Suppose there are two 2D matrix, A and B
A = [
[1,2,3],
[4,5,6],
[7,8,9]
]
B = [
[2,3,9],
[5,6,7],
[8,9,0]
]
A and B are the dimension-wise same. A[i], B[i] are 64 bit integer
We can see that matrix A is overlapping with B from the 2nd column of A. So the position of overlapping is 1 and the length of overlapping is 2;
A naive approach would be as follows:
int N = 3; // row
int M = 3; // col
int A[3][3] = {
{1,2,3},
{4,5,6},
{7,8,9}
};
int B[3][3] = {
{2,3,9},
{5,6,7},
{8,9,0}
};
for (int i = 0; i < M;i++) {
int j = 0;
for (j = 0; j < M-i; j++) {
int k = 0;
for (k = 0; k < N; k++) {
if (A[k][i + j] != B[k][j]) {
break;
}
}
if (k < N) break;
}
if (j == M - i) return i;
}
A practical approach is to replace the matrices A and B with vectors a and b containing hashes of each column. Then you check for overlaps in the vectors, and only when you find one do you check to see if the full matrices match with the same overlap.
If your hash function is decent, then the probability of failing a full matrix check will be low.
To find the vector overlaps, you can use a similar strategy, checking hashes of suffixes of a against hashes of prefixes of b, and only checking the full vectors, and then full matrices, when they match.
To make this an optimization, you need to be able to calculate those prefix and suffix hashes incrementally, so you can get the hash of the next suffix by adding one character to the hash of the previous suffix in constant time. A common polynomial hash function makes that pretty easy.
For example, if your hash function is:
h = 0;
for item in vec:
h = h*31 + item;
return h;
Then you have hash(concat(x,y)) = hash(x)*(31^y.length) + hash(y)
Related
You are provided with an N*M matrix containing Integer values. Your task is to select one integer from each row such that the sum of these integers is maximum. However, you are not allowed to select two integers from adjacent rows in the same column.
How can I do this problem in less than O(N^M) (or O(M^N))?
I came up with two possible solutions: 1. using recursion, 2. using DP.
1. Using Recursion
I think you already have this solution. I made a recursive function that goes through each row in matrix and calls recursion for each column. As you mentioned, the time complexity would be O(M^N) where N is the number of rows and M is the number of columns.
int getMaxSum(int[][] matrix) {
return getMax(matrix, 0, -1);
}
int getMax(int[][] matrix, int row, int prevCol) {
if (row >= matrix.length) return 0;
int result = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
for (int i = 0; i < matrix[row].length; i++) {
if (i == prevCol) continue;
int sum = getMax(matrix, row+1, i) + matrix[row][i];
result = Math.max(result, sum);
}
return result;
}
2. Using DP
Instead of recursively going through all rows and columns, I can use DP to keep track of maximum sum for each column up to a certain row. For example, DP[r][c] can have a maximum possible sum at column c up to row r. To implement this, I need to go through all rows and columns in the input matrix, and at each index, I also need to go through maximum possible sums at previous row (excluding the same column). This would result in time complexity of O(N*M^2) where N is the number of rows and M is the number of columns.
int getMaxSum(int[][] matrix) {
if (matrix.length == 0) return 0;
int[][] maxSumsDP = new int[matrix.length+1][matrix[0].length];
for (int r = 1; r <= matrix.length; r++) {
for (int c = 0; c < matrix[r-1].length; c++) {
int maxPrev = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
for (int i = 0; i < maxSumDP[r-1].length; i++) {
if (i == c) continue;
maxPrev = Math.max(maxPrev, maxSumsDP[r-1][i]);
}
maxSumsDP[r][c] = maxPrev + matrix[r-1][c];
}
}
int result = maxSumsDP[maxSumsDP.length-1][0];
for (int i = 1; i < maxSumsDP[maxSumsDP.length-1].length; i++) {
result = Math.max(result, maxSumsDP[maxSumsDP.length-1][i]);
}
return result;
}
This is a google interview question.
You are given a matrix with N rows and N columns. Elements in matrix can be either 1 or 0. Each row and column of matrix is sorted in ascending order. Find number of 0-s in the given matrix.
I had come up with a O(n) solution, but not able to at all come with a O(logn) solution. Any pointers are highly appreciated.
EDIT: It seems O(logn) seems not possible, as explained below.
First, here is an algorithm that counts the zeroes in O(n) time:
countZeroes(matrix):
n = matrix.rowCount
i = 0
j = n-1
count = 0
while i < n && j >=0:
if matrix[i][j] == 1 then:
j--
else:
i++
count += j+1
return count
As each iteration either increments i or decrements j, and both can only take values between 0..n-1 before the loop ends, the maximum number of iterations is 2n, which is O(n).
Here is a JavaScript snippet that generates a 5x5 random matrix and counts the zeroes with the above algorithm:
function countZeroes(matrix) {
var n = matrix.length,
i = 0,
j = n-1,
count = 0;
while (i < n && j >=0) {
if (matrix[i][j] === 1) {
j--;
} else {
i++;
count += j+1;
}
}
return count;
}
function randomMatrix(n) {
var matrix = [],
zeroCounts = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
zeroCounts[i] = Math.floor(Math.random() * (n+1));
}
zeroCounts.sort((a,b) => b-a); // descending
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) {
matrix[i] = [];
for (var j = 0; j < n; j++) {
matrix[i][j] = j < zeroCounts[i] ? 0 : 1;
}
}
return matrix;
}
function matrixToString(matrix) {
var s = '';
for (var i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++) {
s += matrix[i].join('') + '\n';
}
return s;
}
var matrix = randomMatrix(5);
console.log(matrixToString(matrix));
console.log('Zeroes: ', countZeroes(matrix));
Can it be done in O(log n)?
Imagine a matrix like this:
0000
0001
0011
0111
You will need to visit every row in this matrix to know how many zeroes there are in it. Imagine you would visit only 3 of the 4 rows: it could be any 3... There would still be at least three possible outcomes for the total number of zeroes unless you also visit that fourth one.
For instance if you would have visited row 0, row 1 and row 3, you would know this:
0000
0001
****
0111
By the fact that the rows and columns are sorted, you can deduct:
0000
0001
0**1
0111
But the remaining ** could be 00, 01 or 11. The only way to find out is to actually look at at least one value in that row.
Conclusion: it is not possible in less than O(n).
Let's say in the course of the algorithm we have already learned that the matrix is of the following form:
000?
00?1
0?11
?111
We cannot learn the value of any ? from the value of any other ?, so we need to look at each one of them. Thus, any solution to the general problem needs at least O(n) time, and a solution in log(n) or log²(n) time is impossible.
using binary search to find number of zeros in a row could help out here!
public static int findZerosV2(int[][] NxNMatrix) {
int numZeros = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < NxNMatrix.length; i++) {
int numZerosInRow = binarySearch(NxNMatrix[i]);
if (numZerosInRow > -1) {
numZeros += numZerosInRow;
}
}
return numZeros;
}
public static int binarySearch(int[] rowItem) {
int foundZeros = -1;
int rowIndex = 0;
int highIndex = rowItem.length;
for (int i = 0; i < rowItem.length; i++) {
//find the middle element
int mIndex = (rowIndex + highIndex) / 2;
if (rowItem[mIndex] == 0) {
rowIndex = mIndex + 1;
//keep count using index number of 0
foundZeros = mIndex;
} else
highIndex = mIndex - 1;
}
//considering zero based index array
return foundZeros + 1;
}
you can use a binarysearch on every row to find the position where 0 changes to 1.
Binarysearch is working on an sorted array in O(log n). you will get out the indexnumber of the changed position. this you should do for every row (n times) and then the time will be O(n* log n)
Binary search the "middle" point on the anti-diagonal, then you'll know that the upper-left sub-matrix is full of 0 and the lower-right full of 1. Recursive search on lower-left and lower-right sub-matrices?
Most of us are familiar with the maximum sum subarray problem. I came across a variant of this problem which asks the programmer to output the maximum of all subarray sums modulo some number M.
The naive approach to solve this variant would be to find all possible subarray sums (which would be of the order of N^2 where N is the size of the array). Of course, this is not good enough. The question is - how can we do better?
Example: Let us consider the following array:
6 6 11 15 12 1
Let M = 13. In this case, subarray 6 6 (or 12 or 6 6 11 15 or 11 15 12) will yield maximum sum ( = 12 ).
We can do this as follow:
Maintaining an array sum which at index ith, it contains the modulus sum from 0 to ith.
For each index ith, we need to find the maximum sub sum that end at this index:
For each subarray (start + 1 , i ), we know that the mod sum of this sub array is
int a = (sum[i] - sum[start] + M) % M
So, we can only achieve a sub-sum larger than sum[i] if sum[start] is larger than sum[i] and as close to sum[i] as possible.
This can be done easily if you using a binary search tree.
Pseudo code:
int[] sum;
sum[0] = A[0];
Tree tree;
tree.add(sum[0]);
int result = sum[0];
for(int i = 1; i < n; i++){
sum[i] = sum[i - 1] + A[i];
sum[i] %= M;
int a = tree.getMinimumValueLargerThan(sum[i]);
result = max((sum[i] - a + M) % M, result);
tree.add(sum[i]);
}
print result;
Time complexity :O(n log n)
Let A be our input array with zero-based indexing. We can reduce A modulo M without changing the result.
First of all, let's reduce the problem to a slightly easier one by computing an array P representing the prefix sums of A, modulo M:
A = 6 6 11 2 12 1
P = 6 12 10 12 11 12
Now let's process the possible left borders of our solution subarrays in decreasing order. This means that we will first determine the optimal solution that starts at index n - 1, then the one that starts at index n - 2 etc.
In our example, if we chose i = 3 as our left border, the possible subarray sums are represented by the suffix P[3..n-1] plus a constant a = A[i] - P[i]:
a = A[3] - P[3] = 2 - 12 = 3 (mod 13)
P + a = * * * 2 1 2
The global maximum will occur at one point too. Since we can insert the suffix values from right to left, we have now reduced the problem to the following:
Given a set of values S and integers x and M, find the maximum of S + x modulo M
This one is easy: Just use a balanced binary search tree to manage the elements of S. Given a query x, we want to find the largest value in S that is smaller than M - x (that is the case where no overflow occurs when adding x). If there is no such value, just use the largest value of S. Both can be done in O(log |S|) time.
Total runtime of this solution: O(n log n)
Here's some C++ code to compute the maximum sum. It would need some minor adaptions to also return the borders of the optimal subarray:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
int max_mod_sum(const vector<int>& A, int M) {
vector<int> P(A.size());
for (int i = 0; i < A.size(); ++i)
P[i] = (A[i] + (i > 0 ? P[i-1] : 0)) % M;
set<int> S;
int res = 0;
for (int i = A.size() - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
S.insert(P[i]);
int a = (A[i] - P[i] + M) % M;
auto it = S.lower_bound(M - a);
if (it != begin(S))
res = max(res, *prev(it) + a);
res = max(res, (*prev(end(S)) + a) % M);
}
return res;
}
int main() {
// random testing to the rescue
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
int M = rand() % 1000 + 1, n = rand() % 1000 + 1;
vector<int> A(n);
for (int i = 0; i< n; ++i)
A[i] = rand() % M;
int should_be = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
int sum = 0;
for (int j = i; j < n; ++j) {
sum = (sum + A[j]) % M;
should_be = max(should_be, sum);
}
}
assert(should_be == max_mod_sum(A, M));
}
}
For me, all explanations here were awful, since I didn't get the searching/sorting part. How do we search/sort, was unclear.
We all know that we need to build prefixSum, meaning sum of all elems from 0 to i with modulo m
I guess, what we are looking for is clear.
Knowing that subarray[i][j] = (prefix[i] - prefix[j] + m) % m (indicating the modulo sum from index i to j), our maxima when given prefix[i] is always that prefix[j] which is as close as possible to prefix[i], but slightly bigger.
E.g. for m = 8, prefix[i] being 5, we are looking for the next value after 5, which is in our prefixArray.
For efficient search (binary search) we sort the prefixes.
What we can not do is, build the prefixSum first, then iterate again from 0 to n and look for index in the sorted prefix array, because we can find and endIndex which is smaller than our startIndex, which is no good.
Therefore, what we do is we iterate from 0 to n indicating the endIndex of our potential max subarray sum and then look in our sorted prefix array, (which is empty at the beginning) which contains sorted prefixes between 0 and endIndex.
def maximumSum(coll, m):
n = len(coll)
maxSum, prefixSum = 0, 0
sortedPrefixes = []
for endIndex in range(n):
prefixSum = (prefixSum + coll[endIndex]) % m
maxSum = max(maxSum, prefixSum)
startIndex = bisect.bisect_right(sortedPrefixes, prefixSum)
if startIndex < len(sortedPrefixes):
maxSum = max(maxSum, prefixSum - sortedPrefixes[startIndex] + m)
bisect.insort(sortedPrefixes, prefixSum)
return maxSum
From your question, it seems that you have created an array to store the cumulative sums (Prefix Sum Array), and are calculating the sum of the sub-array arr[i:j] as (sum[j] - sum[i] + M) % M. (arr and sum denote the given array and the prefix sum array respectively)
Calculating the sum of every sub-array results in a O(n*n) algorithm.
The question that arises is -
Do we really need to consider the sum of every sub-array to reach the desired maximum?
No!
For a value of j the value (sum[j] - sum[i] + M) % M will be maximum when sum[i] is just greater than sum[j] or the difference is M - 1.
This would reduce the algorithm to O(nlogn).
You can take a look at this explanation! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_ft5jCDZXk
There are already a bunch of great solutions listed here, but I wanted to add one that has O(nlogn) runtime without using a balanced binary tree, which isn't in the Python standard library. This solution isn't my idea, but I had to think a bit as to why it worked. Here's the code, explanation below:
def maximumSum(a, m):
prefixSums = [(0, -1)]
for idx, el in enumerate(a):
prefixSums.append(((prefixSums[-1][0] + el) % m, idx))
prefixSums = sorted(prefixSums)
maxSeen = prefixSums[-1][0]
for (a, a_idx), (b, b_idx) in zip(prefixSums[:-1], prefixSums[1:]):
if a_idx > b_idx and b > a:
maxSeen = max((a-b) % m, maxSeen)
return maxSeen
As with the other solutions, we first calculate the prefix sums, but this time we also keep track of the index of the prefix sum. We then sort the prefix sums, as we want to find the smallest difference between prefix sums modulo m - sorting lets us just look at adjacent elements as they have the smallest difference.
At this point you might think we're neglecting an essential part of the problem - we want the smallest difference between prefix sums, but the larger prefix sum needs to appear before the smaller prefix sum (meaning it has a smaller index). In the solutions using trees, we ensure that by adding prefix sums one by one and recalculating the best solution.
However, it turns out that we can look at adjacent elements and just ignore ones that don't satisfy our index requirement. This confused me for some time, but the key realization is that the optimal solution will always come from two adjacent elements. I'll prove this via a contradiction. Let's say that the optimal solution comes from two non-adjacent prefix sums x and z with indices i and k, where z > x (it's sorted!) and k > i:
x ... z
k ... i
Let's consider one of the numbers between x and z, and let's call it y with index j. Since the list is sorted, x < y < z.
x ... y ... z
k ... j ... i
The prefix sum y must have index j < i, otherwise it would be part of a better solution with z. But if j < i, then j < k and y and x form a better solution than z and x! So any elements between x and z must form a better solution with one of the two, which contradicts our original assumption. Therefore the optimal solution must come from adjacent prefix sums in the sorted list.
Here is Java code for maximum sub array sum modulo. We handle the case we can not find least element in the tree strictly greater than s[i]
public static long maxModulo(long[] a, final long k) {
long[] s = new long[a.length];
TreeSet<Long> tree = new TreeSet<>();
s[0] = a[0] % k;
tree.add(s[0]);
long result = s[0];
for (int i = 1; i < a.length; i++) {
s[i] = (s[i - 1] + a[i]) % k;
// find least element in the tree strictly greater than s[i]
Long v = tree.higher(s[i]);
if (v == null) {
// can't find v, then compare v and s[i]
result = Math.max(s[i], result);
} else {
result = Math.max((s[i] - v + k) % k, result);
}
tree.add(s[i]);
}
return result;
}
Few points from my side that might hopefully help someone understand the problem better.
You do not need to add +M to the modulo calculation, as mentioned, % operator handles negative numbers well, so a % M = (a + M) % M
As mentioned, the trick is to build the proxy sum table such that
proxy[n] = (a[1] + ... a[n]) % M
This then allows one to represent the maxSubarraySum[i, j] as
maxSubarraySum[i, j] = (proxy[j] - proxy[j]) % M
The implementation trick is to build the proxy table as we iterate through the elements, instead of first pre-building it and then using. This is because for each new element in the array a[i] we want to compute proxy[i] and find proxy[j] that is bigger than but as close as possible to proxy[i] (ideally bigger by 1 because this results in a reminder of M - 1). For this we need to use a clever data structure for building proxy table while keeping it sorted and
being able to quickly find a closest bigger element to proxy[i]. bisect.bisect_right is a good choice in Python.
See my Python implementation below (hope this helps but I am aware this might not necessarily be as concise as others' solutions):
def maximumSum(a, m):
prefix_sum = [a[0] % m]
prefix_sum_sorted = [a[0] % m]
current_max = prefix_sum_sorted[0]
for elem in a[1:]:
prefix_sum_next = (prefix_sum[-1] + elem) % m
prefix_sum.append(prefix_sum_next)
idx_closest_bigger = bisect.bisect_right(prefix_sum_sorted, prefix_sum_next)
if idx_closest_bigger >= len(prefix_sum_sorted):
current_max = max(current_max, prefix_sum_next)
bisect.insort_right(prefix_sum_sorted, prefix_sum_next)
continue
if prefix_sum_sorted[idx_closest_bigger] > prefix_sum_next:
current_max = max(current_max, (prefix_sum_next - prefix_sum_sorted[idx_closest_bigger]) % m)
bisect.insort_right(prefix_sum_sorted, prefix_sum_next)
return current_max
Total java implementation with O(n*log(n))
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import java.util.TreeSet;
import java.util.stream.Stream;
public class MaximizeSumMod {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in));
Long times = Long.valueOf(in.readLine());
while(times --> 0){
long[] pair = Stream.of(in.readLine().split(" ")).mapToLong(Long::parseLong).toArray();
long mod = pair[1];
long[] numbers = Stream.of(in.readLine().split(" ")).mapToLong(Long::parseLong).toArray();
printMaxMod(numbers,mod);
}
}
private static void printMaxMod(long[] numbers, Long mod) {
Long maxSoFar = (numbers[numbers.length-1] + numbers[numbers.length-2])%mod;
maxSoFar = (maxSoFar > (numbers[0]%mod)) ? maxSoFar : numbers[0]%mod;
numbers[0] %=mod;
for (Long i = 1L; i < numbers.length; i++) {
long currentNumber = numbers[i.intValue()]%mod;
maxSoFar = maxSoFar > currentNumber ? maxSoFar : currentNumber;
numbers[i.intValue()] = (currentNumber + numbers[i.intValue()-1])%mod;
maxSoFar = maxSoFar > numbers[i.intValue()] ? maxSoFar : numbers[i.intValue()];
}
if(mod.equals(maxSoFar+1) || numbers.length == 2){
System.out.println(maxSoFar);
return;
}
long previousNumber = numbers[0];
TreeSet<Long> set = new TreeSet<>();
set.add(previousNumber);
for (Long i = 2L; i < numbers.length; i++) {
Long currentNumber = numbers[i.intValue()];
Long ceiling = set.ceiling(currentNumber);
if(ceiling == null){
set.add(numbers[i.intValue()-1]);
continue;
}
if(ceiling.equals(currentNumber)){
set.remove(ceiling);
Long greaterCeiling = set.ceiling(currentNumber);
if(greaterCeiling == null){
set.add(ceiling);
set.add(numbers[i.intValue()-1]);
continue;
}
set.add(ceiling);
ceiling = greaterCeiling;
}
Long newMax = (currentNumber - ceiling + mod);
maxSoFar = maxSoFar > newMax ? maxSoFar :newMax;
set.add(numbers[i.intValue()-1]);
}
System.out.println(maxSoFar);
}
}
Adding STL C++11 code based on the solution suggested by #Pham Trung. Might be handy.
#include <iostream>
#include <set>
int main() {
int N;
std::cin>>N;
for (int nn=0;nn<N;nn++){
long long n,m;
std::set<long long> mSet;
long long maxVal = 0; //positive input values
long long sumVal = 0;
std::cin>>n>>m;
mSet.insert(m);
for (long long q=0;q<n;q++){
long long tmp;
std::cin>>tmp;
sumVal = (sumVal + tmp)%m;
auto itSub = mSet.upper_bound(sumVal);
maxVal = std::max(maxVal,(m + sumVal - *itSub)%m);
mSet.insert(sumVal);
}
std::cout<<maxVal<<"\n";
}
}
As you can read in Wikipedia exists a solution called Kadane's algorithm, which compute the maximum subarray sum watching ate the maximum subarray ending at position i for all positions i by iterating once over the array. Then this solve the problem with with runtime complexity O(n).
Unfortunately, I think that Kadane's algorithm isn't able to find all possible solution when more than one solution exists.
An implementation in Java, I didn't tested it:
public int[] kadanesAlgorithm (int[] array) {
int start_old = 0;
int start = 0;
int end = 0;
int found_max = 0;
int max = array[0];
for(int i = 0; i<array.length; i++) {
max = Math.max(array[i], max + array[i]);
found_max = Math.max(found_max, max);
if(max < 0)
start = i+1;
else if(max == found_max) {
start_old=start;
end = i;
}
}
return Arrays.copyOfRange(array, start_old, end+1);
}
I feel my thoughts are aligned with what have been posted already, but just in case - Kotlin O(NlogN) solution:
val seen = sortedSetOf(0L)
var prev = 0L
return max(a.map { x ->
val z = (prev + x) % m
prev = z
seen.add(z)
seen.higher(z)?.let{ y ->
(z - y + m) % m
} ?: z
})
Implementation in java using treeset...
import java.io.BufferedReader;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStreamReader;
import java.util.TreeSet;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
BufferedReader read = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)) ;
String[] str = read.readLine().trim().split(" ") ;
int n = Integer.parseInt(str[0]) ;
long m = Long.parseLong(str[1]) ;
str = read.readLine().trim().split(" ") ;
long[] arr = new long[n] ;
for(int i=0; i<n; i++) {
arr[i] = Long.parseLong(str[i]) ;
}
long maxCount = 0L ;
TreeSet<Long> tree = new TreeSet<>() ;
tree.add(0L) ;
long prefix = 0L ;
for(int i=0; i<n; i++) {
prefix = (prefix + arr[i]) % m ;
maxCount = Math.max(prefix, maxCount) ;
Long temp = tree.higher(prefix) ;
System.out.println(temp);
if(temp != null) {
maxCount = Math.max((prefix-temp+m)%m, maxCount) ;
}
//System.out.println(maxCount);
tree.add(prefix) ;
}
System.out.println(maxCount);
}
}
Here is one implementation of solution in java for this problem which works using TreeSet in java for optimized solution !
public static long maximumSum2(long[] arr, long n, long m)
{
long x = 0;
long prefix = 0;
long maxim = 0;
TreeSet<Long> S = new TreeSet<Long>();
S.add((long)0);
// Traversing the array.
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
// Finding prefix sum.
prefix = (prefix + arr[i]) % m;
// Finding maximum of prefix sum.
maxim = Math.max(maxim, prefix);
// Finding iterator poing to the first
// element that is not less than value
// "prefix + 1", i.e., greater than or
// equal to this value.
long it = S.higher(prefix)!=null?S.higher(prefix):0;
// boolean isFound = false;
// for (long j : S)
// {
// if (j >= prefix + 1)
// if(isFound == false) {
// it = j;
// isFound = true;
// }
// else {
// if(j < it) {
// it = j;
// }
// }
// }
if (it != 0)
{
maxim = Math.max(maxim, prefix - it + m);
}
// adding prefix in the set.
S.add(prefix);
}
return maxim;
}
public static int MaxSequence(int[] arr)
{
int maxSum = 0;
int partialSum = 0;
int negative = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
if (arr[i] < 0)
{
negative++;
}
}
if (negative == arr.Length)
{
return 0;
}
foreach (int item in arr)
{
partialSum += item;
maxSum = Math.Max(maxSum, partialSum);
if (partialSum < 0)
{
partialSum = 0;
}
}
return maxSum;
}
Modify Kadane algorithm to keep track of #occurrence. Below is the code.
#python3
#source: https://github.com/harishvc/challenges/blob/master/dp-largest-sum-sublist-modulo.py
#Time complexity: O(n)
#Space complexity: O(n)
def maxContiguousSum(a,K):
sum_so_far =0
max_sum = 0
count = {} #keep track of occurrence
for i in range(0,len(a)):
sum_so_far += a[i]
sum_so_far = sum_so_far%K
if sum_so_far > 0:
max_sum = max(max_sum,sum_so_far)
if sum_so_far in count.keys():
count[sum_so_far] += 1
else:
count[sum_so_far] = 1
else:
assert sum_so_far < 0 , "Logic error"
#IMPORTANT: reset sum_so_far
sum_so_far = 0
return max_sum,count[max_sum]
a = [6, 6, 11, 15, 12, 1]
K = 13
max_sum,count = maxContiguousSum(a,K)
print("input >>> %s max sum=%d #occurrence=%d" % (a,max_sum,count))
First, define two integers N and K, where N >= K, both known at compile time. For example: N = 8 and K = 3.
Next, define a set of integers [0, N) (or [1, N] if that makes the answer simpler) and call it S. For example: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}
The number of subsets of S with K elements is given by the formula C(N, K). Example
My problem is this: Create a perfect minimal hash for those subsets. The size of the example hash table will be C(8, 3) or 56.
I don't care about ordering, only that there be 56 entries in the hash table, and that I can determine the hash quickly from a set of K integers. I also don't care about reversibility.
Example hash: hash({5, 2, 3}) = 42. (The number 42 isn't important, at least not here)
Is there a generic algorithm for this that will work with any values of N and K? I wasn't able to find one by searching Google, or my own naive efforts.
There is an algorithm to code and decode a combination into its number in the lexicographical order of all combinations with a given fixed K. The algorithm is linear to N for both code and decode of the combination. What language are you interested in?
EDIT: here is example code in c++(it founds the lexicographical number of a combination in the sequence of all combinations of n elements as opposed to the ones with k elements but is really good starting point):
typedef long long ll;
// Returns the number in the lexicographical order of all combinations of n numbers
// of the provided combination.
ll code(vector<int> a,int n)
{
sort(a.begin(),a.end());
int cur = 0;
int m = a.size();
ll res =0;
for(int i=0;i<a.size();i++)
{
if(a[i] == cur+1)
{
res++;
cur = a[i];
continue;
}
else
{
res++;
int number_of_greater_nums = n - a[i];
for(int j = a[i]-1,increment=1;j>cur;j--,increment++)
res += 1LL << (number_of_greater_nums+increment);
cur = a[i];
}
}
return res;
}
// Takes the lexicographical code of a combination of n numbers and returns the
// combination
vector<int> decode(ll kod, int n)
{
vector<int> res;
int cur = 0;
int left = n; // Out of how many numbers are we left to choose.
while(kod)
{
ll all = 1LL << left;// how many are the total combinations
for(int i=n;i>=0;i--)
{
if(all - (1LL << (n-i+1)) +1 <= kod)
{
res.push_back(i);
left = n-i;
kod -= all - (1LL << (n-i+1)) +1;
break;
}
}
}
return res;
}
I am sorry I have an algorithm for the problem you are asking for right now, but I believe it will be a good exercise to try to understand what I do above. Truth is this is one of the algorithms I teach in the course "Design and analysis of algorithms" and that is why I had it pre-written.
This is what you (and I) need:
hash() maps k-tuples from [1..n] onto the set 1..C(n,k)\subset N.
The effort is k subtractions (and O(k) is a lower bound anyway, see Strandjev's remark above):
// bino[n][k] is (n "over" k) = C(n,k) = {n \choose k}
// these are assumed to be precomputed globals
int hash(V a,int n, int k) {// V is assumed to be ordered, a_k<...<a_1
// hash(a_k,..,a_2,a_1) = (n k) - sum_(i=1)^k (n-a_i i)
// ii is "inverse i", runs from left to right
int res = bino[n][k];
int i;
for(unsigned int ii = 0; ii < a.size(); ++ii) {
i = a.size() - ii;
res = res - bino[n-a[ii]][i];
}
return res;
}
I have been working on the following problem from this book.
A certain string-processing language offers a primitive operation which splits a string into two pieces. Since this operation involves copying the original string, it takes n units of time for a string of length n, regardless of the location of the cut. Suppose, now, that you want to break a string into many pieces. The order in which the breaks are made can affect the total running time. For example, if you want to cut a 20-character string at positions 3 and 10, then making the first cut at position 3 incurs a total cost of 20+17=37, while doing position 10 first has a better cost of 20+10=30.
I need a dynamic programming algorithm that given m cuts, finds the minimum cost of cutting a string into m+1 pieces.
The divide and conquer approach seems to me the best one for this kind of problem. Here is a Java implementation of the algorithm:
Note: the array m should be sorted in ascending order (use Arrays.sort(m);)
public int findMinCutCost(int[] m, int n) {
int cost = n * m.length;
for (int i=0; i<m.length; i++) {
cost = Math.min(findMinCutCostImpl(m, n, i), cost);
}
return cost;
}
private int findMinCutCostImpl(int[] m, int n, int i) {
if (m.length == 1) return n;
int cl = 0, cr = 0;
if (i > 0) {
cl = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
int[] ml = Arrays.copyOfRange(m, 0, i);
int nl = m[i];
for (int j=0; j<ml.length; j++) {
cl = Math.min(findMinCutCostImpl(ml, nl, j), cl);
}
}
if (i < m.length - 1) {
cr = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
int[] mr = Arrays.copyOfRange(m, i + 1, m.length);
int nr = n - m[i];
for (int j=0; j<mr.length; j++) {
mr[j] = mr[j] - m[i];
}
for (int j=0; j<mr.length; j++) {
cr = Math.min(findMinCutCostImpl(mr, nr, j), cr);
}
}
return n + cl + cr;
}
For example :
int n = 20;
int[] m = new int[] { 10, 3 };
System.out.println(findMinCutCost(m, n));
Will print 30
** Edit **
I have implemented two other methods to answer the problem in the question.
1. Median cut approximation
This method cut recursively always the biggest chunks. The results are not always the best solution, but offers a not negligible gain (in the order of +100000% gain from my tests) for a negligible minimal cut loss difference from the best cost.
public int findMinCutCost2(int[] m, int n) {
if (m.length == 0) return 0;
if (m.length == 1) return n;
float half = n/2f;
int bestIndex = 0;
for (int i=1; i<m.length; i++) {
if (Math.abs(half - m[bestIndex]) > Math.abs(half - m[i])) {
bestIndex = i;
}
}
int cl = 0, cr = 0;
if (bestIndex > 0) {
int[] ml = Arrays.copyOfRange(m, 0, bestIndex);
int nl = m[bestIndex];
cl = findMinCutCost2(ml, nl);
}
if (bestIndex < m.length - 1) {
int[] mr = Arrays.copyOfRange(m, bestIndex + 1, m.length);
int nr = n - m[bestIndex];
for (int j=0; j<mr.length; j++) {
mr[j] = mr[j] - m[bestIndex];
}
cr = findMinCutCost2(mr, nr);
}
return n + cl + cr;
}
2. A constant time multi-cut
Instead of calculating the minimal cost, just use different indices and buffers. Since this method executes in a constant time, it always returns n. Plus, the method actually split the string in substrings.
public int findMinCutCost3(int[] m, int n) {
char[][] charArr = new char[m.length+1][];
charArr[0] = new char[m[0]];
for (int i=0, j=0, k=0; j<n; j++) {
//charArr[i][k++] = string[j]; // string is the actual string to split
if (i < m.length && j == m[i]) {
if (++i >= m.length) {
charArr[i] = new char[n - m[i-1]];
} else {
charArr[i] = new char[m[i] - m[i-1]];
}
k=0;
}
}
return n;
}
Note: that this last method could easily be modified to accept a String str argument instead of n and set n = str.length(), and return a String[] array from charArr[][].
For dynamic programming, I claim that all you really need to know is what the state space should be - how to represent partial problems.
Here we are dividing a string up into m+1 pieces by creating new breaks. I claim that a good state space is a set of (a, b) pairs, where a is the location of the start of a substring and b is the location of the end of the same substring, counted as number of breaks in the final broken down string. The cost associated with each pair is the minimum cost of breaking it up. If b <= a + 1, then the cost is 0, because there are no more breaks to put in. If b is larger, then the possible locations for the next break in that substring are the points a+1, a+2,... b-1. The next break is going to cost b-a regardless of where we put it, but if we put it at position k the minimum cost of later breaks is (a, k) + (k, b).
So to solve this with dynamic programming, build up a table (a, b) of minimum costs, where you can work out the cost of breaks on strings with k sections by considering k - 1 possible breaks and then looking up the costs of strings with at most k - 1 sections.
One way to expand on this would be to start by creating a table T[a, b] and setting all entries in that table to infinity. Then go over the table again and where b <= a+1 put T[a,b] = 0. This fills in entries representing sections of the original string which need no further cuts. Now scan through the table and for each T[a,b] with b > a + 1 consider every possible k such that a < k < b and if min_k ((length between breaks a and b) + T[a,k] + T[k,b]) < T[a,b] set T[a,b] to that minimum value. This recognizes where you now know a way to chop up the substrings represented by T[a,k] and T[k,b] cheaply, so this gives you a better way to chop up T[a,b]. If you now repeat this m times you are done - use a standard dynamic programming backtrack to work out the solution. It might help if you save the best value of k for each T[a,b] in a separate table.
python code:
mincost(n, cut_list) =min { n+ mincost(k,left_cut_list) + min(n-k, right_cut_list) }
import sys
def splitstr(n,cut_list):
if len(cut_list) == 0:
return [0,[]]
min_positions = []
min_cost = sys.maxint
for k in cut_list:
left_split = [ x for x in cut_list if x < k]
right_split = [ x-k for x in cut_list if x > k]
#print n,k, left_split, right_split
lcost = splitstr(k,left_split)
rcost = splitstr(n-k,right_split)
cost = n+lcost[0] + rcost[0]
positions = [k] + lcost[1]+ [x+k for x in rcost[1]]
#print "cost:", cost, " min: ", positions
if cost < min_cost:
min_cost = cost
min_positions = positions
return ( min_cost, min_positions)
print splitstr(20,[3,10,16]) # (40, [10, 3, 16])
print splitstr(20,[3,10]) # (30, [10, 3])
print splitstr(5,[1,2,3,4,5]) # (13, [2, 1, 3, 4, 5])
print splitstr(1,[1]) # (1, [1]) # m cuts m+1 substrings
Here is a c++ implementation. Its an O(n^3) Implementation using D.P . Assuming that the cut array is sorted . If it is not it takes O(n^3) time to sort it hence asymptotic time complexity remains same.
#include <iostream>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <limits.h>
using namespace std;
int main(){
int i,j,gap,k,l,m,n;
while(scanf("%d%d",&n,&k)!=EOF){
int a[n+1][n+1];
int cut[k];
memset(a,0,sizeof(a));
for(i=0;i<k;i++)
cin >> cut[i];
for(gap=1;gap<=n;gap++){
for(i=0,j=i+gap;j<=n;j++,i++){
if(gap==1)
a[i][j]=0;
else{
int min = INT_MAX;
for(m=0;m<k;m++){
if(cut[m]<j and cut[m] >i){
int cost=(j-i)+a[i][cut[m]]+a[cut[m]][j];
if(cost<min)
min=cost;
}
}
if(min>=INT_MAX)
a[i][j]=0;
else
a[i][j]=min;
}
}
}
cout << a[0][n] << endl;
}
return 0;
}