Pinning Down the Strong Wilber 1 Bound for Binary Search Trees

The famous dynamic optimality conjecture of Sleator and Tarjan from 1985 conjectures the existence of an $O(1)$-competitive algorithm for binary search trees (BST's). Even the simpler problem of (offline) approximation of the optimal cost of a BST for a given input, that we denote by $OPT$, is still widely open, with the best current algorithm achieving an $O(\log\log n)$-approximation. A major challenge in designing such algorithms is to obtain a tight lower bound on $OPT$ that is algorithm friendly. Although several candidate lower bounds were suggested in the past, such as WB-1 and WB-2 bounds by Wilber, and Independent Rectangles bound by Demaine et al., the only currently known non-trivial approximation algorithm achieves an $O(\log\log n)$ approximation factor by comparing $OPT$ with a weak variant of WB-1, that uses a \emph{fixed} partitioning of the keys. This bound, however, is known to have a gap of $\Omega(\log\log n)$, and therefore it cannot yield better approximation algorithms. To overcome this obstacle, it is natural to consider a stronger variant of WB-1, that maximizes the bound over \emph{all} partitionings of the keys. An interesting question, mentioned by Iacono and by Kozma, is whether the $O(\log\log n)$-approximation can be improved by using this stronger bound. In this paper, we show that the gap between the stronger WB-1 bound and $OPT$ may be as large as $\Omega(\log\log n/\log\log\log n)$. This rules out the hope of obtaining better approximation algorithms via the only known algorithmic approach, combined with the stronger WB-1 bound. We also provide algorithmic results: for any parameter $D$, we present a simple $O(D)$-approximation algorithm with running time $\exp\left(O\left (n^{1/2^D}\log n\right )\right )$. This implies an $O(1)$-approximation algorithm in sub-exponential time.

[1]  Seth Pettie,et al.  Splay trees, Davenport-Schinzel sequences, and the deque conjecture , 2007, SODA '08.

[2]  László Kozma,et al.  Binary search trees, rectangles and patterns , 2016 .

[3]  Amr Elmasry,et al.  On the sequential access theorem and deque conjecture for splay trees , 2004, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Robert E. Wilber Lower bounds for accessing binary search trees with rotations , 1986, 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1986).

[5]  Richard Cole,et al.  On the Dynamic Finger Conjecture for Splay Trees. Part II: The Proof , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[6]  R. Chaudhuri,et al.  Splaying a search tree in preorder takes linear time , 1993, SIGA.

[7]  Erik D. Demaine,et al.  New bounds on optimal binary search trees , 2006 .

[8]  John Iacono Key-Independent Optimality , 2004, Algorithmica.

[9]  Rudolf Bayer,et al.  Symmetric binary B-Trees: Data structure and maintenance algorithms , 1972, Acta Informatica.

[10]  Daniel M. Kane,et al.  The geometry of binary search trees , 2009, SODA.

[11]  Rajamani Sundar,et al.  On the deque conjecture for the splay algorithm , 1992, Comb..

[12]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Sequential access in splay trees takes linear time , 1985, Comb..

[13]  John Iacono,et al.  In Pursuit of the Dynamic Optimality Conjecture , 2013, Space-Efficient Data Structures, Streams, and Algorithms.

[14]  Daniel Dominic Sleator,et al.  Skip-Splay: Toward Achieving the Unified Bound in the BST Model , 2009, WADS.

[15]  Omri Weinstein,et al.  Settling the relationship between Wilber's bounds for dynamic optimality , 2020, ESA.

[16]  Daniel Dominic Sleator,et al.  O(log log n)-competitive dynamic binary search trees , 2006, SODA '06.

[17]  Navin Goyal,et al.  On Dynamic Optimality for Binary Search Trees , 2011, ArXiv.

[18]  Prosenjit Bose,et al.  The Power and Limitations of Static Binary Search Trees with Lazy Finger , 2013, Algorithmica.

[19]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  Pattern-Avoiding Access in Binary Search Trees , 2015, 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[20]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Self-adjusting binary search trees , 1985, JACM.

[21]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Complexity of k-SAT , 1999, Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (Formerly: Structure in Complexity Theory Conference) (Cat.No.99CB36317).

[22]  Richard Cole,et al.  On the dynamic finger conjecture for splay trees , 1990, STOC '90.

[23]  Richard Cole,et al.  On the Dynamic Finger Conjecture for Splay Trees. Part I: Splay Sorting log n-Block Sequences , 1995, SIAM J. Comput..

[24]  Susanne Albers,et al.  On‐Line Algorithms , 2013 .

[25]  Daniel Dominic Sleator,et al.  A Lower Bound Framework for Binary Search Trees with Rotations , 2005 .

[26]  Joan M. Lucas On the Competitiveness of Splay Trees: Relations to the Union-Find Problem , 1991, On-Line Algorithms.

[27]  Kyle Fox,et al.  Upper Bounds for Maximally Greedy Binary Search Trees , 2011, WADS.

[28]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  A New Path from Splay to Dynamic Optimality , 2019, SODA.

[29]  George F. Georgakopoulos,et al.  Chain-splay trees, or, how to achieve and prove loglogN-competitiveness by splaying , 2008, Inf. Process. Lett..

[30]  Russell Impagliazzo,et al.  Which Problems Have Strongly Exponential Complexity? , 2001, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[31]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  Greedy Is an Almost Optimal Deque , 2015, WADS.

[32]  M. AdelsonVelskii,et al.  AN ALGORITHM FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION , 1963 .

[33]  Erik D. Demaine,et al.  Dynamic optimality - almost [competitive online binary search tree] , 2007, 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.