MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979499253

Dynamic optimality for skip lists and B-trees

2008· article· en· W1979499253 on OpenAlexaff
Prosenjit Bose, Karim Douïeb, Stefan Langerman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUpper and lower boundsBinary treeComputer scienceBinary search treeTree (set theory)Set (abstract data type)Weight-balanced treeBranching (polymer chemistry)CombinatoricsClass (philosophy)Sequence (biology)Optimal binary search treeContext (archaeology)Search treeTernary search treeBinary numberBinary decision diagramDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsInterval treeAlgorithmSearch algorithmTree structureArithmeticArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleator and Tarjan [39] conjectured that splay trees are dynamically optimal binary search trees (BST). In this context, we study the skip list data structure introduced by Pugh [35]. We prove that for a class of skip lists that satisfy a weak balancing property, the working-set bound is a lower bound on the time to access any sequence. Furthermore, we develop a deterministic self-adjusting skip list whose running time matches the working-set bound, thereby achieving dynamic optimality in this class. Finally, we highlight the implications our bounds for skip lists have on multi-way branching search trees such as B-trees, (ab)-trees, and other variants as well as their binary tree representations. In particular, we show a self-adjusting B-tree that is dynamically optimal both in internal and external memory.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimization and Search ProblemsFrench-language works237,207