Amortized Rotation Cost in AVL Trees

June 11, 2015 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Information Processing Letters

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Mahdi Amani, Kevin A. Lai, Robert E. Tarjan arXiv ID 1506.03528 Category cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms Citations 9 Venue Information Processing Letters Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
An AVL tree is the original type of balanced binary search tree. An insertion in an $n$-node AVL tree takes at most two rotations, but a deletion in an $n$-node AVL tree can take $Θ(\log n)$. A natural question is whether deletions can take many rotations not only in the worst case but in the amortized case as well. A sequence of $n$ successive deletions in an $n$-node tree takes $O(n)$ rotations, but what happens when insertions are intermixed with deletions? Heaupler, Sen, and Tarjan conjectured that alternating insertions and deletions in an $n$-node AVL tree can cause each deletion to do $Ω(\log n)$ rotations, but they provided no construction to justify their claim. We provide such a construction: we show that, for infinitely many $n$, there is a set $E$ of {\it expensive} $n$-node AVL trees with the property that, given any tree in $E$, deleting a certain leaf and then reinserting it produces a tree in $E$, with the deletion having done $Θ(\log n)$ rotations. One can do an arbitrary number of such expensive deletion-insertion pairs. The difficulty in obtaining such a construction is that in general the tree produced by an expensive deletion-insertion pair is not the original tree. Indeed, if the trees in $E$ have even height $k$, $2^{k/2}$ deletion-insertion pairs are required to reproduce the original tree.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Data Structures & Algorithms

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted