arXiv subjects

Martin Aumüller

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Aumüller.

24 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2016

A Simple Hash Class with Strong Randomness Properties in Graphs and Hypergraphs

We study randomness properties of graphs and hypergraphs generated by simple hash functions. Several hashing applications can be analyzed by studying the structure of $d$-uniform random ($d$-partite) hypergraphs obtained from a set $S$ of $n$ keys and $d$ randomly chosen hash functions $h_1,\dots,h_d$ by associating each key $x\in S$ with a hyperedge $\{h_1(x),\dots, h_d(x)\}$. Often it is assumed that $h_1,\dots,h_d$ exhibit a high degree of independence. We present a simple construction of a hash class whose hash functions have small constant evaluation time and can be stored in sublinear space. We devise general techniques to analyze the randomness properties of the graphs and hypergraphs generated by these hash functions, and we show that they can replace other, less efficient constructions in cuckoo hashing (with and without stash), the simulation of a uniform hash function, the construction of a perfect hash function, generalized cuckoo hashing and different load balancing scenarios.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2016

Parameter-free Locality Sensitive Hashing for Spherical Range Reporting

We present a data structure for *spherical range reporting* on a point set $S$, i.e., reporting all points in $S$ that lie within radius $r$ of a given query point $q$. Our solution builds upon the Locality-Sensitive Hashing (LSH) framework of Indyk and Motwani, which represents the asymptotically best solutions to near neighbor problems in high dimensions. While traditional LSH data structures have several parameters whose optimal values depend on the distance distribution from $q$ to the points of $S$, our data structure is parameter-free, except for the space usage, which is configurable by the user. Nevertheless, its expected query time basically matches that of an LSH data structure whose parameters have been *optimally chosen for the data and query* in question under the given space constraints. In particular, our data structure provides a smooth trade-off between hard queries (typically addressed by standard LSH) and easy queries such as those where the number of points to report is a constant fraction of $S$, or where almost all points in $S$ are far away from the query point. In contrast, known data structures fix LSH parameters based on certain parameters of the input alone. The algorithm has expected query time bounded by $O(t (n/t)^ρ)$, where $t$ is the number of points to report and $ρ\in (0,1)$ depends on the data distribution and the strength of the LSH family used. We further present a parameter-free way of using multi-probing, for LSH families that support it, and show that for many such families this approach allows us to get expected query time close to $O(n^ρ+t)$, which is the best we can hope to achieve using LSH. The previously best running time in high dimensions was $Ω(t n^ρ)$. For many data distributions where the intrinsic dimensionality of the point set close to $q$ is low, we can give improved upper bounds on the expected query time.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2016

How Good is Multi-Pivot Quicksort?

Multi-Pivot Quicksort refers to variants of classical quicksort where in the partitioning step $k$ pivots are used to split the input into $k + 1$ segments. For many years, multi-pivot quicksort was regarded as impractical, but in 2009 a 2-pivot approach by Yaroslavskiy, Bentley, and Bloch was chosen as the standard sorting algorithm in Sun's Java 7. In 2014 at ALENEX, Kushagra et al. introduced an even faster algorithm that uses three pivots. This paper studies what possible advantages multi-pivot quicksort might offer in general. The contributions are as follows: Natural comparison-optimal algorithms for multi-pivot quicksort are devised and analyzed. The analysis shows that the benefits of using multiple pivots with respect to the average comparison count are marginal and these strategies are inferior to simpler strategies such as the well known median-of-$k$ approach. A substantial part of the partitioning cost is caused by rearranging elements. A rigorous analysis of an algorithm for rearranging elements in the partitioning step is carried out, observing mainly how often array cells are accessed during partitioning. The algorithm behaves best if 3 to 5 pivots are used. Experiments show that this translates into good cache behavior and is closest to predicting observed running times of multi-pivot quicksort algorithms. Finally, it is studied how choosing pivots from a sample affects sorting cost. The study is theoretical in the sense that although the findings motivate design recommendations for multipivot quicksort algorithms that lead to running time improvements over known algorithms in an experimental setting, these improvements are small.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2016

Counting Zeros in Random Walks on the Integers and Analysis of Optimal Dual-Pivot Quicksort

We present an average case analysis of two variants of dual-pivot quicksort, one with a non-algorithmic comparison-optimal partitioning strategy, the other with a closely related algorithmic strategy. For both we calculate the expected number of comparisons exactly as well as asymptotically, in particular, we provide exact expressions for the linear, logarithmic, and constant terms. An essential step is the analysis of zeros of lattice paths in a certain probability model. Along the way a combinatorial identity is proven.

math.CO↗

arXiv2015

Optimal Partitioning for Dual-Pivot Quicksort

Dual-pivot quicksort refers to variants of classical quicksort where in the partitioning step two pivots are used to split the input into three segments. This can be done in different ways, giving rise to different algorithms. Recently, a dual-pivot algorithm proposed by Yaroslavskiy received much attention, because a variant of it replaced the well-engineered quicksort algorithm in Sun's Java 7 runtime library. Nebel and Wild (ESA 2012) analyzed this algorithm and showed that on average it uses 1.9n ln n + O(n) comparisons to sort an input of size n, beating standard quicksort, which uses 2n ln n + O(n) comparisons. We introduce a model that captures all dual-pivot algorithms, give a unified analysis, and identify new dual-pivot algorithms that minimize the average number of key comparisons among all possible algorithms up to a linear term. This minimum is 1.8n ln n + O(n). For the case that the pivots are chosen from a small sample, we include a comparison of dual-pivot quicksort and classical quicksort. Specifically, we show that dual-pivot quicksort benefits from a skewed choice of pivots. We experimentally evaluate our algorithms and compare them to Yaroslavskiy's algorithm and the recently described three-pivot quicksort algorithm of Kushagra et al. (ALENEX 2014).

cs.DS↗

arXiv2012

Explicit and Efficient Hash Families Suffice for Cuckoo Hashing with a Stash

It is shown that for cuckoo hashing with a stash as proposed by Kirsch, Mitzenmacher, and Wieder (2008) families of very simple hash functions can be used, maintaining the favorable performance guarantees: with stash size $s$ the probability of a rehash is $O(1/n^{s+1})$, and the evaluation time is $O(s)$. Instead of the full randomness needed for the analysis of Kirsch et al. and of Kutzelnigg (2010) (resp. $Θ(\log n)$-wise independence for standard cuckoo hashing) the new approach even works with 2-wise independent hash families as building blocks. Both construction and analysis build upon the work of Dietzfelbinger and Woelfel (2003). The analysis, which can also be applied to the fully random case, utilizes a graph counting argument and is much simpler than previous proofs. As a byproduct, an algorithm for simulating uniform hashing is obtained. While it requires about twice as much space as the most space efficient solutions, it is attractive because of its simple and direct structure.

cs.DS↗