does every algorithm have Big Omega?
Is it possible for algorithms to have both Big O and Big Omega (but not equal to each other- not Big Theta) ?
For instance Quicksort's Big O - O(n log n) But does it have Big Omega? If it does, how do i calculate it?
First, it is of paramount importance that one not confuse the bound with the case. A bound - like Big-Oh, Big-Omega, Big-Theta, etc. - says something about a rate of growth. A case says something about the kinds of input you're currently considering being processed by your algorithm.
Let's consider a very simple example to illustrate the distinction above. Consider the canonical "linear search" algorithm:
LinearSearch(list[1...n], target)
1. for i := 1 to n do
2. if list[i] = target then return i
3. return -1
There are three broad kinds of cases one might consider: best, worst, and average cases for inputs of size n. In the best case, what you're looking for is the first element in the list (really, within any fixed number of the start of the list). In such cases, it will take no more than some constant amount of time to find the element and return from the function. Therefore, the Big-Oh and Big-Omega happen to be the same for the best case: O(1) and Omega(1). When both O and Omega apply, we also say Theta, so this is Theta(1) as well.
In the worst case, the element is not in the list, and the algorithm must go through all n entries. Since f(n) = n happens to be a function that is bound from above and from below by the same class of functions (linear ones), this is Theta(n).
Average case analysis is usually a bit trickier. We need to define a probability space for viable inputs of length n. One might say that all valid inputs (where integers can be represented using 32 bits in unsigned mode, for instance) are equally probable. From that, one could work out the average performance of the algorithm as follows:
Find the probability that target is not represented in the list. Multiply by n.
Given that target is in the list at least once, find the probability that it appears at position k for each 1 <= k <= n. Multiply each P(k) by k.
Add up all of the above to get a function in terms of n.
Notice that in step 1 above, if the probability is non-zero, we will definitely get at least a linear function (exercise: we can never get more than a linear function). However, if the probability in step 1 is indeed zero, then the assignment of probabilities in step 2 makes all the difference in determining the complexity: you can have best-case behavior for some assignments, worst-case for others, and possibly end up with behavior that isn't the same as best (constant) or worst (linear).
Sometimes, we might speak loosely of a "general" or "universal" case, which considers all kinds of input (not just the best or the worst), but that doesn't give any particular weighting to inputs and doesn't take averages. In other words, you consider the performance of the algorithm in terms of an upper-bound on the worst-case, and a lower-bound on the best-case. This seems to be what you're doing.
Phew. Now, back to your question.
Are there functions which have different O and Omega bounds? Definitely. Consider the following function:
f(n) = 1 if n is odd, n if n is even.
The best case is "n is odd", in which case f is Theta(1); the worst case is "n is even", in which case f is Theta(n); and if we assume for the average case that we're talking about 32-bit unsigned integers, then f is Theta(n) in the average case, as well. However, if we talk about the "universal" case, then f is O(n) and Omega(1), and not Theta of anything. An algorithm whose runtime behaves according to f might be the following:
Strange(list[1...n], target)
1. if n is odd then return target
2. else return LinearSearch(list, target)
Now, a more interesting question might be whether there are algorithms for which some case (besides the "universal" case) cannot be assigned some valid Theta bound. This is interesting, but not overly so. The reason is that you, during your analysis, are allowed to choose the cases that constitutes best- and worst-case behavior. If your first choice for the case turns out not to have a Theta bound, you can simply exclude the inputs that are "abnormal" for your purposes. The case and the bound aren't completely independent, in that sense: you can often choose a case such that it has "good" bounds.
But can you always do it?
I don't know, but that's an interesting question.
Does every algorithm have a Big Omega?
Yes. Big Omega is a lower bound. Any algorithm can be said to take at least constant time, so any algorithm is Ω(1).
Does every algorithm have a Big O?
No. Big O is a upper bound. Algorithms that don't (reliably) terminate don't have a Big O.
An algorithm has an upper bound if we can say that, in the absolute worst case, the algorithm will not take longer than this. I'm pretty sure O(∞) is not valid notation.
When will the Big O and Big Omega of an algorithm be equal?
There is actually a special notation for when they can be equal: Big Theta (Θ).
They will be equal if the algorithm scales perfectly with the size of the input (meaning there aren't input sizes where the algorithm is suddenly a lot more efficient).
This is assuming we take Big O to be the smallest possible upper bound and Big Omega to be the largest possible lower bound. This is not actually required from the definition, but they're commonly informally treated as such. If you drop this assumption, you can find a Big O and Big Omega that aren't equal for any algorithm.
Brute force prime number checking (where we just loop through all smaller numbers and try to divide them into the target number) is perhaps a good example of when the smallest upper bound and largest lower bound are not equal.
Assume you have some number n. Let's also for the time being ignore the fact that bigger numbers take longer to divide (a similar argument holds when we take this into account, although the actual complexities would be different). And I'm also calculating the complexity based on the number itself instead of the size of the number (which can be the number of bits, and could change the analysis here quite a bit).
If n is divisible by 2 (or some other small prime), we can very quickly check whether it's prime with 1 division (or a constant number of divisions). So the largest lower bound would be Ω(1).
Now if n is prime, we'll need to try to divide n by each of the numbers up to sqrt(n) (I'll leave the reason we don't need to go higher than this as an exercise). This would take O(sqrt(n)), which would also then be our smallest upper bound.
So the algorithm would be Ω(1) and O(sqrt(n)).
Exact complexity also may be hard to calculate for some particularly complex algorithms. In such cases it may be much easier and acceptable to simply calculate some reasonably close lower and upper bounds and leave it at that. I don't however have an example on hand for this.
How does this relate to best case and worst case?
Do not confuse upper and lower bounds for best and worst case. This is a common mistake, and a bit confusing, but they're not the same. This is a whole other topic, but as a brief explanation:
The best and worst (and average) cases can be calculated for every single input size. The upper and lower bounds can then be used for each of those 3 cases (separately). You can think of each of those cases as a line on a graph with input size on the x-axis and time on the y-axis and then, for each of those lines, the upper and lower bounds are lines which need to be strictly above or below that line as the input size tends to infinity (this isn't 100% accurate, but it's a good basic idea).
Quick-sort has a worst-case of Θ(n2) (when we pick the worst possible pivot at every step) and a best-case of Θ(n log n) (when we pick good pivots). Note the use of Big Theta, meaning each of those are both lower and upper bounds.
Let's compare quick-sort with the above prime checking algorithm:
Say you have a given number n, and n is 53. Since it's prime, it will (always) take around sqrt(53) steps to determine whether it's prime. So the best and worst cases are all the same.
Say you want to sort some array of size n, and n is 53. Now those 53 elements can be arranged such that quick-sort ends up picking really bad pivots and run in around 532 steps (the worst case) or really good pivots and run in around 53 log 53 steps (the best case). So the best and worst cases are different.
Now take n as 54 for each of the above:
For prime checking, it will only take around 1 step to determine that 54 is prime. The best and worst cases are the same again, but they're different from what they were for 53.
For quick-sort, you'll again have a worst case of around 542 steps and a best case of around 54 log 54 steps.
So for quick-sort the worst case always takes around n2 steps and the best case always takes around n log n steps. So the lower and upper (or "tight") bound of the worst case is Θ(n2) and the tight bound of the best case is Θ(n log n).
For our prime checking, sometimes the worst case takes around sqrt(n) steps and sometimes it takes around 1 step. So the lower bound for the worse case would be Ω(1) and upper bound would be O(sqrt(n)). It would be the same for the best case.
Note that above I simply said "the algorithm would be Ω(1) and O(sqrt(n))". This is slightly ambiguous, as it's not clear whether the algorithm always takes the same amount of time for some input size, or the statement is referring to one of the best, average or worst case.
How do I calculate this?
It's hard to give general advice for this since proofs of bounds are greatly dependent on the algorithm. You'd need to analyse the algorithm similar to what I did above to figure out the worst and best cases.
Big O and Big Omega it can be calculated for every algorithm as you can see in Big-oh vs big-theta
Related
Let's say I have to iterate over every character in an array of strings, in which every string has a different length, so arr[0].length != arr[1].length and so on, as this for example:
#prints every char in all the array
for str in arr:
for c in str:
print(c)
How should the time complexity of an algorithm of this nature be represented? A summation of every length of the element in the array? or just like O(N*M), taking N as number of elements and M as max length of array, which it overbounds accordingly?
There is a precise mathematical theory called complexity theory which answers your question and many more. In complexity theory, we have what is called a Turing machine which is a type of computer. The time complexity of a Turing machine doing a computation is then defined as the function f defined on natural numbers such that f(n) is the worst case running time of the machine on inputs of length n. In your case it just needs to copy its input into somewhere else, which is clearly has O(n) time complexity (n here is the combined length of your array). Since NM is greater than n, it means that your Turing machine doing the algorithm you described will not run longer than some constant times NM but it may halt sooner due to irregularities of the lengths of elements of the array.
If you are interested in learning about complexity theory, I recommend the book Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Michael Sipser, which explains these concepts from scratch.
There are many ways you could do this. Your bound of O(NM) is a conservative upper bound. You could also define a parameter L indicating the total length of all the strings and say that the runtime is Θ(N + L), which is essentially your sum idea made a bit cleaner by assigning a name to the summation. That’s a more precise bound that more clearly indicates where the work is being done.
This is a constant doubt I'm having. For example, I have a 2-d array of size n^2 (n being the number of rows and columns). Suppose I want to print all the elements of the 2-d array. When I calculate the time complexity of the algorithm with respect to n it's O(n^2 ). But if I calculated the time with respect to the input size (n^2 ) it's linear. Are both these calculations correct? If so, why do people only use O(n^2 ) everywhere regarding 2-d arrays?
That is not how time complexity works. You cannot do "simple math" like that.
A two-dimensional square array of extent x has n = x*x elements. Printing these n elements takes n operations (or n/m if you print m items at a time), which is O(N). The necessary work increases linearly with the number of elements (which is, incidentially, quadratic in respect of the array extent -- but if you arranged the same number of items in a 4-dimensional array, would it be any different? Obviously, no. That doesn't magically make it O(N^4)).
What you use time complexity for is not stuff like that anyway. What you want time complexity to tell you is an approximate idea of how some particular algorithm may change its behavior if you grow the number of inputs beyond some limit.
So, what you want to know is, if you do XYZ on one million items or on two million items, will it take approximately twice as long, or will it take approximately sixteen times as long, for example.
Time complexity analysis is irrespective of "small details" such as how much time an actual operations takes. Which tends to make the whole thing more and more academic and practically useless in modern architectures because constant factors (such as memory latency or bus latency, cache misses, faults, access times, etc.) play an ever-increasing role as they stay mostly the same over decades while the actual cost-per-step (instruction throughput, ALU power, whatever) goes down steadily with every new computer generation.
In practice, it happens quite often that the dumb, linear, brute force approach is faster than a "better" approach with better time complexity simply because the constant factor dominates everything.
In the native binary search, we choose 1/2 as the midpoint to cut off half of the "workload" in linear search and the possible answers. However, if the time complexity of the check_mid(mid) function is not fixed, will 1/2 still be a fair point for the search?
For example, In the problem of finding the first bad version. let's say the time complexity of the check_mid(mid) is O(mid), the length of the array is N. When we set the midpoint at 1/2, the time complexity of linear searching the left part would be 1/8 * N^2, and the right part would be 3/8 * N^2. So, in the aspect of "workload", the division is not fair, will a factor which bigger than 1/2 be a better midpoint in this situation(1/sqrt(2) or 2/3)?
In short, my confusion is that we get rid of half of the possible cases or the cases hold half of the "workload"? Let's say the "workload"-T means linearly checking all the possible cases. If we cut off half of T in each recursion, the worst time complexity would be log2(T). But if we cut off half of the possible cases, the worst time complexity would not be log2(T) when the check_mid(mid) function is not fixed.
Is there a more efficient search factor than midpoint for binary search?
this question is similar but its answer didn't take the time complexity of check_mid(mid) into consideration.
If you know ahead something about distribution, maybe you could find a better pivot, otherwise 1/2 think is the best for something randomly [1,3,8,11,23..].Never know in which half will be and maybe in particular cases other pivot will be faster but overall the time is not the best.[for all searches].In most of the cases binary-search is applied on unknown sequence. For a known distribution:exponential-grow [1 3 9 27 81 ...] it's obvious that very-very lower values will be near the start(or in 1/3) so 1/3 could be fine for lower values and 2/3 for higher values. But even here, after a few iterations is hardly to made any assumption in which half it's "probably" to be (so maybe changing again the pivot to 1/2 will give a better time). The solution here is based on "good chance to guess the right half [the one with less items]" for a few iterations based on known distribution.
Thanks for your willingness to help.
Straight to the point, I'm confused with the use of Big O notation when analyzing the worst case time complexity of search algorithms.
For example, the worst case time complexity of Alpha-Beta Pruning is O(b^d) where ^ means ~ to the power of ~, b representing the average branching factor and d representing the depth of the search tree.
I do get that the worst case time complexity would be less or equal to a positive constant multiplied by b^d, but why is the use of big O notation permitted here? Where did the variable n, the input size, go? I do know that the input of same size might cause significant difference in time complexity of an algorithm.
All of the research I've done only explains "the use of big o notation in the analysis of worst case time complexity" in terms of the growth function, a function that has variable y as time complexity and variable x as input size. There are also formal definitions of big o notation, which make me even more confused with the question above. definition 1definition 2
Any attempts to answer my question would be greatly appreciated.
The input size you refer here to n is in this case d. If n is the amount of entries in your tree, d can be calculated by ln_2(n), assuming your tree is a balanced binary tree.
Big O notation implies that you are discussing what the runtime would be for a very large n. In the case you noted, O(b^d), the n is the variable that changes with input size. In this case, d would be your n. As you've found, some notations make use of many variables.
n is just a general term for the number of elements, but runtime could vary on many factors- depth of a tree, or a different list entirely. For example, to traverse lists like this:
for n in firstList:
for k in secondList:
do stuff
the cost would be O(n*k).
Greetings. I'm trying to approximate the function
Log10[x^k0 + k1], where .21 < k0 < 21, 0 < k1 < ~2000, and x is integer < 2^14.
k0 & k1 are constant. For practical purposes, you can assume k0 = 2.12, k1 = 2660. The desired accuracy is 5*10^-4 relative error.
This function is virtually identical to Log[x], except near 0, where it differs a lot.
I already have came up with a SIMD implementation that is ~1.15x faster than a simple lookup table, but would like to improve it if possible, which I think is very hard due to lack of efficient instructions.
My SIMD implementation uses 16bit fixed point arithmetic to evaluate a 3rd degree polynomial (I use least squares fit). The polynomial uses different coefficients for different input ranges. There are 8 ranges, and range i spans (64)2^i to (64)2^(i + 1).
The rational behind this is the derivatives of Log[x] drop rapidly with x, meaning a polynomial will fit it more accurately since polynomials are an exact fit for functions that have a derivative of 0 beyond a certain order.
SIMD table lookups are done very efficiently with a single _mm_shuffle_epi8(). I use SSE's float to int conversion to get the exponent and significand used for the fixed point approximation. I also software pipelined the loop to get ~1.25x speedup, so further code optimizations are probably unlikely.
What I'm asking is if there's a more efficient approximation at a higher level?
For example:
Can this function be decomposed into functions with a limited domain like
log2((2^x) * significand) = x + log2(significand)
hence eliminating the need to deal with different ranges (table lookups). The main problem I think is adding the k1 term kills all those nice log properties that we know and love, making it not possible. Or is it?
Iterative method? don't think so because the Newton method for log[x] is already a complicated expression
Exploiting locality of neighboring pixels? - if the range of the 8 inputs fall in the same approximation range, then I can look up a single coefficient, instead of looking up separate coefficients for each element. Thus, I can use this as a fast common case, and use a slower, general code path when it isn't. But for my data, the range needs to be ~2000 before this property hold 70% of the time, which doesn't seem to make this method competitive.
Please, give me some opinion, especially if you're an applied mathematician, even if you say it can't be done. Thanks.
You should be able to improve on least-squares fitting by using Chebyshev approximation. (The idea is, you're looking for the approximation whose worst-case deviation in a range is least; least-squares instead looks for the one whose summed squared difference is least.) I would guess this doesn't make a huge difference for your problem, but I'm not sure -- hopefully it could reduce the number of ranges you need to split into, somewhat.
If there's already a fast implementation of log(x), maybe compute P(x) * log(x) where P(x) is a polynomial chosen by Chebyshev approximation. (Instead of trying to do the whole function as a polynomial approx -- to need less range-reduction.)
I'm an amateur here -- just dipping my toe in as there aren't a lot of answers already.
One observation:
You can find an expression for how large x needs to be as a function of k0 and k1, such that the term x^k0 dominates k1 enough for the approximation:
x^k0 +k1 ~= x^k0, allowing you to approximately evaluate the function as
k0*Log(x).
This would take care of all x's above some value.
I recently read how the sRGB model compresses physical tri stimulus values into stored RGB values.
It basically is very similar to the function I try to approximate, except that it's defined piece wise:
k0 x, x < 0.0031308
k1 x^0.417 - k2 otherwise
I was told the constant addition in Log[x^k0 + k1] was to make the beginning of the function more linear. But that can easily be achieved with a piece wise approximation. That would make the approximation a lot more "uniform" - with only 2 approximation ranges. This should be cheaper to compute due to no longer needing to compute an approximation range index (integer log) and doing SIMD coefficient lookup.
For now, I conclude this will be the best approach, even though it doesn't approximate the function precisely. The hard part will be proposing this change and convincing people to use it.