Abstract
The list update problem is a classical online problem, with an optimal competitive ratio that is still open, somewhere between 1.5 and 1.6. An algorithm with competitive ratio 1.6, the smallest known to date, is COMB, a randomized combination of BIT and TIMESTAMP. This and many other known algorithms, like MTF, are projective in the sense that they can be defined by only looking at any pair of list items at a time. Projectivity simplifies both the description of the algorithm and its analysis, and so far seems to be the only way to define a good online algorithm for lists of arbitrary length. In this paper we characterize all projective list update algorithms and show their competitive ratio is never smaller than 1.6. Therefore, COMB is abest possible projective algorithm, and any better algorithm, if it exists, would need a non-projective approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Albers (1998), Improved randomized on-line algorithms for the list update problem. SIAM J. Comput. 27, no. 3, 682–693 (electronic). Preliminary version in Proc. 6th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms (1995),412–419.
S. Albers, B. von Stengel, and R. Werchner (1995), A combined BIT and TIMESTAMP algorithm for the list update problem. Inform. Process. Lett. 56, 135–139.
S. Albers, B. von Stengel, and R. Werchner (1996), List update posets. Manuscript.
S. Albers and J. Westbrook (1998), Self Organizing Data Structures. In A. Fiat, G. J. Woeginger, “Online Algorithms: The State of the Art”, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., 1442, Springer, Berlin, 13–51.
C. Ambühl, B. Gärtner, and B. von Stengel (2000), A new lower bound for the list update problem in the partial cost model. To appear in Theoret. Comput. Sci.
S. Ben-David, A. Borodin, R. Karp, G. Tardos, and A. Wigderson (1994), On the power of randomization in on-line algorithms. Algorithmica 11, 2–14. Preliminary version in Proc. 22nd STOC (1990), 379–386.
J. L. Bentley, and C. C. McGeoch (1985), Amortized analyses of self-organizing sequential search heuristics. Comm. ACM 28, 404–411.
A. Borodin and R. El-Yaniv (1998), Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
A. Borodin, N. Linial, and M. E. Saks (1992), An optimal online algorithm for metrical task systems. J. ACM 39, 745–763. Preliminary version in Proc. 19th STOC (1987), 373–382.
S. Irani (1991), Two results on the list update problem. Inform. Process. Lett. 38, 301–306.
S. Irani (1996), Corrected version of the SPLIT algorithm. Manuscript.
N. Reingold, J. Westbrook, and D. D. Sleator (1994), Randomized competitive algorithms for the list update problem. Algorithmica 11, 15–32.
D. D. Sleator, and R. E. Tarjan (1985), Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Comm. ACM 28, 202–208.
B. Teia (1993), A lower bound for randomized list update algorithms, Inform. Process. Lett. 47, 5–9.
A. C. Yao (1977), Probabilistic computations: Towards a unified measure of complexity. Proc. 18th FOCS, 222–227.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ambühl, C., Gärtner, B., von Stengel, B. (2000). Optimal Projective Algorithms for the List Update Problem. In: Montanari, U., Rolim, J.D.P., Welzl, E. (eds) Automata, Languages and Programming. ICALP 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1853. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45022-X_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45022-X_27
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67715-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45022-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive