There are similar questions, but my main concern here is regarding processing time.
I have two PCL, both of type pcl::PointXYZL, this is, there is a label/id info together with each point. I want to remove in PC B all the points existent in A (recognized by the label info).
An iteration of this type takes too much time.
I decide to save the labels from PC A into boost::container::flat_set<int> labels, and set cloud B as std::map<int, pcl::PointXYZL> cloud_B, where the key is the label/id from the point. Then I do:
for(boost::container::flat_set<int>::iterator it = labels.begin() ; it != labels.end(); ++it){
if ( auto point{ cloud_B.find( *it ) }; point != std::end(cloud_B)){
cloud_B.erase(*it);
}
}
It is now much much faster, but honestly, I think there may have a more efficient solution.
I also try:
for(boost::container::flat_set<int>::iterator it = labels.begin() ; it != labels.end(); ++it){
try{
cloud_B.erase(*it);
throw 505;
}
catch (...){
continue;
}
}
But it takes more time than the first example I brought.
I appreciated any help with this!
Both of your solution are roughly O(n^2) complexity.
Use unordered_set<std::uint32_t> to check if it exist or not. the average case of unordered_set<std::uint32_t>::count is constant, so it should be better than your solution
Sample code(untested) but you get the rough idea.
pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZL> cloud_a;
pcl::PointCloud<pcl::PointXYZL> cloud_b;
... (fill cloud)
// generate unordered_set<uint32_t> O(n)
std::unordered_set<std::uint32_t> labels_in_cloud_a;
for (int i = 0; i < cloud_a.size(); ++i) {
labels_in_cloud_a.insert(cloud_a.points[i].label);
}
// indices where in cloud_b where label doesn't exist in labels_in_clouda O(n*1) = O(n)
std::vector<int> indices;
for (int i = 0; i < cloud_b.size(); ++i) {
if (labels_in_cloud_a.count(cloud_b.points[i].label) == 0) {
indices.push_back(i);
}
}
// only indices that doesn't exist in cloud_a will remain. O(n)
pcl::copyPointCloud(cloud_b, indices, cloud_b);
This is my solution so far...
First, I set both clouds as type std::map<int, pcl::PointXYZL>. Remembering that I want to remove from cloud_B all points that are in cloud_A. Then:
std::map<int, pcl::PointXYZL>::iterator it = cloud_B.begin();
for ( ; it != cloud_B.end(); ){
if (auto point{ cloud_A.find(it->first) }; point != std::end(cloud_A)){ // if the label was found
it = cloud_B.erase(it);
}
else
++it;
}
Related
Is there any more efficient solution than this to remove some elements of the vector?
{
vector<int> v{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10};
for (int i = 0; i < v.size(); i++)
{
if(v[i] % 2 == 0)
{
auto it2 = std::remove(v.begin(), v.end(), v[i]);
v.erase(it2);
}
}
for (auto it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); it++)
{
cout << *it;
}
return 0;
}
std::vector::erase invalidates iterators and references at or after the point of the erase, but the main issue with the posted code is that std::remove shifts the elements in the range, so that i may already be the next element and ++i will skip it.
The OP could use the erase-remove idiom (once!):
auto is_even = [](auto x){ return x % 2 == 0; };
v.erase( std::remove_if(v.begin(), v.end(), is_even)
, v.end() );
Since C++20, we can use std::erase_if:
std::erase_if(v, is_even);
Your code is wrong. Test with this input and you will see it break: {1,2,2,2,2,1}
When you remove, all elements are shifted so that the next element is the current one. Because of that you need to either skip the increment, or decrement i when you remove any element. You also need to resize the vector to remove the tail with the "removed" items. Something like:
if(v[i] % 2 == 0)
{
auto it2 = remove(v.begin(), v.end(), v[i]);
v.erase(it2);
v.resize(v.size()-1);
--i;
}
Having said that, this approach is not efficient and is very risky. You should use erase-remove idiom that "compacts" the elements matching the query to the beginning of the vector, before removing the remaining elements from the tail. This approach has the huge advantage of updating the whole vector only once.
It is a interview question. Given an array, e.g., [3,2,1,2,7], we want to make all elements in this array unique by incrementing duplicate elements and we require the sum of the refined array is minimal. For example the answer for [3,2,1,2,7] is [3,2,1,4,7] and its sum is 17. Any ideas?
It's not quite as simple as my earlier comment suggested, but it's not terrifically complicated.
First, sort the input array. If it matters to be able to recover the original order of the elements then record the permutation used for the sort.
Second, scan the sorted array from left to right (ie from low to high). If an element is less than or equal to the element to its left, set it to be one greater than that element.
Pseudocode
sar = sort(input_array)
for index = 2:size(sar) ! I count from 1
if sar(index)<=sar(index-1) sar(index) = sar(index-1)+1
forend
Is the sum of the result minimal ? I've convinced myself that it is through some head-scratching and trials but I haven't got a formal proof.
If you only need to find ONE of the best solution, here's the algorythm with some explainations.
The idea of this problem is to find an optimal solution, which can be found only by testing all existing solutions (well, they're infinite, let's stick with the reasonable ones).
I wrote a program in C, because I'm familiar with it, but you can port it to any language you want.
The program does this: it tries to increment one value to the max possible (I'll explain how to find it in the comments under the code sections), than if the solution is not found, decreases this value and goes on with the next one and so on.
It's an exponential algorythm, so it will be very slow on large values of duplicated data (yet, it assures you the best solution is found).
I tested this code with your example, and it worked; not sure if there's any bug left, but the code (in C) is this.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <limits.h>
typedef int BOOL; //just to ease meanings of values
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
Just to ease comprehension, I did some typedefs. Don't worry.
typedef struct duplicate { //used to fasten the algorythm; it uses some more memory just to assure it's ok
int value;
BOOL duplicate;
} duplicate_t;
int maxInArrayExcept(int *array, int arraySize, int index); //find the max value in array except the value at the index given
//the result is the max value in the array, not counting th index
int *findDuplicateSum(int *array, int arraySize);
BOOL findDuplicateSum_R(duplicate_t *array, int arraySize, int *tempSolution, int *solution, int *totalSum, int currentSum); //resursive function used to find solution
BOOL check(int *array, int arraySize); //checks if there's any repeated value in the solution
These are all the functions we'll need. All split up for comprehension purpose.
First, we have a struct. This struct is used to avoid checking, for every iteration, if the value on a given index was originally duplicated. We don't want to modify any value not duplicated originally.
Then, we have a couple functions: first, we need to see the worst case scenario: every value after the duplicated ones is already occupied: then we need to increment the duplicated value up to the maximum value reached + 1.
Then, there are the main Function we'll discute later about.
The check Function only checks if there's any duplicated value in a temporary solution.
int main() { //testing purpose
int i;
int testArray[] = { 3,2,1,2,7 }; //test array
int nTestArraySize = 5; //test array size
int *solutionArray; //needed if you want to use the solution later
solutionArray = findDuplicateSum(testArray, nTestArraySize);
for (i = 0; i < nTestArraySize; ++i) {
printf("%d ", solutionArray[i]);
}
return 0;
}
This is the main Function: I used it to test everything.
int * findDuplicateSum(int * array, int arraySize)
{
int *solution = malloc(sizeof(int) * arraySize);
int *tempSolution = malloc(sizeof(int) * arraySize);
duplicate_t *duplicate = calloc(arraySize, sizeof(duplicate_t));
int i, j, currentSum = 0, totalSum = INT_MAX;
for (i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i) {
tempSolution[i] = solution[i] = duplicate[i].value = array[i];
currentSum += array[i];
for (j = 0; j < i; ++j) { //to find ALL the best solutions, we should also put the first found value as true; it's just a line more
//yet, it saves the algorythm half of the duplicated numbers (best/this case scenario)
if (array[j] == duplicate[i].value) {
duplicate[i].duplicate = TRUE;
}
}
}
if (findDuplicateSum_R(duplicate, arraySize, tempSolution, solution, &totalSum, currentSum));
else {
printf("No solution found\n");
}
free(tempSolution);
free(duplicate);
return solution;
}
This Function does a lot of things: first, it sets up the solution array, then it initializes both the solution values and the duplicate array, that is the one used to check for duplicated values at startup. Then, we find the current sum and we set the maximum available sum to the maximum integer possible.
Then, the recursive Function is called; this one gives us the info about having found the solution (that should be Always), then we return the solution as an array.
int findDuplicateSum_R(duplicate_t * array, int arraySize, int * tempSolution, int * solution, int * totalSum, int currentSum)
{
int i;
if (check(tempSolution, arraySize)) {
if (currentSum < *totalSum) { //optimal solution checking
for (i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i) {
solution[i] = tempSolution[i];
}
*totalSum = currentSum;
}
return TRUE; //just to ensure a solution is found
}
for (i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i) {
if (array[i].duplicate == TRUE) {
if (array[i].duplicate <= maxInArrayExcept(solution, arraySize, i)) { //worst case scenario, you need it to stop the recursion on that value
tempSolution[i]++;
return findDuplicateSum_R(array, arraySize, tempSolution, solution, totalSum, currentSum + 1);
tempSolution[i]--; //backtracking
}
}
}
return FALSE; //just in case the solution is not found, but we won't need it
}
This is the recursive Function. It first checks if the solution is ok and if it is the best one found until now. Then, if everything is correct, it updates the actual solution with the temporary values, and updates the optimal condition.
Then, we iterate on every repeated value (the if excludes other indexes) and we progress in the recursion until (if unlucky) we reach the worst case scenario: the check condition not satisfied above the maximum value.
Then we have to backtrack and continue with the iteration, that will go on with other values.
PS: an optimization is possible here, if we move the optimal condition from the check into the for: if the solution is already not optimal, we can't expect to find a better one just adding things.
The hard code has ended, and there are the supporting functions:
int maxInArrayExcept(int *array, int arraySize, int index) {
int i, max = 0;
for (i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i) {
if (i != index) {
if (array[i] > max) {
max = array[i];
}
}
}
return max;
}
BOOL check(int *array, int arraySize) {
int i, j;
for (i = 0; i < arraySize; ++i) {
for (j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (array[i] == array[j]) return FALSE;
}
}
return TRUE;
}
I hope this was useful.
Write if anything is unclear.
Well, I got the same question in one of my interviews.
Not sure if you still need it. But here's how I did it. And it worked well.
num_list1 = [2,8,3,6,3,5,3,5,9,4]
def UniqueMinSumArray(num_list):
max=min(num_list)
for i,V in enumerate(num_list):
while (num_list.count(num_list[i])>1):
if (max > num_list[i]+1) :
num_list[i] = max + 1
else:
num_list[i]+=1
max = num_list[i]
i+=1
return num_list
print (sum(UniqueMinSumArray(num_list1)))
You can try with your list of numbers and I am sure it will give you the correct unique minimum sum.
I got the same interview question too. But my answer is in JS in case anyone is interested.
For sure it can be improved to get rid of for loop.
function getMinimumUniqueSum(arr) {
// [1,1,2] => [1,2,3] = 6
// [1,2,2,3,3] = [1,2,3,4,5] = 15
if (arr.length > 1) {
var sortedArr = [...arr].sort((a, b) => a - b);
var current = sortedArr[0];
var res = [current];
for (var i = 1; i + 1 <= arr.length; i++) {
// check current equals to the rest array starting from index 1.
if (sortedArr[i] > current) {
res.push(sortedArr[i]);
current = sortedArr[i];
} else if (sortedArr[i] == current) {
current = sortedArr[i] + 1;
// sortedArr[i]++;
res.push(current);
} else {
current++;
res.push(current);
}
}
return res.reduce((a,b) => a + b, 0);
} else {
return 0;
}
}
Hi I have just sat my final year programming exam, I was asked the question:
what sorting and searching algorithms are used to solve the 8 queens problem.
Correct me if I am wrong but there is no sorting at all...
I understand that there is a basic level of searching needed when placing the queen and during backtracking, but where does sorting come into this? if at all?
Below is what I have been looking at and just cant see it.
public class Queens
{
int[] positions;
int counter = 0;
boolean isFinished = false;
public Queens()
{
positions = new int[8];
placeQueens(0);
}
public boolean canPlaceQueen(int row, int column)
{
for (int i = 0; i < row; i++)
{
if (positions[i] == column || (i - row)== (positions[i]-column) || (i-row)== (column - positions[i]))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
public void placeQueens(int row)
{
counter++;
printQueens();
for (int column = 0; column < 8; column++)
{
if (canPlaceQueen(row, column))
{
positions[row] = column;
if (row == 8-1)
{
System.out.println("FINAL " +counter);
isFinished = true;
printQueens();
}
else if(!isFinished)
{
placeQueens(row+1);
}
}
}
}
public void printQueens()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
{
for (int j = 0; j< 8; j++)
{
if (positions[i] == j)
{
System.out.print("Q ");
}
else
{
System.out.print("* ");
}
}
System.out.println();
}
System.out.println();
}
}
I think in this case you're misinterpreting what "sorting" means. In order for backtracking to work you need to be analyzing positions in some sort of predictable ordering. If your algorithm is not analyzing positions in a set order, then when you "prune" a set of positions, you may have pruned a valid position. Without this "ordering" or tree like structure of positions backtracking does not work. You do not, however, need to pre-sort a set of positions or anything like that. This would, in fact, defeat the purpose of backtracking.
The idea is that, some combination of positions never even have to be built. Once a conflict is found ALL iterations involving that combination are no longer even considered. It is the ordering in which these combinations are built that is a concern, not sorting them ahead of time. All combinations must be built and considered in proper oder. This allows u to know when we give up on a "branch" that all combinations built on this branch would have been equally(or even worse) incorrect as the option we just rejected, otherwise you can "over prune" your result set, and miss a proper combination. But no NlogN sorting algorithms are required. At least not in the example of the n-queens problem. In fact, if you pre-built all positions and sorted them, you are completely ignoring the dynamic programming elements that allow us to speed up the computation of this problem considerably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backtracking
Let's assume that we have a pair of numbers (a, b). We can get a new pair (a + b, b) or (a, a + b) from the given pair in a single step.
Let the initial pair of numbers be (1,1). Our task is to find number k, that is, the least number of steps needed to transform (1,1) into the pair where at least one number equals n.
I solved it by finding all the possible pairs and then return min steps in which the given number is formed, but it taking quite long time to compute.I guess this must be somehow related with finding gcd.can some one please help or provide me some link for the concept.
Here is the program that solved the issue but it is not cleat to me...
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define INF 1000000000
int n,r=INF;
int f(int a,int b){
if(b<=0)return INF;
if(a>1&&b==1)return a-1;
return f(b,a-a/b*b)+a/b;
}
int main(){
cin>>n;
for(int i=1;i<=n/2;i++){
r=min(r,f(n,i));
}
cout<<(n==1?0:r)<<endl;
}
My approach to such problems(one I got from projecteuler.net) is to calculate the first few terms of the sequence and then search in oeis for a sequence with the same terms. This can result in a solutions order of magnitude faster. In your case the sequence is probably: http://oeis.org/A178031 but unfortunately it has no easy to use formula.
:
As the constraint for n is relatively small you can do a dp on the minimum number of steps required to get to the pair (a,b) from (1,1). You take a two dimensional array that stores the answer for a given pair and then you do a recursion with memoization:
int mem[5001][5001];
int solve(int a, int b) {
if (a == 0) {
return mem[a][b] = b + 1;
}
if (mem[a][b] != -1) {
return mem[a][b];
}
if (a == 1 && b == 1) {
return mem[a][b] = 0;
}
int res;
if (a > b) {
swap(a,b);
}
if (mem[a][b%a] == -1) { // not yet calculated
res = solve(a, b%a);
} else { // already calculated
res = mem[a][b%a];
}
res += b/a;
return mem[a][b] = res;
}
int main() {
memset(mem, -1, sizeof(mem));
int n;
cin >> n;
int best = -1;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
int temp = solve(n, i);
if (best == -1 || temp < best) {
best = temp;
}
}
cout << best << endl;
}
In fact in this case there is not much difference between dp and BFS, but this is the general approach to such problems. Hope this helps.
EDIT: return a big enough value in the dp if a is zero
You can use the breadth first search algorithm to do this. At each step you generate all possible NEXT steps that you havent seen before. If the set of next steps contains the result you're done if not repeat. The number of times you repeat this is the minimum number of transformations.
First of all, the maximum number you can get after k-3 steps is kth fibinocci number. Let t be the magic ratio.
Now, for n start with (n, upper(n/t) ).
If x>y:
NumSteps(x,y) = NumSteps(x-y,y)+1
Else:
NumSteps(x,y) = NumSteps(x,y-x)+1
Iteratively calculate NumSteps(n, upper(n/t) )
PS: Using upper(n/t) might not always provide the optimal solution. You can do some local search around this value for the optimal results. To ensure optimality you can try ALL the values from 0 to n-1, in which worst case complexity is O(n^2). But, if the optimal value results from a value close to upper(n/t), the solution is O(nlogn)
What is the most efficient way to remove duplicate items from an array under the constraint that axillary memory usage must be to a minimum, preferably small enough to not even require any heap allocations? Sorting seems like the obvious choice, but this is clearly not asymptotically efficient. Is there a better algorithm that can be done in place or close to in place? If sorting is the best choice, what kind of sort would be best for something like this?
I'll answer my own question since, after posting, I came up with a really clever algorithm to do this. It uses hashing, building something like a hash set in place. It's guaranteed to be O(1) in axillary space (the recursion is a tail call), and is typically O(N) time complexity. The algorithm is as follows:
Take the first element of the array, this will be the sentinel.
Reorder the rest of the array, as much as possible, such that each element is in the position corresponding to its hash. As this step is completed, duplicates will be discovered. Set them equal to sentinel.
Move all elements for which the index is equal to the hash to the beginning of the array.
Move all elements that are equal to sentinel, except the first element of the array, to the end of the array.
What's left between the properly hashed elements and the duplicate elements will be the elements that couldn't be placed in the index corresponding to their hash because of a collision. Recurse to deal with these elements.
This can be shown to be O(N) provided no pathological scenario in the hashing:
Even if there are no duplicates, approximately 2/3 of the elements will be eliminated at each recursion. Each level of recursion is O(n) where small n is the amount of elements left. The only problem is that, in practice, it's slower than a quick sort when there are few duplicates, i.e. lots of collisions. However, when there are huge amounts of duplicates, it's amazingly fast.
Edit: In current implementations of D, hash_t is 32 bits. Everything about this algorithm assumes that there will be very few, if any, hash collisions in full 32-bit space. Collisions may, however, occur frequently in the modulus space. However, this assumption will in all likelihood be true for any reasonably sized data set. If the key is less than or equal to 32 bits, it can be its own hash, meaning that a collision in full 32-bit space is impossible. If it is larger, you simply can't fit enough of them into 32-bit memory address space for it to be a problem. I assume hash_t will be increased to 64 bits in 64-bit implementations of D, where datasets can be larger. Furthermore, if this ever did prove to be a problem, one could change the hash function at each level of recursion.
Here's an implementation in the D programming language:
void uniqueInPlace(T)(ref T[] dataIn) {
uniqueInPlaceImpl(dataIn, 0);
}
void uniqueInPlaceImpl(T)(ref T[] dataIn, size_t start) {
if(dataIn.length - start < 2)
return;
invariant T sentinel = dataIn[start];
T[] data = dataIn[start + 1..$];
static hash_t getHash(T elem) {
static if(is(T == uint) || is(T == int)) {
return cast(hash_t) elem;
} else static if(__traits(compiles, elem.toHash)) {
return elem.toHash;
} else {
static auto ti = typeid(typeof(elem));
return ti.getHash(&elem);
}
}
for(size_t index = 0; index < data.length;) {
if(data[index] == sentinel) {
index++;
continue;
}
auto hash = getHash(data[index]) % data.length;
if(index == hash) {
index++;
continue;
}
if(data[index] == data[hash]) {
data[index] = sentinel;
index++;
continue;
}
if(data[hash] == sentinel) {
swap(data[hash], data[index]);
index++;
continue;
}
auto hashHash = getHash(data[hash]) % data.length;
if(hashHash != hash) {
swap(data[index], data[hash]);
if(hash < index)
index++;
} else {
index++;
}
}
size_t swapPos = 0;
foreach(i; 0..data.length) {
if(data[i] != sentinel && i == getHash(data[i]) % data.length) {
swap(data[i], data[swapPos++]);
}
}
size_t sentinelPos = data.length;
for(size_t i = swapPos; i < sentinelPos;) {
if(data[i] == sentinel) {
swap(data[i], data[--sentinelPos]);
} else {
i++;
}
}
dataIn = dataIn[0..sentinelPos + start + 1];
uniqueInPlaceImpl(dataIn, start + swapPos + 1);
}
Keeping auxillary memory usage to a minimum, your best bet would be to do an efficient sort to get them in order, then do a single pass of the array with a FROM and TO index.
You advance the FROM index every time through the loop. You only copy the element from FROM to TO (and increment TO) when the key is different from the last.
With Quicksort, that'll average to O(n-log-n) and O(n) for the final pass.
If you sort the array, you will still need another pass to remove duplicates, so the complexity is O(NN) in the worst case (assuming Quicksort), or O(Nsqrt(N)) using Shellsort.
You can achieve O(N*N) by simply scanning the array for each element removing duplicates as you go.
Here is an example in Lua:
function removedups (t)
local result = {}
local count = 0
local found
for i,v in ipairs(t) do
found = false
if count > 0 then
for j = 1,count do
if v == result[j] then found = true; break end
end
end
if not found then
count = count + 1
result[count] = v
end
end
return result, count
end
I don't see any way to do this without something like a bubblesort. When you find a dupe, you need to reduce the length of the array. Quicksort is not designed for the size of the array to change.
This algorithm is always O(n^2) but it also use almost no extra memory -- stack or heap.
// returns the new size
int bubblesqueeze(int* a, int size) {
for (int j = 0; j < size - 1; ++j) {
for (int i = j + 1; i < size; ++i) {
// when a dupe is found, move the end value to index j
// and shrink the size of the array
while (i < size && a[i] == a[j]) {
a[i] = a[--size];
}
if (i < size && a[i] < a[j]) {
int tmp = a[j];
a[j] = a[i];
a[i] = tmp;
}
}
}
return size;
}
Is you have two different var for traversing a datadet insted of just one then you can limit the output by dismissing all diplicates that currently are already in the dataset.
Obvious this example in C is not an efficiant sorting algorith but it is just an example on one way to look at the probkem.
You could also blindly sort the data first and then relocate the data for removing dups, but I'm not sure that would be faster.
#define ARRAY_LENGTH 15
int stop = 1;
int scan_sort[ARRAY_LENGTH] = {5,2,3,5,1,2,5,4,3,5,4,8,6,4,1};
void step_relocate(char tmp,char s,int *dataset)
{
for(;tmp<s;s--)
dataset[s] = dataset[s-1];
}
int exists(int var,int *dataset)
{
int tmp=0;
for(;tmp < stop; tmp++)
{
if( dataset[tmp] == var)
return 1;/* value exsist */
if( dataset[tmp] > var)
tmp=stop;/* Value not in array*/
}
return 0;/* Value not in array*/
}
void main(void)
{
int tmp1=0;
int tmp2=0;
int index = 1;
while(index < ARRAY_LENGTH)
{
if(exists(scan_sort[index],scan_sort))
;/* Dismiss all values currently in the final dataset */
else if(scan_sort[stop-1] < scan_sort[index])
{
scan_sort[stop] = scan_sort[index];/* Insert the value as the highest one */
stop++;/* One more value adde to the final dataset */
}
else
{
for(tmp1=0;tmp1<stop;tmp1++)/* find where the data shall be inserted */
{
if(scan_sort[index] < scan_sort[tmp1])
{
index = index;
break;
}
}
tmp2 = scan_sort[index]; /* Store in case this value is the next after stop*/
step_relocate(tmp1,stop,scan_sort);/* Relocated data already in the dataset*/
scan_sort[tmp1] = tmp2;/* insert the new value */
stop++;/* One more value adde to the final dataset */
}
index++;
}
printf("Result: ");
for(tmp1 = 0; tmp1 < stop; tmp1++)
printf( "%d ",scan_sort[tmp1]);
printf("\n");
system( "pause" );
}
I liked the problem so I wrote a simple C test prog for it as you can see above. Make a comment if I should elaborate or you see any faults.