1990
DOI: 10.1007/bf00259471
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proving relative lower bounds for incremental algorithms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
1

Year Published

1993
1993
2007
2007

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
12
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Given two non-negative functions f (n) and g(n), f (n) is said to dominate g(n) if: [2] gives a general procedure for deriving the IRLB for a problem. We briefly describe this procedure here.…”
Section: Dominating Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Given two non-negative functions f (n) and g(n), f (n) is said to dominate g(n) if: [2] gives a general procedure for deriving the IRLB for a problem. We briefly describe this procedure here.…”
Section: Dominating Functionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We use the theory given in [2] to prove the IRLBs of the first three problems mentioned in the previous section.…”
Section: Relative Lower Roundsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This is necessary to obtaining a bounded algorithm for all dynamic graph problems we are aware of. The ideas of incremental complexity were developed over several previous works [Berman 1992;Ramalingam and Reps 1996;Ramalingam 1996] and there are many examples of its use (e.g., [Reps 1982;Alpern et al 1990;Reps et al 1986;Wirn 1993;Frigioni et al 1994;Yeh 1983;Ramalingam 1996]). …”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, for incremental algorithms, as pointed out in [1] and [15], such analysis is not as informative as using the size of the changes in the input and output. For example, for some problems no incremental algorithms exist that have asymptotically better worst-case runtime than performing the computation from scratch [2], [15].…”
Section: Measures Of Runtime Complexity In Incrementalmentioning
confidence: 99%