arXiv subjects

Robert E. Tarjan

Publications and source records attributed to Robert E. Tarjan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Bidirectional Dijkstra's Algorithm is Instance-Optimal

Although Dijkstra's algorithm has near-optimal time complexity for the problem of finding a shortest path from a given vertex $s$ to a given vertex $t$, in practice other algorithms are often superior on huge graphs. A prominent example is bidirectional search, which concurrently executes Dijkstra's algorithm forward from $s$ and backward from $t$, and stops when these executions meet. In this paper, we give a strong theoretical justification for the use of bidirectional search to find a shortest $st$-path. We prove that for weighted multigraphs, both directed and undirected, a careful implementation of bidirectional search is instance-optimal with respect to the number of edges it examines. That is, we prove that no correct algorithm can outperform our implementation of bidirectional search on any single instance by more than a constant factor. For unweighted graphs, we show that bidirectional breadth-first search is instance-optimal up to a factor of $O(Δ)$ where $Δ$ is the maximum degree of the graph. We also show that this is best possible.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Heaps and Their Working Sets

We construct a heap with strong beyond-worst-case performance guarantees and explore the analysis of such heaps. First, we unify existing notions of the working-set bound for heaps by proving that essentially all of them are equivalent - with the notable exception of the so-called stack-like bound, which is strictly stronger. This equivalence simplifies the theoretical landscape and extends the range of applications of heaps with working-set bounds. Second, we present the first heap implementation that has the amortized stack-like bound and supports $\mathcal O(1)$-time decrease-key and $o(\log^*n)$-time insert.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Pure Pairing Heaps

The pairing heap is a "self-adjusting" implementation of a heap (priority queue) that is widely used in practice because it is simple and efficient. We introduce and analyze a simplified version of the pairing heap that we call the pure pairing heap. Our innovation is to eliminate the assembly pass during delete-min operations. We obtain the following amortized time bounds for operations on pure pairing heaps: $O(\log n)$ time per delete-min, $O(\log\log n \cdot \log\log\log n)$ time per decrease-key operation, and $O(1)$ time for each insert or meld. These bounds match those recently obtained for a more complicated version of pairing heaps, the multipass pairing heap}. These bounds also match the known lower bounds for self-adjusting heaps, except for the decrease-key bound, which is within a factor of $\log\log\log n$ of the lower bound. The main novelty in our analysis is to partition heap items into groups and to analyze each group separately. Our analysis extends to give the same bounds for lazy pairing heaps, a multitree version of pairing heaps.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Splay trees are almost dynamically optimal

Sleator and Tarjan [JACM, 1985] conjectured that splay trees are dynamically optimal -- that on every access sequence, they perform within a constant factor of the optimal offline dynamic binary search tree. Despite four decades of work, no $o(\log n)$ competitive ratio was known. We prove that splay trees are $O(\log\log n \cdot \log^2\log\log n)=\tilde{O}(\log\log n)$-competitive.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2025

Universal Optimality of Dijkstra via Beyond-Worst-Case Heaps

In this paper we prove that Dijkstra's shortest-path algorithm, if implemented with a sufficiently efficient heap, is universally optimal in its running time, and with suitable small additions is also universally optimal in its number of comparisons. Universal optimality is a powerful beyond-worst-case performance guarantee for graph algorithms that informally states that a single algorithm on a problem involving graphs with arc and/or vertex weights performs as well as possible on every graph, assuming a worst-case choice of weights. We give the first application of this notion to any sequential algorithm. We design a new heap data structure with a working-set bound, which guarantees that the heap takes advantage of a certain kind of locality in the heap operations. Our heap has the optimal (amortized) bounds of Fibonacci heaps but also has the beyond-worst-case guarantee that the cost of deleting the minimum item is logarithmic in the number of items inserted after it but before it is deleted, instead of logarithmic in the size of the heap when the item is deleted. That is, deletion of recently inserted items is especially efficient. We prove that our working-set bound guarantees universal optimality for the problem of ordering vertices by their distance from the source vertex, which we call the distance order problem. Our result relies on the observation that the sequence of heap operations generated by any run of Dijkstra's algorithm on a fixed graph possesses enough locality that one can couple the number of comparisons performed by any heap with our working-set bound to the minimum number of comparisons required to solve the distance order problem on this graph for a worst-case choice of arc lengths.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2025

Faster All-Pairs Optimal Electric Car Routing

We present a randomized $\tilde{O}(n^{3.5})$-time algorithm for computing \emph{optimal energetic paths} for an electric car between all pairs of vertices in an $n$-vertex directed graph with positive and negative \emph{costs}. The optimal energetic paths are finite and well-defined even if the graph contains negative-cost cycles. This makes the problem much more challenging than standard shortest paths problems. More specifically, for every two vertices $s$ and~$t$ in the graph, the algorithm computes $α_B(s,t)$, the maximum amount of charge the car can reach~$t$ with, if it starts at~$s$ with full battery, i.e., with charge~$B$, where~$B$ is the capacity of the battery. In the presence of negative-cost cycles, optimal paths are not necessarily simple. For dense graphs, our new $\tilde{O}(n^{3.5})$ time algorithm improves on a previous $\tilde{O}(mn^{2})$-time algorithm of Dorfman et al. [ESA 2023] for the problem. The \emph{cost} of an arc is the amount of charge taken from the battery of the car when traversing the arc. The charge in the battery can never exceed the capacity~$B$ of the battery and can never be negative. An arc of negative cost may correspond, for example, to a downhill road segment, while an arc with a positive cost may correspond to an uphill segment. A negative-cost cycle, if one exists, can be used in certain cases to charge the battery to its capacity. This makes the problem more interesting and more challenging. Negative-cost cycles may arise when certain road segments have magnetic charging strips, or when the electric car has solar panels. Combined with a result of Dorfman et al. [SOSA 2024], this also provides a randomized $\tilde{O}(n^{3.5})$-time algorithm for computing \emph{minimum-cost paths} between all pairs of vertices in an $n$-vertex graph when the battery can be externally recharged, at varying costs, at intermediate vertices.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2025

Efficiency of Self-Adjusting Heaps

Since the invention of the pairing heap by Fredman, Sedgewick, Sleator, and Tarjan, it has been an open question whether this or any other simple "self-adjusting" heap supports decrease-key operations in $O(\log\log n)$ time, where $n$ is the number of heap items. Using powerful new techniques, we answer this question in the affirmative. We prove that both slim and smooth heaps, recently introduced self-adjusting heaps, support heap operations in the following amortized time bounds: $O(\log n)$ for delete-min and delete, $O(\log\log n)$ for decrease-key, and $O(1)$ for all other heap operations, including insert and meld, where $n$ is the number of heap items that are eventually deleted: Items inserted but never deleted do not count in the bounds. We also analyze the multipass pairing heap, a variant of pairing heaps. For this heap implementation, we obtain the same bounds except for decrease-key, for which our bound is $O(\log\log n \log\log\log n)$, where again items that are never deleted do not count in $n$. Our bounds significantly improve the best previously known bounds for all three data structures. For slim and smooth heaps our bounds are tight, since they match lower bounds of Iacono and Özkan.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2024

Zip-zip Trees: Making Zip Trees More Balanced, Biased, Compact, or Persistent

We define simple variants of zip trees, called zip-zip trees, which provide several advantages over zip trees, including overcoming a bias that favors smaller keys over larger ones. We analyze zip-zip trees theoretically and empirically, showing, e.g., that the expected depth of a node in an $n$-node zip-zip tree is at most $1.3863\log n-1+o(1)$, which matches the expected depth of treaps and binary search trees built by uniformly random insertions. Unlike these other data structures, however, zip-zip trees achieve their bounds using only $O(\log\log n)$ bits of metadata per node, w.h.p., as compared to the $Θ(\log n)$ bits per node required by treaps. In fact, we even describe a ``just-in-time'' zip-zip tree variant, which needs just an expected $O(1)$ number of bits of metadata per node. Moreover, we can define zip-zip trees to be strongly history independent, whereas treaps are generally only weakly history independent. We also introduce \emph{biased zip-zip trees}, which have an explicit bias based on key weights, so the expected depth of a key, $k$, with weight, $w_k$, is $O(\log (W/w_k))$, where $W$ is the weight of all keys in the weighted zip-zip tree. Finally, we show that one can easily make zip-zip trees partially persistent with only $O(n)$ space overhead w.h.p.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2024

Minimum-cost paths for electric cars

An electric car equipped with a battery of a finite capacity travels on a road network with an infrastructure of charging stations. Each charging station has a possibly different cost per unit of energy. Traversing a given road segment requires a specified amount of energy that may be positive, zero or negative. The car can only traverse a road segment if it has enough charge to do so (the charge cannot drop below zero), and it cannot charge its battery beyond its capacity. To travel from one point to another the car needs to choose a \emph{travel plan} consisting of a path in the network and a recharging schedule that specifies how much energy to charge at each charging station on the path, making sure of having enough energy to reach the next charging station or the destination. The cost of the plan is the total charging cost along the chosen path. We reduce the problem of computing plans between every two junctions of the network to two problems: Finding optimal energetic paths when no charging is allowed and finding standard shortest paths. When there are no negative cycles in the network, we obtain an $O(n^3)$-time algorithm for computing all-pairs travel plans, where~$n$ is the number of junctions in the network. We obtain slightly faster algorithms under some further assumptions. We also consider the case in which a bound is placed on the number of rechargings allowed.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2023

Optimal energetic paths for electric cars

A weighted directed graph $G=(V,A,c)$, where $A\subseteq V\times V$ and $c:A\to R$, describes a road network in which an electric car can roam. An arc $uv$ models a road segment connecting the two vertices $u$ and $v$. The cost $c(uv)$ of an arc $uv$ is the amount of energy the car needs to traverse the arc. This amount may be positive, zero or negative. To make the problem realistic, we assume there are no negative cycles. The car has a battery that can store up to $B$ units of energy. It can traverse an arc $uv\in A$ only if it is at $u$ and the charge $b$ in its battery satisfies $b\ge c(uv)$. If it traverses the arc, it reaches $v$ with a charge of $\min(b-c(uv),B)$. Arcs with positive costs deplete the battery, arcs with negative costs charge the battery, but not above its capacity of $B$. Given $s,t\in V$, can the car travel from $s$ to $t$, starting at $s$ with an initial charge $b$, where $0\le b\le B$? If so, what is the maximum charge with which the car can reach $t$? Equivalently, what is the smallest $δ_{B,b}(s,t)$ such that the car can reach $t$ with a charge of $b-δ_{B,b}(s,t)$, and which path should the car follow to achieve this? We refer to $δ_{B,b}(s,t)$ as the energetic cost of traveling from $s$ to $t$. We let $δ_{B,b}(s,t)=\infty$ if the car cannot travel from $s$ to $t$ starting with an initial charge of $b$. The problem of computing energetic costs is a strict generalization of the standard shortest paths problem. We show that the single-source minimum energetic paths problem can be solved using simple, but subtle, adaptations of the Bellman-Ford and Dijkstra algorithms. To make Dijkstra's algorithm work in the presence of negative arcs, but no negative cycles, we use a variant of the $A^*$ search heuristic. These results are explicit or implicit in some previous papers. We provide a simpler and unified description of these algorithms.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2023

Optimal resizable arrays

A \emph{resizable array} is an array that can \emph{grow} and \emph{shrink} by the addition or removal of items from its end, or both its ends, while still supporting constant-time \emph{access} to each item stored in the array given its \emph{index}. Since the size of an array, i.e., the number of items in it, varies over time, space-efficient maintenance of a resizable array requires dynamic memory management. A standard doubling technique allows the maintenance of an array of size~$N$ using only $O(N)$ space, with $O(1)$ amortized time, or even $O(1)$ worst-case time, per operation. Sitarski and Brodnik et al.\ describe much better solutions that maintain a resizable array of size~$N$ using only $N+O(\sqrt{N})$ space, still with $O(1)$ time per operation. Brodnik et al.\ give a simple proof that this is best possible. We distinguish between the space needed for \emph{storing} a resizable array, and accessing its items, and the \emph{temporary} space that may be needed while growing or shrinking the array. For every integer $r\ge 2$, we show that $N+O(N^{1/r})$ space is sufficient for storing and accessing an array of size~$N$, if $N+O(N^{1-1/r})$ space can be used briefly during grow and shrink operations. Accessing an item by index takes $O(1)$ worst-case time while grow and shrink operations take $O(r)$ amortized time. Using an exact analysis of a \emph{growth game}, we show that for any data structure from a wide class of data structures that uses only $N+O(N^{1/r})$ space to store the array, the amortized cost of grow is $Ω(r)$, even if only grow and access operations are allowed. The time for grow and shrink operations cannot be made worst-case, unless $r=2$.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2022

A Foundation for Proving Splay is Dynamically Optimal

Consider the task of performing a sequence of searches in a binary search tree. After each search, we allow an algorithm to arbitrarily restructure the tree. The cost of executing the task is the sum of the time spent searching and the time spent optimizing the searches with restructuring operations. Sleator and Tarjan introduced this notion in 1985, along with an algorithm and a conjecture. The algorithm, Splay, is an elegant procedure for performing adjustments that move searched items to the top of the tree. The conjecture, called dynamic optimality, is that the cost of splaying is always within a constant factor of the optimal algorithm for performing searches. We lay a foundation for proving the dynamic optimality conjecture. Central to our method is approximate monotonicity. Approximately monotone algorithms are those whose cost does not increase by more than a fixed multiple after removing searches from the sequence. As we shall see, Splay is dynamically optimal if and only if it is approximately monotone. This result extends to a weaker form of approximate monotonicity as well as insertion, deletion, and related algorithms. We prove that a lower bound on optimal execution cost is approximately monotone and outline how to adapt this proof from the lower bound to Splay, and how to overcome the remaining barriers to establishing dynamic optimality.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2022

Finding Strong Components Using Depth-First Search

We survey three algorithms that use depth-first search to find the strong components of a directed graph in linear time: (1) Tarjan's algorithm; (2) a cycle-finding algorithm; and (3) a bidirectional search algorithm.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2022

Zip Trees

We introduce the zip tree, a form of randomized binary search tree that integrates previous ideas into one practical, performant, and pleasant-to-implement package. A zip tree is a binary search tree in which each node has a numeric rank and the tree is (max)-heap-ordered with respect to ranks, with rank ties broken in favor of smaller keys. Zip trees are essentially treaps (Seidel and Aragon 1996), except that ranks are drawn from a geometric distribution instead of a uniform distribution, and we allow rank ties. These changes enable us to use fewer random bits per node. We perform insertions and deletions by unmerging and merging paths ("unzipping" and "zipping") rather than by doing rotations, which avoids some pointer changes and improves efficiency. The methods of zipping and unzipping take inspiration from previous top-down approaches to insertion and deletion (Stephenson 1980; Martínez and Roura 1998; Sprugnoli 1980). From a theoretical standpoint, this work provides two main results. First, zip trees require only $O(\log \log n)$ bits (with high probability) to represent the largest rank in an $n$-node binary search tree; previous data structures require $O(\log n)$ bits for the largest rank. Second, zip trees are naturally isomorphic to skip lists (Pugh 1990), and simplify the mapping of (Dean and Jones 2007) between skip lists and binary search trees.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2021

A Tight Analysis of Slim Heaps and Smooth Heaps

The smooth heap and the closely related slim heap are recently invented self-adjusting implementations of the heap (priority queue) data structure. We analyze the efficiency of these data structures. We obtain the following amortized bounds on the time per operation: $O(1)$ for make-heap, insert, find-min, and meld; $O(\log\log n)$ for decrease-key; and $O(\log n)$ for delete-min and delete, where $n$ is the current number of items in the heap. These bounds are tight not only for smooth and slim heaps but for any heap implementation in Iacono and Özkan's pure heap model, intended to capture all possible "self-adjusting" heap implementations. Slim and smooth heaps are the first known data structures to match Iacono and Özkan's lower bounds and to satisfy the constraints of their model. Our analysis builds on Pettie's insights into the efficiency of pairing heaps, a classical self-adjusting heap implementation.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2021

Analysis of Smooth Heaps and Slim Heaps

The smooth heap is a recently introduced self-adjusting heap [Kozma, Saranurak, 2018] similar to the pairing heap [Fredman, Sedgewick, Sleator, Tarjan, 1986]. The smooth heap was obtained as a heap-counterpart of Greedy BST, a binary search tree updating strategy conjectured to be \emph{instance-optimal} [Lucas, 1988], [Munro, 2000]. Several adaptive properties of smooth heaps follow from this connection; moreover, the smooth heap itself has been conjectured to be instance-optimal within a certain class of heaps. Nevertheless, no general analysis of smooth heaps has existed until now, the only previous analysis showing that, when used in \emph{sorting mode} ($n$ insertions followed by $n$ delete-min operations), smooth heaps sort $n$ numbers in $O(n\lg n)$ time. In this paper we describe a simpler variant of the smooth heap we call the \emph{slim heap}. We give a new, self-contained analysis of smooth heaps and slim heaps in unrestricted operation, obtaining amortized bounds that match the best bounds known for self-adjusting heaps. Previous experimental work has found the pairing heap to dominate other data structures in this class in various settings. Our tests show that smooth heaps and slim heaps are competitive with pairing heaps, outperforming them in some cases, while being comparably easy to implement.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2021

Connected Components on a PRAM in Log Diameter Time

We present an $O(\log d + \log\log_{m/n} n)$-time randomized PRAM algorithm for computing the connected components of an $n$-vertex, $m$-edge undirected graph with maximum component diameter $d$. The algorithm runs on an ARBITRARY CRCW (concurrent-read, concurrent-write with arbitrary write resolution) PRAM using $O(m)$ processors. The time bound holds with good probability. Our algorithm is based on the breakthrough results of Andoni et al. [FOCS'18] and Behnezhad et al. [FOCS'19]. Their algorithms run on the more powerful MPC model and rely on sorting and computing prefix sums in $O(1)$ time, tasks that take $Ω(\log n / \log\log n)$ time on a CRCW PRAM with $\text{poly}(n)$ processors. Our simpler algorithm uses limited-collision hashing and does not sort or do prefix sums. It matches the time and space bounds of the algorithm of Behnezhad et al., who improved the time bound of Andoni et al. It is widely believed that the larger private memory per processor and unbounded local computation of the MPC model admit algorithms faster than that on a PRAM. Our result suggests that such additional power might not be necessary, at least for fundamental graph problems like connected components and spanning forest.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2020

Simple Concurrent Labeling Algorithms for Connected Components

We study a class of simple algorithms for concurrently computing the connected components of an $n$-vertex, $m$-edge graph. Our algorithms are easy to implement in either the COMBINING CRCW PRAM or the MPC computing model. For two related algorithms in this class, we obtain $Θ(\lg n)$ step and $Θ(m \lg n)$ work bounds. For two others, we obtain $O(\lg^2 n)$ step and $O(m \lg^2 n)$ work bounds, which are tight for one of them. All our algorithms are simpler than related algorithms in the literature. We also point out some gaps and errors in the analysis of previous algorithms. Our results show that even a basic problem like connected components still has secrets to reveal.

cs.DS↗