See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/396224617

Algorithms and Data Structures: A Journey Through Complexity and

Computation

Experiment Findings · October 2025

DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30283483

CITATIONS READS

0 13

1 author:

Mohamad Badiezadegan
MATHLAB
7 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamad Badiezadegan on 06 October 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Algorithms and Data Structures: A Journey Through
Complexity and Computation
Sayed Mohammad Badiezadegan
Researcher in Algorithms and Complexity

mbzadegan(@)gmail(dot)com
https://mbzadegan.github.io

Introduction
Algorithms and data structures form the backbone of computer science. They determine
not only how problems are solved, but also how efficiently those solutions can scale with
data size, hardware constraints, and communication limitations. While at first glance
algorithms may seem like abstract mathematical procedures, and data structures like
mere containers for information, together they shape the very possibilities of modern
computing—from high-performance numerical simulations to distributed cryptography
protocols.
In the projects presented in my repository at github.com/mbzadegan/Algorithm,
I explored a variety of themes that extend beyond textbook algorithm design. These in-
clude estimating computational complexity empirically, implementing solvers
for NP-complete problems, analyzing communication complexity, and mod-
eling circuit complexity in hardware description languages. Each of these topics
highlights a different dimension of how algorithms and data structures interact with
complexity theory.
This article surveys these areas, weaving together foundational principles with prac-
tical implementations. It is intended as both a reflection of experience and an overview
of the broader landscape of algorithmic research.

1 Foundations of Algorithms and Data Structures

At the most basic level, an algorithm is a finite, well-defined procedure for solving a
problem. A data structure is a way of organizing data so that algorithms can operate on
it effectively. The interplay between the two is crucial: the same algorithm may perform
vastly differently depending on how the input data is represented.

• Arrays and linked lists provide sequential storage, suitable for iteration and scanning
tasks.

• Trees and graphs enable hierarchical and relational representation, central to search-
ing, pathfinding, and optimization.

1
 • Hash tables and balanced search trees allow efficient lookup, insertion, and deletion,
often in logarithmic or constant expected time.
• Heaps and priority queues support scheduling and greedy algorithms.
These basic structures underpin algorithms for sorting, searching, shortest paths, dy-
namic programming, and beyond. However, as problems grow in size and complexity, new
dimensions enter the picture—parallelism, distributed communication, and even physical
circuit implementations.

2 Complexity Estimation in Practice

One of the projects in my repository was a complexity estimator written in Python,
which empirically measures how the runtime of an algorithm grows as input size increases.
Rather than relying purely on asymptotic analysis, such a tool fits observed runtimes to
known complexity classes, such as O(n), O(n log n), or O(n2 ).
This practical approach reflects a common reality: in many cases, the true complexity
of an algorithm is either unknown, dependent on input distribution, or difficult to prove
formally. For example:
• Sorting algorithms like quicksort perform in O(n log n) on average but degrade to
O(n2 ) in the worst case.
• Graph traversal in sparse vs. dense graphs leads to very different runtime behaviors.
• Cache performance and parallelism may skew empirical results away from the neat
predictions of asymptotic notation.
The complexity estimator thus acts as a bridge between theory and reality. By plot-
ting data, fitting curves, and testing algorithms at scale, one can detect unexpected
performance issues or verify theoretical predictions. In research and industrial practice
alike, this empirical feedback loop is invaluable.

3 NP-Completeness and Search Problems

Another branch of my work involved NP-complete problems, implemented in Fortran
with multithreading. NP-complete problems represent some of the hardest challenges
in computer science: while solutions can be verified quickly, finding those solutions is
believed to require exponential time in the worst case.

Examples of NP-Complete Problems

• Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP): find the shortest tour visiting all cities
once.
• Subset Sum: determine whether a subset of integers sums to a target value.
• Boolean Satisfiability (SAT): check whether a logical formula can be satisfied.
These problems have direct applications in logistics, optimization, cryptography, and
verification. Yet despite decades of research, no polynomial-time algorithms are known.

2
Data Structures in NP Problems
Efficient solvers for NP problems rely heavily on clever data structures:

• Backtracking with pruning uses stacks and recursive calls, combined with heuristics.

• Branch-and-bound algorithms exploit priority queues and search trees to eliminate

large portions of the solution space.

• Bitsets and boolean matrices provide compact representations in SAT solvers.

By parallelizing these algorithms—as I attempted with multithreaded Fortran—search

can be accelerated, though exponential blowup remains a fundamental barrier. This
reflects a broader truth: data structures can mitigate complexity, but they cannot fully
eliminate it when faced with NP-hardness.

4 Communication Complexity: Algorithms in Dis-

tributed Settings
Another project explored communication complexity using C. Communication com-
plexity asks: How many bits must two or more parties exchange to compute a function
of their joint inputs?
For example, Alice has a string x, Bob has a string y, and they wish to determine
whether x = y. A trivial solution is for Alice to send all of x to Bob, requiring O(n) bits.
But with clever hashing and randomized algorithms, this can be reduced to logarithmic
expected communication.
This area emphasizes that data structure representation across parties matters
as much as local computation. A poorly chosen protocol may waste bandwidth, while
a structured approach (hash trees, compressed representations, probabilistic sketches) can
minimize communication costs.
In the age of distributed systems and cloud computing, communication complexity
is not just theoretical. Algorithms for consensus, secure multiparty computation, and
blockchain verification all hinge on minimizing communication overhead while preserving
correctness and security.

5 Circuit Complexity and Hardware Models

Finally, I experimented with circuit complexity, using Verilog to model Boolean func-
tions. Circuit complexity asks: How many logic gates are required to compute a function?
What is the minimal depth of such a circuit?
For instance:

• A Boolean AND of n inputs requires n − 1 gates in a naive tree structure.

• Addition circuits can be optimized using carry-lookahead techniques, reducing depth

at the cost of more gates.

• Cryptographic primitives (AES, SHA, RSA) are often analyzed in terms of circuit
size, as this impacts the feasibility of brute-force attacks.

3
 Here, data structures manifest physically as logic layouts. The same logical
function can be computed with dramatically different costs depending on representation.
Verilog allows direct experimentation with these designs, revealing trade-offs between
gate count, depth, and parallelism.
Circuit complexity remains one of the central mysteries of theoretical computer sci-
ence: despite decades of effort, proving strong lower bounds on general functions (like
SAT) remains elusive. Yet, for practical purposes, circuit models are indispensable in
hardware design, FPGA development, and ASIC optimization.

6 Unifying Themes
Across these projects, several unifying themes emerge:

1. Algorithms are shaped by constraints. Whether the constraint is time (complexity

estimation), space (NP search), bandwidth (communication complexity), or gates
(circuit complexity), the “best” algorithm depends on the environment.

2. Data structures are the unsung heroes. Efficient backtracking requires careful stack
management; communication minimization requires succinct data encodings; circuit
design requires optimal layouts of logic units.

3. Empirical and theoretical approaches complement each other. Complexity estima-

tors show real-world scaling; Verilog circuits show real-world timing. These insights
inform theoretical exploration and vice versa.

4. Parallelism and distribution are now unavoidable from multithreaded NP solvers to

communication-efficient distributed protocols; modern computing demands think-
ing beyond single-threaded models.

Conclusion
Algorithms and data structures are not static textbook entities; they live at the intersec-
tion of theory, engineering, and experimentation. By exploring complexity estimation,
NP-completeness, communication complexity, and circuit models, one gains a holistic
view of computation that spans software and hardware, centralized and distributed, prov-
able and empirical.
The projects in my repository are not final answers, but rather stepping stones. Each
experiment—whether a complexity estimator in Python, a multithreaded Fortran solver,
a C implementation of communication protocols, or a Verilog circuit model—contributes
a piece to the larger puzzle of understanding what is computationally feasible.
Future work may involve building automated complexity analyzers, hybrid theoretical-
empirical solvers, or frameworks bridging software algorithms with hardware implemen-
tations. But the guiding principle remains the same: by carefully pairing algorithms
with the right data structures under the right constraints, we can push the boundaries of
computation while deepening our understanding of its inherent limits.

View publication stats