Related
The problem is pretty much what the title says. There is an n-element(n<10^5) array, which consists of n zeros. There are q operations (q<2*10^5): Each operation can be one of two below:
1. Add x to all elements on a [l,r] range(x can be also negative)
2. Ask for the number of zeros on a [l,r] range
Note that it is guaranteed that absolute values in the array will never get greater than 10^5
I am asking this question because I was reading a solution to another problem where my question was its subproblem. The author said that it can be solved using segment tree with lazy propagation. I can not figure out how to do that. The brute force solution(O(q*n)) is too slow...
What is the most efficient way to implement answering the query considering the first operation? O(q*long(n)) is what I would be guessing.
Example:
The array is: 0 0 0 0
-> Add 3 from index 2 to index 3:
The array is now: 0 0 3 3
-> Ask about number of zeros on [1,2]
The answer is 1
-> Add -3 from index 3 to index 3
The array is now: 0 0 3 0
-> Ask about number of zeros on [0,3]
The answer is 3
Ok, I have solved this task. All we have to do is create a segment tree of minimums with lazy propagation, which also counts number of those minimums.
In each node of our segment tree we will store 3 values:
1. Minimum from the segment operated by our node.
2. Number of those minimums on a segment operated by our node.
3. Lazy propagation values(values which tell us what should we pass to our sons when visiting this node next time).
When reading from a segment we will get:
1.Minimum on this segment
2.How many numbers are equal to the minimum on this segment.
If segment's minimum is 0, then we have to simply return the second value. If our minimum is higher than 0, the answer is 0(no zeros found on this segment, because the lowest number is higher than 0). Since read operation, as well as update operations, is O(log(n)), and we have q operations, the complexity of this algorithm is O(q*log(n)), which is sufficient.
Pseudocode:
min_count[2*MAX_N]
val[2*MAX_N]
lazy[2*MAX_N]
values_from_sons(node)
{
if(node has no childern) stop the function
val[node]=min(val[2*node],val[2*node+1] //it is a segment tree of minimums
if(val[2*node]<val[2*node+1]) //minimum from the left son < minimum from the right son
{
min_count[node]=min_count[2*node]
stop the function
}
if(val[2*node]<val[2*node+1]) //minimum from the left son > minimum from the right son
{
min_count[node]=min_count[2*node]
stop the function
}
if(val[2*node]==val[2*node+1])
{
min_count[node]=min_count[2*node]+min_count[2*node+1];
//we have x minimums in the left son, and y non-intersecting with x minimums on the right, so we can sum them up
}
}
pass(node)
{
if(node has no childern) stop the function
//we are passing values to our children when visiting node,
// remember that array "lazy" stores values which belong to node's sons
val[2*node]+=lazy[node];
lazy[2*node]+=lazy[node];
val[2*node+1]+=lazy[node];
lazy[2*node+1]+=lazy[node];
lazy[node]=0;
}
update(node,left,right,s1,s2,add)
//node-number of a node, [left,right]-segment operated by this node, [s1,s2]-segment on which we want to add "add" value
{
pass(node)
if([left,right] and [s1,s2] have no intersections) stop the function
if([left,right] and [s1,s2] have at least one intersection) /// add "add" value to this node's lazy and val
{
val[node]+=add
lazy[node]+=add
stop the function
}
update(values of the left son)
update(values of the right son)
values_from_sons(node)
//placing this function here updates this node's values when some of his lower ancestors were changed
}
read(node,left,right,s1,s2)
//node-number of a node, [left,right]-segment operated by this node, [s1,s2]-segment for which we want an answer
// this function returns 2 values - minimum from a [s1,s2] segment, and number of values equal to this minimum
{
pass(node)
if([left,right] and [s1,s2] have no intersections) return {INF,0}; //return neutral value of min operation
if([left,right] and [s1,s2] have at least one intersection) return {val[node],min_count[node]}
vl=read(values of the left son)
vr=read(values of the right son)
if(vl<vr)
{
//vl has lower minimums, so the answer for this node will be vl
return vl
}
else if(vl>vr)
{
//vr has lower minimums, so the answer for this node will be vr
return vr
}
else
{
//left and right son have the same minimum, and non intersecting values. Hence we can add them
return {vl's minimum, vl's count of minimums + vr's count of minimums};
}
}
ini()
//builds tree. remember that you have to use it before using any of the functions above
{
//Hence we don't have to worry about beginning values, all of them are set to 0 at the beginning,
// we just have to set min_count table properly
for(each leaf[node that has no sons])
{
min_cout[leaf]=1;
}
for(x=MAX_N-1, x>0, x--)
{
min_count[x]=min_count[2*x]+min_count[2*x+1]
}
}
I have a histogram with integer heights and constant width 1. I want to maximize the rectangular area under a histogram.
e.g.:
_
| |
| |_
| |
| |_
| |
The answer for this would be 6, 3 * 2, using col1 and col2.
O(n^2) brute force is clear to me, I would like an O(n log n) algorithm. I'm trying to think dynamic programming along the lines of maximum increasing subsequence O(n log n) algo, but am not going forward. Should I use divide and conquer algorithm?
PS: People with enough reputation are requested to remove the divide-and-conquer tag if there is no such solution.
After mho's comments: I mean the area of largest rectangle that fits entirely. (Thanks j_random_hacker for clarifying :) ).
The above answers have given the best O(n) solution in code, however, their explanations are quite tough to comprehend. The O(n) algorithm using a stack seemed magic to me at first, but right now it makes every sense to me. OK, let me explain it.
First observation:
To find the maximal rectangle, if for every bar x, we know the first smaller bar on its each side, let's say l and r, we are certain that height[x] * (r - l - 1) is the best shot we can get by using height of bar x. In the figure below, 1 and 2 are the first smaller of 5.
OK, let's assume we can do this in O(1) time for each bar, then we can solve this problem in O(n)! by scanning each bar.
Then, the question comes: for every bar, can we really find the first smaller bar on its left and on its right in O(1) time? That seems impossible right? ... It is possible, by using a increasing stack.
Why using an increasing stack can keep track of the first smaller on its left and right?
Maybe by telling you that an increasing stack can do the job is not convincing at all, so I will walk you through this.
Firstly, to keep the stack increasing, we need one operation:
while x < stack.top():
stack.pop()
stack.push(x)
Then you can check that in the increasing stack (as depicted below), for stack[x], stack[x-1] is the first smaller on its left, then a new element that can pop stack[x] out is the first smaller on its right.
Still can't believe stack[x-1] is the first smaller on the left on stack[x]?
I will prove it by contradiction.
First of all, stack[x-1] < stack[x] is for sure. But let's assume stack[x-1] is not the first smaller on the left of stack[x].
So where is the first smaller fs?
If fs < stack[x-1]:
stack[x-1] will be popped out by fs,
else fs >= stack[x-1]:
fs shall be pushed into stack,
Either case will result fs lie between stack[x-1] and stack[x], which is contradicting to the fact that there is no item between stack[x-1] and stack[x].
Therefore stack[x-1] must be the first smaller.
Summary:
Increasing stack can keep track of the first smaller on left and right for each element. By using this property, the maximal rectangle in histogram can be solved by using a stack in O(n).
Congratulations! This is really a tough problem, I'm glad my prosaic explanation didn't stop you from finishing. Attached is my proved solution as your reward :)
def largestRectangleArea(A):
ans = 0
A = [-1] + A
A.append(-1)
n = len(A)
stack = [0] # store index
for i in range(n):
while A[i] < A[stack[-1]]:
h = A[stack.pop()]
area = h*(i-stack[-1]-1)
ans = max(ans, area)
stack.append(i)
return ans
There are three ways to solve this problem in addition to the brute force approach. I will write down all of them. The java codes have passed tests in an online judge site called leetcode: http://www.leetcode.com/onlinejudge#question_84. so I am confident codes are correct.
Solution 1: dynamic programming + n*n matrix as cache
time: O(n^2), space: O(n^2)
Basic idea: use the n*n matrix dp[i][j] to cache the minimal height between bar[i] and bar[j]. Start filling the matrix from rectangles of width 1.
public int solution1(int[] height) {
int n = height.length;
if(n == 0) return 0;
int[][] dp = new int[n][n];
int max = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
for(int width = 1; width <= n; width++){
for(int l = 0; l+width-1 < n; l++){
int r = l + width - 1;
if(width == 1){
dp[l][l] = height[l];
max = Math.max(max, dp[l][l]);
} else {
dp[l][r] = Math.min(dp[l][r-1], height[r]);
max = Math.max(max, dp[l][r] * width);
}
}
}
return max;
}
Solution 2: dynamic programming + 2 arrays as cache.
time: O(n^2), space: O(n)
Basic idea: this solution is like solution 1, but saves some space. The idea is that in solution 1 we build the matrix from row 1 to row n. But in each iteration, only the previous row contributes to the building of the current row. So we use two arrays as previous row and current row by turns.
public int Solution2(int[] height) {
int n = height.length;
if(n == 0) return 0;
int max = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
// dp[0] and dp[1] take turns to be the "previous" line.
int[][] dp = new int[2][n];
for(int width = 1; width <= n; width++){
for(int l = 0; l+width-1 < n; l++){
if(width == 1){
dp[width%2][l] = height[l];
} else {
dp[width%2][l] = Math.min(dp[1-width%2][l], height[l+width-1]);
}
max = Math.max(max, dp[width%2][l] * width);
}
}
return max;
}
Solution 3: use stack.
time: O(n), space:O(n)
This solution is tricky and I learnt how to do this from explanation without graphs and explanation with graphs. I suggest you read the two links before reading my explanation below. It's hard to explain without graphs so my explanations might be hard to follow.
Following are my explanations:
For each bar, we must be able to find the biggest rectangle containing this bar. So the biggest one of these n rectangles is what we want.
To get the biggest rectangle for a certain bar (let's say bar[i], the (i+1)th bar), we just need to find out the biggest interval
that contains this bar. What we know is that all the bars in this interval must be at least the same height with bar[i]. So if we figure out how many
consecutive same-height-or-higher bars are there on the immediate left of bar[i], and how many consecutive same-height-or-higher bars are there on the immediate right of the bar[i], we
will know the length of the interval, which is the width of the biggest rectangle for bar[i].
To count the number of consecutive same-height-or-higher bars on the immediate left of bar[i], we only need to find the closest bar on the left that is shorter
than the bar[i], because all the bars between this bar and bar[i] will be consecutive same-height-or-higher bars.
We use a stack to dynamicly keep track of all the left bars that are shorter than a certain bar. In other words, if we iterate from the first bar to bar[i], when we just arrive at the bar[i] and haven't updated the stack,
the stack should store all the bars that are no higher than bar[i-1], including bar[i-1] itself. We compare bar[i]'s height with every bar in the stack until we find one that is shorter than bar[i], which is the cloest shorter bar.
If the bar[i] is higher than all the bars in the stack, it means all bars on the left of bar[i] are higher than bar[i].
We can do the same thing on the right side of the i-th bar. Then we know for bar[i] how many bars are there in the interval.
public int solution3(int[] height) {
int n = height.length;
if(n == 0) return 0;
Stack<Integer> left = new Stack<Integer>();
Stack<Integer> right = new Stack<Integer>();
int[] width = new int[n];// widths of intervals.
Arrays.fill(width, 1);// all intervals should at least be 1 unit wide.
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
// count # of consecutive higher bars on the left of the (i+1)th bar
while(!left.isEmpty() && height[i] <= height[left.peek()]){
// while there are bars stored in the stack, we check the bar on the top of the stack.
left.pop();
}
if(left.isEmpty()){
// all elements on the left are larger than height[i].
width[i] += i;
} else {
// bar[left.peek()] is the closest shorter bar.
width[i] += i - left.peek() - 1;
}
left.push(i);
}
for (int i = n-1; i >=0; i--) {
while(!right.isEmpty() && height[i] <= height[right.peek()]){
right.pop();
}
if(right.isEmpty()){
// all elements to the right are larger than height[i]
width[i] += n - 1 - i;
} else {
width[i] += right.peek() - i - 1;
}
right.push(i);
}
int max = Integer.MIN_VALUE;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
// find the maximum value of all rectangle areas.
max = Math.max(max, width[i] * height[i]);
}
return max;
}
Implementation in Python of the #IVlad's answer O(n) solution:
from collections import namedtuple
Info = namedtuple('Info', 'start height')
def max_rectangle_area(histogram):
"""Find the area of the largest rectangle that fits entirely under
the histogram.
"""
stack = []
top = lambda: stack[-1]
max_area = 0
pos = 0 # current position in the histogram
for pos, height in enumerate(histogram):
start = pos # position where rectangle starts
while True:
if not stack or height > top().height:
stack.append(Info(start, height)) # push
elif stack and height < top().height:
max_area = max(max_area, top().height*(pos-top().start))
start, _ = stack.pop()
continue
break # height == top().height goes here
pos += 1
for start, height in stack:
max_area = max(max_area, height*(pos-start))
return max_area
Example:
>>> f = max_rectangle_area
>>> f([5,3,1])
6
>>> f([1,3,5])
6
>>> f([3,1,5])
5
>>> f([4,8,3,2,0])
9
>>> f([4,8,3,1,1,0])
9
Linear search using a stack of incomplete subproblems
Copy-paste algorithm's description (in case the page goes down):
We process the elements in
left-to-right order and maintain a
stack of information about started but
yet unfinished subhistograms. Whenever
a new element arrives it is subjected
to the following rules. If the stack
is empty we open a new subproblem by
pushing the element onto the stack.
Otherwise we compare it to the element
on top of the stack. If the new one is
greater we again push it. If the new
one is equal we skip it. In all these
cases, we continue with the next new
element. If the new one is less, we
finish the topmost subproblem by
updating the maximum area w.r.t. the
element at the top of the stack. Then,
we discard the element at the top, and
repeat the procedure keeping the
current new element. This way, all
subproblems are finished until the
stack becomes empty, or its top
element is less than or equal to the
new element, leading to the actions
described above. If all elements have
been processed, and the stack is not
yet empty, we finish the remaining
subproblems by updating the maximum
area w.r.t. to the elements at the
top.
For the update w.r.t. an element, we
find the largest rectangle that
includes that element. Observe that an
update of the maximum area is carried
out for all elements except for those
skipped. If an element is skipped,
however, it has the same largest
rectangle as the element on top of the
stack at that time that will be
updated later. The height of the
largest rectangle is, of course, the
value of the element. At the time of
the update, we know how far the
largest rectangle extends to the right
of the element, because then, for the
first time, a new element with smaller
height arrived. The information, how
far the largest rectangle extends to
the left of the element, is available
if we store it on the stack, too.
We therefore revise the procedure
described above. If a new element is
pushed immediately, either because the
stack is empty or it is greater than
the top element of the stack, the
largest rectangle containing it
extends to the left no farther than
the current element. If it is pushed
after several elements have been
popped off the stack, because it is
less than these elements, the largest
rectangle containing it extends to the
left as far as that of the most
recently popped element.
Every element is pushed and popped at
most once and in every step of the
procedure at least one element is
pushed or popped. Since the amount of
work for the decisions and the update
is constant, the complexity of the
algorithm is O(n) by amortized
analysis.
The other answers here have done a great job presenting the O(n)-time, O(n)-space solution using two stacks. There's another perspective on this problem that independently provides an O(n)-time, O(n)-space solution to the problem, and might provide a little bit more insight as to why the stack-based solution works.
The key idea is to use a data structure called a Cartesian tree. A Cartesian tree is a binary tree structure (though not a binary search tree) that's built around an input array. Specifically, the root of the Cartesian tree is built above the minimum element of the array, and the left and right subtrees are recursively constructed from the subarrays to the left and right of the minimum value.
For example, here's a sample array and its Cartesian tree:
+----------------------- 23 ------+
| |
+------------- 26 --+ +-- 79
| | |
31 --+ 53 --+ 84
| |
41 --+ 58 -------+
| |
59 +-- 93
|
97
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
| 31 | 41 | 59 | 26 | 53 | 58 | 97 | 93 | 23 | 84 | 79 |
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
The reason that Cartesian trees are useful in this problem is that the question at hand has a really nice recursive structure to it. Begin by looking at the lowest rectangle in the histogram. There are three options for where the maximum rectangle could end up being placed:
It could pass right under the minimum value in the histogram. In that case, to make it as large as possible, we'd want to make it as wide as the entire array.
It could be entirely to the left of the minimum value. In that case, we recursively want the answer formed from the subarray purely to the left of the minimum value.
It could be entirely to the right of the minimum value. In that case, we recursively want the answer formed from the subarray purely to the right of the minimum value.
Notice that this recursive structure - find the minimum value, do something with the subarrays to the left and the right of that value - perfectly matches the recursive structure of a Cartesian tree. In fact, if we can create a Cartesian tree for the overall array when we get started, we can then solve this problem by recursively walking the Cartesian tree from the root downward. At each point, we recursively compute the optimal rectangle in the left and right subarrays, along with the rectangle you'd get by fitting right under the minimum value, and then return the best option we find.
In pseudocode, this looks like this:
function largestRectangleUnder(int low, int high, Node root) {
/* Base case: If the range is empty, the biggest rectangle we
* can fit is the empty rectangle.
*/
if (low == high) return 0;
/* Assume the Cartesian tree nodes are annotated with their
* positions in the original array.
*/
return max {
(high - low) * root.value, // Widest rectangle under the minimum
largestRectangleUnder(low, root.index, root.left),
largestRectnagleUnder(root.index + 1, high, root.right)
}
}
Once we have the Cartesian tree, this algorithm takes time O(n), since we visit each node exactly once and do O(1) work per node.
It turns out that there's a simple, linear-time algorithm for building Cartesian trees. The "natural" way you'd probably think to build one would be to scan across the array, find the minimum value, then recursively build a Cartesian tree from the left and right subarrays. The problem is that the process of finding the minimum value is really expensive, and this can take time Θ(n2).
The "fast" way to build a Cartesian tree is by scanning the array from the left to the right, adding in one element at a time. This algorithm is based on the following observations about Cartesian trees:
First, Cartesian trees obey the heap property: every element is less than or equal to its children. The reason for this is that the Cartesian tree root is the smallest value in the overall array, and its children are the smallest elements in their subarrays, etc.
Second, if you do an inorder traversal of a Cartesian tree, you get back the elements of the array in the order in which they appear. To see why this is, notice that if you do an inorder traversal of a Cartesian tree, you first visit everything to the left of the minimum value, then the minimum value, then everything to the right of the minimum value. Those visitations are recursively done the same way, so everything ends up being visited in order.
These two rules give us a lot of information about what happens if we start with a Cartesian tree of the first k elements of the array and want to form a Cartesian tree for the first k+1 elements. That new element will have to end up on the right spine of the Cartesian tree - the part of the tree formed by starting at the root and only taking steps to the right - because otherwise something would come after it in an inorder traversal. And, within that right spine, it has to be placed in a way that makes it bigger than everything above it, since we need to obey the heap property.
The way that you actually add a new node to the Cartesian tree is to start at the rightmost node in the tree and walk upwards until you either hit the root of the tree or find a node that has a smaller value. You then make the new value have as its left child the last node it walked up on top of.
Here's a trace of that algorithm on a small array:
+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
+---+---+---+---+
2 becomes the root.
2 --+
|
4
4 is bigger than 2, we can't move upwards. Append to right.
+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
+---+---+---+---+
2 ------+
|
--- 3
|
4
3 is lesser than 4, climb over it. Can't climb further over 2, as it is smaller than 3. Climbed over subtree rooted at 4 goes to the left of new value 3 and 3 becomes rightmost node now.
+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
+---+---+---+---+
+---------- 1
|
2 ------+
|
--- 3
|
4
1 climbs over the root 2, the entire tree rooted at 2 is moved to left of 1, and 1 is now the new root - and also the rightmost value.
+---+---+---+---+
| 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 |
+---+---+---+---+
Although this might not seem to run in linear time - wouldn't you potentially end up climbing all the way to the root of the tree over and over and over again? - you can show that this runs in linear time using a clever argument. If you climb up over a node in the right spine during an insertion, that node ends up getting moved off the right spine and therefore can't be rescanned in a future insertion. Therefore, every node is only ever scanned over at most once, so the total work done is linear.
And now the kicker - the standard way that you'd actually implement this approach is by maintaining a stack of the values that correspond to the nodes on the right spine. The act of "walking up" and over a node corresponds to popping a node off the stack. Therefore, the code for building a Cartesian tree looks something like this:
Stack s;
for (each array element x) {
pop s until it's empty or s.top > x
push x onto the stack.
do some sort of pointer rewiring based on what you just did.
}
The stack manipulations here might seem really familiar, and that's because these are the exact stack operations that you would do in the answers shown elsewhere here. In fact, you can think of what those approaches are doing as implicitly building the Cartesian tree and running the recursive algorithm shown above in the process of doing so.
The advantage, I think, of knowing about Cartesian trees is that it provides a really nice conceptual framework for seeing why this algorithm works correctly. If you know that what you're doing is running a recursive walk of a Cartesian tree, it's easier to see that you're guaranteed to find the largest rectangle. Plus, knowing that the Cartesian tree exists gives you a useful tool for solving other problems. Cartesian trees show up in the design of fast data structures for the range minimum query problem and are used to convert suffix arrays into suffix trees.
Here's some Java code that implements this idea, courtesy of #Azeem!
import java.util.Stack;
public class CartesianTreeMakerUtil {
private static class Node {
int val;
Node left;
Node right;
}
public static Node cartesianTreeFor(int[] nums) {
Node root = null;
Stack<Node> s = new Stack<>();
for(int curr : nums) {
Node lastJumpedOver = null;
while(!s.empty() && s.peek().val > curr) {
lastJumpedOver = s.pop();
}
Node currNode = this.new Node();
currNode.val = curr;
if(s.isEmpty()) {
root = currNode;
}
else {
s.peek().right = currNode;
}
currNode.left = lastJumpedOver;
s.push(currNode);
}
return root;
}
public static void printInOrder(Node root) {
if(root == null) return;
if(root.left != null ) {
printInOrder(root.left);
}
System.out.println(root.val);
if(root.right != null) {
printInOrder(root.right);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int[] nums = new int[args.length];
for (int i = 0; i < args.length; i++) {
nums[i] = Integer.parseInt(args[i]);
}
Node root = cartesianTreeFor(nums);
tester.printInOrder(root);
}
}
The easiest solution in O(N)
long long getMaxArea(long long hist[], long long n)
{
stack<long long> s;
long long max_area = 0;
long long tp;
long long area_with_top;
long long i = 0;
while (i < n)
{
if (s.empty() || hist[s.top()] <= hist[i])
s.push(i++);
else
{
tp = s.top(); // store the top index
s.pop(); // pop the top
area_with_top = hist[tp] * (s.empty() ? i : i - s.top() - 1);
if (max_area < area_with_top)
{
max_area = area_with_top;
}
}
}
while (!s.empty())
{
tp = s.top();
s.pop();
area_with_top = hist[tp] * (s.empty() ? i : i - s.top() - 1);
if (max_area < area_with_top)
max_area = area_with_top;
}
return max_area;
}
There is also another solution using Divide and Conquer. The algorithm for it is :
1) Divide the array into 2 parts with the smallest height as the breaking point
2) The maximum area is the maximum of :
a) Smallest height * size of the array
b) Maximum rectangle in left half array
c) Maximum rectangle in right half array
The time complexity comes to O(nlogn)
The stack solution is one of the most clever solutions I've seen till date. And it can be a little hard to understand why that works.
I've taken a jab at explaining the same in some detail here.
Summary points from the post:-
General way our brain thinks is :-
Create every situation and try to find the value of the contraint that is needed to solve the problem.
And we happily convert that to code as :- find the value of contraint(min) for each situation(pair(i,j))
The clever solutions tries to flip the problem.For each constraint/min value of tha area, what is the best possible left and right extremes ?
So if we traverse over each possible min in the array. What are the left and right extremes for each value ?
Little thought says, the first left most value less than the current min and similarly the first rightmost value that is lesser than the current min.
So now we need to see if we can find a clever way to find the first left and right values lesser than the current value.
To think: If we have traversed the array partially say till min_i, how can the solution to min_i+1 be built?
We need the first value less than min_i to its left.
Inverting the statement : we need to ignore all values to the left of min_i that are greater than min_i. We stop when we find the first value smaller than min_i (i) . The troughs in the curve hence become useless once we have crossed it. In histogram , (2 4 3) => if 3 is min_i, 4 being larger is not of interest.
Corrollary: in a range (i,j). j being the min value we are considering.. all values between j and its left value i are useless. Even for further calculations.
Any histogram on the right with a min value larger than j, will be binded at j. The values of interest on the left form a monotonically increasing sequence with j being the largest value. (Values of interest here being possible values that may be of interest for the later array)
Since, we are travelling from left to right, for each min value/ current value - we do not know whether the right side of the array will have an element smaller than it.
So we have to keep it in memory until we get to know this value is useless. (since a smaller value is found)
All this leads to a usage of our very own stack structure.
We keep on stack until we don't know its useless.
We remove from stack once we know the thing is crap.
So for each min value to find its left smaller value, we do the following:-
pop the elements larger to it (useless values)
The first element smaller than the value is the left extreme. The i to our min.
We can do the same thing from the right side of the array and we will get j to our min.
It's quite hard to explain this, but if this is making sense then I'd suggest read the complete article here since it has more insights and details.
I don't understand the other entries, but I think I know how to do it in O(n) as follows.
A) for each index find the largest rectangle inside the histogram ending at that index where the index column touches the top of the rectangle and remember where the rectangle starts. This can be done in O(n) using a stack based algorithm.
B) Similarly for each index find the largest rectangle starting at that index where the index column touches the top of the rectangle and remember where the rectangle ends. Also O(n) using the same method as (A) but scanning the histogram backwards.
C) For each index combine the results of (A) and (B) to determine the largest rectangle where the column at that index touches the top of the rectangle. O(n) like (A).
D) Since the largest rectangle must be touched by some column of the histogram the largest rectangle is the largest rectangle found in step (C).
The hard part is implementing (A) and (B), which I think is what JF Sebastian may have solved rather than the general problem stated.
I coded this one and felt little better in the sense:
import java.util.Stack;
class StackItem{
public int sup;
public int height;
public int sub;
public StackItem(int a, int b, int c){
sup = a;
height = b;
sub =c;
}
public int getArea(){
return (sup - sub)* height;
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return " from:"+sup+
" to:"+sub+
" height:"+height+
" Area ="+getArea();
}
}
public class MaxRectangleInHistogram {
Stack<StackItem> S;
StackItem curr;
StackItem maxRectangle;
public StackItem getMaxRectangleInHistogram(int A[], int n){
int i = 0;
S = new Stack();
S.push(new StackItem(0,0,-1));
maxRectangle = new StackItem(0,0,-1);
while(i<n){
curr = new StackItem(i,A[i],i);
if(curr.height > S.peek().height){
S.push(curr);
}else if(curr.height == S.peek().height){
S.peek().sup = i+1;
}else if(curr.height < S.peek().height){
while((S.size()>1) && (curr.height<=S.peek().height)){
curr.sub = S.peek().sub;
S.peek().sup = i;
decideMaxRectangle(S.peek());
S.pop();
}
S.push(curr);
}
i++;
}
while(S.size()>1){
S.peek().sup = i;
decideMaxRectangle(S.peek());
S.pop();
}
return maxRectangle;
}
private void decideMaxRectangle(StackItem s){
if(s.getArea() > maxRectangle.getArea() )
maxRectangle = s;
}
}
Just Note:
Time Complexity: T(n) < O(2n) ~ O(n)
Space Complexity S(n) < O(n)
I would like to thank #templatetypedef for his/her extremely detailed and intuitive answer. The Java code below is based on his suggestion to use Cartesian Trees and solves the problem in O(N) time and O(N) space. I suggest that you read #templatetypedef's answer above before reading the code below. The code is given in the format of the solution to the problem at leetcode: https://leetcode.com/problems/largest-rectangle-in-histogram/description/ and passes all 96 test cases.
class Solution {
private class Node {
int val;
Node left;
Node right;
int index;
}
public Node getCartesianTreeFromArray(int [] nums) {
Node root = null;
Stack<Node> s = new Stack<>();
for(int i = 0; i < nums.length; i++) {
int curr = nums[i];
Node lastJumpedOver = null;
while(!s.empty() && s.peek().val >= curr) {
lastJumpedOver = s.pop();
}
Node currNode = this.new Node();
currNode.val = curr;
currNode.index = i;
if(s.isEmpty()) {
root = currNode;
}
else {
s.peek().right = currNode;
}
currNode.left = lastJumpedOver;
s.push(currNode);
}
return root;
}
public int largestRectangleUnder(int low, int high, Node root, int [] nums) {
/* Base case: If the range is empty, the biggest rectangle we
* can fit is the empty rectangle.
*/
if(root == null) return 0;
if (low == high) {
if(0 <= low && low <= nums.length - 1) {
return nums[low];
}
return 0;
}
/* Assume the Cartesian tree nodes are annotated with their
* positions in the original array.
*/
int leftArea = -1 , rightArea= -1;
if(root.left != null) {
leftArea = largestRectangleUnder(low, root.index - 1 , root.left, nums);
}
if(root.right != null) {
rightArea = largestRectangleUnder(root.index + 1, high,root.right, nums);
}
return Math.max((high - low + 1) * root.val,
Math.max(leftArea, rightArea));
}
public int largestRectangleArea(int[] heights) {
if(heights == null || heights.length == 0 ) {
return 0;
}
if(heights.length == 1) {
return heights[0];
}
Node root = getCartesianTreeFromArray(heights);
return largestRectangleUnder(0, heights.length - 1, root, heights);
}
}
python-3
a=[3,4,7,4,6]
a.sort()
r=0
for i in range(len(a)):
if a[i]* (n-1) > r:
r = a[i]*(n-i)
print(r)
output:
16
I come across this question in one of interview. Was trying to solve this, resulting in observed following things -
Need to check consecutive left elements greater than current
element
Need to check consecutive right elements greater than
current element
Calculate area (number of left side max elements + number of right side max elements + 1) * current element
Check and replace existing maxArea if calculated area is greater than
maxArea
Following is the JS code implementing above pseudocode
function maxAreaCovered(arr) {
let maxArea = 0;
for (let index = 0; index < arr.length; index++) {
let l = index - 1;
let r = index + 1;
let maxEleCount = 0
while (l > -1) {
if (arr[l] >= arr[index]) {
maxEleCount++;
} else {
break;
}
l--;
}
while (r < arr.length) {
if (arr[r] >= arr[index]) {
maxEleCount++;
} else {
break;
}
r++;
}
let area = (maxEleCount + 1) * arr[index];
maxArea = Math.max(area, maxArea);
}
return maxArea
}
console.log(maxAreaCovered([6, 2, 5, 4, 5, 1, 6]));
You can use O(n) method which uses stack to calculate the maximum area under the histogram.
long long histogramArea(vector<int> &histo){
stack<int> s;
long long maxArea=0;
long long area= 0;
int i =0;
for (i = 0; i < histo.size();) {
if(s.empty() || histo[s.top()] <= histo[i]){
s.push(i++);
}
else{
int top = s.top(); s.pop();
area= histo[top]* (s.empty()?i:i-s.top()-1);
if(area >maxArea)
maxArea= area;
}
}
while(!s.empty()){
int top = s.top();s.pop();
area= histo[top]* (s.empty()?i:i-s.top()-1);
if(area >maxArea)
maxArea= area;
}
return maxArea;
}
For explanation you can read here http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/largest-rectangle-under-histogram/
I'm working on this programming assignment. It tests our understanding of stacks and their applications. I find it extremely difficult to come up with an algorithm that can work efficiently and accurately. Some of their test cases have 200,000+ "trees"! While my algorithm can work for simpler test cases with less than 10 trees, it failed in the accuracy and efficiency departments when the number of "trees" is exceedingly large (from 100+ onwards).
I would appreciate it very much, if you guys can kindly give me a hint or point me to the right direction. Thank you.
Task Statement
Monkeys like to swing from tree to tree. They can swing from one tree
to another directly as long as there is no tree in between that is
taller than or have the same height as either one of the two trees.
For example, if there are 5 trees with heights 19m, 17m, 20m, 20m and
20m lining up in that order, then the monkey will be able to swing
from one tree to the other as shown below:
1. from first tree to second tree
2. from first tree to third tree
3. from second tree to third tree
4. from third tree to fourth tree
5. from fourth tree to fifth tree
Tarzan, the king of jungle who is able to communicate with the
monkeys, wants to test the monkeys to see if they know how to count
the total number of pairs of trees that they can swing directly from
one to the other. But he himself is not very good in counting. So he
turns to you, the best Java programmer in the country, to write a
program for getting the correct count for the trees in different parts
of the jungle.
Input
The first line contains N, the number of trees in the path. The next
line contains N integers a1 a2 a3 ... aN, where ai represents the
height of the i-th tree in the path, 0 < ai ≤ 231 and 2 ≤ N ≤ 500,000.
Note that short symbol N is used above for convenience. In your
program, you are expected to give it a descriptive name.
Output
The total number of pairs of trees which the monkeys can swing
directly from one to the other with the given list of tree heights.
Sample Input 1
4
3 4 1 2
Sample Output 1
4
Sample Input 2
5
19 17 20 20 20
Sample Output 2
5
Sample Input 3
4 1
2 21 21 12
Sample Output 3
3
Here's my code. So this is a method that returns the number of pairs of trees a monkey can swing with. The parameter is an array of inputs.
My algorithm goes as follows:
we set the numPairs to be (array length - 1), since all trees can be swing from one to another.
now we find the extra numPairs (extra trees to swing with).
push the first input into the empty stack
we enter a for loop:
for the next input until the end of array:
case1:
if the top of the stack is smaller than the current input and the size of the stack is equal to 1, then we replace the top with the input.
case2:
if the top of the stack smaller than the current input and the size of the stack is bigger than 1, we pop the top, and enter a while loop to pop the previous elements which is smaller than the current top of the stack.
we then push the current input after we exit the while loop.
case3:
otherwise, if the above conditions are not satisfied, we simply push the current input into the stack.
we exit the for loop
return the numPairs
public int solve(int[] arr) {
int input, temp;
numPairs = arr.length-1;
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
{
input = arr[i];
if(stack.isEmpty())
stack.push(input);
else if(!stack.isEmpty())
{
if(input>stack.peek() && stack.size() == 1)
{
stack.pop();
stack.push(input);
}
else if(input>stack.peek() && stack.size() > 1)
{
temp = stack.pop();
while(!stack.isEmpty() && temp < stack.peek())
{
numPairs++;
temp = stack.pop();
}
stack.push(input);
//numPairs++;
}
else
stack.push(input);
}
}
return numPairs;
}
Here's my solution, it's an iterative one.
class Result {
// declare the member field
Stack<Integer> stack;
int numPairs = 0;
// declare the constructor
public Result()
{
stack = new Stack<Integer>();
}
/*
* solve : to compute the result, return the result
* Pre-condition : parameter must be of array of integer type
* Post-condition : return the number of tree pairs that can be swung with
*/
public int solve(int[] arr) {
// implementation
int input;
for(int i=0; i<arr.length; i++)
{
input = arr[i];
if(stack.isEmpty()) //if stack is empty, just push the input
stack.push(input);
else if(!stack.isEmpty())
{
//do a while loop to pop all possible top stack element until
//the top element is bigger than the input
//or the stack is empty
while(!stack.isEmpty() && input > stack.peek())
{
stack.pop();
numPairs++;
}
//if the stack is empty after exiting the while loop
//push the current element onto the stack
if(stack.isEmpty())
stack.push(input);
//this condition applies for two cases:
//1. the while loop is never entered because the input is smaller than the top element by default
//2. the while loop is exited and the input is pushed onto the non-empty stack with numPairs being incremented
else if(!stack.isEmpty() && input < stack.peek())
{
stack.push(input);
numPairs++;
}
//this is the last condition:
//the input is never pushed if the input is identical to the top element
//instead we increment the numPairs
else if(input == stack.peek())
numPairs++;
}
}
return numPairs;
}
}
If I understand the problem correctly, there are two kinds of trees accessible to each other:
Trees that are next to each (adjacent) other are always accessible to each other
Trees that are not adjacent are only accessible if all the trees in between are shorter than both of the trees.
One might come up with several types of solutions for this:
The brute force solution: compare every tree to every other tree checking the conditions above. Running time: O(n^2)
Find near accessible neighbors solution: look for near neighbors that are accessible. Running time: close to O(n). Here's how this would work:
Build an array of tree sizes in order that they are given. Then walk this array in order and for every tree at index i:
Going to the right from i
If tree at i+1 is taller then tree at i break out (no more accessible neighbors can be found)
Add 1 to the count of accessible trees if tree at i+1 is shorter than tree at i+2
Do the same for trees i+2, i+3.. etc. until you find a tree that is taller than tree at i.
This will get a count of non-adjacent accessible trees for every tree. Then just add N*2-2 to the count to account for all the adjacent trees, and you are done.
What's the best way to create a balanced binary search tree from a sorted singly linked list?
How about creating nodes bottom-up?
This solution's time complexity is O(N). Detailed explanation in my blog post:
http://www.leetcode.com/2010/11/convert-sorted-list-to-balanced-binary.html
Two traversal of the linked list is all we need. First traversal to get the length of the list (which is then passed in as the parameter n into the function), then create nodes by the list's order.
BinaryTree* sortedListToBST(ListNode *& list, int start, int end) {
if (start > end) return NULL;
// same as (start+end)/2, avoids overflow
int mid = start + (end - start) / 2;
BinaryTree *leftChild = sortedListToBST(list, start, mid-1);
BinaryTree *parent = new BinaryTree(list->data);
parent->left = leftChild;
list = list->next;
parent->right = sortedListToBST(list, mid+1, end);
return parent;
}
BinaryTree* sortedListToBST(ListNode *head, int n) {
return sortedListToBST(head, 0, n-1);
}
You can't do better than linear time, since you have to at least read all the elements of the list, so you might as well copy the list into an array (linear time) and then construct the tree efficiently in the usual way, i.e. if you had the list [9,12,18,23,24,51,84], then you'd start by making 23 the root, with children 12 and 51, then 9 and 18 become children of 12, and 24 and 84 become children of 51. Overall, should be O(n) if you do it right.
The actual algorithm, for what it's worth, is "take the middle element of the list as the root, and recursively build BSTs for the sub-lists to the left and right of the middle element and attach them below the root".
Best isn't only about asynmptopic run time. The sorted linked list has all the information needed to create the binary tree directly, and I think this is probably what they are looking for
Note that the first and third entries become children of the second, then the fourth node has chidren of the second and sixth (which has children the fifth and seventh) and so on...
in psuedo code
read three elements, make a node from them, mark as level 1, push on stack
loop
read three elemeents and make a node of them
mark as level 1
push on stack
loop while top two enties on stack have same level (n)
make node of top two entries, mark as level n + 1, push on stack
while elements remain in list
(with a bit of adjustment for when there's less than three elements left or an unbalanced tree at any point)
EDIT:
At any point, there is a left node of height N on the stack. Next step is to read one element, then read and construct another node of height N on the stack. To construct a node of height N, make and push a node of height N -1 on the stack, then read an element, make another node of height N-1 on the stack -- which is a recursive call.
Actually, this means the algorithm (even as modified) won't produce a balanced tree. If there are 2N+1 nodes, it will produce a tree with 2N-1 values on the left, and 1 on the right.
So I think #sgolodetz's answer is better, unless I can think of a way of rebalancing the tree as it's built.
Trick question!
The best way is to use the STL, and advantage yourself of the fact that the sorted associative container ADT, of which set is an implementation, demands insertion of sorted ranges have amortized linear time. Any passable set of core data structures for any language should offer a similar guarantee. For a real answer, see the quite clever solutions others have provided.
What's that? I should offer something useful?
Hum...
How about this?
The smallest possible meaningful tree in a balanced binary tree is 3 nodes.
A parent, and two children. The very first instance of such a tree is the first three elements. Child-parent-Child. Let's now imagine this as a single node. Okay, well, we no longer have a tree. But we know that the shape we want is Child-parent-Child.
Done for a moment with our imaginings, we want to keep a pointer to the parent in that initial triumvirate. But it's singly linked!
We'll want to have four pointers, which I'll call A, B, C, and D. So, we move A to 1, set B equal to A and advance it one. Set C equal to B, and advance it two. The node under B already points to its right-child-to-be. We build our initial tree. We leave B at the parent of Tree one. C is sitting at the node that will have our two minimal trees as children. Set A equal to C, and advance it one. Set D equal to A, and advance it one. We can now build our next minimal tree. D points to the root of that tree, B points to the root of the other, and C points to the... the new root from which we will hang our two minimal trees.
How about some pictures?
[A][B][-][C]
With our image of a minimal tree as a node...
[B = Tree][C][A][D][-]
And then
[Tree A][C][Tree B]
Except we have a problem. The node two after D is our next root.
[B = Tree A][C][A][D][-][Roooooot?!]
It would be a lot easier on us if we could simply maintain a pointer to it instead of to it and C. Turns out, since we know it will point to C, we can go ahead and start constructing the node in the binary tree that will hold it, and as part of this we can enter C into it as a left-node. How can we do this elegantly?
Set the pointer of the Node under C to the node Under B.
It's cheating in every sense of the word, but by using this trick, we free up B.
Alternatively, you can be sane, and actually start building out the node structure. After all, you really can't reuse the nodes from the SLL, they're probably POD structs.
So now...
[TreeA]<-[C][A][D][-][B]
[TreeA]<-[C]->[TreeB][B]
And... Wait a sec. We can use this same trick to free up C, if we just let ourselves think of it as a single node instead of a tree. Because after all, it really is just a single node.
[TreeC]<-[B][A][D][-][C]
We can further generalize our tricks.
[TreeC]<-[B][TreeD]<-[C][-]<-[D][-][A]
[TreeC]<-[B][TreeD]<-[C]->[TreeE][A]
[TreeC]<-[B]->[TreeF][A]
[TreeG]<-[A][B][C][-][D]
[TreeG]<-[A][-]<-[C][-][D]
[TreeG]<-[A][TreeH]<-[D][B][C][-]
[TreeG]<-[A][TreeH]<-[D][-]<-[C][-][B]
[TreeG]<-[A][TreeJ]<-[B][-]<-[C][-][D]
[TreeG]<-[A][TreeJ]<-[B][TreeK]<-[D][-]<-[C][-]
[TreeG]<-[A][TreeJ]<-[B][TreeK]<-[D][-]<-[C][-]
We are missing a critical step!
[TreeG]<-[A]->([TreeJ]<-[B]->([TreeK]<-[D][-]<-[C][-]))
Becomes :
[TreeG]<-[A]->[TreeL->([TreeK]<-[D][-]<-[C][-])][B]
[TreeG]<-[A]->[TreeL->([TreeK]<-[D]->[TreeM])][B]
[TreeG]<-[A]->[TreeL->[TreeN]][B]
[TreeG]<-[A]->[TreeO][B]
[TreeP]<-[B]
Obviously, the algorithm can be cleaned up considerably, but I thought it would be interesting to demonstrate how one can optimize as you go by iteratively designing your algorithm. I think this kind of process is what a good employer should be looking for more than anything.
The trick, basically, is that each time we reach the next midpoint, which we know is a parent-to-be, we know that its left subtree is already finished. The other trick is that we are done with a node once it has two children and something pointing to it, even if all of the sub-trees aren't finished. Using this, we can get what I am pretty sure is a linear time solution, as each element is touched only 4 times at most. The problem is that this relies on being given a list that will form a truly balanced binary search tree. There are, in other words, some hidden constraints that may make this solution either much harder to apply, or impossible. For example, if you have an odd number of elements, or if there are a lot of non-unique values, this starts to produce a fairly silly tree.
Considerations:
Render the element unique.
Insert a dummy element at the end if the number of nodes is odd.
Sing longingly for a more naive implementation.
Use a deque to keep the roots of completed subtrees and the midpoints in, instead of mucking around with my second trick.
This is a python implementation:
def sll_to_bbst(sll, start, end):
"""Build a balanced binary search tree from sorted linked list.
This assumes that you have a class BinarySearchTree, with properties
'l_child' and 'r_child'.
Params:
sll: sorted linked list, any data structure with 'popleft()' method,
which removes and returns the leftmost element of the list. The
easiest thing to do is to use 'collections.deque' for the sorted
list.
start: int, start index, on initial call set to 0
end: int, on initial call should be set to len(sll)
Returns:
A balanced instance of BinarySearchTree
This is a python implementation of solution found here:
http://leetcode.com/2010/11/convert-sorted-list-to-balanced-binary.html
"""
if start >= end:
return None
middle = (start + end) // 2
l_child = sll_to_bbst(sll, start, middle)
root = BinarySearchTree(sll.popleft())
root.l_child = l_child
root.r_child = sll_to_bbst(sll, middle+1, end)
return root
Instead of the sorted linked list i was asked on a sorted array (doesn't matter though logically, but yes run-time varies) to create a BST of minimal height, following is the code i could get out:
typedef struct Node{
struct Node *left;
int info;
struct Node *right;
}Node_t;
Node_t* Bin(int low, int high) {
Node_t* node = NULL;
int mid = 0;
if(low <= high) {
mid = (low+high)/2;
node = CreateNode(a[mid]);
printf("DEBUG: creating node for %d\n", a[mid]);
if(node->left == NULL) {
node->left = Bin(low, mid-1);
}
if(node->right == NULL) {
node->right = Bin(mid+1, high);
}
return node;
}//if(low <=high)
else {
return NULL;
}
}//Bin(low,high)
Node_t* CreateNode(int info) {
Node_t* node = malloc(sizeof(Node_t));
memset(node, 0, sizeof(Node_t));
node->info = info;
node->left = NULL;
node->right = NULL;
return node;
}//CreateNode(info)
// call function for an array example: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12, it gets you desired
// result
Bin(0,6);
HTH Somebody..
This is the pseudo recursive algorithm that I will suggest.
createTree(treenode *root, linknode *start, linknode *end)
{
if(start == end or start = end->next)
{
return;
}
ptrsingle=start;
ptrdouble=start;
while(ptrdouble != end and ptrdouble->next !=end)
{
ptrsignle=ptrsingle->next;
ptrdouble=ptrdouble->next->next;
}
//ptrsignle will now be at the middle element.
treenode cur_node=Allocatememory;
cur_node->data = ptrsingle->data;
if(root = null)
{
root = cur_node;
}
else
{
if(cur_node->data (less than) root->data)
root->left=cur_node
else
root->right=cur_node
}
createTree(cur_node, start, ptrSingle);
createTree(cur_node, ptrSingle, End);
}
Root = null;
The inital call will be createtree(Root, list, null);
We are doing the recursive building of the tree, but without using the intermediate array.
To get to the middle element every time we are advancing two pointers, one by one element, other by two elements. By the time the second pointer is at the end, the first pointer will be at the middle.
The running time will be o(nlogn). The extra space will be o(logn). Not an efficient solution for a real situation where you can have R-B tree which guarantees nlogn insertion. But good enough for interview.
Similar to #Stuart Golodetz and #Jake Kurzer the important thing is that the list is already sorted.
In #Stuart's answer, the array he presented is the backing data structure for the BST. The find operation for example would just need to perform index array calculations to traverse the tree. Growing the array and removing elements would be the trickier part, so I'd prefer a vector or other constant time lookup data structure.
#Jake's answer also uses this fact but unfortunately requires you to traverse the list to find each time to do a get(index) operation. But requires no additional memory usage.
Unless it was specifically mentioned by the interviewer that they wanted an object structure representation of the tree, I would use #Stuart's answer.
In a question like this you'd be given extra points for discussing the tradeoffs and all the options that you have.
Hope the detailed explanation on this post helps:
http://preparefortechinterview.blogspot.com/2013/10/planting-trees_1.html
A slightly improved implementation from #1337c0d3r in my blog.
// create a balanced BST using #len elements starting from #head & move #head forward by #len
TreeNode *sortedListToBSTHelper(ListNode *&head, int len) {
if (0 == len) return NULL;
auto left = sortedListToBSTHelper(head, len / 2);
auto root = new TreeNode(head->val);
root->left = left;
head = head->next;
root->right = sortedListToBSTHelper(head, (len - 1) / 2);
return root;
}
TreeNode *sortedListToBST(ListNode *head) {
int n = length(head);
return sortedListToBSTHelper(head, n);
}
If you know how many nodes are in the linked list, you can do it like this:
// Gives path to subtree being built. If branch[N] is false, branch
// less from the node at depth N, if true branch greater.
bool branch[max depth];
// If rem[N] is true, then for the current subtree at depth N, it's
// greater subtree has one more node than it's less subtree.
bool rem[max depth];
// Depth of root node of current subtree.
unsigned depth = 0;
// Number of nodes in current subtree.
unsigned num_sub = Number of nodes in linked list;
// The algorithm relies on a stack of nodes whose less subtree has
// been built, but whose right subtree has not yet been built. The
// stack is implemented as linked list. The nodes are linked
// together by having the "greater" handle of a node set to the
// next node in the list. "less_parent" is the handle of the first
// node in the list.
Node *less_parent = nullptr;
// h is root of current subtree, child is one of its children.
Node *h, *child;
Node *p = head of the sorted linked list of nodes;
LOOP // loop unconditionally
LOOP WHILE (num_sub > 2)
// Subtract one for root of subtree.
num_sub = num_sub - 1;
rem[depth] = !!(num_sub & 1); // true if num_sub is an odd number
branch[depth] = false;
depth = depth + 1;
num_sub = num_sub / 2;
END LOOP
IF (num_sub == 2)
// Build a subtree with two nodes, slanting to greater.
// I arbitrarily chose to always have the extra node in the
// greater subtree when there is an odd number of nodes to
// split between the two subtrees.
h = p;
p = the node after p in the linked list;
child = p;
p = the node after p in the linked list;
make h and p into a two-element AVL tree;
ELSE // num_sub == 1
// Build a subtree with one node.
h = p;
p = the next node in the linked list;
make h into a leaf node;
END IF
LOOP WHILE (depth > 0)
depth = depth - 1;
IF (not branch[depth])
// We've completed a less subtree, exit while loop.
EXIT LOOP;
END IF
// We've completed a greater subtree, so attach it to
// its parent (that is less than it). We pop the parent
// off the stack of less parents.
child = h;
h = less_parent;
less_parent = h->greater_child;
h->greater_child = child;
num_sub = 2 * (num_sub - rem[depth]) + rem[depth] + 1;
IF (num_sub & (num_sub - 1))
// num_sub is not a power of 2
h->balance_factor = 0;
ELSE
// num_sub is a power of 2
h->balance_factor = 1;
END IF
END LOOP
IF (num_sub == number of node in original linked list)
// We've completed the full tree, exit outer unconditional loop
EXIT LOOP;
END IF
// The subtree we've completed is the less subtree of the
// next node in the sequence.
child = h;
h = p;
p = the next node in the linked list;
h->less_child = child;
// Put h onto the stack of less parents.
h->greater_child = less_parent;
less_parent = h;
// Proceed to creating greater than subtree of h.
branch[depth] = true;
num_sub = num_sub + rem[depth];
depth = depth + 1;
END LOOP
// h now points to the root of the completed AVL tree.
For an encoding of this in C++, see the build member function (currently at line 361) in https://github.com/wkaras/C-plus-plus-intrusive-container-templates/blob/master/avl_tree.h . It's actually more general, a template using any forward iterator rather than specifically a linked list.
This question may be old, but I couldn't think of an answer.
Say, there are two lists of different lengths, merging at a point; how do we know where the merging point is?
Conditions:
We don't know the length
We should parse each list only once.
The following is by far the greatest of all I have seen - O(N), no counters. I got it during an interview to a candidate S.N. at VisionMap.
Make an interating pointer like this: it goes forward every time till the end, and then jumps to the beginning of the opposite list, and so on.
Create two of these, pointing to two heads.
Advance each of the pointers by 1 every time, until they meet. This will happen after either one or two passes.
I still use this question in the interviews - but to see how long it takes someone to understand why this solution works.
Pavel's answer requires modification of the lists as well as iterating each list twice.
Here's a solution that only requires iterating each list twice (the first time to calculate their length; if the length is given you only need to iterate once).
The idea is to ignore the starting entries of the longer list (merge point can't be there), so that the two pointers are an equal distance from the end of the list. Then move them forwards until they merge.
lenA = count(listA) //iterates list A
lenB = count(listB) //iterates list B
ptrA = listA
ptrB = listB
//now we adjust either ptrA or ptrB so that they are equally far from the end
while(lenA > lenB):
ptrA = ptrA->next
lenA--
while(lenB > lenA):
prtB = ptrB->next
lenB--
while(ptrA != NULL):
if (ptrA == ptrB):
return ptrA //found merge point
ptrA = ptrA->next
ptrB = ptrB->next
This is asymptotically the same (linear time) as my other answer but probably has smaller constants, so is probably faster. But I think my other answer is cooler.
If
by "modification is not allowed" it was meant "you may change but in the end they should be restored", and
we could iterate the lists exactly twice
the following algorithm would be the solution.
First, the numbers. Assume the first list is of length a+c and the second one is of length b+c, where c is the length of their common "tail" (after the mergepoint). Let's denote them as follows:
x = a+c
y = b+c
Since we don't know the length, we will calculate x and y without additional iterations; you'll see how.
Then, we iterate each list and reverse them while iterating! If both iterators reach the merge point at the same time, then we find it out by mere comparing. Otherwise, one pointer will reach the merge point before the other one.
After that, when the other iterator reaches the merge point, it won't proceed to the common tail. Instead will go back to the former beginning of the list that had reached merge-point before! So, before it reaches the end of the changed list (i.e. the former beginning of the other list), he will make a+b+1 iterations total. Let's call it z+1.
The pointer that reached the merge-point first, will keep iterating, until reaches the end of the list. The number of iterations it made should be calculated and is equal to x.
Then, this pointer iterates back and reverses the lists again. But now it won't go back to the beginning of the list it originally started from! Instead, it will go to the beginning of the other list! The number of iterations it made should be calculated and equal to y.
So we know the following numbers:
x = a+c
y = b+c
z = a+b
From which we determine that
a = (+x-y+z)/2
b = (-x+y+z)/2
c = (+x+y-z)/2
Which solves the problem.
Well, if you know that they will merge:
Say you start with:
A-->B-->C
|
V
1-->2-->3-->4-->5
1) Go through the first list setting each next pointer to NULL.
Now you have:
A B C
1-->2-->3 4 5
2) Now go through the second list and wait until you see a NULL, that is your merge point.
If you can't be sure that they merge you can use a sentinel value for the pointer value, but that isn't as elegant.
If we could iterate lists exactly twice, than I can provide method for determining merge point:
iterate both lists and calculate lengths A and B
calculate difference of lengths C = |A-B|;
start iterating both list simultaneously, but make additional C steps on list which was greater
this two pointers will meet each other in the merging point
Here's a solution, computationally quick (iterates each list once) but uses a lot of memory:
for each item in list a
push pointer to item onto stack_a
for each item in list b
push pointer to item onto stack_b
while (stack_a top == stack_b top) // where top is the item to be popped next
pop stack_a
pop stack_b
// values at the top of each stack are the items prior to the merged item
You can use a set of Nodes. Iterate through one list and add each Node to the set. Then iterate through the second list and for every iteration, check if the Node exists in the set. If it does, you've found your merge point :)
This arguably violates the "parse each list only once" condition, but implement the tortoise and hare algorithm (used to find the merge point and cycle length of a cyclic list) so you start at List A, and when you reach the NULL at the end you pretend it's a pointer to the beginning of list B, thus creating the appearance of a cyclic list. The algorithm will then tell you exactly how far down List A the merge is (the variable 'mu' according to the Wikipedia description).
Also, the "lambda" value tells you the length of list B, and if you want, you can work out the length of list A during the algorithm (when you redirect the NULL link).
Maybe I am over simplifying this, but simply iterate the smallest list and use the last nodes Link as the merging point?
So, where Data->Link->Link == NULL is the end point, giving Data->Link as the merging point (at the end of the list).
EDIT:
Okay, from the picture you posted, you parse the two lists, the smallest first. With the smallest list you can maintain the references to the following node. Now, when you parse the second list you do a comparison on the reference to find where Reference [i] is the reference at LinkedList[i]->Link. This will give the merge point. Time to explain with pictures (superimpose the values on the picture the OP).
You have a linked list (references shown below):
A->B->C->D->E
You have a second linked list:
1->2->
With the merged list, the references would then go as follows:
1->2->D->E->
Therefore, you map the first "smaller" list (as the merged list, which is what we are counting has a length of 4 and the main list 5)
Loop through the first list, maintain a reference of references.
The list will contain the following references Pointers { 1, 2, D, E }.
We now go through the second list:
-> A - Contains reference in Pointers? No, move on
-> B - Contains reference in Pointers? No, move on
-> C - Contains reference in Pointers? No, move on
-> D - Contains reference in Pointers? Yes, merge point found, break.
Sure, you maintain a new list of pointers, but thats not outside the specification. However the first list is parsed exactly once, and the second list will only be fully parsed if there is no merge point. Otherwise, it will end sooner (at the merge point).
I have tested a merge case on my FC9 x86_64, and print every node address as shown below:
Head A 0x7fffb2f3c4b0
0x214f010
0x214f030
0x214f050
0x214f070
0x214f090
0x214f0f0
0x214f110
0x214f130
0x214f150
0x214f170
Head B 0x7fffb2f3c4a0
0x214f0b0
0x214f0d0
0x214f0f0
0x214f110
0x214f130
0x214f150
0x214f170
Note becase I had aligned the node structure, so when malloc() a node, the address is aligned w/ 16 bytes, see the least 4 bits.
The least bits are 0s, i.e., 0x0 or 000b.
So if your are in the same special case (aligned node address) too, you can use these least 4 bits.
For example when travel both lists from head to tail, set 1 or 2 of the 4 bits of the visiting node address, that is, set a flag;
next_node = node->next;
node = (struct node*)((unsigned long)node | 0x1UL);
Note above flags won't affect the real node address but only your SAVED node pointer value.
Once found somebody had set the flag bit(s), then the first found node should be the merge point.
after done, you'd restore the node address by clear the flag bits you had set. while an important thing is that you should be careful when iterate (e.g. node = node->next) to do clean. remember you had set flag bits, so do this way
real_node = (struct node*)((unsigned long)node) & ~0x1UL);
real_node = real_node->next;
node = real_node;
Because this proposal will restore the modified node addresses, it could be considered as "no modification".
There can be a simple solution but will require an auxilary space. The idea is to traverse a list and store each address in a hash map, now traverse the other list and match if the address lies in the hash map or not. Each list is traversed only once. There's no modification to any list. Length is still unknown. Auxiliary space used: O(n) where 'n' is the length of first list traversed.
this solution iterates each list only once...no modification of list required too..though you may complain about space..
1) Basically you iterate in list1 and store the address of each node in an array(which stores unsigned int value)
2) Then you iterate list2, and for each node's address ---> you search through the array that you find a match or not...if you do then this is the merging node
//pseudocode
//for the first list
p1=list1;
unsigned int addr[];//to store addresses
i=0;
while(p1!=null){
addr[i]=&p1;
p1=p1->next;
}
int len=sizeof(addr)/sizeof(int);//calculates length of array addr
//for the second list
p2=list2;
while(p2!=null){
if(search(addr[],len,&p2)==1)//match found
{
//this is the merging node
return (p2);
}
p2=p2->next;
}
int search(addr,len,p2){
i=0;
while(i<len){
if(addr[i]==p2)
return 1;
i++;
}
return 0;
}
Hope it is a valid solution...
There is no need to modify any list. There is a solution in which we only have to traverse each list once.
Create two stacks, lets say stck1 and stck2.
Traverse 1st list and push a copy of each node you traverse in stck1.
Same as step two but this time traverse 2nd list and push the copy of nodes in stck2.
Now, pop from both stacks and check whether the two nodes are equal, if yes then keep a reference to them. If no, then previous nodes which were equal are actually the merge point we were looking for.
int FindMergeNode(Node headA, Node headB) {
Node currentA = headA;
Node currentB = headB;
// Do till the two nodes are the same
while (currentA != currentB) {
// If you reached the end of one list start at the beginning of the other
// one currentA
if (currentA.next == null) {
currentA = headA;
} else {
currentA = currentA.next;
}
// currentB
if (currentB.next == null) {
currentB = headB;
} else {
currentB = currentB.next;
}
}
return currentB.data;
}
We can use two pointers and move in a fashion such that if one of the pointers is null we point it to the head of the other list and same for the other, this way if the list lengths are different they will meet in the second pass.
If length of list1 is n and list2 is m, their difference is d=abs(n-m). They will cover this distance and meet at the merge point.
Code:
int findMergeNode(SinglyLinkedListNode* head1, SinglyLinkedListNode* head2) {
SinglyLinkedListNode* start1=head1;
SinglyLinkedListNode* start2=head2;
while (start1!=start2){
start1=start1->next;
start2=start2->next;
if (!start1)
start1=head2;
if (!start2)
start2=head1;
}
return start1->data;
}
Here is naive solution , No neeed to traverse whole lists.
if your structured node has three fields like
struct node {
int data;
int flag; //initially set the flag to zero for all nodes
struct node *next;
};
say you have two heads (head1 and head2) pointing to head of two lists.
Traverse both the list at same pace and put the flag =1(visited flag) for that node ,
if (node->next->field==1)//possibly longer list will have this opportunity
//this will be your required node.
How about this:
If you are only allowed to traverse each list only once, you can create a new node, traverse the first list to have every node point to this new node, and traverse the second list to see if any node is pointing to your new node (that's your merge point). If the second traversal doesn't lead to your new node then the original lists don't have a merge point.
If you are allowed to traverse the lists more than once, then you can traverse each list to find our their lengths and if they are different, omit the "extra" nodes at the beginning of the longer list. Then just traverse both lists one step at a time and find the first merging node.
Steps in Java:
Create a map.
Start traversing in the both branches of list and Put all traversed nodes of list into the Map using some unique thing related to Nodes(say node Id) as Key and put Values as 1 in the starting for all.
When ever first duplicate key comes, increment the value for that Key (let say now its value became 2 which is > 1.
Get the Key where the value is greater than 1 and that should be the node where two lists are merging.
We can efficiently solve it by introducing "isVisited" field. Traverse first list and set "isVisited" value to "true" for all nodes till end. Now start from second and find first node where flag is true and Boom ,its your merging point.
Step 1: find lenght of both the list
Step 2 : Find the diff and move the biggest list with the difference
Step 3 : Now both list will be in similar position.
Step 4 : Iterate through list to find the merge point
//Psuedocode
def findmergepoint(list1, list2):
lendiff = list1.length() > list2.length() : list1.length() - list2.length() ? list2.lenght()-list1.lenght()
biggerlist = list1.length() > list2.length() : list1 ? list2 # list with biggest length
smallerlist = list1.length() < list2.length() : list2 ? list1 # list with smallest length
# move the biggest length to the diff position to level both the list at the same position
for i in range(0,lendiff-1):
biggerlist = biggerlist.next
#Looped only once.
while ( biggerlist is not None and smallerlist is not None ):
if biggerlist == smallerlist :
return biggerlist #point of intersection
return None // No intersection found
int FindMergeNode(Node *headA, Node *headB)
{
Node *tempB=new Node;
tempB=headB;
while(headA->next!=NULL)
{
while(tempB->next!=NULL)
{
if(tempB==headA)
return tempB->data;
tempB=tempB->next;
}
headA=headA->next;
tempB=headB;
}
return headA->data;
}
Use Map or Dictionary to store the addressess vs value of node. if the address alread exists in the Map/Dictionary then the value of the key is the answer.
I did this:
int FindMergeNode(Node headA, Node headB) {
Map<Object, Integer> map = new HashMap<Object, Integer>();
while(headA != null || headB != null)
{
if(headA != null && map.containsKey(headA.next))
{
return map.get(headA.next);
}
if(headA != null && headA.next != null)
{
map.put(headA.next, headA.next.data);
headA = headA.next;
}
if(headB != null && map.containsKey(headB.next))
{
return map.get(headB.next);
}
if(headB != null && headB.next != null)
{
map.put(headB.next, headB.next.data);
headB = headB.next;
}
}
return 0;
}
A O(n) complexity solution. But based on an assumption.
assumption is: both nodes are having only positive integers.
logic : make all the integer of list1 to negative. Then walk through the list2, till you get a negative integer. Once found => take it, change the sign back to positive and return.
static int findMergeNode(SinglyLinkedListNode head1, SinglyLinkedListNode head2) {
SinglyLinkedListNode current = head1; //head1 is give to be not null.
//mark all head1 nodes as negative
while(true){
current.data = -current.data;
current = current.next;
if(current==null) break;
}
current=head2; //given as not null
while(true){
if(current.data<0) return -current.data;
current = current.next;
}
}
You can add the nodes of list1 to a hashset and the loop through the second and if any node of list2 is already present in the set .If yes, then thats the merge node
static int findMergeNode(SinglyLinkedListNode head1, SinglyLinkedListNode head2) {
HashSet<SinglyLinkedListNode> set=new HashSet<SinglyLinkedListNode>();
while(head1!=null)
{
set.add(head1);
head1=head1.next;
}
while(head2!=null){
if(set.contains(head2){
return head2.data;
}
}
return -1;
}
Solution using javascript
var getIntersectionNode = function(headA, headB) {
if(headA == null || headB == null) return null;
let countA = listCount(headA);
let countB = listCount(headB);
let diff = 0;
if(countA > countB) {
diff = countA - countB;
for(let i = 0; i < diff; i++) {
headA = headA.next;
}
} else if(countA < countB) {
diff = countB - countA;
for(let i = 0; i < diff; i++) {
headB = headB.next;
}
}
return getIntersectValue(headA, headB);
};
function listCount(head) {
let count = 0;
while(head) {
count++;
head = head.next;
}
return count;
}
function getIntersectValue(headA, headB) {
while(headA && headB) {
if(headA === headB) {
return headA;
}
headA = headA.next;
headB = headB.next;
}
return null;
}
If editing the linked list is allowed,
Then just make the next node pointers of all the nodes of list 2 as null.
Find the data value of the last node of the list 1.
This will give you the intersecting node in single traversal of both the lists, with "no hi fi logic".
Follow the simple logic to solve this problem:
Since both pointer A and B are traveling with same speed. To meet both at the same point they must be cover the same distance. and we can achieve this by adding the length of a list to another.