Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.

Pascal Klaue

dblp:169/9686 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithms and data structures · 100%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 50% Memory systems · 50%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithms and data structures › sequence algorithms › sorting
comparison sorting
0.212016
How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort? · ACM Trans. Algorithms 2016
Algorithms and data structures › sequence algorithms › sorting
quicksort
0.212016
How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort? · ACM Trans. Algorithms 2016
Algorithms and data structures › sequence algorithms
sorting
0.212016
How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort? · ACM Trans. Algorithms 2016
Performance modeling and evaluation
benchmarking
0.112016
How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort? · ACM Trans. Algorithms 2016
Memory systems › cache
cache behavior
0.112016
How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort? · ACM Trans. Algorithms 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

experiments · 0.5average-case analysis · 0.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 How Good Is Multi-Pivot Quicksort?
abstract
Multi-Pivot Quicksort refers to variants of classical quicksort where in the partitioning step k pivots are used to split the input into k + 1 segments. For many years, multi-pivot quicksort was regarded as impractical, but in 2009 a two-pivot approach by Yaroslavskiy, Bentley, and Bloch was chosen as the standard sorting algorithm in Sun’s Java 7. In 2014 at ALENEX, Kushagra et al. introduced an even faster algorithm that uses three pivots. This article studies what possible advantages multi-pivot quicksort might offer in general. The contributions are as follows: Natural comparison-optimal algorithms for multi-pivot quicksort are devised and analyzed. The analysis shows that the benefits of using multiple pivots with respect to the average comparison count are marginal and these strategies are inferior to simpler strategies such as the well-known median-of- k approach. A substantial part of the partitioning cost is caused by rearranging elements. A rigorous analysis of an algorithm for rearranging elements in the partitioning step is carried out, observing mainly how often array cells are accessed during partitioning. The algorithm behaves best if three to five pivots are used. Experiments show that this translates into good cache behavior and is closest to predicting observed running times of multi-pivot quicksort algorithms. Finally, it is studied how choosing pivots from a sample affects sorting cost. The study is theoretical in the sense that although the findings motivate design recommendations for multipivot quicksort algorithms that lead to running-time improvements over known algorithms in an experimental setting, these improvements are small.
Martin Aumüller 0001, Martin Dietzfelbinger, Pascal Klaue
ACM Trans. Algorithms3