The analysis of approximate quickselect and related problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximate Quickselect, a simple modification of the well known Quickselect algorithm for selection, can be used to efficiently find an element with rank k in a given range [i..j], out of n given elements. We study basic cost measures of Approximate Quickselect by computing exact and asymptotic results for the expected number of passes, comparisons and data moves during the execution of this algorithm.\nThe key element appearing in the analysis of Approximate Quickselect is a trivariate\nrecurrence that we solve in full generality. The general solution of the recurrence\nproves to be very useful, as it allows us to tackle several related problems, besides the\nanalysis that originally motivated us.\nIn particular, we have been able to carry out a precise analysis of the expected\nnumber of moves of the ith element when selecting the jth smallest element with\nstandard Quickselect, where we are able to give both exact and asymptotic results.\nMoreover, we can apply our general results to obtain exact and asymptotic results\nfor several parameters in binary search trees, namely the expected number of common\nancestors of the nodes with rank i and j, the expected size of the subtree rooted at the least common ancestor of the nodes with rank i and j, and the expected distance\nbetween the nodes of ranks i and j.
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 | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".