# Compare asymptotic WC runtime with measured AC runtime

I have an algorithm and I determined the asymptotic worst-case runtime, represented by Landau notation. Let's say $T(n) = O(n^2)$; this is measured in number of operations.

But this is the worst case, how about in average? I tried to run my algorithm 1000 times for each $n$ from $1$ to $1000$.I get another graph which is the average running time against $n$ but measured in real seconds.

Is there any possible way to compare these figures?

• absolutely they can be combined for an interesting/insightful graph & very worthwhile undergraduate exercise (dont know why it is so rare), just graph two lines on same graph, but dont misinterpret its meaning. # operations generally correlates roughly with some unknown multiplicative constant with asymptotic worst case (try estimating/calculating/curve fitting your constant!). gnuplot is a good widely used open pkg, what graph software are you using? try visiting chat for more hints – vzn Feb 2 '14 at 15:55
• I think my answer outlines why this is bad advice. The main reason is that you can not tell whether the graph is insightful or misleading. – Raphael Feb 2 '14 at 16:34
• @Raphael already +1 on answer; think you have valid pts but more an issue with statistics & scientific quantification than CS in particular eg how to lie with graphs. graphing & its correct interpretation is a key part of scientific quantification/presentation methods etc – vzn Feb 2 '14 at 17:14
• That is all well if you do natural science with statistical methods. In the context of algorithm analysis, however, we usually work mathematically. Whether that is good/sufficient for the field is certainly debatable, but as soon as Landau symbols pop up, we are in the mathematical world and should stay there. (Note that a statement $f \in O(n)$ is not scientific in the sense that it can not be falsified by experiments.) – Raphael Feb 2 '14 at 17:20
• agreed; graphs are an intuitive picture of the mathematical world. there is also an apparent left brained vs right brained teaching/pedagogical style with graphs fitting more into the latter & notation more the former. both need to be leveraged/combined for insight. am just agreeing with/reiterating a key premise on the value of graphing stated by elite member DC elsewhere =) ... there is room for different povs/"schools of thought" on this subj... – vzn Feb 2 '14 at 17:23

You can't, not really, for three reasons:

1. Number of operations and runtime do not compare well; too many factors (typically) left out in analysis influence actual runtime.
2. Asymptotic results (which hold in the limit) and a finite sets of observations do not compare.
3. Landau classes don't compare with "exact" functions. For instance, if you have $f \in O(n^3)$ and $g(n) = 3n^2$, you have no idea which grows faster.

All hope is not lost, though. With some additional work you can get to reliable statements.

• Perform an (asymptotic) average-case analysis. That is, assume a random distribution on the input set and calculate the expected number of executed operations. That can be tough, but if you succeed you can compare the result to your worst-case asymptotic. (Note that you may need $\Theta$ to make meaningful statements.)

• If you can, improve your analysis to yield constant factors (not only $\Theta$). That way, you can separate, say, a $2n^2 + 5n$ worst-case from $1.5n^2 - 3 \log n$ average-case.

• Run the program for worst-case instances (you should know them from your WC-analysis) and compare the real measurements with the average case.

Note: This can only provide guesses for asymptotic behaviour.

• Alternatively, run the program average and worst-case instances but count statements. That gives you more reliable measurements and removes platform-dependent artifacts from consideration. Still, you get only guesses for asymptotics.

Bottom line, you have to have the same "kind" of statement for both worst- and average-case if you want to compare them.

• There is some current research on using finite samples for the prediction of asymtotic average-case runtimes. It's exact under certain assumptions, and a decent heuristic otherwise. (Full disclosure: I'm a member of this group.) – Raphael Feb 2 '14 at 14:39