On aggregation of normed structures

Mathematical and Computer Modelling 54 (2011) 815–827

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mathematical and Computer Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm

On aggregation of normed structuresJ. Martín, G. Mayor, O. Valero ∗

Department of Math. and Computer Science, University of the Balearic Islands, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 9 October 2010Received in revised form 22 March 2011Accepted 22 March 2011

Keywords:Asymmetric distanceAggregation operatorQuasi-normComplexity analysis of algorithmsInformation fusionArtificial intelligence

a b s t r a c t

In 1981, Borsik and Doboš studied in depth the problem of how to merge, by means ofa function, a collection (not necessarily finite) of distance spaces in order to obtain asingle one as a result [J. Borsik, J. Doboš, On a product of metric spaces, Math. Slovaca31 (1981) 193–205]. Later on, Herburt and Moszyńska studied the same problem forthe case of normed linear spaces, inspired by the fact that every norm induces ina natural way a distance on a linear space, and analyzed the relationship betweenthe both aforenamed problems [I. Herburt, M. Moszyńska, On metric products, Colloq.Math. 62 (1991) 121–133]. More recently, Romaguera and Schellekens introduced amathematical approach, based on the notions of asymmetric distance and asymmetricnormed linear space, which is suitable for the complexity analysis of programs andalgorithms in Computer Science [S. Romaguera, M. Schellekens, Quasi-metric propertiesof complexity spaces, Topology Appl. 98 (1999) 311–322]. In this paper, motivated by theimportance of the information fusion techniques in Artificial Intelligence and by the utilityof asymmetric distances and asymmetric norms in Computer Science,we study theHerburtand Moszyńska problem for asymmetric normed linear spaces. In particular we give ageneral description of how to combine a collection (not necessarily finite) of asymmetricnormed linear spaces in order to obtain a single one as output and, in addition, we clearup the relationship between this problem and its analogous of combining asymmetricdistance spaces which has been already explored by Mayor and Valero [G. Mayor,O. Valero, Aggregation of asymmetric distances in computer science, Inform. Sci. 180 (2010)803–812]. Furthermore, it is shown that the asymmetric norms employed, in the spirit ofRomaguera and Schellekens, in complexity analysis can be retrieved as a particular caseof the developed theory. The last fact opens the possibility of applying a wide range ofproperties from the general aggregation theory in Artificial Intelligence to the complexityanalysis of programs and algorithms in Computer Science.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In Artificial Intelligence the problem of merging several pieces of input information arises in a natural way, coming fromsources of a (possibly) different nature into a simple one in order to take a decision about the plan of action. In a wide rangeof practical problems, the pieces of information are symbolized by means of some numerical values. So the fusion methodsthat are based on numerical aggregation functions play a central role in this kind of problems. Moreover, typically, a wideclass of the aggregation techniques used impose a constraint in order to select the most suitable aggregation function forthe problem to be solved. In general this constraint consists of considering only those functions that merge in such a waythat the output data preserves some outstanding and characteristic properties of the inputs. Several applied fields in whichare used Artificial Intelligence techniques based on the aforementioned aggregationmethods andwhere one has to confrontthis type of situations regularly are, among others, Image Processing, Control Theory, Medical Diagnosis or Bioinformatics.

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Martín), [email protected] (G. Mayor), [email protected] (O. Valero).

0895-7177/$ – see front matter© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.03.030

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.03.030

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm

mailto:[email protected]



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.03.030

816 J. Martín et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 54 (2011) 815–827

Since the notion of distance plays a distinguishing role in applied sciences, many authors have done research into whichfunctions allow one to merge a collection of distances in order to obtain a single one as a final result. Thus Borsik and Dobošstudied in depth the general problem of merging a collection of distances (not necessarily finite) into a single one [1]. Afterthe work of Borsik and Doboš, A. Prada, Trillas and Castiñera have provided a general solution to the aggregation problemof data represented by means of a finite family of pseudodistances and a type of generalized distances [2–4]. Motivatedin part by the results presented in [2], Casasnovas and Roselló have introduced and studied several general techniques formerging a finite number of distances into another one with the aim of applying some of their properties to the comparisonof biological sequences and to diagnosis problems in medicine [5,6].

Since a norm defined on a linear space induces a distance it seems natural to study, in the spirit of Borsik and Doboš, theproblem of merging a collection of norms as in the case of the distance aggregation problem. This question was solved byHerburt and Moszyńska in [7]. Specifically, they proved that both problems are actually equivalent.

Recently, it has been shown that asymmetric versions of the notions of distance and norm are appropriate tools to modelseveral processes that arise in a natural way in Computer Science and Bioinformatics. In particular, an efficient framework,based on asymmetric norms and distances, to model the running time of computing in complexity analysis of programsand algorithms have been introduced and developed by García-Raffi, Sánchez-Pérez, Romaguera, Schellekens and Valero in[8–14]. Moreover, asymmetric distances have been employed successfully to describe logic programming processes by Sedain [15,16]. In [17–20], a natural correspondence between similaritymeasures on biological (nucleotide or protein) sequencesand asymmetric distances has been proved, giving practical applications to searches in DNA and protein datasets. Motivatedby the work of Rosselló and Casasnovas developed in [5,6], Casasnovas and Valero, and Tirado and Valero have obtainedseveral connections between the asymmetric distance aggregation problem and the theory of computational complexityin [21,22].

Inspired by the fact that the scientific community has shown interest in the use of asymmetric distances in appliedresearch, Mayor and Valero have studied the natural problem of merging a collection (not necessarily finite) of asymmetricdistances in the spirit of Borsik and Doboš in [23]. In the same reference, it was shown that the mathematical approachbased on asymmetric distances for the computational complexity can be expressed in terms of aggregation functions and,thus, a wide potential class of applications of aggregation theory to computational complexity analysis was open. Since anasymmetric norm induces an asymmetric distance in a similar way to the classical (symmetric) case and the asymmetricnorms are suitable for the mathematical foundation of the complexity analysis in Computer Science (see [12,11]), we focusour attention on providing a general description of how to combine a collection (not necessarily finite) of asymmetric normsin order to obtain a single one as output. Concretely, we introduce the notion of asymmetric norm aggregation functionwhich is a generalization of the given one by Herburt and Moszyńska in [7]. Moreover, we extend some results provedin the aforenamed reference to the context of asymmetric norms. In particular, we show that the classes of asymmetricdistance aggregation functions and asymmetric norm aggregation functions are exactly the same. As a consequence, weobtain, contrary to the classical case, a characterization of asymmetric norm aggregation functions in terms of monotonyand subadditivity. Finally we prove that the developed aggregation theory is a suitable approach for complexity analysisin Computer Science, since the asymmetric norms used in order to quantify the efficiency gained when an algorithm issubstituted by another one can be retrieved by means of a family of distinguished asymmetric norm aggregation functions.

We organize the document as follows: Section 2 is devoted to introduce the pertinent terminology, concepts and basicsof asymmetric distances and asymmetric norms. In the same section we give, on one hand, a detailed exposition of themathematical preliminaries about the (asymmetric) distances and norms aggregation problems and, on the other hand,about the mathematical foundations, in the sense of Romaguera and Schellekens, of the computational complexity analysisof programs and algorithms. Section 3 is devoted to investigate the problem of asymmetric norms aggregation as well as toestablish the aggregation theory as a possible basis for complexity analysis in Computer Science.

2. Preliminaries

Throughout this paper we shall use the letters R, R+, N and Z+ to denote the set of real numbers, the set of nonnegativereal numbers, the set of positive integer numbers and the set of nonnegative integer numbers, respectively.

In order to fix the terminology let us recall a few concepts.

2.1. Asymmetric distances and asymmetric normed structures

In our context by an asymmetric distance (quasi-metric in [24]) on a (nonempty) set X wemean a nonnegative real-valuedfunction d on X × X such that for all x, y, z ∈ X :

(i) d(x, y) = d(y, x) = 0 ⇔ x = y.(ii) d(x, z) ≤ d(x, y) + d(y, z).

Note that a distance (metric) on a set X is an asymmetric distance d on X satisfying, in addition, the following conditionfor all x, y ∈ X:

(iii) d(x, y) = d(y, x).

J. Martín et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 54 (2011) 815–827 817

Our main reference for asymmetric distances is [24].An asymmetric distance space (quasi-metric space in [24]) is a pair (X, d) such that X is a (nonempty) set and d is an

asymmetric distance on X .Given an asymmetric distance d on X , the nonnegative real-valued function d−1 defined on X × X by

d−1(x, y) = d(y, x)

for all x, y ∈ X , is again an asymmetric distance called the conjugate of d.Note that each asymmetric distance d induces, in a natural way, a distance ds on X × X as follows:

ds(x, y) = d(x, y) ∨ d−1(x, y)

for all x, y ∈ X , where ∨ stands for the maximum operator.The function u defined on R × R by

u(x, y) = (y − x) ∨ 0

for all x, y ∈ R, is an interesting and well-known example of an asymmetric distance (see, for instance, [9]). Moreover, theconjugate of the asymmetric distance u on R is exactly the function u−1 given by

u−1(x, y) = (x − y) ∨ 0

for all x, y ∈ R. The distance induced by u is exactly the Euclidean metric | · | on R, i.e.

|y − x| = u(x, y) ∨ u−1(y, x)

for all x, y ∈ R.As usual wewill say that two asymmetric distances d1 and d2 on a set X are equivalent if there exist positive real numbers

M,m such that

Md1(x, y) ≤ d2(x, y) ≤ md1(x, y)

for all x, y ∈ X . When two asymmetric distances d1, d2 are equivalent we will denote them by d1 ≡ d2.Let (G, +) be a group with neutral element 0. Following [25], a quasi-norm on G is a nonnegative real-valued function

‖ · ‖ on G such that for all x, y ∈ G:

(i) ‖x‖ = ‖ − x‖ = 0 ⇔ x = 0.(ii) ‖x + y‖ ≤ ‖x‖ + ‖y‖.

The pair (G, ‖ · ‖) is called a quasi-normed group.A norm on a group G (see [26,27] and compare page 238 in [28]) is a quasi-norm satisfying, in addition, the following

condition for all x ∈ X:

(iii) ‖x‖ = ‖ − x‖.

Of course when the quasi-norm is a norm, the pair (G, ‖ · ‖) is called a normed group (see, for instance, page 676 in [27]).If ‖ · ‖ is a quasi-norm on a group G, then the nonnegative real-valued function ‖ · ‖

−1 defined on G by

‖x‖−1= ‖ − x‖

for all x ∈ G is also a quasi-norm on G. Similar to the case of asymmetric distances the quasi-norm ‖ · ‖−1 is called the

conjugate of ‖ · ‖. Observe that a quasi-norm on a group induces, in a natural way, a norm on G which is denoted by ‖ · ‖s

and defined by

‖x‖s= ‖x‖ ∨ ‖x‖−1

for all x ∈ G.It is clear that every quasi-norm induces on a group G an asymmetric distance d‖·‖ given by

d‖·‖(x, y) = ‖y − x‖

for all x, y ∈ G. It is evident that the asymmetric distance d‖·‖ is exactly a distance when the quasi-norm ‖ · ‖ on G is in facta norm.

On account of [12], an asymmetric normed linear space is a linear space (V , +, ·) on R endowwith a quasi-norm ‖ · ‖ suchthat (V , ‖ · ‖) is a quasi-normed group and ‖ · ‖ satisfies for all x ∈ V and λ ∈ R+ the extra condition:

(iv) ‖λ · x‖ = λ‖x‖.

Usually a quasi-norm satisfying condition (iii) is called an asymmetric norm [12,11].Of course the notion of normed linear space is retrieved as a particular case of the definition of asymmetric normed linear

space when one considers the asymmetric norm as a norm. Let us recall [29] that a normed linear space is an asymmetriclinear space (V , ‖ · ‖) such that ‖ · ‖ holds for all x ∈ V and λ ∈ R the additional condition:

(iii′) ‖λ · x‖ = |λ| ‖x‖.


Obviously an asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖ on a linear space V induces an asymmetric distance d‖·‖ by the same method as inthe case of quasi-normed groups.

A well-known example of asymmetric normed linear space is given by the pair (R, | · |u), where | · |u is defined by

|x|u = x ∨ 0

for all x ∈ R. Moreover, it is clear that the asymmetric distance u on R is induced by the asymmetric norm | · |u, i.e.u(x, y) = |y − x|u for all x, y ∈ R.

In the last years, the theory of asymmetric distances and asymmetric normed linear spaces has turned out to be usefulin the theory of complexity analysis of algorithms and programs (see Section 2.3 for a detailed discussion about this topic).

2.2. The (asymmetric) distances and norms aggregation problems

According to [1],wewill denote byRI andR+

I the set of all real-valued functions and all nonnegative real-valued functionsdefined on a nonempty set I of indices, respectively. Given x ∈ R+

I we will write xi instead of x(i). From now on we willdenote by 0, the element of RI given by 0i = 0 for all i ∈ I .

As usual we will consider the set RI ordered by the pointwise order relation≼, i.e. x ≼ y ⇔ xi ≤ yi for all i ∈ I . Of coursewhen I = N, we have that RN (R+

N ) matches up with the set of all sequences in R (R+). In the case of the cardinality of Ibeing finite, say n for some n ∈ N, the set RI (R+

I ) will be denoted by Rn (R+n ).

Let x, y ∈ RI and λ ∈ R. We denote by x + y and λ · x the elements of RI given by (xi + yi)i∈I and (λxi)i∈I , respectively.A function Φ : R+

I → R+ is monotone provided that Φ(x) ≤ Φ(y) for all x, y ∈ R+

I with x ≼ y. Moreover, a functionΦ : R+

I → R+ is said to be subadditive if Φ(x + y) ≤ Φ(x) + Φ(y) for all x, y ∈ R+

I . Furthermore, we will say that afunction Φ : R+

I → R+ is homogeneous provided that Φ(λ · x) = λΦ(x) for all λ ∈ R+.In the sequel, we will denote by OI the set of all functions Φ : R+

I → R+ such that Φ(x) = 0 ⇔ x = 0.In 1981, Borsik and Doboš studied in depth the problem of how to combine bymeans of a function a collection of distance

spaces in order to obtain a single one as a result [1]. Such functions were called distance (or metric) aggregation functions.Following [1], a function Φ : R+

I → R+ is a distance aggregation function if the composite function Φ ◦ δ is a distance onthe set X =

∏i∈I Xi for every indexed family of distance spaces {(Xi, di)}i∈I , where the mapping δ : X × X → R+

I is definedby δ(x, y) = (di(xi, yi))i∈I .

The notion of triangle triplet plays a central role in the aggregation theory of distances. Let us recall that the triplet ofnonnegative real numbers (a, b, c) forms a triangle triplet whenever a ≤ b + c, b ≤ a + c and c ≤ b + a.

A characterization, based on the notion of triangle triplet, of those functions which combine a collection (not necessarilyfinite) of distances into a single one was proved in [1] (see Lemmas 2.3 and 2,4, and Theorem 2.6). In particular theaforementioned result can be enunciated as follows:

Theorem 1. Let Φ : R+

I → R+. Then the assertions below are equivalent:

(1) Φ is a distance aggregation function.(2) Φ holds the following properties:

(i) Φ ∈ OI .(ii) Let a, b, c ∈ R+

I . If (ai, bi, ci) is a triangle triplet for all i ∈ I , then so is (Φ(a), Φ(b), Φ(c)).

As a consequence of the preceding result an outstanding connection between distance aggregation functions andsubadditive functions can be established. More specifically, every distance aggregation function is subadditive. However,it is well known that the converse of the last sentence is not true (see for instance Theorem 8 in [30]).

Recently, a version of Theorem 1 in the context of asymmetric distance spaces has been proved in [23]. With this aim,the notion of a distance aggregation function was extended to the asymmetric framework replacing the indexed family ofdistance spaces by an indexed family of asymmetric distance spaces in the Borsik and Doboš definition. Thus, a functionΦ : R+

I → R+ is an asymmetric distance aggregation function if the composite function Φ ◦ δ is an asymmetric distance onthe set X =

∏i∈I Xi for every indexed family of asymmetric distance spaces {(Xi, di)}i∈I , where themapping δ : X ×X → R+

Iis defined by δ(x, y) = (di(xi, yi))i∈I .

The asymmetric formulation of Theorem 1 can be stated in the following way:



(1) Φ is an asymmetric distance aggregation function.(2) Φ holds the following properties:

(i) Φ ∈ OI .(ii) Let a, b, c ∈ R+

I . If a ≼ b + c, then Φ(a) ≤ Φ(b) + Φ(c).(3) Φ ∈ OI , and Φ is subadditive and monotone.

Observe that, contrary to Theorem1, the preceding result provides a characterization of asymmetric distance functions interms of monotonicity and subadditivity. Nevertheless, there exist distance aggregation functions which are not monotone(see Example 8 in [23]).


Since every norm on a linear space induces a distance it seems natural to wonder if one can do research into theaggregation problem for the case of normed linear spaces and, in addition, to analyze the relationship between bothproblems. This question was solved by Herburt and Moszyńska in [7]. In particular they defined the notion of a normaggregation function as follows:

A function Φ : R+

I → R+ is a norm aggregation function if the composite function Φ ◦ δ is a norm on the linear spaceV =

∏i∈I Vi for every indexed family of normed linear spaces {(Vi, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I , where the mapping δ : V → R+

I is defined byδ(x) = (‖xi‖i)i∈I .

After introducing the new aggregation concept, Herburt and Moszyńska gave the next elegant description of thosefunctions which allow us to aggregate a collection (not necessarily finite) of norms into a single one.



(1) Φ is a norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is an homogeneous distance aggregation function.

Furthermore, Herburt and Moszyńska established the following nice connection between distances and norms viaaggregation functions.

Proposition 4. Let Φ be a norm aggregation function and let {(Vi, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I be an indexed family of normed linear spaces. ThendΦ◦δ = Φ ◦ δd‖·‖

, where δd‖·‖: V × V → R+

I is defined by δd‖·‖(x, y) = (d‖·‖i(x, y))i∈I with V =

∏i∈Ii Vi.

Note that in the preceding result the function Φ ◦ δd‖·‖, on V × V is a distance, since Theorem 3 guarantees that Φ is an

homogeneous distance aggregation function.Next we recall some basics of the mathematical approach of complexity analysis of algorithms and programs, as well

as the role played by asymmetric distance spaces and asymmetric normed linear spaces in such a framework, in order tomotivate our subsequent work (developed in Section 3) and to reveal the interesting fact that this theory can be formulatedin terms of aggregation functions (see Section 3.1).

2.3. The mathematical approach for complexity analysis in Computer Science

In Computer Science the complexity analysis of an algorithm is based on determining mathematically the quantity ofresources needed by the algorithm in order to solve the problem for which it has been designed. A typical resource, playinga central role in complexity analysis, is the running time of computing. The aforementioned resource is defined as thetime taken by the algorithm to solve a problem, that is, the time elapsed from the moment the algorithm starts to themoment it terminates. Usually, when one considers a problem there exist many algorithms to solve it. So one objective ofthe complexity analysis is to evaluate which of them is faster when a data collection is considered. To this end, it is requiredto compare their running time of computing. This is usually done by means of the asymptotic complexity analysis in whichthe running time of an algorithm is denoted by a function T : N → R+ in such a way that T (i) (Ti following our notation)represents the time taken by the algorithm to solve the problem under consideration when the input of the algorithm is ofsize i. In general, to determine exactly the function which describes the running time of computing of an algorithm is anarduous task. However, in most situations it is more useful to know the running time of computing of an algorithm in an‘‘approximate’’ way than in an exact one. For this reason the asymptotic complexity analysis of algorithms is interested inobtaining the ‘‘approximate’’ running time of computing of an algorithm. The O-notation allows one to achieve this. Indeedif f , g : N → R+ denote the running time of computing of algorithms, then the statement g ∈ O(f ) means that thereexists i0 ∈ N and c ∈ R+ such that gi ≤ cfi for all i ∈ N with i ≥ i0 (≤ stands for the usual order on R+). So the functionf gives an asymptotic upper bound of the running time g and, thus, an ‘‘approximate’’ information of the running time ofthe algorithm. The set O(f ) is called the asymptotic complexity class of f . Hence, from an asymptotic complexity analysisviewpoint, to determine the running time of an algorithm consists of obtaining its asymptotic complexity class. For a fullertreatment of complexity analysis of algorithms we refer the reader to [31,32].

In 1999, Romaguera and Schellekens introduced the theory of dual complexity (asymmetric distance) spaces as a partof the development of the mathematical foundation for the complexity analysis in Computer Science [9]. In particular, thedual complexity space is the pair (C∗, dC∗), where

C∗=

f ∈ R+

N :

+∞−i=1

2−ifi < +∞

,

and dC∗ is the asymmetric distance on C∗ defined by

dC∗(f , g) =

+∞−i=1

2−i[(gi − fi) ∨ 0].

In the same reference they showed the applicability of the theory to the complexity analysis of algorithms discussing viafixed point arguments the complexity of Divide and Conquer algorithms.


According to [9], it is possible to associate each function of C∗ with a computational cost in such a way that if f ∈ C∗

then fi represents the running time of performing some tasks by a program employing an input data of size i. Because ofthis, the elements of C∗ are called complexity functions. Moreover, given two functions f , g ∈ C∗, the numerical valuedC∗(f , g) (the complexity distance from f to g) can be interpreted as a numerical measure of the efficiency gained whenthe algorithm U , whose running time of computing is represented by g , is substituted by the algorithm V whose runningtime of computing is represented by f . Hence, if f = g, dC∗(f , g) = 0 provides that g is more ‘‘efficient’’ than f on all inputs(i.e. dC∗(f , g) = 0 ⇔ gi ≤ fi for all i ∈ N) and, thus, the running time of computing does not go down when we replacethe program U by the program V . So we can encode the natural order relation ≼ on R+

N , induced by the pointwise order ≤,through the asymmetric distance dC∗ . In particular the fact that dC∗(f , g) = 0 implies that f ∈ O(g).

Of course the asymmetry of the complexity distance plays a crucial role in this analysis because a (symmetric) distancewill provide information about the increase of complexity but it will not be able to indicate which program is more efficient.This provides a sound reason for the use of asymmetric distances, instead of the symmetric ones, in formal methods forcomplexity analysis in Computer Science.

In many situations the running time of an algorithm is symbolized by a function which is obtained by addition of twocomplexity functions or by a combination of complexity functions multiplied by real numbers. Motivated by this fact,Romaguera and Schellekens considered [10] the set B∗ given by

B∗=

f ∈ RN :

+∞−i=1

2−i|fi| < +∞

.

It is clear that B∗ is a linear space endowed with the usual sum and product by real numbers defined on RN, where theneutral element will be denoted by 0B∗ . Of course the linear space B∗ is the natural framework to represent complexityfunctions that are obtained by linear combinations of another complexity functions. However note that if g ∈ B∗ is anexample of this kind of complexity functions, then g denotes a running time of computing if and only if g ∈ C∗.

Following themain ideas of Functional Analysis [29], Romaguera and Schellekens introduced in [10] an asymmetric norm‖ · ‖B∗ on B∗ which is defined by

‖f ‖B∗ =

+∞−i=1

2−i(fi ∨ 0)

for all f ∈ B∗. It is clear that the asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖B∗ induces an asymmetric distance d‖·‖B∗ on B∗, i.e. d‖·‖B∗ (f , g) =

‖g − f ‖B∗ for all f , g ∈ B∗. Furthermore,

dC∗(f , g) = d‖·‖B∗ (f , g)

for all f , g ∈ C∗.The utility of the asymmetric normed linear space (B∗, ‖ · ‖B∗) in complexity analysis is provided by the preceding

equality. In fact, the numerical value ‖f ‖B∗ can be interpreted as a kind of ‘‘degree’’ of complexity of an algorithmwheneverf ∈ C∗, since ‖f ‖B∗ denotes the complexity distance of f to the ‘‘optimal’’ complexity function 0B∗ , i.e. dC∗(0B∗ , f ) = ‖f ‖B∗

for all f ∈ C∗.Nevertheless, there are algorithms whose running time of computing cannot be modeled through B∗. Indeed, there are

algorithms for which the running time is associated with the function f sqrt, given by f sqrti =2i√ifor all i ∈ N (for a detailed

discussion see [33]).It is clear that f sqrt ∈ B∗. Consequently the analysis of the relative progress made in lowering the complexity when an

algorithmwith f sqrt running time is replaced by another one cannot bemade in the context ofB∗. Motivated by this handicapGarcía-Raffi, Romaguera and Sánchez-Pérez extended the linear space B∗ to a more general one in [12]. They denoted it byB∗

p , where 1 ≤ p < +∞. The linear space B∗p is given by

B∗

p =

f ∈ RN :

+∞−i=1

2−i

|fi|p

< +∞

.

Notice that if p = 1 then the above linear space is exactly B∗.The new linear space B∗

p can be endowed with an asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖B∗p defined by

‖f ‖B∗p =

+∞−i=1

2−i(fi ∨ 0)

p 1p

for all f ∈ B∗p . Again, the asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖B∗

p induces an asymmetric distance d‖·‖B∗pon B∗

p given by

d‖·‖B∗ (f , g) = ‖g − f ‖B∗p .


It is evident that a function f ∈ B∗p matches up with the running time of computing of an algorithm if and only if f ∈ C∗

p ,where

C∗

p =

f ∈ R+

N :

+∞−i=1

2−ifi

p< +∞

.

Moreover, it is clear that f sqrt ∈ C∗p ⊂ B∗

p whenever p > 2.Note that the complexity analysis carried out in B∗ can be recuperated in B∗

p and, in particular, it is feasible to measurethe improvements in complexity when an algorithms with f sqrt running time is replaced by another one.

The pair (C∗p , dC∗

p ) is known as the dual p-complexity space, where dC∗p denotes the restriction of the asymmetric distance

d‖·‖B∗ to C∗p .

Unfortunately there exist other examples of algorithms whose associated running time of computing is modeled by afunction which does not belong to any dual p-complexity space C∗

p . An example of this kind of algorithms are the so-calledexponential time algorithms [34]. The running time of computing of an exponential time algorithm is given by a function f Psuch that f Pi = 2P(i) for all i ∈ N, where P(i) is a polynomial with P(i) ≥ i for each i ∈ N. It is a simple matter to check thatf Pi ∈ C∗

p ⊂ B∗p for any 1 ≤ p < +∞. Hence the analysis of the relative progress made in lowering the complexity when an

algorithm with f P running time is replaced by another one cannot be made in the context of any dual p-complexity space.In order to avoid the aforenamed handicap, in [11] it was introduced themost general complexity structure (from among

the aforesaid ones) that is a suitable framework to measure the improvements in complexity of f P running time algorithms.On this occasion the complexity structure consists of the asymmetric normed linear space (B∗

P,∞, ‖ · ‖B∗P,∞

) where

B∗

P,∞ =

f ∈ RN :

i∈N

2−P(i)|fi| < +∞

and

‖f ‖B∗p =

i∈N

2−P(i)(fi ∨ 0).

Of course the asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖B∗P,∞

induces an asymmetric distance d‖·‖B∗P,∞

by means of the equality

d‖·‖B∗P,∞

(f , g) = ‖g − f ‖B∗P,∞

.

Clearly a function f ∈ B∗

P,∞ matches up with the running time of computing of an algorithm if and only if f ∈ C∗

P,∞,where

C∗

P,∞ =

f ∈ R+

N :

i∈N

2−P(i)fi < +∞

.

The pair (C∗

P,∞, dC∗P,∞

) is called the supP -dual complexity space, as usual the asymmetric distance dC∗P,∞

denotes therestriction of the asymmetric distance d‖·‖B∗

P,∞

to C∗

P,∞.

Notice that the complexity analysis carried out in B∗p can be recovered in B∗

P,∞, since B∗p ⊂ B∗

P,∞ for all p ≥ 1 and forall polynomial P with P(i) ≥ i for all i ∈ N. Furthermore, f P ∈ C∗

P,∞ ⊂ B∗

P,∞ for all polynomial P with P(i) ≥ i for all i ∈ N.So this new complexity structure is a suitable framework to measure the improvements in complexity of f P running timealgorithms.

Motivated by Theorem 3, Proposition 4, the aggregation theory developed in [23] for asymmetric distances and, inaddition, by the fact that all asymmetric norms that are relevant in the complexity framework introduced above are obtainedvia aggregation techniques, in the next section we focus our attention on providing a general description of how to combinea collection (not necessarily finite) of asymmetric norms in order to obtain a single one as output and, besides, to clear upthe relationship between this problem and its analogous, already explored in [23], of combining asymmetric distances.

3. The aggregation problem for asymmetric normed structures

As announced before in this section we go more deeply into the aggregation problem of asymmetric distance spaces.Particularly we obtain a version of Theorem 3 in the context of asymmetric normed structures and we study the naturalquestion with regard to the relationship between the norms obtained via aggregation and their induced asymmetricdistances in the spirit of Proposition 4.

For our subsequent dissertation we extend the notion of norm aggregation function to our more general context. Thus,a function Φ : R+

I → R+ will be called a quasi-norm aggregation function whenever the composite function Φ ◦ δ is aquasi-norm on the set G =

∏i∈I Gi for every indexed family of quasi-normed groups {(Gi, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I , where the mapping

δ : G → R+

I is defined by δ(x) = (‖xi‖i)i∈I for all x ∈ G.


The preceding definition can be adapted for the case of linear spaces in the obviousmanner, i.e. a functionΦ : R+

I → R+

will be called an asymmetric norm aggregation function whenever the composite function Φ ◦ δ is an asymmetric norm onV =

∏i∈I Vi for every indexed family of asymmetric normed linear spaces {(Vi, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I , where the mapping δ : V → R+

Iis defined by δ(x) = (‖xi‖i)i∈I for all x ∈ V .

The following auxiliary result will be useful later on.

Proposition 5. Let a, b, c ∈ R+ such that a ≤ b. Then there exists a quasi-norm (n asymmetric norm) uR2 on R2 in such a waythat there exist x, y ∈ R2 with uR2(x + y) = a, uR2(x) = b and uR2(y) = 0.

Proof. Define the function uR2 : R2→ R+ by

uR2(x) = x1 ∨ 0 + x2 ∨ 0

for all x = (x1, x2) ∈ R2. It is a simple matter to check that uR2 is a quasi-norm (n asymmetric norm) on R2. Furthermore, itis easily seen that the elements x, y of R2 given by x = (−a + b, a) and y = (−b, 0) satisfy the required conditions. �



(1) Φ is a quasi-norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is an asymmetric distance aggregation function.

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). Assume that Φ is a quasi-norm aggregation function. It follows that Φ ∈ OI . Indeed, suppose that thereexists x ∈ R+

I such that Φ(x) = 0. Consider the indexed family of quasi-normed groups {(R, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I with ‖ · ‖i = | · | forall i ∈ I . Then Φ ◦ δ|·| :→ R+ is a quasi-norm on RI , since Φ is a quasi-norm aggregation function. Moreover, if x ∈ R+

I then

Φ ◦ δ|·|(x) = Φ((|xi|i∈I)) = Φ((xi)i∈I) = Φ(x) = 0

and

Φ ◦ δ|·|(−x) = Φ((| − xi|i∈I)) = Φ((xi)i∈I) = Φ(x) = 0.

Whence we deduce that x = 0.Next we show that Φ is subadditive.Let a, b ∈ R+

I . Consider again the indexed family of quasi-normed groups {(R, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I where ‖ · ‖i = | · | for all i ∈ I .Then Φ ◦ δ|·|u is a quasi-norm on

∏i∈I R = RI , since Φ is a quasi-norm aggregation function. Hence we have that

Φ(a + b) = Φ((|ai + bi|)i∈I) = Φ ◦ δ|·|(a + b)

≤ Φ ◦ δ|·|(a) + Φ ◦ δ|·|(b)

= Φ((|ai|)i∈I) + Φ((|bi|)i∈I) = Φ(a) + Φ(b).

It remains to prove that Φ is monotone.Let a, b ∈ R+

I such that a ≼ b. Consider the indexed family of quasi-normed groups {(R2, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I where ‖ · ‖i = uR2

for all i ∈ I , and let δuR2 be the mapping associated to the aforesaid family. By Proposition 5 there exist xi, yi ∈ R2 such thatuR2(xi + yi) = a, uR2(xi) = b and uR2(yi) = 0 for all i ∈ I . Put x = (xi)i∈I ∈

∏i∈I R2 and y = (yi)i∈I ∈

∏i∈I R2. Since Φ is a

quasi-norm aggregation function and Φ ∈ OI , we obtain that

Φ(a) = Φ((uR2(xi + yi))i∈I) = Φ ◦ δuR2 (x + y)

≤ Φ ◦ δuR2 (x)+Φ ◦ δuR2 (y)

= Φ((uR2(xi))i∈I) + Φ((uR2(yi))i∈I)

= Φ(b) + Φ(0) = Φ(b).

Consequently, by statement (3) in Theorem 2, we deduce that Φ is an asymmetric distance aggregation function.(2) ⇒ (1). Let {(Gi, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I be an indexed family of quasi-normed groups. Consider x ∈ G =

∏i∈I Gi such that

Φ ◦ δ(x) = Φ ◦ δ(−x) = 0. Then ‖xi‖i = ‖ − xi‖i = 0 for all i ∈ I , since Φ ∈ OI . Whence we obtain that x = 0.Next we show that Φ ◦ δ(x + y) ≤ Φ ◦ δ(x) + Φ ◦ δ(y) for all x, y ∈ G. Since

‖xi + yi‖i ≤ ‖xi‖i + ‖yi‖i

for all i ∈ I we conclude, from the fact that Φ is monotone and subadditive, that

Φ ◦ δ(x + y) = Φ((‖xi + yi‖i)i∈I) ≤ Φ((‖xi‖i + ‖yi‖i)i∈I)

≤ Φ((‖xi‖i)i∈I) + Φ((‖yi‖i)i∈I)

= Φ ◦ δ(x) + Φ ◦ δ(y).

Therefore we have shown that Φ ◦ δ is a quasi-norm on G. This completes the proof. �


Similar arguments to those in the proof of the preceding result apply to the next one.



(1) Φ is an asymmetric norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is an homogeneous asymmetric distance aggregation function.

As a consequence of Theorems 2, 6 and 7 we have the following characterizations of quasi-norm and asymmetric normaggregation functions.

Corollary 8. Let Φ : R+

I → R+ such that Φ ∈ OI . Then the assertions below are equivalent:

(1) Φ is a quasi-norm aggregation function.(2) Let a, b, c ∈ R+

I . If a ≼ b + c, then Φ(a) ≤ Φ(b) + Φ(c).(3) Φ is subadditive and monotone.

Corollary 9. Let Φ : R+

I → R+ such that Φ ∈ OI . Then the assertions below are equivalent:

(1) Φ is an asymmetric norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is homogeneous and Φ(a) ≤ Φ(b) + Φ(c) for all a, b, c ∈ R+

I with a ≼ b + c.(3) Φ is homogeneous, subadditive and monotone.

It is clear that an asymmetric distance aggregation function is a distance aggregation function (see Corollary 7 in [23]).However there are distance aggregation functions which are not asymmetric aggregation functions (Example 8 in [23]). Soit seems natural to wonder if the condition of being a quasi-norm (n asymmetric norm) aggregation function is equivalentto that of being an aggregation norm function. Since every quasi-norm (asymmetric norm) aggregation function is anasymmetric distance aggregation function we have, by Theorem 3, that every quasi-norm (asymmetric norm) aggregationfunction is also a norm aggregation function. However, the next example shows that there exist norm aggregation functionswhich are not quasi-norm (asymmetric norm) aggregation functions.

Example 10. Let I = N. Consider the function Φ : R+

N → R+ given by Φ(0) = 0 and

Φ(x) =

2 α(x) ∈]0, 1[1 α(x) ≥ 1.

Clearly Φ ∈ ON. Furthermore, it is not hard to see that Φ satisfies the condition (ii) of statement (2) in Theorem 1. So, by

Theorem 3, Φ is a norm aggregation function. However, Φ is not monotone. Indeed, let x12 , x1 ∈ R+

N such that x12i =

12 and

x1i = 1 for all i ∈ N. Clearly x12 ≺ x1, Φ

x

12

= 2 and Φ(x1) = 1. Therefore, by statement (3) in Corollary 8, we conclude

that Φ is not a quasi-norm (n asymmetric norm) aggregation function.

Next we discuss what connections between a quasi-norm (n asymmetric norm), the conjugate and its associated normcan be deduced via aggregation functions.

Proposition 11. Let Φ be a quasi-norm aggregation function and let {(Gi, ‖·‖i)}i∈I be an indexed family of quasi-normed groups.Then the following statements hold:

(1) (Φ ◦ δ)−1= Φ ◦ δ−1, where δ−1

: G → R+

I is defined by δ−1(x) = (‖xi‖−1i )i∈I with G =

∏i∈I Gi.

(2) (Φ ◦ δ)s ≡ Φ ◦ δs, where δs: G → R+

I is defined by δs(x) = (‖xi‖si )i∈I with G =

∏i∈I Gi.

Proof. First of all we note thatΦ◦δ−1 is a quasi-normonG and thatΦ◦δs is a normonG, sinceΦ is a quasi-normaggregationfunction. Let x ∈ G. Then

(Φ ◦ δ)−1(x) = Φ ◦ δ(−x) = Φ((‖ − x‖i)i∈I) = Φ((‖x‖−1i )i∈I) = Φ ◦ δ−1(x).

Moreover,

(Φ ◦ δ)s(x) = Φ ◦ δ(x) ∨ (Φ ◦ δ)−1(x).

Thus

(Φ ◦ δ)s(x) = Φ ◦ δ(x) ∨ Φ ◦ δ−1(x) = Φ((‖xi‖i∈I )) ∨ Φ((‖xi‖−1i )i∈I).

Furthermore,

Φ ◦ δs(x) = Φ((‖xi‖si )i∈I) = Φ((‖xi‖i ∨ ‖xi‖−1

i )i∈I).

By Corollary 8 Φ is monotone and, thus,

Φ((‖xi‖i ∨ ‖xi‖−1i )i∈I) ≥ Φ((‖xi‖ii∈I )) ∨ Φ((‖xi‖−1

i )i∈I).


Hence Φ ◦ δs(x) ≥ (Φ ◦ δ)s(x). Since Corollary 8 guarantees, in addition, that Φ is subadditive we have that

Φ((‖xi‖i ∨ ‖xi‖−1i )i∈I) ≤ Φ((‖xi‖i + ‖xi‖−1

i )i∈I)

≤ Φ((‖xi‖i∈I )) + Φ((‖xi‖−1i )i∈I)

≤ 2Φ((‖xi‖i∈I )) ∨ Φ((‖xi‖−1

i )i∈I)

because ‖xi‖i ∨ ‖xi‖−1i ≤ ‖xi‖i + ‖xi‖−1

i for all i ∈ I . Consequently

Φ ◦ δs(x) ≤ 2(Φ ◦ δ)s(x).

The proof is complete. �

The next result is an asymmetric version of Proposition 4.

Proposition 12. Let Φ be a quasi-norm aggregation function and let {(Gi, ‖·‖i)}i∈I be an indexed family of quasi-normed groups.Then the following statements hold:(1) dΦ◦δ = Φ ◦ δd‖·‖

, where δd‖·‖: G × G → R+

I is defined by δd‖·‖(x, y) = (d‖·‖i(x, y))i∈I with G =

∏i∈I Gi.

(2) d−1Φ◦δ = dΦ◦δ−1 . Moreover, dΦ◦δ−1 = Φ ◦ δd−1

‖·‖

where δd−1‖·‖

: G × G → R+

I is defined by δd−1‖·‖

(x, y) = (d−1‖·‖i

(x, y))i∈I with

G =∏

i∈I Gi.(3) d(Φ◦δ)s = dsΦ◦δ = dΦ◦δ ∨ dΦ◦δ−1 . Moreover d(Φ◦δ)s ≡ Φ ◦ δds

‖·‖where δds

‖·‖: G × G → R+

I is defined by δds‖·‖

(x) =

(ds‖·‖i

(x, y))i∈I with G =∏

i∈I Gi.

Proof. By Theorem 6, we have that Φ is an asymmetric distance aggregation function. It follows that Φ ◦ δd‖·‖and Φ ◦ δd−1

‖·‖

are asymmetric distances on G. Let x, y ∈ G. Then

dΦ◦δ(x, y) = Φ ◦ δ(y − x) = Φ((‖y − x‖i)i∈I)

= Φ((d‖·‖i(x, y))i∈I) = Φ ◦ δd‖·‖(x, y)

and

dΦ◦δ−1(x, y) = Φ ◦ δ−1(y − x) = Φ((‖y − x‖−1i )i∈I)

= Φ((‖x − y‖i)i∈I) = Φ((d‖·‖i(y, x))i∈I)

= Φ((d−1‖·‖i

(x, y))i∈I) = Φ ◦ δd−1‖·‖

(x, y).

Moreover,

d−1Φ◦δ(x, y) = dΦ◦δ(y, x) = Φ ◦ δd‖·‖

(y, x) = Φ ◦ δd−1‖·‖

(x, y) = dΦ◦δ−1(x, y).

This proves assertions (1) and (2).Nextweprove assertion (3). The equality dsΦ◦δ = dΦ◦δ∨dΦ◦δ−1 follows from (1) and (2). Nowwe show that d(Φ◦δ)s = dsΦ◦δ .

To this end, let x, y ∈ G. Then

d(Φ◦δ)s(x, y) = (Φ ◦ δ)s(y − x) = Φ ◦ δ(y − x) ∨ (Φ ◦ δ)−1(y − x)

= Φ((‖yi − xi‖i∈I )) ∨ Φ((‖yi − xi‖−1i )i∈I)

= Φ ◦ δd‖·‖(x, y) ∨ Φ ◦ δd−1

‖·‖

(x, y)

= dΦ◦δ(x, y) ∨ dΦ◦δ−1(x, y)= dsΦ◦δ(x, y).

Since Φ is an asymmetric distance aggregation function we have that it is also a distance aggregation function and, as aconsequence, Φ ◦ δds

‖·‖is a distance on G.

In the sequel we prove that d(Φ◦δ)s ≡ Φ ◦ δds‖·‖

.On one hand, we have by the monotonicity of Φ that

d(Φ◦δ)s(x, y) = (Φ ◦ δ)s(y − x) = Φ ◦ δ(y − x) ∨ (Φ ◦ δ)−1(y − x)

= Φ((‖yi − xi‖i∈I )) ∨ Φ((‖yi − xi‖−1i )i∈I)

= Φ ◦ δd‖·‖(x, y) ∨ Φ ◦ δd−1

‖·‖

(x, y)

= dΦ◦δ(x, y) ∨ dΦ◦δ−1(x, y)

= Φ((d‖·‖i(xi, yi))i∈I) ∨ Φ((d−1‖·‖i

(xi, yi))i∈I)

≤ Φ((ds‖·‖i

(xi, yi))i∈I) = Φ ◦ δds‖·‖

(x, y).


On the other hand, by the monotonicity and subadditivity of Φ , we obtain

Φ ◦ δds‖·‖

(x, y) = Φ((ds‖·‖i

(xi, yi))) ≤ Φ((d‖·‖i(xi, yi))i∈I) + Φ((d−1‖·‖i

(xi, yi))i∈I)

= Φ ◦ δd‖·‖(y − x) + Φ ◦ δd−1

‖·‖

(y − x)

= dΦ◦δ(x, y) + d−1Φ◦δ(x, y) ≤ 2dsΦ◦δ(x, y) = 2d(Φ◦δ)s(x, y).

From the preceding inequalities statement (3) follows. �

Remark 13. Note that, as a consequence of Corollary 9, Propositions 11 and 12 also holdwhenwe interchange quasi-normedgroup and quasi-normaggregation function by asymmetric normed linear space and asymmetric normaggregation function,respectively.

Remark 14. We want to observe that there are several recent works about aggregation via infinitely many argumentfunctions (see, for instance, [35,36] and Appendix A in [37]). Although there are connections between the aforementionedreferences and our work, the problems studied in the quoted papers are different from the one in this paper. It is necessaryto emphasize that the aggregation functions under consideration in [36], i.e. the aggregation functions preserving T -transitivity, are closely related to pseudodistance aggregation functions in the sense of [4].

Even though the results obtained as far as here solve the aggregation problem in the spirit of Borsik, Doboš, Herburt andMoszyńska for the case of asymmetric normed structures,weneed to present an extendednotion of quasi-norm (asymmetricnorm) aggregation function in order to develop some connections between complexity analysis in Computer Science andaggregation theory later in Section 3.1.

A more general notion than that of asymmetric distance aggregation function was introduced and studied in Section4 of [23]. In particular, given a subset Y ⊆ R+

I , a function Φ : Y → R+ is called an Y-asymmetric distance aggregationfunction if for every indexed family of asymmetric distance spaces {(Xi, di)}i∈I such that there exists XY ⊆ X =

∏i∈I Xi with

δ(XY × XY) ⊆ Y the function Φ ◦ δ is an asymmetric distance on XY, where the mapping δ : XY × XY → R+

I is defined byδ(x, y) = (di(xi, yi))i∈I .

Obviously the definition of asymmetric distance aggregation function is retrieved as a particular case of the above onewhenever the subset Y is exactly R+

I .According to [23], a function Φ : Y → R+ is Y-monotone provided that Φ(x) ≤ Φ(y) for all x, y ∈ Y with x ≼ y.

Moreover, a function Φ : Y → R+ is Y-subadditive provided that Φ(x + y) ≤ Φ(x) + Φ(y) for all x, y ∈ Ywith x + y ∈ Y.Furthermore, we will say that a function Φ : Y → R+ is Y-homogeneous provided that Φ(λ · x) = λΦ(x) for all λ ∈ R+

and x ∈ Y.In the following, if 0 ∈ Y then we will denote by OI,Y the set of all functions Φ : Y → R+ such that Φ(x) = 0 ⇔ x = 0.In the light of these new notions the following general version of Theorem 2 was given in [23].

Theorem 15. Let Φ : Y → R+ and Y ⊆ R+

I with 0 ∈ Y. If x + y ∈ Y for all x, y ∈ Y, then the below assertions areequivalent:

(1) Φ is a Y-asymmetric distance aggregation function.(2) Φ holds the following properties:

(i) Φ ∈ OI,Y.(ii) Let a, b, c ∈ Y. If a ≼ b + c, then Φ(a) ≤ Φ(b) + Φ(c).

(3) Φ ∈ OI,Y, and Φ is Y-subadditive and Y-monotone.

We end the section extending the definition of quasi-norm (asymmetric norm) aggregation function to this generalapproach. Thus, given a subset Y ⊆ R+

I , a function Φ : Y → R+ will be called an Y-quasi-norm aggregation function iffor every indexed family of quasi-normed groups {(Gi, ‖ · ‖i)}i∈I such that there exists a subgroup GY ⊆ G =

∏i∈I Gi with

δ(GY) ⊆ Y the function Φ ◦ δ is a quasi-norm on GY, where the mapping δ : GY → Y is defined by δ(x) = (‖xi‖i)i∈I .In the obvious manner the notion of asymmetric norm aggregation function can be extended to this new context.The next results follow applying the same arguments to those given in Theorems 6 and 7.


I with 0 ∈ Y. If x + y ∈ Y for all x, y ∈ Y, then the below assertions are equivalent:

(1) Φ is a Y-quasi-norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is a Y-asymmetric distance aggregation function.


I with 0 ∈ Y. If x + y ∈ Y for all x, y ∈ Y, then the below assertions are equivalent:

(1) Φ is a Y-asymmetric norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is a Y-homogeneous Y-asymmetric distance aggregation function.


As an immediate consequence of Theorems 15–17 we obtain the following.

Corollary 18. Let Y ⊆ R+

I with 0 ∈ Y and x + y ∈ Y for all x, y ∈ Y, and let Φ : Y → R+ such that Φ ∈ OI,Y. Then theassertions below are equivalent:

(1) Φ is a Y-quasi-norm aggregation function.(2) Let a, b, c ∈ Y. If a ≼ b + c, then Φ(a) ≤ Φ(b) + Φ(c).(3) Φ is Y-subadditive and Y-monotone.

Corollary 19. Let Y ⊆ R+

I with 0 ∈ Y and x + y ∈ Y for all x, y ∈ Y, and let Φ : Y → R+ such that Φ ∈ OI,Y. Then the belowassertions are equivalent:

(1) Φ is a Y-asymmetric norm aggregation function.(2) Φ is Y-homogeneous and Φ(a) ≤ Φ(b) + Φ(c) for all a, b, c ∈ Y with a ≼ b + c.(3) Φ is Y-homogeneous, Y-subadditive and Y-monotone.

3.1. A connection between complexity analysis and aggregation theory

In this subsection we show that the asymmetric norms used in themathematical approach for the complexity analysis ofprograms and algorithms, exposed in Section 2.3, can be retrieved as a particular case of the aggregation theory developedalong Section 3. To this end we present a key result which follows from Corollary 19 and whose easy proof we omit.

Corollary 20. The following statements hold:

(1) For each 1 ≤ p < +∞, the function Φp : l+p → R+ defined by

Φp(c) =

∞−j=0

(cj)p 1

p

is a l+p -asymmetric norm aggregation function, where

l+p =

x ∈ R+

N :

∞−j=0

(xj)p 1

p

< +∞

.

(2) The function Φ∨ : l+∞

→ R+ defined by

Φ∨(c) =

j∈N

cj

is an l+∞-asymmetric norm aggregation function, where

l+∞

=

x ∈ R+

N :

j∈N

xj < +∞

.

In the light of the preceding corollary we are able to show the announced connection between aggregation theory andcomplexity analysis.

Let 1 ≤ p < +∞. Put lp =

x ∈ RN :

∑∞

j=0(|xj|)p 1

p < +∞

. It is clear that lp is a linear space [29]. Now consider

the indexed family of asymmetric normed linear spaces {(R, ‖ · ‖u,i)i∈N} where ‖x‖u,i = 2−i|x|u for all i ∈ N. Then

V =∏

i∈N R = RN and lp ⊂ V . Set Y = l+p ⊂ R+

N . Let VY = lp. Then δ(VY) ⊆ l+p . By Corollary 20 we have that Φp ◦ δis an asymmetric norm on lp. Moreover, for all f ∈ B∗

p , the complexity asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖B∗p satisfies

‖f ‖B∗p =

+∞−i=1

2−i(fi ∨ 0)

p 1p

=

+∞−i=1

2−i

|fi|up 1

p

= Φp ◦ δ(xf ),

where xf = (2−ifi)i∈N ∈ VY = lp.Let P be a polynomial with P(i) ≥ i for all i ∈ N. Consider the indexed family of asymmetric normed linear spaces

{(R+, ‖ · ‖P,i)i∈N} where ‖x‖P,i = 2−P(i)|x|u for all i ∈ N. Put l∞ = {x ∈ RN :

j∈N |xj| < +∞}. It is clear that l∞ is a


linear space [29]. In addition, we have that V =∏

i∈N R = RN and that l∞ ⊂ V . Set Y = l+∞

⊂ R+

N . Let VY = l∞. Thenδ(VY) ⊆ l+

∞. By Corollary 20 we have that Φ∨ ◦ δ is an asymmetric norm on l∞. Furthermore, we have that, for all f ∈ B∗

P,∞,the complexity asymmetric norm ‖ · ‖B∗

P,∞satisfies

‖f ‖B∗P,∞

=

i∈N

2−P(i)(fi ∨ 0)

=

i∈N

2−P(i)|fi|u = Φ∨ ◦ δ(xf ),

where xf = (2−P(i)fi)i∈N ∈ VY = l∞.We end the paper emphasizing the special importance of the fact that the asymmetric norms used in complexity analysis

can be retrieved as a particular case of the theory of asymmetric norm aggregation functions. Concretely, it opens thepossibility of applying awide range of properties from the general aggregation theory to the complexity analysis of programsand algorithms in Computer Science, which could mean an advantage in solving some problems that arise in a natural wayin this field.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science and FEDER grant MTM2009-10962.

References

[1] J. Borsik, J. Doboš, On a product of metric spaces, Math. Slovaca 31 (1981) 193–205.[2] A. Pradera, E. Trillas, E. Castiñeira, On distances aggregation, in: Proceedings of the Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in

Knowledge-Based Systems International Conference, 2000, pp. 693–700.[3] A. Pradera, E. Trillas, E. Castiñeira, On the aggregation of some classes of fuzzy relations, in: B. Bouchon-Meunier, J. Gutierrez, L. Magdalena, R. Yager

(Eds.), Technologies for Constructing Intelligent Systems, Springer-Verlag, 2002, pp. 125–147.[4] A. Pradera, E. Trillas, A note on pseudometrics aggregation, Int. J. Gen. Syst. 31 (2002) 41–51.[5] J. Casasnovas, F. Roselló, Averaging fuzzy biopolymers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 152 (2005) 139–158.[6] J. Casasnovas, F. Roselló, Midpoints as average representations of pairs of descriptions by means of fuzzy subsets, in: Proceedings of the Information

Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems International Conference, 2005, pp. 2157–2164.[7] I. Herburt, M. Moszyńska, On metric products, Colloq. Math. 62 (1991) 121–133.[8] M. Schellekens, The Smyth completion: a common foundation for denonational semantics and complexity analysis, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput.

Sci. 1 (1995) 211–232.[9] S. Romaguera, M. Schellekens, Quasi-metric properties of complexity spaces, Topology Appl. 98 (1999) 311–322.

[10] S. Romaguera, M. Schellekens, Duality and quasi-normability for complexity analysis, Appl. Gen. Topol. 3 (2002) 91–112.[11] L.M. García-Raffi, S. Romaguera, E.A. Sánchez-Pérez, The supremum asymmetric norm on sequence algebras: a general framework to measure

complexity spaces, Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 74 (2003) 39–50.[12] L.M. García-Raffi, S. Romaguera, E.A. Sánchez-Pérez, Sequence spaces and asymmetric norms in the theory of computational complexity, Math.

Comput. Modelling 36 (2002) 1–11.[13] S. Romaguera, E.A. Sánchez-Pérez, O. Valero, Computing complexity distances between algorithms, Kybernetika 39 (2003) 569–582.[14] L.M. García-Raffi, S. Romaguera, E.A. Sánchez-Pérez, O. Valero, Normed semialgebras: a mathematical model for the complexity analysis of programs

and algorithms, in: Proceedings of the Seventh World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, vol. II, 2003, pp. 55–58.[15] A.K. Seda, Quasi-metrics and the semantics of logic programs, Fund. Inform. 29 (1997) 97–117.[16] A.K. Seda, Some issues concerning fixed points in computational logic: quasi-metrics, multivalued mappings and the Knaster–Tarski theorem,

Topology Proc. 24 (1999) 223–250.[17] A. Stojmirović, Quasi-metric spaces with measure, Topology Proc. 28 (2004) 655–671.[18] A. Stojmirović, Quasi-metrics, similarities and searches: aspects of geometry of protein datasets, Ph.D. Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington,

Wellington, 2005.[19] V. Pestov, A. Stojmirović, Indexing schemes for similarity search in datasets of short protein fragments, Inf. Syst. 35 (2007) 1145–1165.[20] A. Stojmirović, Y.-K. Yu, Geometric aspects of biological sequence comparison, J. Comput. Biol. 16 (2009) 579–610.[21] J. Casasnovas, O. Valero, A connection between computer science and fuzzy theory:midpoints and running time of computing,Mathware Soft Comput.

15 (2008) 251–261.[22] P. Tirado, O. Valero, The average running time of an algorithm as a midpoint between fuzzy sets, Math. Comput. Modelling 49 (2009) 1852–1868.[23] G. Mayor, O. Valero, Aggregation of asymmetric distances in computer science, Inform. Sci. 180 (2010) 803–812.[24] H.P.A. Künzi, Nonsymmetric distances and their associated topologies: about the origins of basic ideas in the area of asymmetric topology, in: C.E. Aull,

R. Lowen (Eds.), Handbook of the History of General Topology, vol. 3, Kluwer Acad. Publ., 2001, pp. 853–968.[25] H.P.A. Künzi, H. Pajoohesh, M.P. Schellekens, Partial quasi-metrics, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 365 (2006) 237–246.[26] H. Poppe, A theorem on summable families in normed groups, Rostock. Math. Kolloq. 49 (1995) 51–56.[27] A.A. Pavlov, Normed groups and their applications in noncommutative differential geometry, J. Math. Sci. 113 (2003) 675–682.[28] A. Wilansky, Topology for Analysis, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Florida, 1970.[29] J.B. Conway, A Course in Functional Analysis, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.[30] J. Doboš, A survey of metric preserving functions, Questions Answers Gen. Topology 13 (1995) 129–134.[31] G. Brassard, P. Bratley, Algorithms: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1988.[32] T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest, Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press, New York, 1990.[33] A.V. Aho, J.E. Hopcroft, J.D. Ullman, Data Structures and Algorithms, Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1983.[34] A.E. Emerson, C.S. Jutla, The complexity of tree automata and logic of programs, SIAM J. Comput. 29 (1999) 132–158.[35] R. Mesiar, E. Pap, Aggregation of infinite sequences, Inform. Sci. 178 (2008) 3557–3564.[36] U. Bodenhofer, R. Mesiar, S. Saminger, Domination of aggregation operators and preservation of transitivity, Internat. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness

Knowledge-Based Systems 10 (2002) 11–35.[37] M. Grabisch, J.L. Marichal, R. Mesiar, E. Pap, Aggregation Functions, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009.

Documents

On aggregation of normed structures