splay Trees............................... 25 5.2 Buckets and Indirect Addressing........................... 26 5.2.1 Improvements................................. 27 5.2.2 Formalization with Tries........................... 27 5.2.3 Laziness wins again.............................. 28 1 6 Lecture 6: VEB queues, Hashing 29 6.1 Improvements
    [Show full text]
  • FIBONACCI HEAPS ‣ Preliminaries ‣ Insert ‣ Extract the Minimum
    Priority queues performance cost summary FIBONACCI HEAPS operation linked list binary heap binomial heap Fibonacci heap † MAKE-HEAP O(1) O(1) O(1) O(1) ‣ preliminaries IS-EMPTY O(1) O(1) O(1) O(1) ‣ insert INSERT O(1) O(log n) O(log n) O(1) ‣ extract the minimum EXTRACT-MIN O(n) O(log n) O(log n) O(log n) ‣ decrease key DECREASE-KEY O(1) O(log n) O(log n) O(1) ‣ bounding the rank ‣ meld and delete DELETE O(1) O(log n) O(log n) O(log n) MELD O(1) O(n) O(log n) O(1) Lecture slides by Kevin Wayne FIND-MIN O(n) O(1) O(log n) O(1) http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~wayne/kleinberg-tardos † amortized Ahead. O(1) INSERT and DECREASE-KEY, O(log n) EXTRACT-MIN. Last updated on Apr 15, 2013 6:59 AM 2 Fibonacci heaps Fibonacci heaps Theorem. [Fredman-Tarjan 1986] Starting from an empty Fibonacci heap, Theorem. [Fredman-Tarjan 1986] Starting from an empty Fibonacci heap, any sequence of m INSERT, EXTRACT-MIN, and DECREASE-KEY operations any sequence of m INSERT, EXTRACT-MIN, and DECREASE-KEY operations involving n INSERT operations takes O(m + n log n) time. involving n INSERT operations takes O(m + n log n) time. this statement is a bit weaker than the actual theorem History. Fibonacci Heaps and Their Uses in Improved Network ・Ingenious data structure and application of amortized analysis. Optimization Algorithms ・Original motivation: improve Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm MICHAEL L.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Sift Optimizations in Van Emde Boas-Based Heap
    Nuno Filipe Monteiro Faria Locality optimizations on irregular algorithms and data structures Dissertação de Mestrado Engenharia Informática Trabalho efectuado sob a orientação do Professor Doutor João Luís Sobral Outubro de 2011 Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the aid of my parents and my sister, which have always endured and supported me through my life. Second, I thank my advisor, Professor Jo~aoLu´ısSobral, for giving me the opportunity to join him and his team in research, for fostering my critical thinking, guiding me and sharing his experience and wisdom with me. I would also like to thank the professors I found along my master course for introducing me to the highly motivating theme of high performance comput- ing, Professor Jo~aoLu´ısSobral, Professor Alberto Proen¸ca,Professor Rui Ralha and Professor Ant´onioPina. Last but not least, thank you to all my friends and lab colleagues in university, Roberto Ribeiro, Rui Silva, Rui Gon¸calves, Diogo Mendes, Nuno Silva, for all the brainstorm-ish discus- sions and opinions that allowed me to improve and push myself further - a few themes presented in this dissertation were discussed in some of those brainstorms. To my colleagues/room-mates through my graduate years with whom I shared unforgettable experiences, Nuno Silva, Pedro Silva, Emanuel Gon¸calves, Andr´eF´elix,Samuel Moreira, Roberto Ribeiro and Pedro Miranda - I believe I have made friends for life. Nuno Filipe Monteiro Faria The project that served as ground for this dissertation was funded under the agreement of the protocol between FCT and UTAustin Parallel Programming Refinements for Irregular Applications (UTAustin/CA/0056/2008) ii Otimiza¸c~oesde localidade em algoritmos e estruturas de dados irregulares Resumo Estruturas de grafos baseadas em apontadores t^emsido amplamente discutidas por v´ariasco- munidades cient´ıficas que tencionam usar este tipo de estruturas.
    [Show full text]
  • Fibonacci Heaps
    Priority Queues Fibonacci Heaps Heaps Operation Linked List Binary Binomial Fibonacci † Relaxed make-heap 1 1 1 1 1 insert 1 log N log N 1 1 These lecture slides are adapted find-min N 1 log N 1 1 from CLRS, Chapter 20. delete-min N log N log N log N log N union 1 N log N 1 1 decrease-key 1 log N log N 1 1 delete N log N log N log N log N is-empty 1 1 1 1 1 †amortized this time Princeton University • COS 423 • Theory of Algorithms • Spring 2002 • Kevin Wayne 2 Fibonacci Heaps Fibonacci Heaps: Structure Fibonacci heap history. Fredman and Tarjan (1986) Fibonacci heap. ■ Ingenious data structure and analysis. ■ Set of min-heap ordered trees. ■ Original motivation: O(m + n log n) shortest path algorithm. – also led to faster algorithms for MST, weighted bipartite matching ■ Still ahead of its time. Fibonacci heap intuition. ■ Similar to binomial heaps, but less structured. ■ Decrease-key and union run in O(1) time. min ■ "Lazy" unions. 17 24 23 7 3 30 26 46 marked 18 52 41 35 H 39 44 3 4 Fibonacci Heaps: Implementation Fibonacci Heaps: Potential Function Implementation. Key quantities. ■ Represent trees using left-child, right sibling pointers and circular, ■ Degree[x] = degree of node x. doubly linked list. ■ Mark[x] = mark of node x (black or gray). – can quickly splice off subtrees ■ t(H) = # trees. ■ Roots of trees connected with circular doubly linked list. ■ m(H) = # marked nodes. – fast union ■ Φ(H) = t(H) + 2m(H) = potential function.
    [Show full text]
  • Fibonacci Heap
    Indian Institute of Information Technology Instructor Design and Manufacturing, Kancheepuram N.Sadagopan Chennai 600 127, India Scribe: An Autonomous Institute under MHRD, Govt of India Roopesh Reddy http://www.iiitdm.ac.in Renjith.P COM 501 Advanced Data Structures and Algorithms Fibonacci Heap Objective: In this lecture we discuss Fibonacci heap, basic operations on a Fibonacci heap such as insert, delete, extract-min, merge and decrease key followed by their Amortized analysis, and also the relation of Fibonacci heap with Fibonacci series. Motivation: Is there a data structure that supports operations such as insert, delete, extract-min, merge and decrease key efficiently. Classical min-heap incurs O(n) for merge and O(log n) for the rest of the op- erations, whereas, binomial heap incurs O(log n) for all of the above operations. In asymptotic sense, is it possible to perform these operations in o(log n)? If not, can we think of a data structure that performs maximum number of these operations in O(1) amortized and the rest in O(log n) in amortized time. 1 Introduction Fibonacci heap is an unordered collection of rooted trees that obey min-heap property. Min-heap property ensures that the key of every node is greater than or equal to that of its parent. The roots of the rooted trees are linked to form a linked list, termed as Root list. Also there exists a min pointer that keeps track of the minimum element, so that the minimum can be retrieved in constant time. Elements in each level is maintained using a doubly linked list termed as child list such that the insertion, and deletion in an arbitrary position in the list can be performed in constant time.
    [Show full text]