Skip to main content

In as Few Comparisons as Possible

  • Conference paper
Algorithms and Computation (WALCOM 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8344))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1082 Accesses

Abstract

We review a variety of data ordering problems with the goal of solving them in as few comparisons as possible. En route we highlight a number of open problems, some new, some a couple of decades old, and others open for up to a half century. The first is that of sorting and the Ford-Johnson Merge-Insertion algorithm [8] of 1959, which remains the “best”, at least for the “best and worst” values of n. Is it optimal, or are its extra .028.. n or so comparisons beyond the information theoretic lower bound necessary?

Moving to selection problems we first examine a special case. The problem of finding the second largest member of a set is fairly straightforward in the worst case. The best expected case method remains the \(n+ \Theta(\lg \lg n)\) method of Matula from 1973 [10]. It begs the question as to whether the \(\lg \lg n\) term is necessary. The status of median finding has remained unchanged for a couple of decades, since the work of Dor and Zwick [4,5]. (3 − δ)n comparisons are sufficient, while (2 + ε)n are necessary. So the constant isn’t an integer, but is it log4/3 2 as conjectured by Paterson [11]? This worst case behavior is in sharp contrast with the expected case of median finding where the answer has been known since the mid-’80’s [3,6].

Finally we look at the problem of partial sorting (arranging elements according to a given partial order) and completing a sort given partially ordered data. The latter problem was posed and solved within n or so comparisons of optimal by Fredman in 1975 [7]. The method, though, could use exponential time to determine which comparisons to perform. The more recent approaches of Cardinal et al [2,1] to these problems are based on graph entropy arguments and require only polynomial time to determine the comparisons to be made. Indeed the solution to the partial ordering problem involves a reduction to multiple selection [9]. In both cases the number of comparisons used differs from the information theoretic lower bound by only a lower order term plus a linear term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cardinal, J., Fiorini, S., Joret, G., Jungers, R.M., Ian Munro, J.: An efficient algorithm for partial order production. SIAM J. Comput. 39(7), 2927–2940 (2010)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Cardinal, J., Fiorini, S., Joret, G., Jungers, R.M., Ian Munro, J.: Sorting under partial information (without the ellipsoid algorithm). In: STOC, pp. 359–368 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cunto, W., Ian Munro, J.: Average case selection. J. ACM 36(2), 270–279 (1989)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Dor, D., Zwick, U.: Selecting the median. SIAM J. Comput. 28(5), 1722–1758 (1999)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Dor, D., Zwick, U.: Median selection requires (2 + ε)n comparisons. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 14(3), 312–325 (2001)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Floyd, R.W., Rivest, R.L.: Expected time bounds for selection. Commun. ACM 18(3), 165–172 (1975)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Fredman, M.L.: Two applications of a probabilistic search technique: Sorting x + y and building balanced search trees. In: STOC, pp. 240–244 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ford Jr., L.R., Johnson, S.B.: A tournament problem. American Mathematical Monthly 66(5), 387–389 (1959)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaligosi, K., Mehlhorn, K., Ian Munro, J., Sanders, P.: Towards optimal multiple selection. In: Caires, L., Italiano, G.F., Monteiro, L., Palamidessi, C., Yung, M. (eds.) ICALP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3580, pp. 103–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Matula, D.W.: Selecting the the best in average n + θ(loglogn) comparisons. Washington University Report, AMCS-73-9 (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Paterson, M.: Progress in selection. In: Karlsson, R., Lingas, A. (eds.) SWAT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1097, pp. 368–379. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Munro, J.I. (2014). In as Few Comparisons as Possible. In: Pal, S.P., Sadakane, K. (eds) Algorithms and Computation. WALCOM 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8344. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04657-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04657-0_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04656-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04657-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics