MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072721374 · doi:10.1145/2611462.2611486

The amortized complexity of non-blocking binary search trees

2014· article· en· W2072721374 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Social Fund
KeywordsOptimal binary search treeBlocking (statistics)Binary treeComputer scienceAmortized analysisSelf-balancing binary search treeSwap (finance)Binary search treeSearch treeTree (set theory)Binary numberCombinatoricsMathematicsAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceData structureTree structureInterval treeSearch algorithmArithmeticOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We improve upon an existing non-blocking implementation of a binary search tree from single-word compare-and-swap instructions. We show that the worst-case amortized step complexity of performing a Find, Insert or Delete operation op on the tree is O(h(op)+c(op)) where h(op) is the height of the tree at the beginning of op and c(op) is the maximum number of operations accessing the tree at any one time during op. This is the first bound on the complexity of a non-blocking implementation of a search tree.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207