The list update problem and the retrieval of sets
We consider the list update problem under a sequence of requests of sets of items, and for this problem we investigate the competitiveness features of two algorithms. We prove that algorithm Move-Set-to-Front (MSF) is (1+βs)-competitive, where β is the size of the largest requested set, and that a lower bound is roughly 2. We provide an upper bound to the MSF competitive ratio by relating it to the size n of the list, obtaining that the algorithm is (1+n/4)-competitive in general, and O(√n)-competitive if we add a not too restrictive constraint to the sizes of the requested sets.
We are in touch with two more problems. The first one generalizes the list update problem under a sequence of requests of sets by considering weighted lists, where a weight representing a visiting cost is associated with each item. For this case we give a competitiveness result as well.
The second one is a variant, where the list is searched to retrieve whichever element of the currently requested set (the first that can be found in the list). For this problem we provide negative results.
KeywordsCost Model Competitive Ratio Online Algorithm Competitive Algorithm Free Exchange
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.d'Amore, F., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Nanni, U.: Competitive Algorithms for the Weighted List Update Problem. Proc. 2nd Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, Ottawa, Canada, August 1991, (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 519, 1991, 240–248).Google Scholar
- 2.d'Amore, F., Marchetti-Spaccamela, A., Nanni, U.: The Weighted List Update Problem and the Lazy Adversary. Theoretical Computer Science, (to appear).Google Scholar
- 3.Bentley, J.L., McGeoch, C.C.: Amortized Analyses of Self-Organizing Sequential Search Heuristics. Communications of the ACM, 28, 4, April 1985, 404–411.Google Scholar
- 4.Ben-David, S., Borodin, A., Karp, R., Tardos, G., Wigderson, A.: On the Power of Randomization in Online Algorithms. Proc. 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Baltimore, MD, May 1990, 379–386.Google Scholar
- 5.Hester, J.H., Hirschberg, D.S.: Self-Organizing Linear Search. ACM Computing Surveys, 17, 3, September 1985, 295–311.Google Scholar
- 6.Irani, S.: Two Results on the List Update Problem. Tech. Rep. TR-90-037, Computer Science Division, U.C. Berkeley, CA, August 1990.Google Scholar
- 7.Irani, S., Reingold, N., Westbrook, J., Sleator, D.D.: Randomized Competitive Algorithms for the List Update Problem. Proc. 2nd ACM-SIAM annual Symp. on Disc. Algorithms, San Francisco, CA, January 1991, 251–260.Google Scholar
- 8.Karlin, A.R., Manasse, M.S., Rudolph, L., Sleator, D.D.: Competitive Snoopy Caching. Algorithmica, 3, 1988, 79–119.Google Scholar
- 9.Karp, R., Raghavan, P.:-Private communication reported in .Google Scholar
- 10.Manasse, M.S., McGeoch, L.A., Sleator, D.D.: Competitive Algorithms for On-line Problems. Proc. 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, Chicago, IL, May 1988, 322–333.Google Scholar
- 11.Reingold, N., Westbrook, J.: Optimum Off-line Algorithms for The List Update Problem. Tech. Rep. YALEU/DCS/TR-805, Department of Computer Science, Yale U., August 1990.Google Scholar
- 12.Sleator, D.D.: Private communication reported in: Tarjan, R.E.: Amortized Computational Complexity. SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth., 6, 2, April 1985, 306–318.Google Scholar
- 13.Sleator, D.D., Tarjan, R.E.: Amortized Efficiency of List Update and Paging Rules. Communications of the ACM, 28, 2, February 1985, 202–208.Google Scholar