Related
My professor showed the following problem in class and mentioned that the answer is O(1) while mine was quit different, I hope to get some help knowing of what mistakes did I made.
Question:
Calculate the Amortized Time Complexity for F method in AVL tree, when we start from the minimal node and each time we call F over the last found member.
Description of F: when we are at specific node F continues just like inorder traversal starting from the current one until the next one in inorder traversal for the next call.
What I did:
First I took an random series of m calls to F.
I said for the first one we need O(log n) - to find the most minimal node then for the next node we need to do inorder again but continues one more step so O(log n)+1 an so on until I scan m elements.
Which gets me to:
To calculate Amortized Time we do T(m)/m then I get:
Which isn't O(1) for sure.
The algorithm doesn't start by searching for any node, but instead is already passed a node and will start from that node. E.g. pseudocode for F would look like this:
F(n):
if n has right child
n = right child of n
while n has left child
n = left child of n
return n
else
prev = n
cur = parent of n
while prev is right child of cur and cur is not root
prev = cur
cur = parent of prev
if cur is root and prev is right child of cur
error "Reached end of traversal"
else
return cur
The above code basically does an in-order traversal of a tree starting from a node until the next node is reached.
Amortized runtime:
Pick an arbitrary tree and m. Let r_0 be the lowest common ancestor of all nodes visited by F. Now define r_(n + 1) as the lowest common ancestor of all nodes in the right subtree of r_n that will be returned by F. This recursion bottoms out for r_u, which will be the m-th node in in-order traversal. Any r_n will be returned by F in some iteration, so all nodes in the left subtree of r_n will be returned by F as well.
All nodes that will be visited by F are either also returned by F or are nodes on the path from r_0 to r_u. Since r_0 is an ancestor of r_1 and r_1 is an ancestor of r_2, etc., the path from r_0 to r_u can be at most as long as the right subtree is high. The height of the tree is limited by log_phi(m + 2), so in total at most
m + log_phi(m + 2)
nodes will be visited during m iterations of F. All nodes visited by F form a subtree, so there are at most 2 * (m + log_phi(m + 2)) edges that will be traversed by the algorithm, leading to an amortized runtime-complexity of
2 * (m + log_phi(m + 2)) / m = 2 + 2 * log_phi(m + 2) / m = O(1)
(The above bounds are in reality considerably tighter, but for the calculation presented here completely sufficient)
Below is an iterative algorithm to traverse a Binary Search Tree in in-order fashion (first left child , then the parent , finally right child) without using a Stack :
(Idea : the whole idea is to find the left-most child of a tree and find the successor of the node at hand each time and print its value , until there's no more node left.)
void In-Order-Traverse(Node root){
Min-Tree(root); //finding left-most child
Node current = root;
while (current != null){
print-on-screen(current.key);
current = Successor(current);
}
return;
}
Node Min-Tree(Node root){ // find the leftmost child
Node current = root;
while (current.leftChild != null)
current = current.leftChild;
return current;
}
Node Successor(Node root){
if (root.rightChild != null) // if root has a right child ,find the leftmost child of the right sub-tree
return Min-Tree(root.rightChild);
else{
current = root;
while (current.parent != null && current.parent.leftChild != current)
current = current.parent;
return current.parrent;
}
}
It's been claimed that the time complexity of this algorithm is Theta(n) assuming there are n nodes in the BST , which is for sure correct . However I cannot convince myself as I guess some of the nodes are traversed more than constant number of times which depends on the number of nodes in their sub-trees and summing up all these number of visits wouldn't result time complexity of Theta(n)
Any idea or intuition on how to prove it ?
It is easier to reason with edges rather than nodes. Let us reason based on the code of Successor function.
Case 1 (then branch)
For all nodes with a right child, we will visit the right subtree once ("right-turn" edge), then always visit the left subtree ("left-turn" edges) with Min-Tree function. We can prove that such traversal will create a path whose edges are unique - the edges will not be repeated in any traversal made from any other node with a right child, since the traversal ensures that you never visit any "right-turn" edge of other nodes on the tree. (Proof by construction).
Case 2 (else branch)
For all nodes without a right child (else branch), we will visit the ancestors by following "right-turn" edges until you have to make a "left-turn" edge or encounter the root of the binary tree. Again, the edges in the path generated are unique - will never be repeated in any other traversal made from any other node without a right child. This is because:
Except for the starting node and the node reached by following "left-turn" edge, all other nodes in between has a right child (which means those are excluded from else branch). The starting node of course does not have a right child.
Each node has a unique parent (only the root node does not have parent), and the path to parent is either "left-turn" or "right-turn" (the node is a left child or a right child). Given any node (ignoring the right child condition), there is only one path that creates the pattern: many "right-turn" then a "left-turn".
Since the nodes in between have a right child, there is no way for an edge to appear in 2 traversal starting at different nodes. (Since we are currently considering nodes without a right child).
(The proof here is quite hand-waving, but I think it can be formally proven by contradiction).
Since the edges are unique, the total number of edges traversed in case 1 only (or case 2 only) will be O(n) (since the number of edges in a tree is equal to the number of vertices - 1). Therefore, after summing the 2 cases up, In-Order Traversal will be O(n).
Note that I only know each edge is visited at most once - I don't know whether all edges are visited or not from the proof, but the number of edges is bounded by the number of vertices, which is just right.
We can easily see that it is also Omega(n) (each node is visited once), so we can conclude that it is Theta(n).
The given program runs in Θ(N) time. Θ(N) doesn't mean that each node is visited exactly once. Remember there is a constant factor. So Θ(N) could actually be limited by 5 N or 10 N or even a 1000 N. So as such it doesn't give you an exact count on the number of times a node is visited.
The Time complexity of in-order iterative traversal of Binary Search Tree can be analyzed as follows,
Consider a Tree with N nodes,
Let the execution time be denoted by the complexity function T(N).
Let the left sub tree and right sub tree contain X and N-X-1 nodes respectively,
Then the time complexity T(N) = T(X) + T(N-X-1) + c,
Now consider the two extreme cases of a BST,
CASE 1: A BST which is perfectly balanced, i.e. both the sub trees have equal number of nodes. For example consider the BST shown below,
10
/ \
5 14
/ \ / \
1 6 11 16
For such a Tree the complexity function is,
T(N) = 2 T(⌊N/2⌋) + c
Master Theorem gives us a complexity of Θ(N) in this case.
CASE 2: A fully unbalanced BST, i.e. either the left sub tree or right sub tree is empty. There for X = 0. For example consider the BST shown below,
10
/
9
/
8
/
7
Now T(N) = T(0) + T(N-1) + c,
T(N) = T(N-1) + c
T(N) = T(N-2) + c + c
T(N) = T(N-3) + c + c + c
.
.
.
T(N) = T(0) + N c
Since T(N) = K, where K is a constant,
T(N) = K + N c
There for T(N) = Θ(N).
Thus the complexity is Θ(N) for all the cases.
We focus on edges instead of nodes.
( to have a better intuition look at this picture : http://i.stack.imgur.com/WlK5O.png)
We claim that in this algorithm every edge is visited at most twice, (actually it's visited exactly twice);
First time when it's traversed downward and and the second time when it's traversed upward.
To visit an edge more than twice , we have to traverse that edge it downward again : down , up , down , ....
We prove that it's not possible to have a second downward visit of an edge.
Let's assume that we traverse an edge (u , v) downward for the second time , this means that one of the ancestors of u has a successor which is a decedent of u.
This is not possible :
We know that when we are traversing an edge upward , we are looking for a left-turn edge to find a successor , so while u is on the left side of the the successor, successor of this successor is on the right side of it , by moving to the right side of a successor (to find its successor) reaching u again and therefore edge (u,v) again is impossible. (to find a successor we either move to the right or to the up but not to the left)
Given a binary tree with n leaves and a set of C colors. Each leaf node of the tree is given a unique color from the set C. Thus no leaf nodes have the same color. The internal nodes of the tree are uncolored. Every pair of colors in the set C has a cost associated with it. So if a tree edge connects two nodes of colors A and B, the edge cost is the cost of the pair (A, B). Our aim is to give colors to the internal nodes of the tree, minimizing the total edge cost of the tree.
I have working on this problem for hours now, and haven't really come up with a working solution. Any hints would be appreciated.
I am going to solve the problem with pseudocode, because I tried writing explanation and it was completely not understandable even for me. Hopefully the code will do the trick. The complexity of my solution is not very good - memory an druntime in O(C^2 * N).
I will need couple of arrays I will be using in dynamic approach to your task:
dp [N][C][C] -> dp[i][j][k] the maximum price you can get from a tree rooted at node i, if you paint it in color j and its parent is colored in color k
maxPrice[N][C] -> maxPrice[i][j] the maximum price you can get from a tree rooted in node i if its parent is colored in color j
color[leaf] -> the color of the leaf leaf
price[C][C] -> price[i][j] the price you get if you have pair of neighbouring nodes with colors i and j
chosenColor[N][C] -> chosenColor[i][j] the color one should choose for node i to obtain maxPrice[i][j]
Lets assume the nodes are ordered using topological sorting, i.e we will be processing first leaves. Topological sorting is very easy to do in a tree. Let the sorting have given a list of inner nodes inner_nodes
for leaf in leaves:
for i in 0..MAX_C, j in 0..MAX_C
dp[leaf][i][j] = (i != color[leaf]) ? 0 : price[i][j]
for i in 0..MAX_C,
maxPrice[leaf][i] = price[color[leaf]][i]
chosenColor[leaf][i] = color[leaf]
for node in inner_nodes
for i in 0..MAX_C, j in 0..MAX_C
dp[node][i][j] = (i != root) ? price[i][j] : 0
for descendant in node.descendants
dp[node][i][j] += maxPrice[descendant][i]
for i in 0...MAX_C
for j in 0...MAX_C
if maxPrice[node][i] < dp[node][j][i]
maxPrice[node][i] = dp[node][j][i]
chosenColor[node][i] = j
for node in inner_nodes (reversed)
color[node] = (node == root) ? chosenColor[node][0] : chosenColor[node][color[parent[node]]
As a starting point, you can use a greedy solution which gives you an upper bound on the total cost:
while the root is not colored
pick an uncolored node having colored descendants only
choose the color that minimizes the total cost to its descendants
Two BSTs (Binary Search Trees) are given. How to find largest common sub-tree in the given two binary trees?
EDIT 1:
Here is what I have thought:
Let, r1 = current node of 1st tree
r2 = current node of 2nd tree
There are some of the cases I think we need to consider:
Case 1 : r1.data < r2.data
2 subproblems to solve:
first, check r1 and r2.left
second, check r1.right and r2
Case 2 : r1.data > r2.data
2 subproblems to solve:
- first, check r1.left and r2
- second, check r1 and r2.right
Case 3 : r1.data == r2.data
Again, 2 cases to consider here:
(a) current node is part of largest common BST
compute common subtree size rooted at r1 and r2
(b)current node is NOT part of largest common BST
2 subproblems to solve:
first, solve r1.left and r2.left
second, solve r1.right and r2.right
I can think of the cases we need to check, but I am not able to code it, as of now. And it is NOT a homework problem. Does it look like?
Just hash the children and key of each node and look for duplicates. This would give a linear expected time algorithm. For example, see the following pseudocode, which assumes that there are no hash collisions (dealing with collisions would be straightforward):
ret = -1
// T is a tree node, H is a hash set, and first is a boolean flag
hashTree(T, H, first):
if (T is null):
return 0 // leaf case
h = hash(hashTree(T.left, H, first), hashTree(T.right, H, first), T.key)
if (first):
// store hashes of T1's nodes in the set H
H.insert(h)
else:
// check for hashes of T2's nodes in the set H containing T1's nodes
if H.contains(h):
ret = max(ret, size(T)) // size is recursive and memoized to get O(n) total time
return h
H = {}
hashTree(T1, H, true)
hashTree(T2, H, false)
return ret
Note that this is assuming the standard definition of a subtree of a BST, namely that a subtree consists of a node and all of its descendants.
Assuming there are no duplicate values in the trees:
LargestSubtree(Tree tree1, Tree tree2)
Int bestMatch := 0
Int bestMatchCount := 0
For each Node n in tree1 //should iterate breadth-first
//possible optimization: we can skip every node that is part of each subtree we find
Node n2 := BinarySearch(tree2(n.value))
Int matchCount := CountMatches(n, n2)
If (matchCount > bestMatchCount)
bestMatch := n.value
bestMatchCount := matchCount
End
End
Return ExtractSubtree(BinarySearch(tree1(bestMatch)), BinarySearch(tree2(bestMatch)))
End
CountMatches(Node n1, Node n2)
If (!n1 || !n2 || n1.value != n2.value)
Return 0
End
Return 1 + CountMatches(n1.left, n2.left) + CountMatches(n1.right, n2.right)
End
ExtractSubtree(Node n1, Node n2)
If (!n1 || !n2 || n1.value != n2.value)
Return nil
End
Node result := New Node(n1.value)
result.left := ExtractSubtree(n1.left, n2.left)
result.right := ExtractSubtree(n1.right, n2.right)
Return result
End
To briefly explain, this is a brute-force solution to the problem. It does a breadth-first walk of the first tree. For each node, it performs a BinarySearch of the second tree to locate the corresponding node in that tree. Then using those nodes it evaluates the total size of the common subtree rooted there. If the subtree is larger than any previously found subtree, it remembers it for later so that it can construct and return a copy of the largest subtree when the algorithm completes.
This algorithm does not handle duplicate values. It could be extended to do so by using a BinarySearch implementation that returns a list of all nodes with the given value, instead of just a single node. Then the algorithm could iterate this list and evaluate the subtree for each node and then proceed as normal.
The running time of this algorithm is O(n log m) (it traverses n nodes in the first tree, and performs a log m binary-search operation for each one), putting it on par with most common sorting algorithms. The space complexity is O(1) while running (nothing allocated beyond a few temporary variables), and O(n) when it returns its result (because it creates an explicit copy of the subtree, which may not be required depending upon exactly how the algorithm is supposed to express its result). So even this brute-force approach should perform reasonably well, although as noted by other answers an O(n) solution is possible.
There are also possible optimizations that could be applied to this algorithm, such as skipping over any nodes that were contained in a previously evaluated subtree. Because the tree-walk is breadth-first we know than any node that was part of some prior subtree cannot ever be the root of a larger subtree. This could significantly improve the performance of the algorithm in certain cases, but the worst-case running time (two trees with no common subtrees) would still be O(n log m).
I believe that I have an O(n + m)-time, O(n + m) space algorithm for solving this problem, assuming the trees are of size n and m, respectively. This algorithm assumes that the values in the trees are unique (that is, each element appears in each tree at most once), but they do not need to be binary search trees.
The algorithm is based on dynamic programming and works with the following intution: suppose that we have some tree T with root r and children T1 and T2. Suppose the other tree is S. Now, suppose that we know the maximum common subtree of T1 and S and of T2 and S. Then the maximum subtree of T and S
Is completely contained in T1 and r.
Is completely contained in T2 and r.
Uses both T1, T2, and r.
Therefore, we can compute the maximum common subtree (I'll abbreviate this as MCS) as follows. If MCS(T1, S) or MCS(T2, S) has the roots of T1 or T2 as roots, then the MCS we can get from T and S is given by the larger of MCS(T1, S) and MCS(T2, S). If exactly one of MCS(T1, S) and MCS(T2, S) has the root of T1 or T2 as a root (assume w.l.o.g. that it's T1), then look up r in S. If r has the root of T1 as a child, then we can extend that tree by a node and the MCS is given by the larger of this augmented tree and MCS(T2, S). Otherwise, if both MCS(T1, S) and MCS(T2, S) have the roots of T1 and T2 as roots, then look up r in S. If it has as a child the root of T1, we can extend the tree by adding in r. If it has as a child the root of T2, we can extend that tree by adding in r. Otherwise, we just take the larger of MCS(T1, S) and MCS(T2, S).
The formal version of the algorithm is as follows:
Create a new hash table mapping nodes in tree S from their value to the corresponding node in the tree. Then fill this table in with the nodes of S by doing a standard tree walk in O(m) time.
Create a new hash table mapping nodes in T from their value to the size of the maximum common subtree of the tree rooted at that node and S. Note that this means that the MCS-es stored in this table must be directly rooted at the given node. Leave this table empty.
Create a list of the nodes of T using a postorder traversal. This takes O(n) time. Note that this means that we will always process all of a node's children before the node itself; this is very important!
For each node v in the postorder traversal, in the order they were visited:
Look up the corresponding node in the hash table for the nodes of S.
If no node was found, set the size of the MCS rooted at v to 0.
If a node v' was found in S:
If neither of the children of v' match the children of v, set the size of the MCS rooted at v to 1.
If exactly one of the children of v' matches a child of v, set the size of the MCS rooted at v to 1 plus the size of the MCS of the subtree rooted at that child.
If both of the children of v' match the children of v, set the size of the MCS rooted at v to 1 plus the size of the MCS of the left subtree plus the size of the MCS of the right subtree.
(Note that step (4) runs in expected O(n) time, since it visits each node in S exactly once, makes O(n) hash table lookups, makes n hash table inserts, and does a constant amount of processing per node).
Iterate across the hash table and return the maximum value it contains. This step takes O(n) time as well. If the hash table is empty (S has size zero), return 0.
Overall, the runtime is O(n + m) time expected and O(n + m) space for the two hash tables.
To see a correctness proof, we proceed by induction on the height of the tree T. As a base case, if T has height zero, then we just return zero because the loop in (4) does not add anything to the hash table. If T has height one, then either it exists in T or it does not. If it exists in T, then it can't have any children at all, so we execute branch 4.3.1 and say that it has height one. Step (6) then reports that the MCS has size one, which is correct. If it does not exist, then we execute 4.2, putting zero into the hash table, so step (6) reports that the MCS has size zero as expected.
For the inductive step, assume that the algorithm works for all trees of height k' < k and consider a tree of height k. During our postorder walk of T, we will visit all of the nodes in the left subtree, then in the right subtree, and finally the root of T. By the inductive hypothesis, the table of MCS values will be filled in correctly for the left subtree and right subtree, since they have height ≤ k - 1 < k. Now consider what happens when we process the root. If the root doesn't appear in the tree S, then we put a zero into the table, and step (6) will pick the largest MCS value of some subtree of T, which must be fully contained in either its left subtree or right subtree. If the root appears in S, then we compute the size of the MCS rooted at the root of T by trying to link it with the MCS-es of its two children, which (inductively!) we've computed correctly.
Whew! That was an awesome problem. I hope this solution is correct!
EDIT: As was noted by #jonderry, this will find the largest common subgraph of the two trees, not the largest common complete subtree. However, you can restrict the algorithm to only work on subtrees quite easily. To do so, you would modify the inner code of the algorithm so that it records a subtree of size 0 if both subtrees aren't present with nonzero size. A similar inductive argument will show that this will find the largest complete subtree.
Though, admittedly, I like the "largest common subgraph" problem a lot more. :-)
The following algorithm computes all the largest common subtrees of two binary trees (with no assumption that it is a binary search tree). Let S and T be two binary trees. The algorithm works from the bottom of the trees up, starting at the leaves. We start by identifying leaves with the same value. Then consider their parents and identify nodes with the same children. More generally, at each iteration, we identify nodes provided they have the same value and their children are isomorphic (or isomorphic after swapping the left and right children). This algorithm terminates with the collection of all pairs of maximal subtrees in T and S.
Here is a more detailed description:
Let S and T be two binary trees. For simplicity, we may assume that for each node n, the left child has value <= the right child. If exactly one child of a node n is NULL, we assume the right node is NULL. (In general, we consider two subtrees isomorphic if they are up to permutation of the left/right children for each node.)
(1) Find all leaf nodes in each tree.
(2) Define a bipartite graph B with edges from nodes in S to nodes in T, initially with no edges. Let R(S) and T(S) be empty sets. Let R(S)_next and R(T)_next also be empty sets.
(3) For each leaf node in S and each leaf node in T, create an edge in B if the nodes have the same value. For each edge created from nodeS in S to nodeT in T, add all the parents of nodeS to the set R(S) and all the parents of nodeT to the set R(T).
(4) For each node nodeS in R(S) and each node nodeT in T(S), draw an edge between them in B if they have the same value AND
{
(i): nodeS->left is connected to nodeT->left and nodeS->right is connected to nodeT->right, OR
(ii): nodeS->left is connected to nodeT->right and nodeS->right is connected to nodeT->left, OR
(iii): nodeS->left is connected to nodeT-> right and nodeS->right == NULL and nodeT->right==NULL
(5) For each edge created in step (4), add their parents to R(S)_next and R(T)_next.
(6) If (R(S)_next) is nonempty {
(i) swap R(S) and R(S)_next and swap R(T) and R(T)_next.
(ii) Empty the contents of R(S)_next and R(T)_next.
(iii) Return to step (4).
}
When this algorithm terminates, R(S) and T(S) contain the roots of all maximal subtrees in S and T. Furthermore, the bipartite graph B identifies all pairs of nodes in S and nodes in T that give isomorphic subtrees.
I believe this algorithm has complexity is O(n log n), where n is the total number of nodes in S and T, since the sets R(S) and T(S) can be stored in BST’s ordered by value, however I would be interested to see a proof.
Given an N-ary tree, find out if it is symmetric about the line drawn through the root node of the tree. It is easy to do it in case of a binary tree. However for N-ary trees it seems to be difficult
One way to think about this problem is to notice that a tree is symmetric if it is its own reflection, where the reflection of a tree is defined recursively:
The reflection of the empty tree is itself.
The reflection of a tree with root r and children c1, c2, ..., cn is the tree with root r and children reflect(cn), ..., reflect(c2), reflect(c1).
You can then solve this problem by computing the tree's reflection and checking if it's equal to the original tree. This again can be done recursively:
The empty tree is only equal to itself.
A tree with root r and children c1, c2, ..., cn is equal to another tree T iff the other tree is nonempty, has root r, has n children, and has children that are equal to c1, ..., cn in that order.
Of course, this is a bit inefficient because it makes a full copy of the tree before doing the comparison. The memory usage is O(n + d), where n is the number of nodes in the tree (to hold the copy) and d is the height of the tree (to hold the stack frames in the recursion tom check for equality). Since d = O(n), this uses O(n) memory. However, it runs in O(n) time since each phase visits each node exactly once.
A more space-efficient way of doing this would be to use the following recursive formulation:
1. The empty tree is symmetric.
2. A tree with n children is symmetric if the first and last children are mirrors, the second and penultimate children are mirrors, etc.
You can then define two trees to be mirrors as follows:
The empty tree is only a mirror of itself.
A tree with root r and children c1, c2,..., cn is a mirror of a tree with root t and children d1, d2, ..., dn iff r = t, c1 is a mirror of dn, c2 is a mirror of dn-1, etc.
This approach also runs in linear time, but doesn't make a full copy of the tree. Comsequently, the memory usage is only O(d), where d is the depth of the tree. This is at worst O(n) but is in all likelihood much better.
I would just do an in-order tree traversal( node left right) on the left sub-tree and save it to a list. Then do another in-order tree traversal (node right left) on the right sub-tree and save it to a list. Then, you can just compare the two lists. They should be the same.
Take a stack
Now each time start traversing through root node,
now recursively call a function and push the element of left sub tree one by one at a particular level.
maintain a global variable and update its value each time a left sub tree is pushed onto the stack.now call recursively(after recursive call to left sub tree)the right sub and pop on each correct match.doing this will ensure that it is being checked in symmetric manner.
At the end if stack is empty ,i.e. all elements are processed and each element of stack has been popped out..you are through!
One more way to answer this question is to look at each level and see if each level is palindrome or not. For Null nodes, we can keep adding dummy nodes with any value which is unique.
It's not difficult. I'm going to play golf with this question. I got 7... anyone got better?
data Tree = Tree [Tree]
symmetrical (Tree ts) =
(even n || symmetrical (ts !! m)) &&
all mirror (zip (take m ts) (reverse $ drop (n - m) ts))
where { n = length ts; m = n `div` 2 }
mirror (Tree xs, Tree ys) =
length xs == length ys && all mirror (zip xs (reverse ys))