New Bounds for Randomized List Update in the Paid Exchange Model

We study the fundamental list update problem in the paid exchange model P . This cost model was introduced by Manasse, McGeoch and Sleator [18] and Reingold, Westbrook and Sleator [24]. Here the given list of items may only be rearranged using paid exchanges; each swap of two adjacent items in the list incurs a cost of d. Free exchanges of items are not allowed. The model is motivated by the fact that, when executing search operations on a data structure, key comparisons are less expensive than item swaps. We develop a new randomized online algorithm that achieves an improved competitive ratio against oblivious adversaries. For large d, the competitiveness tends to 2.2442. Technically, the analysis of the algorithm relies on a new approach of partitioning request sequences and charging expected cost. Furthermore, we devise lower bounds on the competitiveness of randomized algorithms against oblivious adversaries. No such lower bounds were known before. Specifically, we prove that no randomized online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than 2 in the partial cost model, where an access to the i-th item in the current list incurs a cost of i− 1 rather than i. All algorithms proposed in the literature attain their competitiveness in the partial cost model. Furthermore, we show that no randomized online algorithm can achieve a competitive ratio smaller than 1.8654 in the standard full cost model. Again the lower bounds hold for large d. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Online algorithms

[1]  Bernhard von Stengel,et al.  A Combined BIT and TIMESTAMP Algorithm for the List Update Problem , 1995, Inf. Process. Lett..

[2]  Sandy Irani,et al.  Two Results on the List Update Problem , 1991, Inf. Process. Lett..

[3]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  Parameterized Analysis of Paging and List Update Algorithms , 2009, Algorithmica.

[4]  Lyle A. McGeoch,et al.  Competitive algorithms for on-line problems , 1988, STOC '88.

[5]  Jeffery R. Westbrook,et al.  Randomized competitive algorithms for the list update problem , 1991, SODA '91.

[6]  Conrado Martínez,et al.  On the competitiveness of the move-to-front rule , 2000, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  A Survey of Algorithms and Models for List Update , 2013, Space-Efficient Data Structures, Streams, and Algorithms.

[8]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity , 1977, 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977).

[9]  Susanne Albers,et al.  Self-Organizing Data Structures , 1996, Online Algorithms.

[10]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  On the list update problem with advice , 2013, Inf. Comput..

[11]  Pascal Schweitzer,et al.  Paging and list update under bijective analysis , 2009, JACM.

[12]  Susanne Albers,et al.  Improved randomized on-line algorithms for the list update problem , 1995, SODA '95.

[13]  J. Ian Munro,et al.  On the Competitiveness of Linear Search , 2000, ESA.

[14]  John McCabe,et al.  On Serial Files with Relocatable Records , 1965 .

[15]  Giovanni Manzini,et al.  An analysis of the Burrows-Wheeler transform , 2001, SODA '99.

[16]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  Better Compression through Better List Update Algorithms , 2014, 2014 Data Compression Conference.

[17]  Jeffery R. Westbrook,et al.  Off-Line Algorithms for the List Update Problem , 1996, Inf. Process. Lett..

[18]  Jouni Sirén Burrows-Wheeler Transform for Terabases , 2016, 2016 Data Compression Conference (DCC).

[19]  Allan Borodin,et al.  Online computation and competitive analysis , 1998 .

[20]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  Paid Exchanges are Worth the Price , 2015, STACS.

[21]  Gad M. Landau,et al.  Computing the Burrows-Wheeler transform in place and in small space , 2015, J. Discrete Algorithms.

[22]  Susanne Albers,et al.  On list update with locality of reference , 2016, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[23]  Robert E. Tarjan,et al.  Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules , 1985, CACM.

[24]  Alejandro López-Ortiz,et al.  Context-Based Algorithms for the List-Update Problem under Alternative Cost Models , 2013, 2013 Data Compression Conference.

[25]  D. J. Wheeler,et al.  A Block-sorting Lossless Data Compression Algorithm , 1994 .

[26]  Boris Teia,et al.  A Lower Bound for Randomized List Update Algorithms , 1993, Inf. Process. Lett..