Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2106.14805

Experimental Comparison of PC-Trees and PQ-Trees

Simon D. Fink·Matthias Pfretzschner·Ignaz Rutter
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PQ-trees and PC-trees are data structures that represent sets of linear and circular orders, respectively, subject to constraints that specific subsets of elements have to be consecutive. While equivalent to each other, PC-trees are conceptually much simpler than PQ-trees; updating a PC-trees so that a set of elements becomes consecutive requires only a single operation, whereas PQ-trees use an update procedure that is described in terms of nine transformation templates that have to be recursively matched and applied. Despite these theoretical advantages, to date no practical PC-tree implementation is available. This might be due to the original description by Hsu and McConnell in some places only sketching the details of the implementation. In this paper, we describe two alternative implementations of PC-trees. For the first one, we follow the approach by Hsu and McConnell, filling in the necessary details and also proposing improvements on the original algorithm. For the second one, we use a different technique for efficiently representing the tree using a Union-Find data structure. In an extensive experimental evaluation we compare our implementations to a variety of other implementations of PQ-trees that are available on the web as part of academic and other software libraries. Our results show that both PC-tree implementations beat their closest fully correct competitor, the PQ-tree implementation from the OGDF library, by a factor of 2 to 4, showing that PC-trees are not only conceptually simpler but also fast in practice. Moreover, we find the Union-Find-based implementation, while having a slightly worse asymptotic runtime, to be twice as fast as the one based on the description by Hsu and McConnell.

Explore related subjects

cs.DS

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Simon D. Fink, Matthias Pfretzschner, Ignaz Rutter. 2021-06-28. Experimental Comparison of PC-Trees and PQ-Trees. https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.14805

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS↗
arXiv2026

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS↗