Source: J. Appl. Probab. Volume 42, Number 1
(2005), 235-246.
A linear list is a collection of items that can be accessed
sequentially. The cost of a request is the number of items that
need to be examined before the desired item is located, i.e. the
distance of the requested item from the beginning of the list. The
transposition rule is one of the algorithms designed to reduce the
search cost by organizing the list. In particular, upon a request
for a given item, the item is transposed with the preceding one.
We develop a new approach for analyzing the algorithm, based on a
coupling to a certain constrained asymmetric exclusion process.
This allows us to establish an asymptotic optimality of the rule
for two families of request distributions.
Full-text: Access denied (no subscription
detected)
We're sorry, but we are unable to provide
you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify
you as a subscriber.
If you have a personal subscription to
this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you
may need to update your profile to register your subscription.
Read more about accessing full-text
References
Anderson, E., Nash, P. and Weber, R. (1982). A counterexample to a conjecture in optimal list ordering. J. Appl. Prob. 19, 730--732.
Bachrach, R. and El-Yaniv, R. (1997). Online list accessing algorithms and their applications: Recent empirical evidence. In Proc. Eighth Annual Symp. Discrete Algorithms (New Orleans, LA), ACM, New York, pp. 53--62.
Barrera, J. and Paroissin, C. (2004). On the distribution of the search cost for the move-to-front rule with random weights. J. Appl. Prob. 41, 250--262.
Fill, J. (1996). An exact formula for the move-to-front rule for self-organizing lists. J. Theoret. Prob. 9, 113--159.
Fill, J. (1996). Limits and rates of convergence for the distribution of search cost under the move-to-front rule. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 164, 185--206.
Fill, J. and Holst, L. (1996). On the distribution of search cost for the move-to-front rule. Random Structures Algorithms 8, 179--186.
Flajolet, P., Gardy, D. and Thimonier, L. (1992). Birthday paradox, coupon collector, caching algorithms and self-organizing search. Discrete Appl. Math. 39, 207--229.
Hester, J. and Hirchberg, D. (1985). Self-organizing linear search. Comput. Surveys 17, 295--311.
Jelenković, P. (1999). Asymptotic approximation of the move-to-front search cost distribution and least-recently-used caching fault probabilities. Ann. Appl. Prob. 9, 430--464.
Kan, Y. and Ross, S. (1980). Optimal list order under partial memory constraints. J. Appl. Prob. 17, 1004--1015.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet):
MR587201
Knuth, D. (1998). The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 3, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet):
MR378456
Lam, K., Leung, M. Y. and Siu, M. K. (1984). Self-organizing files with dependent accesses. J. Appl. Prob. 21, 343--359.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet):
MR741136
Rivest, R. (1976). On self-organizing sequential search heuristics. Commun. ACM 19, 63--67.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet):
MR408303
Sleator, D. and Tarjan, R. (1985). Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Commun. ACM 28, 202--208.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet):
MR777385
Tenenbaum, A. and Nemes, R. (1982). Two spectra of self-organizing sequential search algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 11, 557--566.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet):
MR664723