You are given two integer arrays A and B of length N. You have to find the value of two summation:
Z=Σ Σ max(Ai+Bj, Bi+Aj)
Here is my brute force algorithm
for loop (i to length)
for loop (j to length)
sum+=Math.max(A[i]+B[j], A[j]+B[i]);
Please tell me a better efficient algorithm for this.
Rewrite the sum as Z = Σi Σj [max(Ai−Bi, Aj−Bj) + Bi + Bj] by using the distributive property of plus over max. Then construct C = A−B, sort it, and return Σi (2i+1)Ci + 2n Σi Bi (using zero-based indexing).
A minor improvement I can think of is to omit the results that you already computed. This means, instead of beginning the inner loop from 0, you can start with j = i. Since you already have computed the results for j < i in the previous loops.
To achieve this, you can change the instruction in the inner loop to the following:
if i != j
sum += 2 * Math.max(A[i]+B[j], A[j]+B[i]);
else
sum += Math.max(A[i]+B[j], A[j]+B[i]);
The reason is that every pair of i and j are visited twice by the loops.
Related
Given an array of n integers in the locations A[1], A[2], …, A[n], describe an O(n^2) time algorithm to
compute the sum A[i] + A[i+1] + … + A[j] for all i, j, 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n.
I've tried multiple ways of solving this problem but none have in O(n^2) time.
So for an array containing {1,2,3,4}
You would output:
1+2 = 3
1+2+3 = 6
1+2+3+4 = 10
2+3 = 5
2+3+4 = 9
3+4 = 7
The answer does not need to be in a specific language, pseudocode is preferred.
A good preperation is everything.
You could create an array of integrals:
I[0..n] = (0, I[0] + A[1], I[1] + A[2], ..., I[n-1]+A[n]);
This will cost you O(n) * O(1) (looping over all elements and doing one addition);
Now you can calculate each Sum(A, i, j) with just a single subtraction: I[j] - I[i-1];
so this has O(1)
Looping over all combinations of i and j with 1 <= (i,j) <= n has O(n^2).
So you end up with O(n) * O(1) + O(n^2) * O(1) = O(n^2) .
Edit:
Your array A starts at 1 - adapted to this - this also solves the little quirk with i-1
So the integral array I starts with index 0 and is 1 element larger than A
Edit:
First you'll maybe have thought about the most naive idea:
Naive idea
Create a function that for given values of i and of j will return the sum A[i] + ... + A[j].
function sumRange(A, i, j):
sum = 0
for k = i to j
sum = sum + A[k]
return sum
Then generate all pairs of i and j (with i < j) and call the above function for each pair:
for i = 1 to n
for j = i+1 to n
output sumRange(A, i, j)
This is not O(n²), because already the two loops on i and j represent O(n²) iterations, and then the function will perform yet another loop, making it O(n³).
Better idea
The above can be improved. Look at the repetition it performs. The sum that was calculated for given values of i and j could be reused to calculate the sum for when j has increased with 1, without starting from scratch and summing the values between i and (now) j-1 again, only to add that one more value to it.
We should just remember what the previous sum was, and add A[j] to it.
So without a separate function:
for i = 1 to n
sum = A[i]
for j = i+1 to n
sum = sum + A[j]
output sum
Note how the sum is not reset to 0 once it is output. It is preserved, so that when j is incremented, only one value needs to be added to it.
Now it is O(n²). Note also how it does not require an extra array for storage. It only needs the memory for a few variables (i, j, sum), so its space complexity is O(1).
As the number of sums you need to output is O(n²), there is no way to improve this time complexity any further.
NB: I assume here that single array values do not constitute a "sum". As you stated in your question, i < j, and also in your example you only showed sums of at least two array values. The above can be easily adapted to also include single value "sums" if ever that were needed.
What's the big O of this?
for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = 1; j < (i*i); j++) {
if (j % i == 0) {
for (int k = 0; k < j; k++) {
// Simple computation
}
}
}
}
Can't really figure it out. Inclined to say O(n^4 log(n)) but feel like i'm wrong here.
This is quite a confusing analysis, so let's break it down bit by bit to make sense of the calculations:
The outermost loop runs for n-1 iterations (since 1 ≤ i < n).
The next loop inside it makes (i² - 1) iterations for each index i of the outer loop (since 1 ≤ j < i²).
In total, this means the number of iterations for these two loops is equal to calculating the sum of (i²-1) for each 1 ≤ i < n. This is similar to computing the sum of the first n squares, and is order of magnitude of O(n³).
Note the modulo operator % takes constant time (O(1)) to compute, therefore checking the condition if (j % i == 0) for all iterations of these two loops will not affect the O(n³) runtime.
Now let's talk about the inner loop inside the conditional.
We are interested in seeing how many times (and for which values of j) this if condition evaluates to true, since this would dictate how many iterations the innermost loop will run.
Practically speaking, (j % i) will never equal 0 if j < i, so the second loop could actually be shortened to start from i rather than from 1, however this will not impact the Big-O upper bound of the algorithm.
Notice that for a given number i, (j % i == 0) if and only if i is a divisor of j. Since our range is (1 ≤ j < i²), there will be a total of (i-1) values of j for which this will be true, for any given i. If this is confusing, consider this example:
Let's assume i = 4. Then our index j would iterate through all values 1,..,15=i²,
and (j%i == 0) would be true for j = 4, 8, 12 - exactly (i - 1) values.
The innermost loop would therefore make a total of (12 + 8 + 4 = 24) iterations. Thus for a general index i, we would look for the sum: i + 2i + 3i + ... + (i-1)i to indicate the number of iterations the innermost loop would make.
And this could be generalized by calculating the sum of this arithmetic progression. The first value is i and the last value is (i-1)i, which results in a sum of (i³ - i²)/2 iterations of the k loop for every value of i. In turn, the sum of this for all values of i could be computed by calculating the sum of cubes and the sum of squares - for a total runtime of O(n⁴) iterations of the innermost loop (the k loop) for all values of i.
Thus in total, the runtime of this algorithm would be the total of both runtimes we calculated above. We checked the if statement O(n³) times and the innermost loop ran for O(n⁴), so assuming // Simple computation runs in constant time, our total runtime would come down to:
O(n³) + O(n⁴)*O(1) = O(n⁴)
Let us assume that i = 2.Then j can be [1,2,3].The "k" loop will run for j = 2 only.
Similarly for i=3,j can be[1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].hence, k can run for j = 3,6. You can see a pattern here that for any value of i, the 'k' loop will run (i-1) times.The length of loops will be [i,2*i,3*i,....i*i].
Hence the time complexity of k loop is
=i+(2*i)+(3*i)+ ..... +(i*i)
=(i^2)(i+1)/2
Hence the final complexity will be
= (n^3)(n+3)/2
1) i=s=1;
while(s<=n)
{
i++;
s=s+i;
}
2) for(int i=1;i<=n;i++)
for(int j=1;j<=n;j+=i)
cout<<"*";
3) j=1;
for(int i=1;i<=n;i++)
for(j=j*i;j<=n;j=j+i)
cout<<"*";
can someone explain me the time complexity of these three codes?
I know the answers but I can't understand how it came
1) To figure this out, we need to figure out how large s is on the x'th iteration of the loop. Then we'll know how many iterations occur until the condition s > n is reached.
On the x'th iteration, the variable i has value x + 1
And the variable s has value equal to the sum of i for all previous values. So, on that iteration, s has value equal to
sum_{y = 1 .. x} (y+1) = O(x^2)
This means that we have s = n on the x = O(\sqrt{n}) iteration. So that's the running time of the loop.
If you aren't sure about why the sum is O(x^2), I gave an answer to another question like this once here and the same technique applies. In this particular case you could also use an identity
sum_{y = 1 .. x} y = y choose 2 = (y+1)(y) / 2
This identity can be easily proved by induction on y.
2) Try to analyze how long the inner loop runs, as a function of i and n. Since we start at one, end at n, and count up by i, it runs n/i times. So the total time for the outer loop is
sum_{i = 1 .. n} n/i = n * sum_{i = 1 .. n} 1 / i = O(n log n)
The series sum_{i = 1 .. n} 1 / i is called the harmonic series. It is well-known that it converges to O(log n). I can't enclose here a simple proof. It can be proved using calculus though. This is a series you just have to know. If you want to see a simple proof, you can look on on wikipedia at the "comparison test". The proof there only shows the series is >= log n, but the same technique can be used to show it is <= O(log n) also.
3.) This looks like kind of a trick question. The inner loop is going to run once, but once it exits with j = n + 1, we can never reenter this loop, because no later line that runs will make j <= n again. We will run j = j * i many times, where i is a positive number. So j is going to end up at least as large as n!. For any significant value of n, this is going to cause an overflow. Ignoring that possibility, the code is going to perform O(n) operations in total.
I'm given a sequence of numbers a_1,a_2,...,a_n. It's sum is S=a_1+a_2+...+a_n and I need to find a subsequence a_i,...,a_j such that min(S-(a_i+...+a_j),a_i+...+a_j) is the largest possible (both sums must be non-empty).
Example:
1,2,3,4,5 the sequence is 3,4, because then min(S-(a_i+...+a_j),a_i+...+a_j)=min(8,7)=7 (and it's the largest possible which can be checked for other subsequences).
I tried to do this the hard way.
I load all values into the array tab[n].
I do this n-1 times tab[i]+=tab[i-j]. So that tab[j] is the sum from the beginning till j.
I check all possible sums a_i+...+a_j=tab[j]-tab[i-1] and substract it from the sum, take the minimum and see if it's larger than before.
It takes O(n^2). This makes me very sad and miserable. Is there a better way?
Seems like this can be done in O(n) time.
Compute the sum S. The ideal subsequence sum is the longest one which gets closest to S/2.
Start with i=j=0 and increase j until sum(a_i..a_j) and sum(a_i..a_{j+1}) are as close as possible to S/2. Note which ever is closer and save the values of i_best,j_best,sum_best.
Increment i and then increase j again until sum(a_i..a_j) and sum(a_i..a_{j+1}) are as close as possible to S/2. Note which ever is closer and replace the values of i_best,j_best,sum_best if they are better. Repeat this step until done.
Note that both i and j are never decremented, so they are changed a total of at most O(n) times. Since all other operations take only constant time, this results in an O(n) runtime for the entire algorithm.
Let's first do some clarifications.
A subsequence of a sequence is actually a subset of the indices of the sequence. Haivng said that, and specifically int he case where you sequence has distinct elements, your problem will reduce to the famous Partition problem, which is known to be NP-complete. If that is the case, you can manage to solve the problem in O(Sn) where "n" is the number of elements and "S" is the total sum. This is not polynomial time as "S" can be arbitrarily large.
So lets consider the case with a contiguous subsequence. You need to observe array elements twice. First run sums them up into some "S". In the second run you carefully adjust array length. Lets assume you know that a[i] + a[i + 1] + ... + a[j] > S / 2. Then you let i = i + 1 to reduce the sum. Conversely, if it was smaller, you would increase j.
This code runs in O(n).
Python code:
from math import fabs
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
i = 0
j = 0
S = sum(a)
s = 0
while s + a[j] <= S / 2:
s = s + a[j]
j = j + 1
s = s + a[j]
best_case = (i, j)
best_difference = fabs(S / 2 - s)
while True:
if fabs(S / 2 - s) < best_difference:
best_case = (i, j)
best_difference = fabs(S / 2 - s)
if s > S / 2:
s -= a[i]
i += 1
else:
j += 1
if j == len(a):
break
s += a[j]
print best_case
i = best_case[0]
j = best_case[1]
print "Best subarray = ", a[i:j + 1]
print "Best sum = " , sum(a[i:j + 1])
Given:
array of integers
value K,M
Question:
Find the maximum sum which we can obtain from all K element subsets of given array such that sum is less than value M?
is there a non dynamic programming solution available to this problem?
or if it is only dp[i][j][k] can only solve this type of problem!
can you please explain the algorithm.
Many people have commented correctly that the answer below from years ago, which uses dynamic programming, incorrectly encodes solutions allowing an element of the array to appear in a "subset" multiple times. Luckily there is still hope for a DP based approach.
Let dp[i][j][k] = true if there exists a size k subset of the first i elements of the input array summing up to j
Our base case is dp[0][0][0] = true
Now, either the size k subset of the first i elements uses a[i + 1], or it does not, giving the recurrence
dp[i + 1][j][k] = dp[i][j - a[i + 1]][k - 1] OR dp[i][j][k]
Put everything together:
given A[1...N]
initialize dp[0...N][0...M][0...K] to false
dp[0][0][0] = true
for i = 0 to N - 1:
for j = 0 to M:
for k = 0 to K:
if dp[i][j][k]:
dp[i + 1][j][k] = true
if j >= A[i] and k >= 1 and dp[i][j - A[i + 1]][k - 1]:
dp[i + 1][j][k] = true
max_sum = 0
for j = 0 to M:
if dp[N][j][K]:
max_sum = j
return max_sum
giving O(NMK) time and space complexity.
Stepping back, we've made one assumption here implicitly which is that A[1...i] are all non-negative. With negative numbers, initializing the second dimension 0...M is not correct. Consider a size K subset made up of a size K - 1 subset with sum exceeding M and one other sufficiently negative element of A[] such that overall sum no longer exceeds M. Similarly, our size K - 1 subset could sum to some extremely negative number and then with a sufficiently positive element of A[] sum to M. In order for our algorithm to still work in both cases we would need to increase the second dimension from M to the difference between the sum of all positive elements in A[] and the sum of all negative elements (the sum of the absolute values of all elements in A[]).
As for whether a non dynamic programming solution exists, certainly there is the naive exponential time brute force solution and variations that optimize the constant factor in the exponent.
Beyond that? Well your problem is closely related to subset sum and the literature for the big name NP complete problems is rather extensive. And as a general principle algorithms can come in all shapes and sizes -- it's not impossible for me to imagine doing say, randomization, approximation, (just choose the error parameter to be sufficiently small!) plain old reductions to other NP complete problems (convert your problem into a giant boolean circuit and run a SAT solver). Yes these are different algorithms. Are they faster than a dynamic programming solution? Some of them, probably. Are they as simple to understand or implement, without say training beyond standard introduction to algorithms material? Probably not.
This is a variant of the Knapsack or subset-problem, where in terms of time (at the cost of exponential growing space requirements as the input size grows), dynamic programming is the most efficient method that CORRECTLY solves this problem. See Is this variant of the subset sum problem easier to solve? for a similar question to yours.
However, since your problem is not exactly the same, I'll provide an explanation anyways. Let dp[i][j] = true, if there is a subset of length i that sums to j and false if there isn't. The idea is that dp[][] will encode the sums of all possible subsets for every possible length. We can then simply find the largest j <= M such that dp[K][j] is true. Our base case dp[0][0] = true because we can always make a subset that sums to 0 by picking one of size 0.
The recurrence is also fairly straightforward. Suppose we've calculated the values of dp[][] using the first n values of the array. To find all possible subsets of the first n+1 values of the array, we can simply take the n+1_th value and add it to all the subsets we've seen before. More concretely, we have the following code:
initialize dp[0..K][0..M] to false
dp[0][0] = true
for i = 0 to N:
for s = 0 to K - 1:
for j = M to 0:
if dp[s][j] && A[i] + j < M:
dp[s + 1][j + A[i]] = true
for j = M to 0:
if dp[K][j]:
print j
break
We're looking for a subset of K elements for which the sum of the elements is a maximum, but less than M.
We can place bounds [X, Y] on the largest element in the subset as follows.
First we sort the (N) integers, values[0] ... values[N-1], with the element values[0] is the smallest.
The lower bound X is the largest integer for which
values[X] + values[X-1] + .... + values[X-(K-1)] < M.
(If X is N-1, then we've found the answer.)
The upper bound Y is the largest integer less than N for which
values[0] + values[1] + ... + values[K-2] + values[Y] < M.
With this observation, we can now bound the second-highest term for each value of the highest term Z, where
X <= Z <= Y.
We can use exactly the same method, since the form of the problem is exactly the same. The reduced problem is finding a subset of K-1 elements, taken from values[0] ... values[Z-1], for which the sum of the elements is a maximum, but less than M - values[Z].
Once we've bound that value in the same way, we can put bounds on the third-largest value for each pair of the two highest values. And so on.
This gives us a tree structure to search, hopefully with much fewer combinations to search than N choose K.
Felix is correct that this is a special case of the knapsack problem. His dynamic programming algorithm takes O(K*M) size and O(K*K*M) amount of time. I believe his use of the variable N really should be K.
There are two books devoted to the knapsack problem. The latest one, by Kellerer, Pferschy and Pisinger [2004, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 3-540-40286-1] gives an improved dynamic programming algorithm on their page 76, Figure 4.2 that takes O(K+M) space and O(KM) time, which is huge reduction compared to the dynamic programming algorithm given by Felix. Note that there is a typo on the book's last line of the algorithm where it should be c-bar := c-bar - w_(r(c-bar)).
My C# implementation is below. I cannot say that I have extensively tested it, and I welcome feedback on this. I used BitArray to implement the concept of the sets given in the algorithm in the book. In my code, c is the capacity (which in the original post was called M), and I used w instead of A as the array that holds the weights.
An example of its use is:
int[] optimal_indexes_for_ssp = new SubsetSumProblem(12, new List<int> { 1, 3, 5, 6 }).SolveSubsetSumProblem();
where the array optimal_indexes_for_ssp contains [0,2,3] corresponding to the elements 1, 5, 6.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections;
using System.Linq;
public class SubsetSumProblem
{
private int[] w;
private int c;
public SubsetSumProblem(int c, IEnumerable<int> w)
{
if (c < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Capacity for subset sum problem must be at least 0, but input was: " + c.ToString());
int n = w.Count();
this.w = new int[n];
this.c = c;
IEnumerator<int> pwi = w.GetEnumerator();
pwi.MoveNext();
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++, pwi.MoveNext())
this.w[i] = pwi.Current;
}
public int[] SolveSubsetSumProblem()
{
int n = w.Length;
int[] r = new int[c+1];
BitArray R = new BitArray(c+1);
R[0] = true;
BitArray Rp = new BitArray(c+1);
for (int d =0; d<=c ; d++) r[d] = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++)
{
Rp.SetAll(false);
for (int k = 0; k <= c; k++)
if (R[k] && k + w[j] <= c) Rp[k + w[j]] = true;
for (int k = w[j]; k <= c; k++) // since Rp[k]=false for k<w[j]
if (Rp[k])
{
if (!R[k]) r[k] = j;
R[k] = true;
}
}
int capacity_used= 0;
for(int d=c; d>=0; d--)
if (R[d])
{
capacity_used = d;
break;
}
List<int> result = new List<int>();
while (capacity_used > 0)
{
result.Add(r[capacity_used]);
capacity_used -= w[r[capacity_used]];
} ;
if (capacity_used < 0) throw new Exception("Subset sum program has an internal logic error");
return result.ToArray();
}
}