I'm aware of ways to keep binary search trees balanced/self-balancing using rotations.
I am not sure if my case needs to be that complicated. I don't need to maintain any sorted order property like with self-balancing BSTs. I just have an ordinary binary tree that I may need to delete nodes or insert nodes. I need try to maintain balance in the tree. For simplicity, my binary tree is similar to a segment tree, and every time a node is deleted, all the nodes along the path from the root to this node will be affected (in my case, it's just some subtraction of the nodal values). Similarly, every time a node is inserted, all the nodes from the root to the inserted node's final location will be affected (an addition to nodal values this time).
What would be the most straightforward way to keep a tree such as this balanced? It doesn't need to be strictly as height balanced as AVL trees, but something like RB trees or maybe slightly less balanced is acceptable as well.
If a new node does not have to be inserted at a particular spot -- possibly determined by its own value and the values in the tree -- but you are completely free to choose its location, then you could maintain the shape of the tree as a complete tree:
In a complete binary tree every level, except possibly the last, is completely filled, and all nodes in the last level are as far left as possible.
An array is a very efficient data structure for a complete tree, as you can store the nodes in their order in a breadth-first traversal. Because the tree is given to be complete, the array has no gaps. This structure is commonly used for heaps:
Heaps are usually implemented with an array, as follows:
Each element in the array represents a node of the heap, and
The parent / child relationship is defined implicitly by the elements' indices in the array.
Example of a complete binary max-heap with node keys being integers from 1 to 100 and how it would be stored in an array.
In the array, the first index contains the root element. The next two indices of the array contain the root's children. The next four indices contain the four children of the root's two child nodes, and so on. Therefore, given a node at index i, its children are at indices 2i + 1 and 2i + 2, and its parent is at index floor((i-1)/2). This simple indexing scheme makes it efficient to move "up" or "down" the tree.
Operations
In your case, you would define the insert/delete operations as follows:
Insert: append the node to the end of the array. Then perform the mutation needed to its ancestors (as you described in your question)
Delete: replace the node to be deleted with the node that currently sits at the very end of the array, and shorten the array by 1. Make the updates needed that follow from the change at these two locations -- so two paths from root-to-node are impacted.
When balancing non-BSTs, the big question to ask is
Can your tree efficiently support rotations?
Some types of binary trees, like k-d trees, have a specific layer-by-layer structure that makes rotations infeasible. Others, like range trees, have auxiliary metadata in each node that's expensive to update after a rotation. But if you can handle rotations, then you can use just about any of the balancing strategies out there. The simplest option might be to model your tree on a treap: put a randomly-chosen weight field into each node, and then, during insertions, rotate your newly-added leaf up until its weight is less than its parent. To delete, repeatedly rotate the node with its lighter child until it's a leaf, then delete it.
If you cannot support rotations, you'll need a rebalancing strategy that does not require them. Perhaps the easiest option there is to model your tree after a scapegoat tree, which works by lazily detecting a node that's too deep for the tree to be balanced, then rebuilding the smallest imbalanced subtree possible into a perfectly-balanced tree to get everything back into order. Deletions are handled by rebuilding the whole tree once the number of nodes drops by some constant factor.
Related
Given an array of binary trees find whether any two trees share a node, not value wise, but "pointer" wise. At the bottom I provided an example.
My approach was to iterate through all the trees and store all the leaves (pointers) from each tree into a list, then check if list has any duplicates, but that's a rather slow approach. Is there perhaps a quicker way to solve this?
In the worst case you will have to traverse all nodes (all pointers) to find a shared node (pointer), as it might happen to be the last one visited. So the best time complexity we can expect to have is O(𝑚+𝑛) where 𝑚 and 𝑛 represent the number of nodes in either tree.
We can achieve this time complexity if we store the pointers from the first tree in a hash set and then traverse the pointers of the second tree to see if any of those is in the set. Assuming that get/set operations on a hash set have an amortized constant time complexity, the overal time complexity will be O(𝑚+𝑛).
If the same program is responsible for constructing the trees, then a reuse of the same node can be detected upon insertion. For instance, reuse of the same node in multiple trees can be completely avoided by having the insert method of your tree only take a value as argument, never a node instance. The method will then encapsulate the actual creation of the node, guaranteeing its uniqueness.
An idea for O(#nodes) time and O(1) space. It does more traversal work than simple traversals using a hash table, but it doesn't have the cost of using a hash table. I don't know what's better. Might depend on the language.
For two trees
Create one extra node. Do a Morris traversal of the first tree. It only modifies right child pointers, so we can use left child pointers for marking nodes as seen. For every tree node without left child, set our extra node as left child. Whenever checking a left child pointer, treat our extra node like a null pointer, i.e., don't visit it. After the traversal, the tree structure is restored, and all originally left-child-less tree nodes now point to our extra node as left child. That includes all leaf nodes.
Do a Morris traversal of the second tree. Again treat pointers to our extra node like null pointers. If we ever do encounter our extra node, we know the trees share a node. If not, then we know the trees don't share a node, since if they did share any, they'd also share a leaf node (just go down from any shared node to a leaf node, that's also shared), and all leafs nodes of the first tree are marked. After the traversal, the second tree is restored.
Do a Morris traversal of the first tree again, this time removing our extra node, restoring the original null pointers.
For an array of more than two trees
Mark the first tree as above. Check the second tree as above. Mark the second tree. Check the third. Mark the third. Check the fourth. Mark the fourth. Etc. When you found a shared node or there are no more trees, unmark the marked trees.
Every shared node must have two parents, or an ancestor with two parents.
LOOP over nodes
IF node has two parents
MARK node as shared
Mark all descendants as shared.
Just been learning about binary trees in school, and two rules of binary trees is that
every node has at most 2 child nodes
there exists linear ordering defined for the children of each node (ordered pair)
Now, all types of binary trees (full, complete, etc.) are binary trees so they must satisfy these 2 conditions.
However, I saw on GeeksForGeeks this example:
How is 'linear ordering', ordered pair, defined here?
It seems that for the sibling nodes in this picture, some left ones are larger than the right one, some right nodes are larger than the left one.
If asked to check if a given tree is a binary tree, how do I make sure of the second property, that the children of each node have to be ordered?
Thanks
This is one of the complicated ways to introduce a binary tree.
two rules of binary trees is that
every node has at most 2 child nodes
there exists linear ordering defined for the children of each node (ordered pair)
Simple ways of introducing binary trees I could think of are "at most two children and no cycles" or "at most two children and unique path between any pair of vertices".
But fine. You bring up the point of linear order. Lets discuss that.
Here
A linear ordering on a finite collection of objects may be described
as follows: each object has exactly one immediate predecessor object
and one immediate successor object with two exceptions: A first object
has no predecessor and a last object has no successor.
If you have learnt about traversal so far, with the above definition, I would take binary tree traversals as linear order - preorder, postorder, inorder, level order. This applies to all types of binary trees (full, complete, etc.) which includes the complete binary tree you posted as an image.
I am interested in taking a list of elements and turning them into a balanced binary tree with each element on a leaf of the tree. Furthermore, I want to build the tree with an algorithm that only sees one element at a time, rather than the whole list at once. Finally, this tree has no ordering constraints --- that is, it is not a search tree, so the nodes can be in any order.
My question is: there are lots of algorithms for incrementally building up binary search trees, but what are some algoritms for building up balanced binary trees without any ordering constraint? They ought to be more efficient as they don't have to worry about preserving any order relations between the nodes.
You can do it in linear time. For each 2 elements, you need a parent. For each 2 of those, you need another and so on. Can't do it any better though.
First you make N nodes for each data point you have - then you just start working your way back up - connect each two leafs together with a node, then each 2 of those parent nodes together, etc, until you get to 1 node.
Or you can work your way down -- at any level N you get 2^N children.
nodes = [...data...]
root = data.first; <== returns first element without removing it from nodes
while data.size > 1
a=data.pop_front
b=data.pop_front
root = new node(a,b) <== create new node with a and b as children
data.push_back(root)
when you leave the while loop, root contains the top of your tree.
How to find a loop in a binary tree? I am looking for a solution other than marking the visited nodes as visited or doing a address hashing. Any ideas?
Suppose you have a binary tree but you don't trust it and you think it might be a graph, the general case will dictate to remember the visited nodes. It is, somewhat, the same algorithm to construct a minimum spanning tree from a graph and this means the space and time complexity will be an issue.
Another approach would be to consider the data you save in the tree. Consider you have numbers of hashes so you can compare.
A pseudocode would test for this conditions:
Every node would have to have a maximum of 2 children and 1 parent (max 3 connections). More then 3 connections => not a binary tree.
The parent must not be a child.
If a node has two children, then the left child has a smaller value than the parent and the right child has a bigger value. So considering this, if a leaf, or inner node has as a child some node on a higher level (like parent's parent) you can determine a loop based on the values. If a child is a right node then it's value must be bigger then it's parent but if that child forms a loop, it means he is from the left part or the right part of the parent.
3.a. So if it is from the left part then it's value is smaller than it's sibling. So => not a binary tree. The idea is somewhat the same for the other part.
Testing aside, in what form is the tree that you want to test? Remeber that every node has a pointer to it's parent. An this pointer points to a single parent. So depending of the format you tree is in, you can take advantage from this.
As mentioned already: A tree does not (by definition) contain cycles (loops).
To test if your directed graph contains cycles (references to nodes already added to the tree) you can iterate trough the tree and add each node to a visited-list (or the hash of it if you rather prefer) and check each new node if it is in the list.
Plenty of algorithms for cycle-detection in graphs are just a google-search away.
I want to sum all the values in the leaves of a BST. Apparently, I can't get to the leaves without traversing the whole tree. Is this true? Can I get to the leaves without taking O(N) time?
You realize that the leaves themselves will be at least 1/2 of O(n) anyway?
There is no way to get the leaves of a tree without traversing the whole tree (especially if you want every single leaf), which will unfortunately operate in O(n) time. Are you sure that a tree is the best way to store your data if you want to access all of these leaves? There are other data structures which will allow more efficient access to your data.
To access all leaf nodes of a BST, you will have to traverse all the nodes of BST and that would be of order O(n).
One alternative is to use B+ tree where you can traverse to a leaf node in O(log n) time and after that all leaf nodes can be accessed sequentially to compute the sum. So, in your case it would be O(log n + k), where k is the number of leaf nodes and n is the total number of nodes in the B+ tree.
cheers
You will either have to traverse the tree searching for nodes without children, or modify the structure you are using to represent the tree to include a list of the leaf nodes. This will also necessitate modifying your insert and delete methods to maintain the list (for instance, if you remove the last child from a node, it becomes a leaf node). Unless the tree is very large, it's probably nice enough to just go ahead and traverse the tree.