RECORD
Polynomial-time sortable stacks of burnt pancakes
Data Structures and Algorithms · Submitted 1 Oct 2010
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim In this work, we prove a new lower bound for sorting burnt pancakes, and show that an important class of permutations, known as "simple permutations", can be optimally sorted in polynomial time.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Pancake flipping, a famous open problem in computer science, can be formalised as the problem of sorting a permutation of positive integers using as few prefix reversals as possible. In that context, a prefix reversal of length k reverses the order of the first k elements of the permutation. The burnt variant of pancake flipping involves permutations of signed integers, and reversals in that case not only reverse the order of elements but also invert their signs. Although three decades have now passed since the first works on these problems, neither their computational complexity nor the maximal number of prefix reversals needed to sort a permutation is yet known. In this work, we prove a new lower bound for sorting burnt pancakes, and show that an important class of permutations, known as "simple permutations", can be optimally sorted in polynomial time.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Pancake flipping, a famous open problem in computer science, can be formalised as the problem of sorting a permutation of positive integers using as few prefix reversals as possible. | background 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.03 | asserted 0.94 |
| s1 | In that context, a prefix reversal of length k reverses the order of the first k elements of the permutation. | background 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s2 | The burnt variant of pancake flipping involves permutations of signed integers, and reversals in that case not only reverse the order of elements but also invert their signs. | background 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.02 | asserted 1.00 |
| s3 | Although three decades have now passed since the first works on these problems, neither their computational complexity nor the maximal number of prefix reversals needed to sort a permutation is yet known. | gap 0.99 | 0.04 | 0.03 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | In this work, we prove a new lower bound for sorting burnt pancakes, and show that an important class of permutations, known as "simple permutations", can be optimally sorted in polynomial time. | contribution 0.80 | 0.97 | 0.96 | asserted 1.00 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Pancake flipping, a famous open problem in computer science, can be formalised as the problem of sorting a permutation of positive integers using as few prefix reversals as possible. In that context, a prefix reversal of length k reverses the order of the first k elements of the permutation. The burnt variant of pancake flipping involves permutations of signed integers, and reversals in that case not only reverse the order of elements but also invert their signs. Although three decades have now passed since the first works on these problems, neither their computational complexity nor the maximal number of prefix reversals needed to sort a permutation is yet known. In this work, we prove a new lower bound for sorting burnt pancakes, and show that an important class of permutations, known as "simple permutations", can be optimally sorted in polynomial time.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.