List Factoring and Relative Worst Order Analysis

Ehmsen, Martin R.; Kohrt, Jens S.; Larsen, Kim S.

doi:10.1007/s00453-012-9637-3

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As relative worst order analysis is getting more established as a method for analyzing online algorithms in general, it is getting increasingly important that the theoretical toolbox is extended to match the options available when carrying out competitive analysis. Recently, in [13], list factoring [1,4] was added as an analytical tool when using relative worst order analysis on list accessing problems [22,2], and here we demonstrate that access graphs can be included as another useful technique.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Access Graphs Results for LRU versus FIFO under Relative Worst Order Analysis

Boyar

Gupta

Larsen

2012

Algorithm Theory – SWAT 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Access graphs, which have been used previously in connection with competitive analysis to model locality of reference in paging, are considered in connection with relative worst order analysis. In this model, FWF is shown to be strictly worse than both LRU and FIFO on any access graph. LRU is shown to be strictly better than FIFO on paths and cycles, but they are incomparable on some families of graphs which grow with the length of the sequences.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Access Graphs Results for LRU versus FIFO under Relative Worst Order Analysis

Boyar

Gupta

Larsen

2012

Algorithm Theory – SWAT 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results on MOVE-TO-FRONT, FREQUENCY-COUNT, and TRANSPOSE, reported on above, as well as results on TIMESTAMP [Albers 1998], were obtained [Ehmsen et al 2013] using this tool.…”

Section: To Appear In Acm Computing Surveysmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Extensive experiments demonstrate that MTF and FC are approximately equally good, whereas TRANS is much worse [Bentley and McGeoch 1985;Bachrach and El-Yaniv 1997]. Using RWOA, MTF and FC are equally good, whereas both WR TRANS,MTF ∈ Ω(l) and WR TRANS,FC ∈ Ω(l), so TRANS is much worse [Ehmsen et al 2013].…”

Section: List Accessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Worst-order Analysis

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard measure for the quality of online algorithms is the competitive ratio. This measure is generally applicable, and for some problems it works well, but for others it fails to distinguish between algorithms that have very different performance. Thus, ever since its introduction, researchers have worked on improving the measure, defining variants, or defining measures based on other concepts to improve on the situation. Relative worst-order analysis (RWOA) is one of the most thoroughly tested such proposals. With RWOA, many separations of algorithms not obtainable with competitive analysis have been found. In RWOA, two algorithms are compared directly, rather than indirectly as is done in competitive analysis, where both algorithms are compared separately to an optimal offline algorithm. If, up to permutations of the request sequences, one algorithm is always at least as good and sometimes better than another, then the first algorithm is deemed the better algorithm by RWOA. We survey the most important results obtained with this technique and compare it with other quality measures. The survey includes a quite complete set of references.

show abstract

“…Extensive experiments demonstrate that MTF and FC are approximately equally good, whereas TRANS is much worse [10,8]. Using RWOA, MTF and FC are equally good, whereas both WR TRANS,MTF ∈ Ω(l) and WR TRANS,FC ∈ Ω(l), so TRANS is much worse [38].…”

Section: Other Online Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results on MOVE-TO-FRONT, FREQUENCY-COUNT, and TRANSPOSE, reported on in Section 3.2, as well as results on TIMESTAMP [1], were obtained [38] using this tool.…”

Section: List Factoring For Analyzing List Accessingmentioning

confidence: 99%