Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules
Open accessAbstract
In this article we study the amortized efficiency of the “move-to-front” and similar rules for dynamically maintaining a linear list. Under the assumption that accessing the ith element from the front of the list takes θ(i) time, we show that move-to-front is within a constant factor of optimum among a wide class of list maintenance rules. Other natural heuristics, such as the transpose and frequency count rules, do not share this property. We generalize our results to show that move-to-front is within a constant factor of optimum as long as the access cost is a convex function. We also study paging, a setting in which the access cost is not convex. The paging rule corresponding to move-to-front is the “least recently used” (LRU) replacement rule. We analyze the amortized complexity of LRU, showing that its efficiency differs from that of the off-line paging rule (Belady's MIN algorithm) by a factor that depends on the size of fast memory. No on-line paging algorithm has better amortized performance.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Classical paging and Landlord-style file caching assume placement-independent object costs.
“Classical paging [20] and Landlord-style file caching [21] assume placement-independent object costs”
From PrefixPlace: Provable Prefix Key-Value Placement for Large Language Model Serving under Heterogeneous Compute and Transfer Costs (2026) · cites this paper as [20]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bentley, J.L., and McCeoch, C. Worst-case analysis of self-organizing seouential search heuristics. In Proceedings of 2Ofh Allerton Confcr- ence on Communication, Control, and Cornfifing, (Univ. Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Oct. 6-8,1962), 1983.45~461.
- Franaszek, P.A.. and Wagner, T.J. Some distribution-free aspects of paging performance. J. ACM 21, 1 (Jan. 1974), 31-39.
- Knuth. DE. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 3: Sorting and Searching Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973.
- Rivest. R. On self-organizing sequential search heuristics. Commun. ACM 19, 2 [Feb. 1976), 63-67.
- Spirn, J.R. Progam Behavior: Models and Measurements. Elsevier, New York. 1977. - CR Categories and Subject Descriptors: D.4.2 [Operating Systems]: Storage Management-swapping; E.l [Data]: Data Structures--lists; tables; F.2.2 [Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity]: Nonnu- merical Algorithms and Problems-sorting and searching General Terms: Algorithms, Theory Additional Key Words and Phrases: self-organizing, move-to-front, least recently used. paging.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Karlin, A. R., Manasse, M. S., Rudolph, L., & Sleator, D. D. (1988) · Algorithmica · doi:10.1007/bf01762111 · Cited by 631 · see citing works
Self-citationFiat, A., Karp, R. M., Luby, M., McGeoch, L. A., Sleator, D. D., & Young, N. E. (1991) · Journal of Algorithms · doi:10.1016/0196-6774(91)90041-v · Cited by 457 · see citing works
Self-citationCompetitive randomized algorithms for nonuniform problems
Karlin, A. R., Manasse, M. S., McGeoch, L. A., & Owicki, S. (1994) · Algorithmica · doi:10.1007/bf01189993 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
Outperforming LRU with an adaptive replacement cache algorithm
Megiddo, N., & Modha, D. S. (2004) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.2004.1297303 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
A strongly competitive randomized paging algorithm
McGeoch, L. A., & Sleator, D. D. (1991) · Algorithmica · doi:10.1007/bf01759073 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Self-citationMining query logs: turning search usage data into knowledge
Silvestri, F. (2009) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000013 · Cited by 194 · see citing works
Competitive Caching with Machine Learned Advice
Lykouris, T., & Vassilvitskii, S. (2021) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3447579 · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Ajtai, M., Aspnes, J., Naor, M., Rabani, Y., Schulman, L. J., & Waarts, O. (1998) · Journal of Algorithms · doi:10.1006/jagm.1998.0953 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Azar, Y., Bartal, Y., Feuerstein, E., Fiat, A., Leonardi, S., & Rosén, A. (1999) · Algorithmica · doi:10.1007/pl00009281 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Caching with rental cost and zapping
Khare, M., & Young, N. E. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1208.2724 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sleator, D. D., & Tarjan, R. E.
- Affiliations
- AT&T (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Tarjan, Robert E.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1985-02
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 202-208
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2041645394
- Cited by
- 2,123
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 67 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 72
- FWCI
- 10.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Optimization and Search Problems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Algorithms and Data Compression
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Complexity and Algorithms in Graphs
- Keywords
- amortized analysis, paging, online algorithms, offline algorithms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review