REVIEW 1 cited by
Sorting with Predictions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
abstract
We explore the fundamental problem of sorting through the lens of learning-augmented algorithms, where algorithms can leverage possibly erroneous predictions to improve their efficiency. We consider two different settings: In the first setting, each item is provided a prediction of its position in the sorted list. In the second setting, we assume there is a "quick-and-dirty" way of comparing items, in addition to slow-and-exact comparisons. For both settings, we design new and simple algorithms using only $O(\sum_i \log \eta_i)$ exact comparisons, where $\eta_i$ is a suitably defined prediction error for the $i$th element. In particular, as the quality of predictions deteriorates, the number of comparisons degrades smoothly from $O(n)$ to $O(n\log n)$. We prove that the comparison complexity is theoretically optimal with respect to the examined error measures. An experimental evaluation against existing adaptive and non-adaptive sorting algorithms demonstrates the potential of applying learning-augmented algorithms in sorting tasks.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Are Optimal Algorithms Still Optimal? Rethinking Sorting in LLM-Based Pairwise Ranking with Batching and Caching
Under an LLM-inference cost model, Quicksort with batching uses roughly 44% fewer inference calls than Heapsort for pairwise document ranking, reversing the classical comparison-count ordering.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.