pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.04552 · v4 · submitted 2024-04-06 · 💻 cs.DS

Fast and Simple Sorting Using Partial Information

Bernhard Haeupler , Richard Hlad\'ik , John Iacono , Vaclav Rozhon , Robert Tarjan , Jakub T\v{e}tek This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 02:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DS
keywords sortingpartial orderscomparison algorithmstopological sortheapsortlinear extensionstop-k selection
0
0 comments X

The pith

A simple algorithm sorts n items with m known comparisons using O(m + log T) time and O(log T) comparisons, where T counts consistent total orders.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces a deterministic sorting method that incorporates m pre-existing comparison outcomes to finish the sort of n items. It achieves running time linear in m plus logarithmic in T and performs only a logarithmic number of new comparisons. This bound is information-theoretically optimal up to constant factors. The method works by maintaining the current set of possible next elements in the order and selecting the minimum via a heap while using search to limit extra comparisons. It also extends directly to the top-k version of the problem with the same optimality guarantees.

Core claim

There exists a simple deterministic algorithm that outputs the n items in sorted order by performing O(log T) comparisons and running in O(m + log T) time, where T is the number of total orders consistent with the given m comparisons; the same bounds hold for the top-k variant.

What carries the argument

Iterative selection of the next smallest item by maintaining a heap over the minimal elements of the remaining partial order, combined with binary search over a sorted list of candidates to decide the order with few comparisons.

If this is right

  • The algorithm is optimal up to constants in both time and comparisons for any partial order.
  • The top-k sorting problem can be solved in O(m + log T) time and O(log T) comparisons.
  • The approach improves on prior O(log T)-comparison methods whose time was O(n to a power greater than 2).
  • The problem posed by Fredman in 1976 is resolved with a simple combination of existing primitives.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same heap-plus-search structure could be adapted to maintain dynamic partial orders under insertions of new comparisons.
  • Applications such as database query optimization with existing constraints might benefit from the implicit handling of linear extensions.
  • The early-stopping modification suggests a general template for selection problems under partial information.

Load-bearing premise

The given comparisons must form a consistent partial order, and the algorithm must be able to maintain and search the set of possible next minimal elements without explicitly enumerating all linear extensions.

What would settle it

An input partial order on which the algorithm performs more than c log T comparisons for any fixed constant c would show the comparison bound does not hold.

read the original abstract

We consider the problem of sorting $n$ items, given the outcomes of $m$ pre-existing comparisons. We present a simple and natural deterministic algorithm that runs in $O(m + \log T)$ time and does $O(\log T)$ comparisons, where $T$ is the number of total orders consistent with the pre-existing comparisons. Our running time and comparison bounds are best possible up to constant factors, thus resolving a problem that has been studied intensely since 1976 (Fredman, Theoretical Computer Science). The best previous algorithm with a bound of $O(\log T)$ on the number of comparisons has a time bound of $O(n^{2.5})$ and is more complicated. Our algorithm combines three classic algorithms: topological sort, heapsort with the right kind of heap, and efficient search in a sorted list. It outputs the items in sorted order one by one. It can be modified to stop early, thereby solving the important and more general top-$k$ sorting problem: Given $k$ and the outcomes of some pre-existing comparisons, output the smallest $k$ items in sorted order. The modified algorithm solves the top-$k$ sorting problem in minimum time and comparisons, to within constant factors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a deterministic algorithm for sorting n items given m pre-existing comparisons. It runs in O(m + log T) time and performs O(log T) comparisons, where T denotes the number of linear extensions of the partial order induced by the comparisons. The algorithm is constructed by composing topological sort, a heapsort variant using an appropriate heap, and binary search over an implicit representation of the linear extensions; it outputs elements one by one and can be adapted to solve top-k sorting in the same asymptotic bounds. The bounds are claimed to be optimal up to constant factors, improving on the prior O(log T)-comparison algorithm whose time bound was O(n^{2.5}).

Significance. If the stated construction is correct, the result resolves an open question posed by Fredman in 1976 by simultaneously achieving the information-theoretic lower bound on comparisons and an essentially optimal time bound using only standard algorithmic primitives without ad-hoc parameters fitted to T. The simplicity of the combination and the natural extension to top-k sorting constitute clear strengths. The absence of free parameters or invented data structures further strengthens the contribution relative to earlier work.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract refers to 'heapsort with the right kind of heap' and 'efficient search in a sorted list'; the full manuscript should explicitly name the heap (e.g., Fibonacci or pairing heap) and the search primitive in the section describing the algorithm.
  2. When T = 1 the algorithm must still output a permutation, incurring Ω(n) work; the O(m + log T) bound is consistent but the manuscript should note this boundary case explicitly.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of the manuscript and their recommendation to accept.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs its algorithm explicitly from three standard primitives (topological sort, a suitable heap, and binary search over an implicit representation of linear extensions) whose costs are independent of the target T. The O(log T) comparison bound is the direct information-theoretic minimum required to distinguish among T possibilities and is not obtained by fitting or redefinition; the O(m + log T) time bound follows from composing these primitives without any parameter tuned to the output quantity. No self-citation is load-bearing, no ansatz is smuggled, and no step equates the claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The 1976 Fredman lower bound is an external reference.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the standard comparison model and the definition of T as the number of linear extensions of the partial order induced by the m comparisons. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Comparisons reveal the relative order of two distinct items and the input comparisons are consistent with at least one total order.
    Standard assumption in comparison-based sorting with partial information.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5768 in / 1212 out tokens · 18638 ms · 2026-05-24T02:27:55.925742+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Using TPA to count linear extensions

    arXiv: 1010.4981 [math.PR] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1010

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Two Simplified Algorithms for Maintaining Order in a List

    [Ben+02] Michael A. Bender, Richard Cole, Erik D. Demaine, M artin Farach-Colton, and Jack Zito. “Two Simplified Algorithms for Maintaining Order in a List”. In: Algorithms - ESA 2002, 10th Annual European Symposium, Rome, Italy, September 17-21, 2 002, Proceedings. Ed. by Rolf H. Möhring and Rajeev Raman. Vol

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Thegreatestcommondivisor:acasestudy for program extraction from classical proofs

    Lecture Notes in Comput er Science. Springer, 2002, pp. 152–164. doi: 10.1007/3- 540- 45749-6\_17 . url: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540- 45749-6%5C_17 . [Blu+73] Manuel Blum, Robert W. Floyd, Vaughan R. Pratt, Ron ald L. Rivest, and Robert Endre Tarjan. “Time Bounds for Selection”. In: J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 7.4 (1973), pp. 448–461. [BHM13] Prosenjit Bose, ...

    work page doi:10.1007/3- 2002

  4. [4]

    Balancing pairs and the cross product conjecture

    [BFT95] Graham R Brightwell, Stefan Felsner, and William T T rotter. “Balancing pairs and the cross product conjecture”. In: Order 12 (1995), pp. 327–349. [BT79] M. R. Brown and Robert E. Tarjan. “A Fast Merging Algor ithm”. In: J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 26 (1979), pp. 211–226. [BD99] Russ Bubley and Martin Dyer. “Faster random generati on of linear extensi...

    work page doi:10.1145/28395.28434 1995

  5. [5]

    A priority queue with the working-set property

    [Elm06] Amr Elmasry. “A priority queue with the working-set property”. In: International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 17.06 (2006), pp. 1455–1465. [EFI13] Amr Elmasry, Arash Farzan, and John Iacono. “On the h ierarchy of distribution-sensitive properties for data structures”. In: Acta informatica 50.4 (2013), pp. 289–295. [Flo64] Robert W Fl...

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    How good is the information theo ry bound in sorting?

    [Fre76] Michael L Fredman. “How good is the information theo ry bound in sorting?” In: Theoretical Computer Science 1.4 (1976), pp. 355–361. [Fre+86] Michael L Fredman, Robert Sedgewick, Daniel D Slea tor, and Robert E Tarjan. “The pairing heap: A new form of self-adjusting heap”. In: Algorithmica 1.1-4 (1986), pp. 111–129. [FT87] Michael L. Fredman and R...

    work page 1976

  7. [7]

    Fast and Simple Sorting Using Partial Information

    arXiv: 2404.04552 [cs.DS] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04552. [Hae+24b] Bernhard Haeupler, Richard Hladík, Václav Rozho ň, Robert Tarjan, and Jakub Tětek. Univer- sal Optimality of Dijkstra via Beyond-Worst-Case Heaps

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [8]

    [VR24] Ivor van der Hoog and Daniel Rutschmann

    arXiv: 2311.11793 [cs.DS] . [VR24] Ivor van der Hoog and Daniel Rutschmann. Tight Bounds for Sorting Under Partial Informa- tion

    work page arXiv

  9. [9]

    Fast perfect sampling from linear exte nsions

    arXiv: 2404.08468 [cs.DS] . [Hub06] Mark Huber. “Fast perfect sampling from linear exte nsions”. In: Discrete Mathematics 306.4 (2006), pp. 420–428. [HM82] Scott Huddleston and Kurt Mehlhorn. “A New Data Struc ture for Representing Sorted Lists”. In: Acta Informatica 17 (1982), pp. 157–184. doi: 10.1007/BF00288968 . url: https://doi. org/10.1007/BF0028896...

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00288968 2006

  10. [10]

    Smooth hea ps and a dual view of self-adjusting data structures

    [KS18] László Kozma and Thatchaphol Saranurak. “Smooth hea ps and a dual view of self-adjusting data structures”. In: Proceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theor y of Computing. 2018, pp. 801–814. [LP93] Christos Levcopoulos and Ola Petersson. “Adaptive h eapsort”. In: Journal of Algorithms 14.3 (1993), pp. 395–413. [Lin84] Nathan Linial....

    work page arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Sel f-adjusting binary search trees

    arXiv: 2307.02772 [cs.DS] . [ST85] Daniel Dominic Sleator and Robert Endre Tarjan. “Sel f-adjusting binary search trees”. In: Journal of the ACM (JACM) 32.3 (1985), pp. 652–686. [Tar85] Robert Endre Tarjan. “Amortized computational com plexity”. In: SIAM Journal on Algebraic Discrete Methods 6.2 (1985), pp. 306–318. [Tsa83] Athanasios K. Tsakalidis. “Main...

    work page arXiv 1985

  12. [12]

    Springer, 1983, pp

    Lectur e Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 1983, pp. 343–352. doi: 10 . 1007 / BFB0009658. url: https : //doi.org/10.1007/ BFb0009658. [vdHRR24] Ivor van der Hoog, Eva Rotenberg, and Daniel Rutsc hmann. Simpler Optimal Sorting from a Directed Acyclic Graph

    work page 1983

  13. [13]

    Heapsort

    arXiv: 2407.21591 [cs.DS] . url: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2407.21591. [Wil64] J Williams. “Heapsort”. In: Commun. ACM 7.6 (1964), pp. 347–348. [Wil+24] Virginia Vassilevska Williams, Yinzhan Xu, Zixua n Xu, and Renfei Zhou. “New bounds for matrix multiplication: from alpha to omega”. In: Proceedings of the 2024 Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorith...

    work page doi:10.1109/sfcs.1977.24 1964