Results 1 
5 of
5
Twotier relaxed heaps
 Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4288, SpringerVerlag
, 2006
"... Abstract. We introduce an adaptation of runrelaxed heaps which provides efficient heap operations with respect to the number of element comparisons performed. Our data structure guarantees the worstcase cost of O(1) for findmin, insert, and decrease; and the worstcase cost of O(lg n) with at mos ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We introduce an adaptation of runrelaxed heaps which provides efficient heap operations with respect to the number of element comparisons performed. Our data structure guarantees the worstcase cost of O(1) for findmin, insert, and decrease; and the worstcase cost of O(lg n) with at most lg n + 3 lg lg n + O(1) element comparisons for delete, improving the bound of 3lg n + O(1) on the number of element comparisons known for runrelaxed heaps. Here, n denotes the number of elements stored prior to the operation in question, and lg n equals max {1, log 2 n}. 1
Two new methods for transforming priority queues into doubleended priority queues
 CPH STL Report
, 2006
"... Abstract. Two new ways of transforming a priority queue into a doubleended priority queue are introduced. These methods can be used to improve all known bounds for the comparison complexity of doubleended priorityqueue operations. Using an efficient priority queue, the first transformation can pr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Two new ways of transforming a priority queue into a doubleended priority queue are introduced. These methods can be used to improve all known bounds for the comparison complexity of doubleended priorityqueue operations. Using an efficient priority queue, the first transformation can produce a doubleended priority queue which guarantees the worstcase cost of O(1) for findmin, findmax, and insert; and the worstcase cost of O(lg n) including at most lg n + O(1) element comparisons for delete, but the data structure cannot support meld efficiently. Using a meldable priority queue that supports decrease efficiently, the second transformation can produce a meldable doubleended priority queue which guarantees the worstcase cost of O(1) for findmin, findmax, and insert; the worstcase cost of O(lg n) including at most lg n + O(lg lg n) element comparisons for delete; and the worstcase cost of O(min {lg m, lg n}) for meld. Here, m and n denote the number of elements stored in the data structures prior to the operation in question, and lg n is a shorthand for log 2 (max {2, n}). 1.
Project proposal: A meldable, iteratorvalid priority queue, CPH
, 2005
"... Abstract. The Standard Template Library (STL) is a library of generic algorithms and data structures that has been incorporated in the C++ standard and ships with all modern C++ compilers. In the CPH STL project the goal is to implement an enhanced edition of the STL. The priorityqueue class of the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The Standard Template Library (STL) is a library of generic algorithms and data structures that has been incorporated in the C++ standard and ships with all modern C++ compilers. In the CPH STL project the goal is to implement an enhanced edition of the STL. The priorityqueue class of the STL is just an adapter that makes any resizable array to a queue in which the elements stored are arranged according to a given ordering function. In the C++ standard no compulsory support for the operations delete(), increase(), or meld() is demanded even if those are utilized in many algorithms solving graphtheoretic or geometric problems. In this project, the goal is to implement a CPH STL extension of the priorityqueue class which provides, in addition to the normal priorityqueue functionality, the operations delete(), increase(), and meld(). To make the first two of these operations possible, the class must also guarantee that external references to compartments inside the data structure are kept valid at all times.
Putting your data structure on a diet
 In preparation (2006). [Ask Jyrki for details
, 2007
"... Abstract. Consider a data structure D that stores a dynamic collection of elements. Assume that D uses a linear number of words in addition to the elements stored. In this paper several datastructural transformations are described that can be used to transform D into another data structure D ′ that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. Consider a data structure D that stores a dynamic collection of elements. Assume that D uses a linear number of words in addition to the elements stored. In this paper several datastructural transformations are described that can be used to transform D into another data structure D ′ that supports the same operations as D, has considerably smaller memory overhead than D, and performs the supported operations by a small constant factor or a small additive term slower than D, depending on the data structure and operation in question. The compaction technique has been successfully applied for linked lists, dictionaries, and priority queues.
Abstract On the Power of Structural Violations in Priority Queues
"... We give a priority queue that guarantees the worstcase cost of Θ(1) per minimum finding, insertion, and decrease; and the worstcase cost of Θ(lg n) with at most lg n + O ( √ lg n) element comparisons per deletion. Here, n denotes the number of elements stored in the data structure prior to the ope ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We give a priority queue that guarantees the worstcase cost of Θ(1) per minimum finding, insertion, and decrease; and the worstcase cost of Θ(lg n) with at most lg n + O ( √ lg n) element comparisons per deletion. Here, n denotes the number of elements stored in the data structure prior to the operation in question, and lg n is a shorthand for max {1,log 2 n}. In contrast to a runrelaxed heap, which allows heaporder violations, our priority queue relies on structural violations. By mimicking a priority queue that allows heaporder violations with one that only allows structural violations, we improve the bound on the number of element comparisons per deletion to lg n + O(lg lg n).