arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 31 May 2017

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 31 May 2017"

Barnard Rudolph Davidson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Succinct Partial Sums an Fenwick Trees Philip Bille, Aners Roy Christiansen, Nicola Prezza, an Freerik Rye Skjoljensen arxiv: v1 [cs.ds] 31 May 2017 Technical University of Denmark, DTU Compute, Kgs. Lyngy, Denmark Astract. We consier the well-stuie partial sums prolem in succint space where one is to maintain an array of n k-it integers suject to upates such that partial sums queries can e efficiently answere. We present two succint versions of the Fenwick Tree which is known for its simplicity an practicality. Our results hol in the encoing moel where one is allowe to reuse the space from the input ata. Our main result is the first that only requires nk + o(n) its of space while still supporting sum/upate in O(log n) / O( log n) time where 2 log O(1) n. The secon result shows how optimal time for sum/upate can e achieve while only slightly increasing the space usage to nk + o(nk) its. Beyon Fenwick Trees, the results are primarily ase on it-packing an sampling making them very practical an they also allow for simple optimal parallelization. Keywors: Partial sums, Fenwick tree, succinct, parallel 1 Introuction Let A e an array of k-its integers, with A = n. The partial sums prolem is to uil a ata structure maintaining A uner the following operations. sum(i): return the value i t=1 A[t]. search(j): return the smallest i such that sum(i) j. upate(i, ): set A[i] A[i] +, for some such that 0 A[i] + < 2 k. access(i): return A[i]. Note that access(i) can implemente as sum(i) sum(i 1) an we therefore often o not mention it explicitly. The partial sums prolem is one the most well-stuie ata structure prolems [1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9]. In this paper, we consier solutions to the partial sums prolem that are succinct, that is, we are intereste in ata structures that use space close to the information-theoretic lower oun of nk its. We istinguish etween encoing ata structures an inexing ata structures. Inexing ata structures are require to store the input array A veratim along with aitional information to support the queries, whereas encoing ata structures have to support operations without consulting the input array.

2 In the inexing moel Raman et al. [8] gave a ata structure that supports sum, upate, an search in O(log n/ log log n) time while using nk+o(nk) its of space. This was improve an generalize y Hon et al. [6]. Both of these papers have the constrain log O(1) n. The aove time complexity is nearly optimal y a lower oun of Patrascu an Demaine [7] who showe that sum, search, an upate operations takes Θ(log w/δ n) time per operation, where w log n is the wor size an δ is the numer of its neee to represent. In particular, whenever = log O(1) n this oun matches the O(log n/ log log n) oun of Raman et al. [8]. Fenwick [2] presente a simple, elegant, an very practical encoing ata structure. The iea is to replace entries in the input array A with partial sums that cover A in an implicit complete inary tree structure. The operations are then implemente y accessing at most log n entries in the array. The Fenwick tree uses nk + n log n its an supports all operations in O(log n) time. In this paper we show two succinct -ary versions of the Fenwick tree. In the first version we reuce the size of the Fenwick tree while improving the sum an upate time. In the secon version we otain optimal times for sum an upate without using more space than the previous est succinct solutions [6, 8]. All results in this paper are in the RAM moel. Our results We show two encoing ata structures that gives the following results. Theorem 1. We can replace A with a succinct Fenwick tree of nk + o(n) its supporting sum, upate, an search queries in O(log n), O( log n), an O(log n) time, respectively, for any 2 log O(1) n. Theorem 2. We can replace A with a succinct Fenwick tree of nk + o(nk) its supporting sum an upate queries in optimal O(log w/δ n) time an search queries in O(log n) time. 2 Data structure For simplicity, assume that n is a power of 2. The Fenwick tree is an implicit ata structure replacing a wor-array A[1,..., n] as follows: Definition 1. Fenwick tree of A [2]. If n = 1, then leave A unchange. Otherwise, ivie A in consecutive non-overlapping locks of two elements each an replace the secon element A[2i] of each lock with A[2i 1] + A[2i], for i = 1,..., n/2. Then, recurse on the su-array A[2, 4,..., 2i,..., n]. To answer sum(i), the iea is to write i in inary as i = 2 j1 + 2 j j k for some j 1 > j 2 > > j k. Then there are k log n entries in the Fenwick tree, that can e easily compute from i, whose values ae together yiel sum(i). In Section 2.1 we escrie in etail how to perform such accesses. As per the aove efinition, the Fenwick tree is an array of n inices. If represente compactly, this array can e store in nk+n log n its. In this section we present a generalization of Fenwick trees taking only succinct space.

3 2.1 Layere -ary structure We first oserve that it is easy to generalize Fenwick trees to e -ary, for 2: we ivie A in locks of integers each, replace the first 1 elements in each lock with their partial sum, an fill the remaining n/ entries of A y recursing on the array A of size n/ that stores the sums of each lock. This generalization gives an array of n inices supporting sum, upate, an search queries on the original array in O(log n), O( log n), an O(log n) time, respectively. We now show how to reuce the space of this array. Let l = log n. We represent our -ary Fenwick tree T (A) using l + 1 arrays (layers) T 1 l+1 (A),..., T (A). For simplicity, we assume that n = e for some e 0 (the general case is then straightforwar to erive). To improve reaaility, we efine our layere structure for the special case = 2, an then sketch how to exten it to the general case 2. Our layere structure is efine as follows. If n = 1, then T2 1 (A) = A. Otherwise: T l+1 2 (A)[i] = A[(i 1) 2 + 1], for all i = 1,..., n/2. Note that T l+1 2 (A) contains n/2 elements. Divie A in locks of 2 elements each, an uil an array A [j] containing the n/2 sums of each lock, i.e. A [j] = A[(j 1) 2 + 1] + A[(j 1) 2 + 2], for j = 1,..., n/2. Then, the next layers are recursively efine as T l 2(A) T l 2(A ),..., T 1 2 (A) T 1 2 (A ). For general 2, T l+1 (A) is an array of n( 1) elements that stores the 1 partial sums of each lock of consecutive elements in A, while A is an array of size n/ containing the complete sums of each lock. In Figure 1 we report an example of our layere structure with = 3. It follows that elements of T i (A), for i > 1, take at most k + (l i + 2) log its each. Note that arrays T 1 l+1 (A),..., T (A) can easily e packe contiguously in a wor array while preserving constant-time access to each of them. This saves us O(l) wors that woul otherwise e neee to store pointers to the arrays. Let S (n, k) e the space (in its) taken y our layere structure. This function satisfies the recurrence S (1, k) = k S (n, k) = n( 1) (k + log ) + S (n/, k + log ) Which unfols to S (n, k) = log n+1 n( 1) i=1 (k + i log ). Using the ientities i i=1 1/i = 1/( 1) an i=1 i/i = /( 1) 2, one can easily erive that S (n, k) nk + 2n log. We now show how to otain the time ouns state in Theorem 1. In the next section, we reuce the space of the structure without affecting query times. Answering sum Let the notation (x 1 x 2... x t ), with 0 x i < for i = 1,..., t, represent the numer t i=1 t i x i in ase. sum(i) queries on our structure are a generalization (in ase ) of sum(i) queries on stanar Fenwick trees.

4 Consier the ase- representation x 1 x 2... x l+1 of i, i.e. i = (x 1 x 2... x l+1 ) (note that we have at most l + 1 igits since we enumerate inexes starting from 1). Consier now all the positions 1 i 1 < i 2 < < i t l+1 such that x j 0, for j = i 1,..., i t. The iea is that each of these positions j = i 1,..., i t can e use to compute an offset o j in T j (A). Then, sum(i) = j=i 1,...,i t T j (A)[o j]. The offset o j relative to the j-th most significant (nonzero) igit of i is efine as follows. If j = 1, then o j = x 1. Otherwise, o j = ( 1) (x 1... x j 1 ) + x j. Note that we scale y a factor of 1 (an not ) as the first term in this formula as each level T j (A) stores only 1 out of partial sums (the remaining sums are passe to level j 1). Note moreover that each o j can e easily compute in constant time an inepenently from the other offsets with the ai of moular arithmetic. It follows that sum queries are answere in O(log n) time. See Figure 1 for a concrete example of sum. Answering upate The iea for performing upate(i, ) is analogous to that of sum(i). We access all levels that contain a partial sum covering position i an upate at most 1 sums per level. Using the same notation as aove, for each j = i 1,..., i t such that x j 0, we upate T j (A)[o j + l] T j (A)[o j + l] + for l = 0,..., x j 1. This proceure takes O( log n) time. Answering search To answer search(j) we start from T 1 (A) an simply perform a top-own traversal of the implicit B-tree of egree efine y the layere structure. At each level, we perform O(log ) steps of inary search to fin the new offset in the next level. There are log n levels, so search takes overall O(log n) time Fig. 1. Example of our layere structure with n = 27 an = 3. Horizontal re lines show the portion of A covere y each element in T j 3 (A), for j = 1,..., log n + 1. To access the i-th partial sum, we procee as follows. Let, for example, i = 19 = (0201) 3. The only nonzero igits in i are the 2-n an 4-th most significant. This gives us o 2 = 2 (0) = 2 an o 4 = 2 (020) = 13. Then, sum(19) = T3 2 (A)[2] + T3 4 (A)[13] = = 92.

5 2.2 Sampling Let 0 < n e a sample rate, where for simplicity we assume that ivies n. Given our input array A, we erive an array A of n/ elements containing the sums of groups of ajacent elements in A, i.e. A [i] = j=1 A[(i 1) + j], i = 1,...,. We then compact A y removing A[j ] for j = 1,..., n/, an y packing the remaining integers in at most nk(1 1/) its. We uil our layere -ary Fenwick tree T (A ) over A. It is clear that queries on A can e solve with a query on T (A ) followe y at most accesses on (the compacte) A. The space of the resulting ata structure is nk(1 1/) + S (n/, k + log ) nk + n log 2n log + its. In orer to retain the same query times of our asic layere structure, we choose = (1/ɛ) log n for any ) constant ɛ > 0 an otain a space occupancy of nk + ɛ + its. For log O(1) n, this ( n log log n log n 2n log log n space is nk+o(n) its. Note that as oppose to existing succinct solutions the low-orer term oes not epen on k. 3 Optimal-time sum an upate In this section we show how to otain optimal running times for sum an upate queries in the RAM moel. We can irectly apply the wor-packing techniques escrie in [7] to spee-up queries; here we only sketch this strategy, see [7] for full etails. Let us escrie the iea on the structure of Section 2.1, an then plug in sampling to reuce space usage. We ivie arrays T j (A) in locks of 1 entries, an store one wor (w its) for each such lock. We can pack 1 integers of at most w/( 1) its each (for an opportune, rea elow) in the wor associate with each lock. Since locks of 1 integers fit in a single wor, we can easily answer sum an upate queries on them in constant time. sum queries on our overall structure can e answere as escrie in Section 2.1, except that now we also nee to access one of the packe integers at each level j to correct the value rea from T j (A). To answer upate queries, the iea is to perform upate operations on the packe locks of integers in constant time exploiting it-parallelism instea of upating at most 1 values of T j (A). At each upate operation, we transfer one of these integers on T j (A) (in a cyclic fashion) to avoi overflowing an to achieve worst-case performance. Note that each packe integer is increase y at most for at most 1 times efore eing transferre to T j (A), so we get the constraint ( 1) log(( 1) ) w. w We choose ( 1) = 2(log w+δ). Then, it is easy to show that the aove constraint is satisfie. The numer of levels ecomes log n = O(log w/δ n). Since we spen constant time per level, this is also the worst-case time neee to answer sum an upate queries on our structure. To analyze space usage we use the correcte formula S (1, k) = k S (n, k) = n( 1) (k + log ) + nw + S (n/, k + log )

6 yieling S (1, k) nk + 2n log + nw 1. Replacing 1 = w 2(log w+δ) we achieve nk + O(nδ + n log w) its of space. We now apply the sampling technique of Section 2.2 with a slight variation. In orer to get the claime space/time ouns, we nee to further apply it-parallelism techniques on the packe integers store in A: using techniques from [5], we can answer sum, search, an upate queries in O(1) time on locks w log n k log(w/δ) with- of w/k integers. It follows that we can now use sample rate = out affecting query times. After sampling A an uiling the Fenwick tree aove escrie over the sums of size- locks of A, the overall space is nk(1 1/) + S (n/, k + log ) = nk + n log + O( nδ + n log w w ). Note that 2 k log(w/δ) w2, so log O(log w) an space simplifies to nk + O( nδ + n log w ). The term nδ nδk log(w/δ) equals. Since δ w, then δ log(w/δ) w, an this term therefore simplifies to w log n nk log n n log w o(nk). Finally, the term equals nk (w log n)/(log w) 2 o(nk). The ouns of Theorem 2 follow. n log w k log(w/δ) w log n Parallelism Note that sum an upate queries on our succinct Fenwick trees can e naturally parallelize as all accesses/upates on the levels can e performe inepenently from each other. For sum, we nee O(log log n) further time to perform a parallel sum of the log n partial results. It is not har to show that on architectures with log n processors this reuces sum/upate times to O(log log n)/o() an O(log log w/δ n)/o(1) in Theorems 1 an 2, respectively. References 1. Dietz, P.F.: Optimal algorithms for list inexing an suset rank. In: Proc. 1st WADS. pp (1989) 2. Fenwick, P.M.: A new ata structure for cumulative frequency tales. Software: Practice an Experience 24(3), (1994) 3. Freman, M., Saks, M.: The cell proe complexity of ynamic ata structures. In: Proc. 21st STOC. pp (1989) 4. Freman, M.L.: The complexity of maintaining an array an computing its partial sums. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 29(1), (1982) 5. Hagerup, T.: Sorting an searching on the wor ram. In: STACS 98. pp Springer (1998) 6. Hon, W.K., Saakane, K., Sung, W.K.: Succinct ata structures for searchale partial sums with optimal worst-case performance. Theoretical Computer Science 412(39), (2011) 7. Patrascu, M., Demaine, E.D.: Logarithmic lower ouns in the cell-proe moel. SIAM Journal on Computing 35(4), (2006) 8. Raman, R., Raman, V., Rao, S.S.: Succinct ynamic ata structures. In: Workshop on Algorithms an Data Structures. pp Springer (2001) 9. Yao, A.C.: On the complexity of maintaining partial sums. SIAM Journal on Computing 14(2), (1985)

Computing the Longest Common Subsequence of Multiple RLE Strings

The 29th Workshop on Combinatorial Mathematics an Computation Theory Computing the Longest Common Subsequence of Multiple RLE Strings Ling-Chih Yao an Kuan-Yu Chen Grauate Institute of Networking an Multimeia