This is an abstract of a survey talk on the theoretical and empirical studies that have been done over the past four decades on the Shellsort algorithm and its variants. The discussion includes: upper bounds, including linkages to number-theoretic properties of the algorithm; lower bounds on Shellsort and Shellsort-based networks; average-case results; proposed probabilistic sorting networks based on the algorithm; and a list of open problems. 1 Shellsort The basic Shellsort algorithm is among the earliest sorting methods to be discovered (by D. L. Shell in 1959 [36]) and is among the easiest to implement, as exhibited by the following C code for sorting an array a[l],..., a[r]: shellsort(itemType a[], int l, int r) { int i, j, h; itemType v;

We show lower bounds on the worst-case complexity of Shellsort. In particular, we give a fairly simple proof of an \Omega\Gamma n lg 2 n=(lg lg n) 2 ) lower bound for the size of Shellsort sorting networks, for arbitrary increment sequences. We also show an identical lower bound for the running time of Shellsort algorithms, again for arbitrary increment sequences. Our lower bounds establish an almost tight trade-off between the running time of a Shellsort algorithm and the length of the underlying increment sequence. Proposed running head: Lower Bounds for Shellsort. Contact author: Prof. Greg Plaxton, Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712--1188. 1 Introduction Shellsort is a classical sorting algorithm introduced by Shell in 1959 [15]. The algorithm is based on a sequence H = h 0 ; : : : ; hm\Gamma1 of positive integers called an increment sequence. An input file A = A[0]; : : : ; A[n \Gamma 1] of elements is sorted by performing an ...

Abstract. We show that sorting a sufficiently long list of length N using Shellsort with m increments (not necessarily decreasing) requires at least N 1+c/ √ m comparisons in the worst case, for some constant c> 0. For m ≤ (log N / log log N) 2 we obtain an upper bound of the same form. We also prove that Ω(N(log N / log log N) 2) comparisons are needed regardless of the number of increments. Our approach is general enough to apply to other sorting algorithms, including Shaker-sort, for which an even stronger result is proved. 1.

Abstract not found