Results 1 
9 of
9
Quickselect and Dickman function
 Combinatorics, Probability and Computing
, 2000
"... We show that the limiting distribution of the number of comparisons used by Hoare's quickselect algorithm when given a random permutation of n elements for finding the mth smallest element, where m = o(n), is the Dickman function. The limiting distribution of the number of exchanges is also de ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We show that the limiting distribution of the number of comparisons used by Hoare's quickselect algorithm when given a random permutation of n elements for finding the mth smallest element, where m = o(n), is the Dickman function. The limiting distribution of the number of exchanges is also derived. 1 Quickselect Quickselect is one of the simplest and e#cient algorithms in practice for finding specified order statistics in a given sequence. It was invented by Hoare [19] and uses the usual partitioning procedure of quicksort: choose first a partitioning key, say x; regroup the given sequence into two parts corresponding to elements whose values are less than and larger than x, respectively; then decide, according to the size of the smaller subgroup, which part to continue recursively or to stop if x is the desired order statistics; see Figure 1 for an illustration in terms of binary search trees. For more details, see Guibas [15] and Mahmoud [26]. This algorithm , although ine#cient in the worst case, has linear mean when given a sequence of n independent and identically distributed continuous random variables, or equivalently, when given a random permutation of n elements, where, here and throughout this paper, all n! permutations are equally likely. Let C n,m denote the number of comparisons used by quickselect for finding the mth smallest element in a random permutation, where the first partitioning stage uses n 1 comparisons. Knuth [23] was the first to show, by some di#erencing argument, that E(C n,m ) = 2 (n + 3 + (n + 1)H n (m + 2)Hm (n + 3 m)H n+1m ) , n, where Hm = 1#k#m k 1 . A more transparent asymptotic approximation is E(C n,m ) (#), (#) := 2 #), # Part of the work of this author was done while he was visiting School of C...
On the probabilistic worstcase time of "FIND"
 ALGORITHMICA
, 2001
"... We analyze the worstcase number of comparisons Tn of Hoare’s selection algorithm find when the input is a random permutation, and worst case is measured with respect to the rank k. We give a new short proof that Tn/n tends to a limit distribution, and provide new bounds for the limiting distributi ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We analyze the worstcase number of comparisons Tn of Hoare’s selection algorithm find when the input is a random permutation, and worst case is measured with respect to the rank k. We give a new short proof that Tn/n tends to a limit distribution, and provide new bounds for the limiting distribution.
Distributional convergence for the number of symbol comparisons used by QuickSort
, 2012
"... Most previous studies of the sorting algorithm QuickSort have used the number of key comparisons as a measure of the cost of executing the algorithm. Here we suppose that the n independent and identically distributed (iid) keys are each represented as a sequence of symbols from a probabilistic sourc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Most previous studies of the sorting algorithm QuickSort have used the number of key comparisons as a measure of the cost of executing the algorithm. Here we suppose that the n independent and identically distributed (iid) keys are each represented as a sequence of symbols from a probabilistic source and that QuickSort operates on individual symbols, and we measure the execution cost as the number of symbol comparisons. Assuming only a mild “tameness ” condition on the source, we show that there is a limiting distribution for the number of symbol comparisons after normalization: first centering by the mean and then dividing by n. Additionally, under a condition that grows more restrictive as p increases, we have convergence of moments of orders p and smaller. In particular, we have convergence in distribution and convergence of moments of every order whenever the source is memoryless, i.e., whenever each key is generated as an infinite string of iid symbols. This is somewhat surprising: Even for the classical model that each key is an iid string of unbiased (“fair”) bits, the mean exhibits periodic fluctuations of order n.
Analysis of the expected number of bit comparisons required by Quickselect
 Algorithmica
"... When algorithms for sorting and searching are applied to keys that are represented as bit strings, we can quantify the performance of the algorithms not only in terms of the number of key comparisons required by the algorithms but also in terms of the number of bit comparisons. Some of the standard ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
When algorithms for sorting and searching are applied to keys that are represented as bit strings, we can quantify the performance of the algorithms not only in terms of the number of key comparisons required by the algorithms but also in terms of the number of bit comparisons. Some of the standard sorting and searching algorithms have been analyzed with respect to key comparisons but not with respect to bit comparisons. In this paper, we investigate the expected number of bit comparisons required by Quickselect (also known as Find). We develop exact and asymptotic formulae for the expected number of bit comparisons required to find the smallest or largest key by Quickselect and show that the expectation is asymptotically linear with respect to the number of keys. Similar results are obtained for the average case. For finding keys of arbitrary rank, we derive an exact formula for the expected number of bit comparisons that (using rational arithmetic) requires only finite summation (rather than such operations as numerical integration) and use it to compute the expectation for each target rank. AMS 2000 subject classifications. Primary 68W40; secondary 68P10, 60C05. Key words and phrases. Quickselect,Find, searching algorithms, asymptotics, averagecase analysis, key comparisons, bit comparisons.
Analysis of the Expected Number . . .
, 2009
"... When algorithms for sorting and searching are applied to keys that are represented as bit strings, we can quantify the performance of the algorithms not only in terms of the number of key comparisons required by the algorithms but also in terms of the number of bit comparisons. Some of the standard ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
When algorithms for sorting and searching are applied to keys that are represented as bit strings, we can quantify the performance of the algorithms not only in terms of the number of key comparisons required by the algorithms but also in terms of the number of bit comparisons. Some of the standard sorting and searching algorithms have been analyzed with respect to key comparisons but not with respect to bit comparisons. In this paper, we investigate the expected number of bit comparisons required by Quickselect (also known as Find). We develop exact and asymptotic formulae for the expected number of bit comparisons required to find the smallest or largest key by Quickselect and show that the expectation is asymptotically linear with respect to the number of keys. Similar results are obtained for the average case. For finding keys of arbitrary rank, we derive an exact formula for the expected number of bit comparisons that (using rational arithmetic) requires only finite summation (rather than such operations as numerical integration) and use it to compute the expectation for each target rank.
QUICKSELECT revisited by Uwe R"osler Mathematisches Seminar ChristianAlbrechtUniversit"at zu Kiel
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Abstract Analysis of the Expected Number of Bit Comparisons
"... When algorithms for sorting and searching are applied to keys that are represented as bit strings, we can quantify the performance of the algorithms not only in terms of the number of key comparisons required by the algorithms but also in terms of the number of bit comparisons. Some of the standard ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
When algorithms for sorting and searching are applied to keys that are represented as bit strings, we can quantify the performance of the algorithms not only in terms of the number of key comparisons required by the algorithms but also in terms of the number of bit comparisons. Some of the standard sorting and searching algorithms have been analyzed with respect to key comparisons but not with respect to bit comparisons. In this extended abstract, we investigate the expected number of bit comparisons required by Quickselect (also known as Find). We develop exact and asymptotic formulae for the expected number of bit comparisons required to find the smallest or largest key by Quickselect and show that the expectation is asymptotically linear with respect to the number of keys. Similar results are obtained for the average case. For finding keys of arbitrary rank, we derive an exact formula for the expected number of bit comparisons that (using rational arithmetic) requires only finite summation (rather than such operations as numerical integration) and use it to compute the expectation for each target rank. 1
DISTRIBUTIONAL CONVERGENCE FOR THE NUMBER OF SYMBOL COMPARISONS USED BY QUICKSELECT
"... When the search algorithm QuickSelect compares keys during its execution in order to find a key of target rank, it must operate on the keys ’ representations or internal structures, which were ignored by the previous studies that quantified the execution cost for the algorithm in terms of the number ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
When the search algorithm QuickSelect compares keys during its execution in order to find a key of target rank, it must operate on the keys ’ representations or internal structures, which were ignored by the previous studies that quantified the execution cost for the algorithm in terms of the number of required key comparisons. In this paper, we analyze running costs for the algorithm that take into account not only the number of key comparisons but also the cost of each key comparison. We suppose that keys are represented as sequences of symbols generated by various probabilistic sources and that QuickSelect operates on individual symbols in order to find the target key. We identify limiting distributions for the costs and derive integral and series expressions for the expectations of the limiting distributions. These expressions are used to recapture previously obtained results on the number of key comparisons required by the algorithm.