Counting inversions, offline orthogonal range counting, and related problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We give an O(n √ lg n)-time algorithm for counting the number of inversions in a permutation on n elements. This improves a long-standing previous bound of O(n lg n / lg lg n) that followed from Dietz’s data structure [WADS’89], and answers a question of Andersson and Petersson [SODA’95]. As Dietz’s result is known to be optimal for the related dynamic rank problem, our result demonstrates a significant improvement in the offline setting. Our new technique is quite simple: we perform a “vertical partitioning ” of a trie (akin to van Emde Boas trees), and use ideas from external memory. However, the technique finds numerous applications: for example, we obtain • in d dimensions, an algorithm to answer n offline orthogonal range counting queries in time O(n lg d−2+1/d n); • an improved construction time for online data structures for orthogonal range counting; • an improved update time for the partial sums problem; • faster Word RAM algorithms for finding the maximum depth in an arrangement of axis-aligned rectangles, and for the slope selection problem. As a bonus, we also give a simple (1 + ε)-approximation algorithm for counting inversions that runs in linear time, improving the previous O(n lg lg n) bound by Andersson and Petersson.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".