Related
I would like to understand how to solve the Codility ArrayRecovery challenge, but I don't even know what branch of knowledge to consult. Is it combinatorics, optimization, computer science, set theory, or something else?
Edit:
The branch of knowledge to consult is constraint programming, particularly constraint propagation. You also need some combinatorics to know that if you take k numbers at a time from the range [1..n], with the restriction that no number can be bigger than the one before it, that works out to be
(n+k-1)!/k!(n-1)! possible combinations
which is the same as the number of combinations with replacements of n things taken k at a time, which has the mathematical notation . You can read about why it works out like that here.
Peter Norvig provides an excellent example of how to solve this kind of problem with his Sudoku solver.
You can read the full description of the ArrayRecovery problem via the link above. The short story is that there is an encoder that takes a sequence of integers in the range 1 up to some given limit (say 100 for our purposes) and for each element of the input sequence outputs the most recently seen integer that is smaller than the current input, or 0 if none exists.
input 1, 2, 3, 4 => output 0, 1, 2, 3
input 2, 4, 3 => output 0, 2, 2
The full task is, given the output (and the range of allowable input), figure out how many possible inputs could have generated it. But before I even get to that calculation, I'm not confident about how to even approach formulating the equation. That is what I am asking for help with. (Of course a full solution would be welcome, too, if it is explained.)
I just look at some possible outputs and wonder. Here are some sample encoder outputs and the inputs I can come up with, with * meaning any valid input and something like > 4 meaning any valid input greater than 4. If needed, inputs are referred to as A1, A2, A3, ... (1-based indexing)
Edit #2
Part of the problem I was having with this challenge is that I did not manually generate the exactly correct sets of possible inputs for an output. I believe the set below is correct now. Look at this answer's edit history if you want to see my earlier mistakes.
output #1: 0, 0, 0, 4
possible inputs: [>= 4, A1 >= * >= 4, 4, > 4]
output #2: 0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4 # A5 ↴ See more in discussion below
possible inputs: [>= 2, A1 >= * >=2, 2, 3, 4, > 4]
output #3: 0, 0, 0, 4, 3, 1
possible inputs: none # [4, 3, 1, 1 >= * > 4, 4, > 1] but there is no number 1 >= * > 4
The second input sequence is very tightly constrained compared to the first just by adding 2 more outputs. The third sequence is so constrained as to be impossible.
But the set of constraints on A5 in example #2 is a bit harder to articulate. Of course A5 > O5, that is the basic constraint on all the inputs. But any output > A4 and after O5 has to appear in the input after A4, so A5 has to be an element of the set of numbers that comes after A5 that is also > A4. Since there is only 1 such number (A6 == 4), A5 has to be it, but it gets more complicated if there is a longer string of numbers that follow. (Editor's note: actually it doesn't.)
As the output set gets longer, I worry these constraints just get more complicated and harder to get right. I cannot think of any data structures for efficiently representing these in a way that leads to efficiently calculating the number of possible combinations. I also don't quite see how to algorithmically add constraint sets together.
Here are the constraints I see so far for any given An
An > On
An <= min(Set of other possible numbers from O1 to n-1 > On). How to define the set of possible numbers greater than On?
Numbers greater than On that came after the most recent occurrence of On in the input
An >= max(Set of other possible numbers from O1 to n-1 < On). How to define the set of possible numbers less than On?
Actually this set is empty because On is, by definition, the largest possible number from the previous input sequence. (Which it not to say it is strictly the largest number from the previous input sequence.)
Any number smaller than On that came before the last occurrence of it in the input would be ineligible because of the "nearest" rule. No numbers smaller that On could have occurred after the most recent occurrence because of the "nearest" rule and because of the transitive property: if Ai < On and Aj < Ai then Aj < On
Then there is the set theory:
An must be an element of the set of unaccounted-for elements of the set of On+1 to Om, where m is the smallest m > n such that Om < On. Any output after such Om and larger than Om (which An is) would have to appear as or after Am.
An element is unaccounted-for if it is seen in the output but does not appear in the input in a position that is consistent with the rest of the output. Obviously I need a better definition than this in order to code and algorithm to calculate it.
It seems like perhaps some kind of set theory and/or combinatorics or maybe linear algebra would help with figuring out the number of possible sequences that would account for all of the unaccounted-for outputs and fit the other constraints. (Editor's note: actually, things never get that complicated.)
The code below passes all of Codility's tests. The OP added a main function to use it on the command line.
The constraints are not as complex as the OP thinks. In particular, there is never a situation where you need to add a restriction that an input be an element of some set of specific integers seen elsewhere in the output. Every input position has a well-defined minimum and maximum.
The only complication to that rule is that sometimes the maximum is "the value of the previous input" and that input itself has a range. But even then, all the values like that are consecutive and have the same range, so the number of possibilities can be calculated with basic combinatorics, and those inputs as a group are independent of the other inputs (which only serve to set the range), so the possibilities of that group can be combined with the possibilities of other input positions by simple multiplication.
Algorithm overview
The algorithm makes a single pass through the output array updating the possible numbers of input arrays after every span, which is what I am calling repetitions of numbers in the output. (You might say maximal subsequences of the output where every element is identical.) For example, for output 0,1,1,2 we have three spans: 0, 1,1 and 2. When a new span begins, the number of possibilities for the previous span is calculated.
This decision was based on a few observations:
For spans longer than 1 in length, the minimum value of the input
allowed in the first position is whatever the value is of the input
in the second position. Calculating the number of possibilities of a
span is straightforward combinatorics, but the standard formula
requires knowing the range of the numbers and the length of the span.
Every time the value of the
output changes (and a new span beings), that strongly constrains the value of the previous span:
When the output goes up, the only possible reason is that the previous input was the value of the new, higher output and the input corresponding to the position of the new, higher output, was even higher.
When an output goes down, new constraints are established, but those are a bit harder to articulate. The algorithm stores stairs (see below) in order to quantify the constraints imposed when the output goes down
The aim here was to confine the range of possible values for every span. Once we do that accurately, calculating the number of combinations is straightforward.
Because the encoder backtracks looking to output a number that relates to the input in 2 ways, both smaller and closer, we know we can throw out numbers that are larger and farther away. After a small number appears in the output, no larger number from before that position can have any influence on what follows.
So to confine these ranges of input when the output sequence decreased, we need to store stairs - a list of increasingly larger possible values for the position in the original array. E.g for 0,2,5,7,2,4 stairs build up like this: 0, 0,2, 0,2,5, 0,2,5,7, 0,2, 0,2,4.
Using these bounds we can tell for sure that the number in the position of the second 2 (next to last position in the example) must be in (2,5], because 5 is the next stair. If the input were greater than 5, a 5 would have been output in that space instead of a 2. Observe, that if the last number in the encoded array was not 4, but 6, we would exit early returning 0, because we know that the previous number couldn't be bigger than 5.
The complexity is O(n*lg(min(n,m))).
Functions
CombinationsWithReplacement - counts number of combinations with replacements of size k from n numbers. E.g. for (3, 2) it counts 3,3, 3,2, 3,1, 2,2, 2,1, 1,1, so returns 6 It is the same as choose(n - 1 + k, n - 1).
nextBigger - finds next bigger element in a range. E.g. for 4 in sub-array 1,2,3,4,5 it returns 5, and in sub-array 1,3 it returns its parameter Max.
countSpan (lambda) - counts how many different combinations a span we have just passed can have. Consider span 2,2 for 0,2,5,7,2,2,7.
When curr gets to the final position, curr is 7 and prev is the final 2 of the 2,2 span.
It computes maximum and minimum possible values of the prev span. At this point stairs consist of 2,5,7 then maximum possible value is 5 (nextBigger after 2 in the stair 2,5,7). A value of greater than 5 in this span would have output a 5, not a 2.
It computes a minimum value for the span (which is the minimum value for every element in the span), which is prev at this point, (remember curr at this moment equals to 7 and prev to 2). We know for sure that in place of the final 2 output, the original input has to have 7, so the minimum is 7. (This is a consequence of the "output goes up" rule. If we had 7,7,2 and curr would be 2 then the minimum for the previous span (the 7,7) would be 8 which is prev + 1.
It adjusts the number of combinations. For a span of length L with a range of n possibilities (1+max-min), there are possibilities, with k being either L or L-1 depending on what follows the span.
For a span followed by a larger number, like 2,2,7, k = L - 1 because the last position of the 2,2 span has to be 7 (the value of the first number after the span).
For a span followed by a smaller number, like 7,7,2, k = L because
the last element of 7,7 has no special constraints.
Finally, it calls CombinationsWithReplacement to find out the number of branches (or possibilities), computes new res partial results value (remainder values in the modulo arithmetic we are doing), and returns new res value and max for further handling.
solution - iterates over the given Encoder Output array. In the main loop, while in a span it counts the span length, and at span boundaries it updates res by calling countSpan and possibly updates the stairs.
If the current span consists of a bigger number than the previous one, then:
Check validity of the next number. E.g 0,2,5,2,7 is invalid input, becuase there is can't be 7 in the next-to-last position, only 3, or 4, or 5.
It updates the stairs. When we have seen only 0,2, the stairs are 0,2, but after the next 5, the stairs become 0,2,5.
If the current span consists of a smaller number then the previous one, then:
It updates stairs. When we have seen only 0,2,5, our stairs are 0,2,5, but after we have seen 0,2,5,2 the stairs become 0,2.
After the main loop it accounts for the last span by calling countSpan with -1 which triggers the "output goes down" branch of calculations.
normalizeMod, extendedEuclidInternal, extendedEuclid, invMod - these auxiliary functions help to deal with modulo arithmetic.
For stairs I use storage for the encoded array, as the number of stairs never exceeds current position.
#include <algorithm>
#include <cassert>
#include <vector>
#include <tuple>
const int Modulus = 1'000'000'007;
int CombinationsWithReplacement(int n, int k);
template <class It>
auto nextBigger(It begin, It end, int value, int Max) {
auto maxIt = std::upper_bound(begin, end, value);
auto max = Max;
if (maxIt != end) {
max = *maxIt;
}
return max;
}
auto solution(std::vector<int> &B, const int Max) {
auto res = 1;
const auto size = (int)B.size();
auto spanLength = 1;
auto prev = 0;
// Stairs is the list of numbers which could be smaller than number in the next position
const auto stairsBegin = B.begin();
// This includes first entry (zero) into stairs
// We need to include 0 because we can meet another zero later in encoded array
// and we need to be able to find in stairs
auto stairsEnd = stairsBegin + 1;
auto countSpan = [&](int curr) {
const auto max = nextBigger(stairsBegin, stairsEnd, prev, Max);
// At the moment when we switch from the current span to the next span
// prev is the number from previous span and curr from current.
// E.g. 1,1,7, when we move to the third position cur = 7 and prev = 1.
// Observe that, in this case minimum value possible in place of any of 1's can be at least 2=1+1=prev+1.
// But if we consider 7, then we have even more stringent condition for numbers in place of 1, it is 7
const auto min = std::max(prev + 1, curr);
const bool countLast = prev > curr;
const auto branchesCount = CombinationsWithReplacement(max - min + 1, spanLength - (countLast ? 0 : 1));
return std::make_pair(res * (long long)branchesCount % Modulus, max);
};
for (int i = 1; i < size; ++i) {
const auto curr = B[i];
if (curr == prev) {
++spanLength;
}
else {
int max;
std::tie(res, max) = countSpan(curr);
if (prev < curr) {
if (curr > max) {
// 0,1,5,1,7 - invalid because number in the fourth position lies in [2,5]
// and so in the fifth encoded position we can't something bigger than 5
return 0;
}
// It is time to possibly shrink stairs.
// E.g if we had stairs 0,2,4,9,17 and current value is 5,
// then we no more interested in 9 and 17, and we change stairs to 0,2,4,5.
// That's because any number bigger than 9 or 17 also bigger than 5.
const auto s = std::lower_bound(stairsBegin, stairsEnd, curr);
stairsEnd = s;
*stairsEnd++ = curr;
}
else {
assert(curr < prev);
auto it = std::lower_bound(stairsBegin, stairsEnd, curr);
if (it == stairsEnd || *it != curr) {
// 0,5,1 is invalid sequence because original sequence lloks like this 5,>5,>1
// and there is no 1 in any of the two first positions, so
// it can't appear in the third position of the encoded array
return 0;
}
}
spanLength = 1;
}
prev = curr;
}
res = countSpan(-1).first;
return res;
}
template <class T> T normalizeMod(T a, T m) {
if (a < 0) return a + m;
return a;
}
template <class T> std::pair<T, std::pair<T, T>> extendedEuclidInternal(T a, T b) {
T old_x = 1;
T old_y = 0;
T x = 0;
T y = 1;
while (true) {
T q = a / b;
T t = a - b * q;
if (t == 0) {
break;
}
a = b;
b = t;
t = x; x = old_x - x * q; old_x = t;
t = y; y = old_y - y * q; old_y = t;
}
return std::make_pair(b, std::make_pair(x, y));
}
// Returns gcd and Bezout's coefficients
template <class T> std::pair<T, std::pair<T, T>> extendedEuclid(T a, T b) {
if (a > b) {
if (b == 0) return std::make_pair(a, std::make_pair(1, 0));
return extendedEuclidInternal(a, b);
}
else {
if (a == 0) return std::make_pair(b, std::make_pair(0, 1));
auto p = extendedEuclidInternal(b, a);
std::swap(p.second.first, p.second.second);
return p;
}
}
template <class T> T invMod(T a, T m) {
auto p = extendedEuclid(a, m);
assert(p.first == 1);
return normalizeMod(p.second.first, m);
}
int CombinationsWithReplacement(int n, int k) {
int res = 1;
for (long long i = n; i < n + k; ++i) {
res = res * i % Modulus;
}
int denom = 1;
for (long long i = k; i > 0; --i) {
denom = denom * i % Modulus;
}
res = res * (long long)invMod(denom, Modulus) % Modulus;
return res;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Only the above is needed for the Codility challenge. Below is to run on the command line.
//
// Compile with: gcc -std=gnu++14 -lc++ -lstdc++ array_recovery.cpp
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <string.h>
// Usage: 0 1 2,3, 4 M
// Last arg is M, the max value for an input.
// Remaining args are B (the output of the encoder) separated by commas and/or spaces
// Parentheses and brackets are ignored, so you can use the same input form as Codility's tests: ([1,2,3], M)
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
int Max;
std::vector<int> B;
const char* delim = " ,[]()";
if (argc < 2 ) {
printf("Usage: %s M 0 1 2,3, 4... \n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
for (int i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
char* parse;
parse = strtok(argv[i], delim);
while (parse != NULL)
{
B.push_back(atoi(parse));
parse = strtok (NULL, delim);
}
}
Max = B.back();
B.pop_back();
printf("%d\n", solution(B, Max));
return 0;
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//
// Only the above is needed for the Codility challenge. Below is to run on the command line.
//
// Compile with: gcc -std=gnu++14 -lc++ -lstdc++ array_recovery.cpp
//
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <string.h>
// Usage: M 0 1 2,3, 4
// first arg is M, the max value for an input.
// remaining args are B (the output of the encoder) separated by commas and/or spaces
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
int Max;
std::vector<int> B;
const char* delim = " ,";
if (argc < 3 ) {
printf("Usage: %s M 0 1 2,3, 4... \n", argv[0]);
return 1;
}
Max = atoi(argv[1]);
for (int i = 2; i < argc; i++) {
char* parse;
parse = strtok(argv[i], delim);
while (parse != NULL)
{
B.push_back(atoi(parse));
parse = strtok (NULL, delim);
}
}
printf("%d\n", solution(B, Max));
return 0;
}
Let's see an example:
Max = 5
Array is
0 1 3 0 1 1 3
1
1 2..5
1 3 4..5
1 3 4..5 1
1 3 4..5 1 2..5
1 3 4..5 1 2..5 >=..2 (sorry, for a cumbersome way of writing)
1 3 4..5 1 3..5 >=..3 4..5
Now count:
1 1 2 1 3 2 which amounts to 12 total.
Here's an idea. One known method to construct the output is to use a stack. We pop it while the element is greater or equal, then output the smaller element if it exists, then push the greater element onto the stack. Now what if we attempted to do this backwards from the output?
First we'll demonstrate the stack method using the c∅dility example.
[2, 5, 3, 7, 9, 6]
2: output 0, stack [2]
5: output 2, stack [2,5]
3: pop 5, output, 2, stack [2,3]
7: output 3, stack [2,3,7]
... etc.
Final output: [0, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3]
Now let's try reconstruction! We'll use stack both as the imaginary stack and as the reconstituted input:
(Input: [2, 5, 3, 7, 9, 6])
Output: [0, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3]
* Something >3 that reached 3 in the stack
stack = [3, 3 < *]
* Something >7 that reached 7 in the stack
but both of those would've popped before 3
stack = [3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
* Something >3, 7 qualifies
stack = [3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
* Something >2, 3 qualifies
stack = [2, 3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
* Something >2 and >=3 since 3 reached 2
stack = [2, 2 < *, 3, 7, 7 < x, 3 < * <= x]
Let's attempt your examples:
Example 1:
[0, 0, 0, 2, 3, 4]
* Something >4
stack = [4, 4 < *]
* Something >3, 4 qualifies
stack = [3, 4, 4 < *]
* Something >2, 3 qualifies
stack = [2, 3, 4, 4 < *]
* The rest is non-increasing with lowerbound 2
stack = [y >= x, x >= 2, 2, 3, 4, >4]
Example 2:
[0, 0, 0, 4]
* Something >4
stack [4, 4 < *]
* Non-increasing
stack = [z >= y, y >= 4, 4, 4 < *]
Calculating the number of combinations is achieved by multiplying together the possibilities for all the sections. A section is either a bounded single cell; or a bound, non-increasing subarray of one or more cells. To calculate the latter we use the multi-choose binomial, (n + k - 1) choose (k - 1). Consider that we can express the differences between the cells of a bound, non-increasing sequence of 3 cells as:
(ub - cell_3) + (cell_3 - cell_2) + (cell_2 - cell_1) + (cell_1 - lb) = ub - lb
Then the number of ways to distribute ub - lb into (x + 1) cells is
(n + k - 1) choose (k - 1)
or
(ub - lb + x) choose x
For example, the number of non-increasing sequences between
(3,4) in two cells is (4 - 3 + 2) choose 2 = 3: [3,3] [4,3] [4,4]
And the number of non-increasing sequences between
(3,4) in three cells is (4 - 3 + 3) choose 3 = 4: [3,3,3] [4,3,3] [4,4,3] [4,4,4]
(Explanation attributed to Brian M. Scott.)
Rough JavaScript sketch (the code is unreliable; it's only meant to illustrate the encoding. The encoder lists [lower_bound, upper_bound], or a non-increasing sequence as [non_inc, length, lower_bound, upper_bound]):
function f(A, M){
console.log(JSON.stringify(A), M);
let i = A.length - 1;
let last = A[i];
let s = [[last,last]];
if (A[i-1] == last){
let d = 1;
s.splice(1,0,['non_inc',d++,last,M]);
while (i > 0 && A[i-1] == last){
s.splice(1,0,['non_inc',d++,last,M]);
i--
}
} else {
s.push([last+1,M]);
i--;
}
if (i == 0)
s.splice(0,1);
for (; i>0; i--){
let x = A[i];
if (x < s[0][0])
s = [[x,x]].concat(s);
if (x > s[0][0]){
let [l, _l] = s[0];
let [lb, ub] = s[1];
s[0] = [x+1, M];
s[1] = [lb, x];
s = [[l,_l], [x,x]].concat(s);
}
if (x == s[0][0]){
let [l,_l] = s[0];
let [lb, ub] = s[1];
let d = 1;
s.splice(0,1);
while (i > 0 && A[i-1] == x){
s =
[['non_inc', d++, lb, M]].concat(s);
i--;
}
if (i > 0)
s = [[l,_l]].concat(s);
}
}
// dirty fix
if (s[0][0] == 0)
s.splice(0,1);
return s;
}
var a = [2, 5, 3, 7, 9, 6]
var b = [0, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3]
console.log(JSON.stringify(a));
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,0,0,4]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,2,0,0,0,4]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,0,0,2,3,4]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,2,2]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,4)));
b = [0,3,5,6]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
b = [0,0,3,0]
console.log(JSON.stringify(f(b,10)));
I'm trying to come up with a fast algorithm for, given any array of length n, obtaining the largest subarray of distinct values.
For example, the largest subarray of distinct values of
[1, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 8, 1, 9]
would be
[4, 2, 8, 1, 9]
This is my current solution, I think it runs in O(n^2). This is because check_dups runs in linear time, and it is called every time j or i increments.
arr = [0,...,n]
i = 0
j = 1
i_best = i
j_best = j
while i < n-1 and j < n:
if check_dups(arr, i j): //determines if there's duplicates in the subarray i,j in linear time
i += 1
else:
if j - i > j_best - i_best:
i_best = i
j_best = j
j += 1
return subarray(arr, i_best, j_best)
Does anyone have a better solution, in linear time?
Please note this is pseudocode and I'm not looking for an answer that relies on specific existing functions of a defined language (such as arr.contains()).
Thanks!
Consider the problem of finding the largest distinct-valued subarray ending at a particular index j. Conceptually this is straightforward: starting at arr[j], you go backwards and include all elements until you find a duplicate.
Let's use this intuition to solve this problem for all j from 0 up to length(arr). We need to know, at any point in the iteration, how far back we can go before we find a duplicate. That is, we need to know the least i such that subarray(arr, i, j) contains distinct values. (I'm assuming subarray treats the indices as inclusive.)
If we knew i at some point in the iteration (say, when j = k), can we quickly update i when j = k+1? Indeed, if we knew when was the last occurrence of arr[k+1], then we can update i := max(i, lastOccurrence(arr[k+1]) + 1). We can compute lastOccurrence in O(1) time with a HashMap.
Pseudocode:
arr = ... (from input)
map = empty HashMap
i = 0
i_best = 0
j_best = 0
for j from 0 to length(arr) - 1 inclusive:
if map contains-key arr[j]:
i = max(i, map[arr[j]] + 1)
map[arr[j]] = j
if j - i > j_best - i_best:
i_best = i
j_best = j
return subarray(arr, i_best, j_best)
We can adapt pkpnd's algorithm to use an array rather than hash map for an O(n log n) solution or potentially O(n) if your data allows for an O(n) stable sort, but you'd need to implement a stable sorting function that also provides the original indexes of the elements.
1 4 3 2 4 2 8 1 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (indexes)
Sorted:
1 1 2 2 3 4 4 8 9
0 7 3 5 2 1 4 6 8 (indexes)
--- --- ---
Now, instead of a hash map, build a new array by iterating over the sorted array and inserting the last occurrence of each element according to the duplicate index arrangements. The final array would look like:
1 4 3 2 4 2 8 1 9
-1 -1 -1 -1 1 3 -1 0 -1 (previous occurrence)
We're now ready to run pkpnd's algorithm with a slight modification:
arr = ... (from input)
map = previous occurrence array
i = 0
i_best = 0
j_best = 0
for j from 0 to length(arr) - 1 inclusive:
if map[j] >= 0:
i = max(i, map[j] + 1)
if j - i > j_best - i_best:
i_best = i
j_best = j
return subarray(arr, i_best, j_best)
JavaScript code:
function f(arr, map){
let i = 0
let i_best = 0
let j_best = 0
for (j=0; j<arr.length; j++){
if (map[j] >= 0)
i = Math.max(i, map[j] + 1)
if (j - i > j_best - i_best){
i_best = i
j_best = j
}
}
return [i_best, j_best]
}
let arr = [ 1, 4, 3, 2, 4, 2, 8, 1, 9]
let map = [-1,-1,-1,-1, 1, 3,-1, 0,-1]
console.log(f(arr, map))
arr = [ 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1]
map = [-1,-1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 0]
console.log(f(arr, map))
We can use Hashtable(Dictionary in c#)
public int[] FindSubarrayWithDistinctEntities(int[] arr)
{
Dictionary<int, int> dic = new Dictionary<int, int>();
Result r = new Result(); //struct containing start and end index for subarray
int result = 0;
r.st = 1;
r.end = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < arr.Length; i++)
{
if (dic.ContainsKey(arr[i]))
{
int diff = i - (dic[arr[i]] + 1);
if(result<diff)
{
result = diff;
r.st = Math.Min(r.st, (dic[arr[i]] + 1));
r.end = i-1;
}
dic.Remove(arr[i]);
}
dic.Add(arr[i], i);
}
return arr.Skip(r.st).Take(r.end).ToArray();
}
Add every number to Hashset if it isn't already in it. Hashset's insert and search are both O(1). So final result will be O(n).
It would be great if someone could point me towards an algorithm that would allow me to :
create a random square matrix, with entries 0 and 1, such that
every row and every column contain exactly two non-zero entries,
two non-zero entries cannot be adjacent,
all possible matrices are equiprobable.
Right now I manage to achieve points 1 and 2 doing the following : such a matrix can be transformed, using suitable permutations of rows and columns, into a diagonal block matrix with blocks of the form
1 1 0 0 ... 0
0 1 1 0 ... 0
0 0 1 1 ... 0
.............
1 0 0 0 ... 1
So I start from such a matrix using a partition of [0, ..., n-1] and scramble it by permuting rows and columns randomly. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to integrate the adjacency condition, and I am quite sure that my algorithm won't treat all the matrices equally.
Update
I have managed to achieve point 3. The answer was actually straight under my nose : the block matrix I am creating contains all the information needed to take into account the adjacency condition. First some properties and definitions:
a suitable matrix defines permutations of [1, ..., n] that can be build like so: select a 1 in row 1. The column containing this entry contains exactly one other entry equal to 1 on a row a different from 1. Again, row a contains another entry 1 in a column which contains a second entry 1 on a row b, and so on. This starts a permutation 1 -> a -> b ....
For instance, with the following matrix, starting with the marked entry
v
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 | 2
1 0 0 1 0 0 | 3
0 0 1 0 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 5
0 1 0 0 1 0 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
we get permutation 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> 2 -> 6 -> 4 -> 1.
the cycles of such a permutation lead to the block matrix I mentioned earlier. I also mentioned scrambling the block matrix using arbitrary permutations on the rows and columns to rebuild a matrix compatible with the requirements.
But I was using any permutation, which led to some adjacent non-zero entries. To avoid that, I have to choose permutations that separate rows (and columns) that are adjacent in the block matrix. Actually, to be more precise, if two rows belong to a same block and are cyclically consecutive (the first and last rows of a block are considered consecutive too), then the permutation I want to apply has to move these rows into non-consecutive rows of the final matrix (I will call two rows incompatible in that case).
So the question becomes : How to build all such permutations ?
The simplest idea is to build a permutation progressively by randomly adding rows that are compatible with the previous one. As an example, consider the case n = 6 using partition 6 = 3 + 3 and the corresponding block matrix
1 1 0 0 0 0 | 1
0 1 1 0 0 0 | 2
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 3
0 0 0 1 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 0 1 1 | 5
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Here rows 1, 2 and 3 are mutually incompatible, as are 4, 5 and 6. Choose a random row, say 3.
We will write a permutation as an array: [2, 5, 6, 4, 3, 1] meaning 1 -> 2, 2 -> 5, 3 -> 6, ... This means that row 2 of the block matrix will become the first row of the final matrix, row 5 will become the second row, and so on.
Now let's build a suitable permutation by choosing randomly a row, say 3:
p = [3, ...]
The next row will then be chosen randomly among the remaining rows that are compatible with 3 : 4, 5and 6. Say we choose 4:
p = [3, 4, ...]
Next choice has to be made among 1 and 2, for instance 1:
p = [3, 4, 1, ...]
And so on: p = [3, 4, 1, 5, 2, 6].
Applying this permutation to the block matrix, we get:
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 3
0 0 0 1 1 0 | 4
1 1 0 0 0 0 | 1
0 0 0 0 1 1 | 5
0 1 1 0 0 0 | 2
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Doing so, we manage to vertically isolate all non-zero entries. Same has to be done with the columns, for instance by using permutation p' = [6, 3, 5, 1, 4, 2] to finally get
0 1 0 1 0 0 | 3
0 0 1 0 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 5
0 1 0 0 0 1 | 2
1 0 0 0 1 0 | 6
------------+--
6 3 5 1 4 2 |
So this seems to work quite efficiently, but building these permutations needs to be done with caution, because one can easily be stuck: for instance, with n=6 and partition 6 = 2 + 2 + 2, following the construction rules set up earlier can lead to p = [1, 3, 2, 4, ...]. Unfortunately, 5 and 6 are incompatible, so choosing one or the other makes the last choice impossible. I think I've found all situations that lead to a dead end. I will denote by r the set of remaining choices:
p = [..., x, ?], r = {y} with x and y incompatible
p = [..., x, ?, ?], r = {y, z} with y and z being both incompatible with x (no choice can be made)
p = [..., ?, ?], r = {x, y} with x and y incompatible (any choice would lead to situation 1)
p = [..., ?, ?, ?], r = {x, y, z} with x, y and z being cyclically consecutive (choosing x or z would lead to situation 2, choosing y to situation 3)
p = [..., w, ?, ?, ?], r = {x, y, z} with xwy being a 3-cycle (neither x nor y can be chosen, choosing z would lead to situation 3)
p = [..., ?, ?, ?, ?], r = {w, x, y, z} with wxyz being a 4-cycle (any choice would lead to situation 4)
p = [..., ?, ?, ?, ?], r = {w, x, y, z} with xyz being a 3-cycle (choosing w would lead to situation 4, choosing any other would lead to situation 4)
Now it seems that the following algorithm gives all suitable permutations:
As long as there are strictly more than 5 numbers to choose, choose randomly among the compatible ones.
If there are 5 numbers left to choose: if the remaining numbers contain a 3-cycle or a 4-cycle, break that cycle (i.e. choose a number belonging to that cycle).
If there are 4 numbers left to choose: if the remaining numbers contain three cyclically consecutive numbers, choose one of them.
If there are 3 numbers left to choose: if the remaining numbers contain two cyclically consecutive numbers, choose one of them.
I am quite sure that this allows me to generate all suitable permutations and, hence, all suitable matrices.
Unfortunately, every matrix will be obtained several times, depending on the partition that was chosen.
Intro
Here is some prototype-approach, trying to solve the more general task of
uniform combinatorial sampling, which for our approach here means: we can use this approach for everything which we can formulate as SAT-problem.
It's not exploiting your problem directly and takes a heavy detour. This detour to the SAT-problem can help in regards to theory (more powerful general theoretical results) and efficiency (SAT-solvers).
That being said, it's not an approach if you want to sample within seconds or less (in my experiments), at least while being concerned about uniformity.
Theory
The approach, based on results from complexity-theory, follows this work:
GOMES, Carla P.; SABHARWAL, Ashish; SELMAN, Bart. Near-uniform sampling of combinatorial spaces using XOR constraints. In: Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems. 2007. S. 481-488.
The basic idea:
formulate the problem as SAT-problem
add randomly generated xors to the problem (acting on the decision-variables only! that's important in practice)
this will reduce the number of solutions (some solutions will get impossible)
do that in a loop (with tuned parameters) until only one solution is left!
search for some solution is being done by SAT-solvers or #SAT-solvers (=model-counting)
if there is more than one solution: no xors will be added but a complete restart will be done: add random-xors to the start-problem!
The guarantees:
when tuning the parameters right, this approach achieves near-uniform sampling
this tuning can be costly, as it's based on approximating the number of possible solutions
empirically this can also be costly!
Ante's answer, mentioning the number sequence A001499 actually gives a nice upper bound on the solution-space (as it's just ignoring adjacency-constraints!)
The drawbacks:
inefficient for large problems (in general; not necessarily compared to the alternatives like MCMC and co.)
need to change / reduce parameters to produce samples
those reduced parameters lose the theoretical guarantees
but empirically: good results are still possible!
Parameters:
In practice, the parameters are:
N: number of xors added
L: minimum number of variables part of one xor-constraint
U: maximum number of variables part of one xor-constraint
N is important to reduce the number of possible solutions. Given N constant, the other variables of course also have some effect on that.
Theory says (if i interpret correctly), that we should use L = R = 0.5 * #dec-vars.
This is impossible in practice here, as xor-constraints hurt SAT-solvers a lot!
Here some more scientific slides about the impact of L and U.
They call xors of size 8-20 short-XORS, while we will need to use even shorter ones later!
Implementation
Final version
Here is a pretty hacky implementation in python, using the XorSample scripts from here.
The underlying SAT-solver in use is Cryptominisat.
The code basically boils down to:
Transform the problem to conjunctive normal-form
as DIMACS-CNF
Implement the sampling-approach:
Calls XorSample (pipe-based + file-based)
Call SAT-solver (file-based)
Add samples to some file for later analysis
Code: (i hope i did warn you already about the code-quality)
from itertools import count
from time import time
import subprocess
import numpy as np
import os
import shelve
import uuid
import pickle
from random import SystemRandom
cryptogen = SystemRandom()
""" Helper functions """
# K-ARY CONSTRAINT GENERATION
# ###########################
# SINZ, Carsten. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints.
# CP, 2005, 3709. Jg., S. 827-831.
def next_var_index(start):
next_var = start
while(True):
yield next_var
next_var += 1
class s_index():
def __init__(self, start_index):
self.firstEnvVar = start_index
def next(self,i,j,k):
return self.firstEnvVar + i*k +j
def gen_seq_circuit(k, input_indices, next_var_index_gen):
cnf_string = ''
s_index_gen = s_index(next_var_index_gen.next())
# write clauses of first partial sum (i.e. i=0)
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[0]) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(0,0,k)) + ' 0\n')
for i in range(1, k):
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(0, i, k)) + ' 0\n')
# write clauses for general case (i.e. 0 < i < n-1)
for i in range(1, len(input_indices)-1):
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, 0, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, 0, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, 0, k)) + ' 0\n')
for u in range(1, k):
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, u-1, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, u, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, u, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, u, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, k-1, k)) + ' 0\n')
# last clause for last variable
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[-1]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(len(input_indices)-2, k-1, k)) + ' 0\n')
return (cnf_string, (len(input_indices)-1)*k, 2*len(input_indices)*k + len(input_indices) - 3*k - 1)
# K=2 clause GENERATION
# #####################
def gen_at_most_2_constraints(vars, start_var):
constraint_string = ''
used_clauses = 0
used_vars = 0
index_gen = next_var_index(start_var)
circuit = gen_seq_circuit(2, vars, index_gen)
constraint_string += circuit[0]
used_clauses += circuit[2]
used_vars += circuit[1]
start_var += circuit[1]
return [constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, start_var]
def gen_at_least_2_constraints(vars, start_var):
k = len(vars) - 2
vars = [-var for var in vars]
constraint_string = ''
used_clauses = 0
used_vars = 0
index_gen = next_var_index(start_var)
circuit = gen_seq_circuit(k, vars, index_gen)
constraint_string += circuit[0]
used_clauses += circuit[2]
used_vars += circuit[1]
start_var += circuit[1]
return [constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, start_var]
# Adjacency conflicts
# ###################
def get_all_adjacency_conflicts_4_neighborhood(N, X):
conflicts = set()
for x in range(N):
for y in range(N):
if x < (N-1):
conflicts.add(((x,y),(x+1,y)))
if y < (N-1):
conflicts.add(((x,y),(x,y+1)))
cnf = '' # slow string appends
for (var_a, var_b) in conflicts:
var_a_ = X[var_a]
var_b_ = X[var_b]
cnf += '-' + var_a_ + ' ' + '-' + var_b_ + ' 0 \n'
return cnf, len(conflicts)
# Build SAT-CNF
#############
def build_cnf(N, verbose=False):
var_counter = count(1)
N_CLAUSES = 0
X = np.zeros((N, N), dtype=object)
for a in range(N):
for b in range(N):
X[a,b] = str(next(var_counter))
# Adjacency constraints
CNF, N_CLAUSES = get_all_adjacency_conflicts_4_neighborhood(N, X)
# k=2 constraints
NEXT_VAR = N*N+1
for row in range(N):
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_most_2_constraints(X[row, :].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_least_2_constraints(X[row, :].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
for col in range(N):
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_most_2_constraints(X[:, col].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_least_2_constraints(X[:, col].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
# build final cnf
CNF = 'p cnf ' + str(NEXT_VAR-1) + ' ' + str(N_CLAUSES) + '\n' + CNF
return X, CNF, NEXT_VAR-1
# External tools
# ##############
def get_random_xor_problem(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_ALL_VARS, s, min_l, max_l):
# .cnf not part of arg!
p = subprocess.Popen(['./gen-wff', CNF_IN_fp,
str(N_DEC_VARS), str(N_ALL_VARS),
str(s), str(min_l), str(max_l), 'xored'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()
os.remove(CNF_IN_fp + '-str-xored.xor') # file not needed
return CNF_IN_fp + '-str-xored.cnf'
def solve(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS):
seed = cryptogen.randint(0, 2147483647) # actually no reason to do it; but can't hurt either
p = subprocess.Popen(["./cryptominisat5", '-t', '4', '-r', str(seed), CNF_IN_fp], stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()[0]
sat_line = result.find('s SATISFIABLE')
if sat_line != -1:
# solution found!
vars = parse_solution(result)[:N_DEC_VARS]
# forbid solution (DeMorgan)
negated_vars = list(map(lambda x: x*(-1), vars))
with open(CNF_IN_fp, 'a') as f:
f.write( (str(negated_vars)[1:-1] + ' 0\n').replace(',', ''))
# assume solve is treating last constraint despite not changing header!
# solve again
seed = cryptogen.randint(0, 2147483647)
p = subprocess.Popen(["./cryptominisat5", '-t', '4', '-r', str(seed), CNF_IN_fp], stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()[0]
sat_line = result.find('s SATISFIABLE')
if sat_line != -1:
os.remove(CNF_IN_fp) # not needed anymore
return True, False, None
else:
return True, True, vars
else:
return False, False, None
def parse_solution(output):
# assumes there is one
vars = []
for line in output.split("\n"):
if line:
if line[0] == 'v':
line_vars = list(map(lambda x: int(x), line.split()[1:]))
vars.extend(line_vars)
return vars
# Core-algorithm
# ##############
def xorsample(X, CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, s, min_l, max_l):
start_time = time()
while True:
# add s random XOR constraints to F
xored_cnf_fp = get_random_xor_problem(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, s, min_l, max_l)
state_lvl1, state_lvl2, var_sol = solve(xored_cnf_fp, N_DEC_VARS)
print('------------')
if state_lvl1 and state_lvl2:
print('FOUND')
d = shelve.open('N_15_70_4_6_TO_PLOT')
d[str(uuid.uuid4())] = (pickle.dumps(var_sol), time() - start_time)
d.close()
return True
else:
if state_lvl1:
print('sol not unique')
else:
print('no sol found')
print('------------')
""" Run """
N = 15
N_DEC_VARS = N*N
X, CNF, N_VARS = build_cnf(N)
with open('my_problem.cnf', 'w') as f:
f.write(CNF)
counter = 0
while True:
print('sample: ', counter)
xorsample(X, 'my_problem', N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, 70, 4, 6)
counter += 1
Output will look like (removed some warnings):
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
sol not unique
------------
------------
FOUND
Core: CNF-formulation
We introduce one variable for every cell of the matrix. N=20 means 400 binary-variables.
Adjancency:
Precalculate all symmetry-reduced conflicts and add conflict-clauses.
Basic theory:
a -> !b
<->
!a v !b (propositional logic)
Row/Col-wise Cardinality:
This is tough to express in CNF and naive approaches need an exponential number
of constraints.
We use some adder-circuit based encoding (SINZ, Carsten. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints) which introduces new auxiliary-variables.
Remark:
sum(var_set) <= k
<->
sum(negated(var_set)) >= len(var_set) - k
These SAT-encodings can be put into exact model-counters (for small N; e.g. < 9). The number of solutions equals Ante's results, which is a strong indication for a correct transformation!
There are also interesting approximate model-counters (also heavily based on xor-constraints) like approxMC which shows one more thing we can do with the SAT-formulation. But in practice i have not been able to use these (approxMC = autoconf; no comment).
Other experiments
I did also build a version using pblib, to use more powerful cardinality-formulations
for the SAT-CNF formulation. I did not try to use the C++-based API, but only the reduced pbencoder, which automatically selects some best encoding, which was way worse than my encoding used above (which is best is still a research-problem; often even redundant-constraints can help).
Empirical analysis
For the sake of obtaining some sample-size (given my patience), i only computed samples for N=15. In this case we used:
N=70 xors
L,U = 4,6
I also computed some samples for N=20 with (100,3,6), but this takes a few mins and we reduced the lower bound!
Visualization
Here some animation (strengthening my love-hate relationship with matplotlib):
Edit: And a (reduced) comparison to brute-force uniform-sampling with N=5 (NXOR,L,U = 4, 10, 30):
(I have not yet decided on the addition of the plotting-code. It's as ugly as the above one and people might look too much into my statistical shambles; normalizations and co.)
Theory
Statistical analysis is probably hard to do as the underlying problem is of such combinatoric nature. It's even not entirely obvious how that final cell-PDF should look like. In the case of N=odd, it's probably non-uniform and looks like a chess-board (i did brute-force check N=5 to observe this).
One thing we can be sure about (imho): symmetry!
Given a cell-PDF matrix, we should expect, that the matrix is symmetric (A = A.T).
This is checked in the visualization and the euclidean-norm of differences over time is plotted.
We can do the same on some other observation: observed pairings.
For N=3, we can observe the following pairs:
0,1
0,2
1,2
Now we can do this per-row and per-column and should expect symmetry too!
Sadly, it's probably not easy to say something about the variance and therefore the needed samples to speak about confidence!
Observation
According to my simplified perception, current-samples and the cell-PDF look good, although convergence is not achieved yet (or we are far away from uniformity).
The more important aspect are probably the two norms, nicely decreasing towards 0.
(yes; one could tune some algorithm for that by transposing with prob=0.5; but this is not done here as it would defeat it's purpose).
Potential next steps
Tune parameters
Check out the approach using #SAT-solvers / Model-counters instead of SAT-solvers
Try different CNF-formulations, especially in regards to cardinality-encodings and xor-encodings
XorSample is by default using tseitin-like encoding to get around exponentially grow
for smaller xors (as used) it might be a good idea to use naive encoding (which propagates faster)
XorSample supports that in theory; but the script's work differently in practice
Cryptominisat is known for dedicated XOR-handling (as it was build for analyzing cryptography including many xors) and might gain something by naive encoding (as inferring xors from blown-up CNFs is much harder)
More statistical-analysis
Get rid of XorSample scripts (shell + perl...)
Summary
The approach is very general
This code produces feasible samples
It should be not hard to prove, that every feasible solution can be sampled
Others have proven theoretical guarantees for uniformity for some params
does not hold for our params
Others have empirically / theoretically analyzed smaller parameters (in use here)
(Updated test results, example run-through and code snippets below.)
You can use dynamic programming to calculate the number of solutions resulting from every state (in a much more efficient way than a brute-force algorithm), and use those (pre-calculated) values to create equiprobable random solutions.
Consider the example of a 7x7 matrix; at the start, the state is:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0
meaning that there are seven adjacent unused columns. After adding two ones to the first row, the state could be e.g.:
0,1,0,0,1,0,0
with two columns that now have a one in them. After adding ones to the second row, the state could be e.g.:
0,1,1,0,1,0,1
After three rows are filled, there is a possibility that a column will have its maximum of two ones; this effectively splits the matrix into two independent zones:
1,1,1,0,2,0,1 -> 1,1,1,0 + 0,1
These zones are independent in the sense that the no-adjacent-ones rule has no effect when adding ones to different zones, and the order of the zones has no effect on the number of solutions.
In order to use these states as signatures for types of solutions, we have to transform them into a canonical notation. First, we have to take into account the fact that columns with only 1 one in them may be unusable in the next row, because they contain a one in the current row. So instead of a binary notation, we have to use a ternary notation, e.g.:
2,1,1,0 + 0,1
where the 2 means that this column was used in the current row (and not that there are 2 ones in the column). At the next step, we should then convert the twos back into ones.
Additionally, we can also mirror the seperate groups to put them into their lexicographically smallest notation:
2,1,1,0 + 0,1 -> 0,1,1,2 + 0,1
Lastly, we sort the seperate groups from small to large, and then lexicographically, so that a state in a larger matrix may be e.g.:
0,0 + 0,1 + 0,0,2 + 0,1,0 + 0,1,0,1
Then, when calculating the number of solutions resulting from each state, we can use memoization using the canonical notation of each state as a key.
Creating a dictionary of the states and the number of solutions for each of them only needs to be done once, and a table for larger matrices can probably be used for smaller matrices too.
Practically, you'd generate a random number between 0 and the total number of solutions, and then for every row, you'd look at the different states you could create from the current state, look at the number of unique solutions each one would generate, and see which option leads to the solution that corresponds with your randomly generated number.
Note that every state and the corresponding key can only occur in a particular row, so you can store the keys in seperate dictionaries per row.
TEST RESULTS
A first test using unoptimized JavaScript gave very promising results. With dynamic programming, calculating the number of solutions for a 10x10 matrix now takes a second, where a brute-force algorithm took several hours (and this is the part of the algorithm that only needs to be done once). The size of the dictionary with the signatures and numbers of solutions grows with a diminishing factor approaching 2.5 for each step in size; the time to generate it grows with a factor of around 3.
These are the number of solutions, states, signatures (total size of the dictionaries), and maximum number of signatures per row (largest dictionary per row) that are created:
size unique solutions states signatures max/row
4x4 2 9 6 2
5x5 16 73 26 8
6x6 722 514 107 40
7x7 33,988 2,870 411 152
8x8 2,215,764 13,485 1,411 596
9x9 179,431,924 56,375 4,510 1,983
10x10 17,849,077,140 218,038 13,453 5,672
11x11 2,138,979,146,276 801,266 38,314 14,491
12x12 304,243,884,374,412 2,847,885 104,764 35,803
13x13 50,702,643,217,809,908 9,901,431 278,561 96,414
14x14 9,789,567,606,147,948,364 33,911,578 723,306 238,359
15x15 2,168,538,331,223,656,364,084 114,897,838 1,845,861 548,409
16x16 546,386,962,452,256,865,969,596 ... 4,952,501 1,444,487
17x17 155,420,047,516,794,379,573,558,433 12,837,870 3,754,040
18x18 48,614,566,676,379,251,956,711,945,475 31,452,747 8,992,972
19x19 17,139,174,923,928,277,182,879,888,254,495 74,818,773 20,929,008
20x20 6,688,262,914,418,168,812,086,412,204,858,650 175,678,000 50,094,203
(Additional results obtained with C++, using a simple 128-bit integer implementation. To count the states, the code had to be run using each state as a seperate signature, which I was unable to do for the largest sizes. )
EXAMPLE
The dictionary for a 5x5 matrix looks like this:
row 0: 00000 -> 16 row 3: 101 -> 0
1112 -> 1
row 1: 20002 -> 2 1121 -> 1
00202 -> 4 1+01 -> 0
02002 -> 2 11+12 -> 2
02020 -> 2 1+121 -> 1
0+1+1 -> 0
row 2: 10212 -> 1 1+112 -> 1
12012 -> 1
12021 -> 2 row 4: 0 -> 0
12102 -> 1 11 -> 0
21012 -> 0 12 -> 0
02121 -> 3 1+1 -> 1
01212 -> 1 1+2 -> 0
The total number of solutions is 16; if we randomly pick a number from 0 to 15, e.g. 13, we can find the corresponding (i.e. the 14th) solution like this:
state: 00000
options: 10100 10010 10001 01010 01001 00101
signature: 00202 02002 20002 02020 02002 00202
solutions: 4 2 2 2 2 4
This tells us that the 14th solution is the 2nd solution of option 00101. The next step is:
state: 00101
options: 10010 01010
signature: 12102 02121
solutions: 1 3
This tells us that the 2nd solution is the 1st solution of option 01010. The next step is:
state: 01111
options: 10100 10001 00101
signature: 11+12 1112 1+01
solutions: 2 1 0
This tells us that the 1st solution is the 1st solution of option 10100. The next step is:
state: 11211
options: 01010 01001
signature: 1+1 1+1
solutions: 1 1
This tells us that the 1st solutions is the 1st solution of option 01010. The last step is:
state: 12221
options: 10001
And the 5x5 matrix corresponding to randomly chosen number 13 is:
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 1
And here's a quick'n'dirty code example; run the snippet to generate the signature and solution count dictionary, and generate a random 10x10 matrix (it takes a second to generate the dictionary; once that is done, it generates random solutions in half a millisecond):
function signature(state, prev) {
var zones = [], zone = [];
for (var i = 0; i < state.length; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2) {
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zone = [];
}
else if (prev[i]) zone.push(3);
else zone.push(state[i]);
}
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zones.sort(function(a,b) {return a.length - b.length || a - b;});
return zones.length ? zones.join("2") : "2";
function mirror(zone) {
var ltr = zone.join('');
zone.reverse();
var rtl = zone.join('');
return (ltr < rtl) ? ltr : rtl;
}
}
function memoize(n) {
var memo = [], empty = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= n; i++) memo[i] = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = 0;
memo[0][signature(empty, empty)] = next_row(empty, empty, 1);
return memo;
function next_row(state, prev, row) {
if (row > n) return 1;
var solutions = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var s = state.slice(), p = empty.slice();
++s[i]; ++s[j]; ++p[i]; ++p[j];
var sig = signature(s, p);
var sol = memo[row][sig];
if (sol == undefined)
memo[row][sig] = sol = next_row(s, p, row + 1);
solutions += sol;
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
function random_matrix(n, memo) {
var matrix = [], empty = [], state = [], prev = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = state[i] = prev[i] = 0;
var total = memo[0][signature(empty, empty)];
var pick = Math.floor(Math.random() * total);
document.write("solution " + pick.toLocaleString('en-US') +
" from a total of " + total.toLocaleString('en-US') + "<br>");
for (var row = 1; row <= n; row++) {
var options = find_options(state, prev);
for (var i in options) {
var state_copy = state.slice();
for (var j in state_copy) state_copy[j] += options[i][j];
var sig = signature(state_copy, options[i]);
var solutions = memo[row][sig];
if (pick < solutions) {
matrix.push(options[i].slice());
prev = options[i].slice();
state = state_copy.slice();
break;
}
else pick -= solutions;
}
}
return matrix;
function find_options(state, prev) {
var options = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var option = empty.slice();
++option[i]; ++option[j];
options.push(option);
}
}
return options;
}
}
var size = 10;
var memo = memoize(size);
var matrix = random_matrix(size, memo);
for (var row in matrix) document.write(matrix[row] + "<br>");
The code snippet below shows the dictionary of signatures and solution counts for a matrix of size 10x10. I've used a slightly different signature format from the explanation above: the zones are delimited by a '2' instead of a plus sign, and a column which has a one in the previous row is marked with a '3' instead of a '2'. This shows how the keys could be stored in a file as integers with 2×N bits (padded with 2's).
function signature(state, prev) {
var zones = [], zone = [];
for (var i = 0; i < state.length; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2) {
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zone = [];
}
else if (prev[i]) zone.push(3);
else zone.push(state[i]);
}
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zones.sort(function(a,b) {return a.length - b.length || a - b;});
return zones.length ? zones.join("2") : "2";
function mirror(zone) {
var ltr = zone.join('');
zone.reverse();
var rtl = zone.join('');
return (ltr < rtl) ? ltr : rtl;
}
}
function memoize(n) {
var memo = [], empty = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= n; i++) memo[i] = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = 0;
memo[0][signature(empty, empty)] = next_row(empty, empty, 1);
return memo;
function next_row(state, prev, row) {
if (row > n) return 1;
var solutions = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var s = state.slice(), p = empty.slice();
++s[i]; ++s[j]; ++p[i]; ++p[j];
var sig = signature(s, p);
var sol = memo[row][sig];
if (sol == undefined)
memo[row][sig] = sol = next_row(s, p, row + 1);
solutions += sol;
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
var memo = memoize(10);
for (var i in memo) {
document.write("row " + i + ":<br>");
for (var j in memo[i]) {
document.write(""" + j + "": " + memo[i][j] + "<br>");
}
}
Just few thoughts. Number of matrices satisfying conditions for n <= 10:
3 0
4 2
5 16
6 722
7 33988
8 2215764
9 179431924
10 17849077140
Unfortunatelly there is no sequence with these numbers in OEIS.
There is one similar (A001499), without condition for neighbouring one's. Number of nxn matrices in this case is 'of order' as A001499's number of (n-1)x(n-1) matrices. That is to be expected since number
of ways to fill one row in this case, position 2 one's in n places with at least one zero between them is ((n-1) choose 2). Same as to position 2 one's in (n-1) places without the restriction.
I don't think there is an easy connection between these matrix of order n and A001499 matrix of order n-1, meaning that if we have A001499 matrix than we can construct some of these matrices.
With this, for n=20, number of matrices is >10^30. Quite a lot :-/
This solution use recursion in order to set the cell of the matrix one by one. If the random walk finish with an impossible solution then we rollback one step in the tree and we continue the random walk.
The algorithm is efficient and i think that the generated data are highly equiprobable.
package rndsqmatrix;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
public class RndSqMatrix {
/**
* Generate a random matrix
* #param size the size of the matrix
* #return the matrix encoded in 1d array i=(x+y*size)
*/
public static int[] generate(final int size) {
return generate(size, new int[size * size], new int[size],
new int[size]);
}
/**
* Build a matrix recursivly with a random walk
* #param size the size of the matrix
* #param matrix the matrix encoded in 1d array i=(x+y*size)
* #param rowSum
* #param colSum
* #return
*/
private static int[] generate(final int size, final int[] matrix,
final int[] rowSum, final int[] colSum) {
// generate list of valid positions
final List<Integer> positions = new ArrayList();
for (int y = 0; y < size; y++) {
if (rowSum[y] < 2) {
for (int x = 0; x < size; x++) {
if (colSum[x] < 2) {
final int p = x + y * size;
if (matrix[p] == 0
&& (x == 0 || matrix[p - 1] == 0)
&& (x == size - 1 || matrix[p + 1] == 0)
&& (y == 0 || matrix[p - size] == 0)
&& (y == size - 1 || matrix[p + size] == 0)) {
positions.add(p);
}
}
}
}
}
// no valid positions ?
if (positions.isEmpty()) {
// if the matrix is incomplete => return null
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
if (rowSum[i] != 2 || colSum[i] != 2) {
return null;
}
}
// the matrix is complete => return it
return matrix;
}
// random walk
Collections.shuffle(positions);
for (int p : positions) {
// set '1' and continue recursivly the exploration
matrix[p] = 1;
rowSum[p / size]++;
colSum[p % size]++;
final int[] solMatrix = generate(size, matrix, rowSum, colSum);
if (solMatrix != null) {
return solMatrix;
}
// rollback
matrix[p] = 0;
rowSum[p / size]--;
colSum[p % size]--;
}
// we can't find a valid matrix from here => return null
return null;
}
public static void printMatrix(final int size, final int[] matrix) {
for (int y = 0; y < size; y++) {
for (int x = 0; x < size; x++) {
System.out.print(matrix[x + y * size]);
System.out.print(" ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
public static void printStatistics(final int size, final int count) {
final int sumMatrix[] = new int[size * size];
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
final int[] matrix = generate(size);
for (int j = 0; j < sumMatrix.length; j++) {
sumMatrix[j] += matrix[j];
}
}
printMatrix(size, sumMatrix);
}
public static void checkAlgorithm() {
final int size = 8;
final int count = 2215764;
final int divisor = 122;
final int sumMatrix[] = new int[size * size];
for (int i = 0; i < count/divisor ; i++) {
final int[] matrix = generate(size);
for (int j = 0; j < sumMatrix.length; j++) {
sumMatrix[j] += matrix[j];
}
}
int total = 0;
for(int i=0; i < sumMatrix.length; i++) {
total += sumMatrix[i];
}
final double factor = (double)total / (count/divisor);
System.out.println("Factor=" + factor + " (theory=16.0)");
}
public static void benchmark(final int size, final int count,
final boolean parallel) {
final long begin = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (!parallel) {
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
generate(size);
}
} else {
IntStream.range(0, count).parallel().forEach(i -> generate(size));
}
final long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("rate="
+ (double) (end - begin) / count + "ms/matrix");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
checkAlgorithm();
benchmark(8, 10000, true);
//printStatistics(8, 2215764/36);
printStatistics(8, 2215764);
}
}
The output is:
Factor=16.0 (theory=16.0)
rate=0.2835ms/matrix
552969 554643 552895 554632 555680 552753 554567 553389
554071 554847 553441 553315 553425 553883 554485 554061
554272 552633 555130 553699 553604 554298 553864 554028
554118 554299 553565 552986 553786 554473 553530 554771
554474 553604 554473 554231 553617 553556 553581 553992
554960 554572 552861 552732 553782 554039 553921 554661
553578 553253 555721 554235 554107 553676 553776 553182
553086 553677 553442 555698 553527 554850 553804 553444
Here is a very fast approach of generating the matrix row by row, written in Java:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
int n = 100;
Random rnd = new Random();
byte[] mat = new byte[n*n];
byte[] colCount = new byte[n];
//generate row by row
for (int x = 0; x < n; x++) {
//generate a random first bit
int b1 = rnd.nextInt(n);
while ( (x > 0 && mat[(x-1)*n + b1] == 1) || //not adjacent to the one above
(colCount[b1] == 2) //not in a column which has 2
) b1 = rnd.nextInt(n);
//generate a second bit, not equal to the first one
int b2 = rnd.nextInt(n);
while ( (b2 == b1) || //not the same as bit 1
(x > 0 && mat[(x-1)*n + b2] == 1) || //not adjacent to the one above
(colCount[b2] == 2) || //not in a column which has 2
(b2 == b1 - 1) || //not adjacent to b1
(b2 == b1 + 1)
) b2 = rnd.nextInt(n);
//fill the matrix values and increment column counts
mat[x*n + b1] = 1;
mat[x*n + b2] = 1;
colCount[b1]++;
colCount[b2]++;
}
String arr = Arrays.toString(mat).substring(1, n*n*3 - 1);
System.out.println(arr.replaceAll("(.{" + n*3 + "})", "$1\n"));
}
It essentially generates each a random row at a time. If the row will violate any of the conditions, it is generated again (again randomly). I believe this will satisfy condition 4 as well.
Adding a quick note that it will spin forever for N-s where there is no solutions (like N=3).
I know that there is an algorithm that permits, given a combination of number (no repetitions, no order), calculates the index of the lexicographic order.
It would be very useful for my application to speedup things...
For example:
combination(10, 5)
1 - 1 2 3 4 5
2 - 1 2 3 4 6
3 - 1 2 3 4 7
....
251 - 5 7 8 9 10
252 - 6 7 8 9 10
I need that the algorithm returns the index of the given combination.
es: index( 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 ) --> index
EDIT: actually I'm using a java application that generates all combinations C(53, 5) and inserts them into a TreeMap.
My idea is to create an array that contains all combinations (and related data) that I can index with this algorithm.
Everything is to speedup combination searching.
However I tried some (not all) of your solutions and the algorithms that you proposed are slower that a get() from TreeMap.
If it helps: my needs are for a combination of 5 from 53 starting from 0 to 52.
Thank you again to all :-)
Here is a snippet that will do the work.
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
const int n = 10;
const int k = 5;
int combination[k] = {2, 5, 7, 8, 10};
int index = 0;
int j = 0;
for (int i = 0; i != k; ++i)
{
for (++j; j != combination[i]; ++j)
{
index += c(n - j, k - i - 1);
}
}
std::cout << index + 1 << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It assumes you have a function
int c(int n, int k);
that will return the number of combinations of choosing k elements out of n elements.
The loop calculates the number of combinations preceding the given combination.
By adding one at the end we get the actual index.
For the given combination there are
c(9, 4) = 126 combinations containing 1 and hence preceding it in lexicographic order.
Of the combinations containing 2 as the smallest number there are
c(7, 3) = 35 combinations having 3 as the second smallest number
c(6, 3) = 20 combinations having 4 as the second smallest number
All of these are preceding the given combination.
Of the combinations containing 2 and 5 as the two smallest numbers there are
c(4, 2) = 6 combinations having 6 as the third smallest number.
All of these are preceding the given combination.
Etc.
If you put a print statement in the inner loop you will get the numbers
126, 35, 20, 6, 1.
Hope that explains the code.
Convert your number selections to a factorial base number. This number will be the index you want. Technically this calculates the lexicographical index of all permutations, but if you only give it combinations, the indexes will still be well ordered, just with some large gaps for all the permutations that come in between each combination.
Edit: pseudocode removed, it was incorrect, but the method above should work. Too tired to come up with correct pseudocode at the moment.
Edit 2: Here's an example. Say we were choosing a combination of 5 elements from a set of 10 elements, like in your example above. If the combination was 2 3 4 6 8, you would get the related factorial base number like so:
Take the unselected elements and count how many you have to pass by to get to the one you are selecting.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 -> 1
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 -> 1
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4 -> 1
1 5 6 7 8 9 10
6 -> 2
1 5 7 8 9 10
8 -> 3
So the index in factorial base is 1112300000
In decimal base, it's
1*9! + 1*8! + 1*7! + 2*6! + 3*5! = 410040
This is Algorithm 2.7 kSubsetLexRank on page 44 of Combinatorial Algorithms by Kreher and Stinson.
r = 0
t[0] = 0
for i from 1 to k
if t[i - 1] + 1 <= t[i] - 1
for j from t[i - 1] to t[i] - 1
r = r + choose(n - j, k - i)
return r
The array t holds your values, for example [5 7 8 9 10]. The function choose(n, k) calculates the number "n choose k". The result value r will be the index, 251 for the example. Other inputs are n and k, for the example they would be 10 and 5.
zero-base,
# v: array of length k consisting of numbers between 0 and n-1 (ascending)
def index_of_combination(n,k,v):
idx = 0
for p in range(k-1):
if p == 0: arrg = range(1,v[p]+1)
else: arrg = range(v[p-1]+2, v[p]+1)
for a in arrg:
idx += combi[n-a, k-1-p]
idx += v[k-1] - v[k-2] - 1
return idx
Null Set has the right approach. The index corresponds to the factorial-base number of the sequence. You build a factorial-base number just like any other base number, except that the base decreases for each digit.
Now, the value of each digit in the factorial-base number is the number of elements less than it that have not yet been used. So, for combination(10, 5):
(1 2 3 4 5) == 0*9!/5! + 0*8!/5! + 0*7!/5! + 0*6!/5! + 0*5!/5!
== 0*3024 + 0*336 + 0*42 + 0*6 + 0*1
== 0
(10 9 8 7 6) == 9*3024 + 8*336 + 7*42 + 6*6 + 5*1
== 30239
It should be pretty easy to calculate the index incrementally.
If you have a set of positive integers 0<=x_1 < x_2< ... < x_k , then you could use something called the squashed order:
I = sum(j=1..k) Choose(x_j,j)
The beauty of the squashed order is that it works independent of the largest value in the parent set.
The squashed order is not the order you are looking for, but it is related.
To use the squashed order to get the lexicographic order in the set of k-subsets of {1,...,n) is by taking
1 <= x1 < ... < x_k <=n
compute
0 <= n-x_k < n-x_(k-1) ... < n-x_1
Then compute the squashed order index of (n-x_k,...,n-k_1)
Then subtract the squashed order index from Choose(n,k) to get your result, which is the lexicographic index.
If you have relatively small values of n and k, you can cache all the values Choose(a,b) with a
See Anderson, Combinatorics on Finite Sets, pp 112-119
I needed also the same for a project of mine and the fastest solution I found was (Python):
import math
def nCr(n,r):
f = math.factorial
return f(n) / f(r) / f(n-r)
def index(comb,n,k):
r=nCr(n,k)
for i in range(k):
if n-comb[i]<k-i:continue
r=r-nCr(n-comb[i],k-i)
return r
My input "comb" contained elements in increasing order You can test the code with for example:
import itertools
k=3
t=[1,2,3,4,5]
for x in itertools.combinations(t, k):
print x,index(x,len(t),k)
It is not hard to prove that if comb=(a1,a2,a3...,ak) (in increasing order) then:
index=[nCk-(n-a1+1)Ck] + [(n-a1)C(k-1)-(n-a2+1)C(k-1)] + ... =
nCk -(n-a1)Ck -(n-a2)C(k-1) - .... -(n-ak)C1
There's another way to do all this. You could generate all possible combinations and write them into a binary file where each comb is represented by it's index starting from zero. Then, when you need to find an index, and the combination is given, you apply a binary search on the file. Here's the function. It's written in VB.NET 2010 for my lotto program, it works with Israel lottery system so there's a bonus (7th) number; just ignore it.
Public Function Comb2Index( _
ByVal gAr() As Byte) As UInt32
Dim mxPntr As UInt32 = WHL.AMT.WHL_SYS_00 '(16.273.488)
Dim mdPntr As UInt32 = mxPntr \ 2
Dim eqCntr As Byte
Dim rdAr() As Byte
modBinary.OpenFile(WHL.WHL_SYS_00, _
FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read)
Do
modBinary.ReadBlock(mdPntr, rdAr)
RP: If eqCntr = 7 Then GoTo EX
If gAr(eqCntr) = rdAr(eqCntr) Then
eqCntr += 1
GoTo RP
ElseIf gAr(eqCntr) < rdAr(eqCntr) Then
If eqCntr > 0 Then eqCntr = 0
mxPntr = mdPntr
mdPntr \= 2
ElseIf gAr(eqCntr) > rdAr(eqCntr) Then
If eqCntr > 0 Then eqCntr = 0
mdPntr += (mxPntr - mdPntr) \ 2
End If
Loop Until eqCntr = 7
EX: modBinary.CloseFile()
Return mdPntr
End Function
P.S. It takes 5 to 10 mins to generate 16 million combs on a Core 2 Duo. To find the index using binary search on file takes 397 milliseconds on a SATA drive.
Assuming the maximum setSize is not too large, you can simply generate a lookup table, where the inputs are encoded this way:
int index(a,b,c,...)
{
int key = 0;
key |= 1<<a;
key |= 1<<b;
key |= 1<<c;
//repeat for all arguments
return Lookup[key];
}
To generate the lookup table, look at this "banker's order" algorithm. Generate all the combinations, and also store the base index for each nItems. (For the example on p6, this would be [0,1,5,11,15]). Note that by you storing the answers in the opposite order from the example (LSBs set first) you will only need one table, sized for the largest possible set.
Populate the lookup table by walking through the combinations doing Lookup[combination[i]]=i-baseIdx[nItems]
EDIT: Never mind. This is completely wrong.
Let your combination be (a1, a2, ..., ak-1, ak) where a1 < a2 < ... < ak. Let choose(a,b) = a!/(b!*(a-b)!) if a >= b and 0 otherwise. Then, the index you are looking for is
choose(ak-1, k) + choose(ak-1-1, k-1) + choose(ak-2-1, k-2) + ... + choose (a2-1, 2) + choose (a1-1, 1) + 1
The first term counts the number of k-element combinations such that the largest element is less than ak. The second term counts the number of (k-1)-element combinations such that the largest element is less than ak-1. And, so on.
Notice that the size of the universe of elements to be chosen from (10 in your example) does not play a role in the computation of the index. Can you see why?
Sample solution:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// The input
var n = 5;
var t = new[] { 2, 4, 5 };
// Helping transformations
ComputeDistances(t);
CorrectDistances(t);
// The algorithm
var r = CalculateRank(t, n);
Console.WriteLine("n = 5");
Console.WriteLine("t = {2, 4, 5}");
Console.WriteLine("r = {0}", r);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void ComputeDistances(int[] t)
{
var k = t.Length;
while (--k >= 0)
t[k] -= (k + 1);
}
static void CorrectDistances(int[] t)
{
var k = t.Length;
while (--k > 0)
t[k] -= t[k - 1];
}
static int CalculateRank(int[] t, int n)
{
int k = t.Length - 1, r = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < t.Length; i++)
{
if (t[i] == 0)
{
n--;
k--;
continue;
}
for (var j = 0; j < t[i]; j++)
{
n--;
r += CalculateBinomialCoefficient(n, k);
}
n--;
k--;
}
return r;
}
static int CalculateBinomialCoefficient(int n, int k)
{
int i, l = 1, m, x, y;
if (n - k < k)
{
x = k;
y = n - k;
}
else
{
x = n - k;
y = k;
}
for (i = x + 1; i <= n; i++)
l *= i;
m = CalculateFactorial(y);
return l/m;
}
static int CalculateFactorial(int n)
{
int i, w = 1;
for (i = 1; i <= n; i++)
w *= i;
return w;
}
}
The idea behind the scenes is to associate a k-subset with an operation of drawing k-elements from the n-size set. It is a combination, so the overall count of possible items will be (n k). It is a clue that we could seek the solution in Pascal Triangle. After a while of comparing manually written examples with the appropriate numbers from the Pascal Triangle, we will find the pattern and hence the algorithm.
I used user515430's answer and converted to python3. Also this supports non-continuous values so you could pass in [1,3,5,7,9] as your pool instead of range(1,11)
from itertools import combinations
from scipy.special import comb
from pandas import Index
debugcombinations = False
class IndexedCombination:
def __init__(self, _setsize, _poolvalues):
self.setsize = _setsize
self.poolvals = Index(_poolvalues)
self.poolsize = len(self.poolvals)
self.totalcombinations = 1
fast_k = min(self.setsize, self.poolsize - self.setsize)
for i in range(1, fast_k + 1):
self.totalcombinations = self.totalcombinations * (self.poolsize - fast_k + i) // i
#fill the nCr cache
self.choose_cache = {}
n = self.poolsize
k = self.setsize
for i in range(k + 1):
for j in range(n + 1):
if n - j >= k - i:
self.choose_cache[n - j,k - i] = comb(n - j,k - i, exact=True)
if debugcombinations:
print('testnth = ' + str(self.testnth()))
def get_nth_combination(self,index):
n = self.poolsize
r = self.setsize
c = self.totalcombinations
#if index < 0 or index >= c:
# raise IndexError
result = []
while r:
c, n, r = c*r//n, n-1, r-1
while index >= c:
index -= c
c, n = c*(n-r)//n, n-1
result.append(self.poolvals[-1 - n])
return tuple(result)
def get_n_from_combination(self,someset):
n = self.poolsize
k = self.setsize
index = 0
j = 0
for i in range(k):
setidx = self.poolvals.get_loc(someset[i])
for j in range(j + 1, setidx + 1):
index += self.choose_cache[n - j, k - i - 1]
j += 1
return index
#just used to test whether nth_combination from the internet actually works
def testnth(self):
n = 0
_setsize = self.setsize
mainset = self.poolvals
for someset in combinations(mainset, _setsize):
nthset = self.get_nth_combination(n)
n2 = self.get_n_from_combination(nthset)
if debugcombinations:
print(str(n) + ': ' + str(someset) + ' vs ' + str(n2) + ': ' + str(nthset))
if n != n2:
return False
for x in range(_setsize):
if someset[x] != nthset[x]:
return False
n += 1
return True
setcombination = IndexedCombination(5, list(range(1,10+1)))
print( str(setcombination.get_n_from_combination([2,5,7,8,10])))
returns 188
Does anyone know a simple algorithm to check if a Sudoku-Configuration is valid? The simplest algorithm I came up with is (for a board of size n) in Pseudocode
for each row
for each number k in 1..n
if k is not in the row (using another for-loop)
return not-a-solution
..do the same for each column
But I'm quite sure there must be a better (in the sense of more elegant) solution. Efficiency is quite unimportant.
You need to check for all the constraints of Sudoku :
check the sum on each row
check the sum on each column
check for sum on each box
check for duplicate numbers on each row
check for duplicate numbers on each column
check for duplicate numbers on each box
that's 6 checks altogether.. using a brute force approach.
Some sort of mathematical optimization can be used if you know the size of the board (ie 3x3 or 9x9)
Edit: explanation for the sum constraint: Checking for the sum first (and stoping if the sum is not 45) is much faster (and simpler) than checking for duplicates. It provides an easy way of discarding a wrong solution.
Peter Norvig has a great article on solving sudoku puzzles (with python),
https://norvig.com/sudoku.html
Maybe it's too much for what you want to do, but it's a great read anyway
Check each row, column and box such that it contains the numbers 1-9 each, with no duplicates. Most answers here already discuss this.
But how to do that efficiently? Answer: Use a loop like
result=0;
for each entry:
result |= 1<<(value-1)
return (result==511);
Each number will set one bit of the result. If all 9 numbers are unique, the lowest 9
bits will be set.
So the "check for duplicates" test is just a check that all 9 bits are set, which is the same as testing result==511.
You need to do 27 of these checks.. one for each row, column, and box.
Just a thought: don't you need to also check the numbers in each 3x3 square?
I'm trying to figure out if it is possible to have the rows and columns conditions satisfied without having a correct sudoku
This is my solution in Python, I'm glad to see it's the shortest one yet :)
The code:
def check(sud):
zippedsud = zip(*sud)
boxedsud=[]
for li,line in enumerate(sud):
for box in range(3):
if not li % 3: boxedsud.append([]) # build a new box every 3 lines
boxedsud[box + li/3*3].extend(line[box*3:box*3+3])
for li in range(9):
if [x for x in [set(sud[li]), set(zippedsud[li]), set(boxedsud[li])] if x != set(range(1,10))]:
return False
return True
And the execution:
sudoku=[
[7, 5, 1, 8, 4, 3, 9, 2, 6],
[8, 9, 3, 6, 2, 5, 1, 7, 4],
[6, 4, 2, 1, 7, 9, 5, 8, 3],
[4, 2, 5, 3, 1, 6, 7, 9, 8],
[1, 7, 6, 9, 8, 2, 3, 4, 5],
[9, 3, 8, 7, 5, 4, 6, 1, 2],
[3, 6, 4, 2, 9, 7, 8, 5, 1],
[2, 8, 9, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 7],
[5, 1, 7, 4, 6, 8, 2, 3, 9]]
print check(sudoku)
Create an array of booleans for every row, column, and square. The array's index represents the value that got placed into that row, column, or square. In other words, if you add a 5 to the second row, first column, you would set rows[2][5] to true, along with columns[1][5] and squares[4][5], to indicate that the row, column, and square now have a 5 value.
Regardless of how your original board is being represented, this can be a simple and very fast way to check it for completeness and correctness. Simply take the numbers in the order that they appear on the board, and begin building this data structure. As you place numbers in the board, it becomes a O(1) operation to determine whether any values are being duplicated in a given row, column, or square. (You'll also want to check that each value is a legitimate number: if they give you a blank or a too-high number, you know that the board is not complete.) When you get to the end of the board, you'll know that all the values are correct, and there is no more checking required.
Someone also pointed out that you can use any form of Set to do this. Arrays arranged in this manner are just a particularly lightweight and performant form of a Set that works well for a small, consecutive, fixed set of numbers. If you know the size of your board, you could also choose to do bit-masking, but that's probably a little overly tedious considering that efficiency isn't that big a deal to you.
Create cell sets, where each set contains 9 cells, and create sets for vertical columns, horizontal rows, and 3x3 squares.
Then for each cell, simply identify the sets it's part of and analyze those.
You could extract all values in a set (row, column, box) into a list, sort it, then compare to '(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
I did this once for a class project. I used a total of 27 sets to represent each row, column and box. I'd check the numbers as I added them to each set (each placement of a number causes the number to be added to 3 sets, a row, a column, and a box) to make sure the user only entered the digits 1-9. The only way a set could get filled is if it was properly filled with unique digits. If all 27 sets got filled, the puzzle was solved. Setting up the mappings from the user interface to the 27 sets was a bit tedious, but made the rest of the logic a breeze to implement.
It would be very interesting to check if:
when the sum of each row/column/box equals n*(n+1)/2
and the product equals n!
with n = number of rows or columns
this suffices the rules of a sudoku. Because that would allow for an algorithm of O(n^2), summing and multiplying the correct cells.
Looking at n = 9, the sums should be 45, the products 362880.
You would do something like:
for i = 0 to n-1 do
boxsum[i] := 0;
colsum[i] := 0;
rowsum[i] := 0;
boxprod[i] := 1;
colprod[i] := 1;
rowprod[i] := 1;
end;
for i = 0 to n-1 do
for j = 0 to n-1 do
box := (i div n^1/2) + (j div n^1/2)*n^1/2;
boxsum[box] := boxsum[box] + cell[i,j];
boxprod[box] := boxprod[box] * cell[i,j];
colsum[i] := colsum[i] + cell[i,j];
colprod[i] := colprod[i] * cell[i,j];
rowsum[j] := colsum[j] + cell[i,j];
rowprod[j] := colprod[j] * cell[i,j];
end;
end;
for i = 0 to n-1 do
if boxsum[i] <> 45
or colsum[i] <> 45
or rowsum[i] <> 45
or boxprod[i] <> 362880
or colprod[i] <> 362880
or rowprod[i] <> 362880
return false;
Some time ago, I wrote a sudoku checker that checks for duplicate number on each row, duplicate number on each column & duplicate number on each box. I would love it if someone could come up one with like a few lines of Linq code though.
char VerifySudoku(char grid[81])
{
for (char r = 0; r < 9; ++r)
{
unsigned int bigFlags = 0;
for (char c = 0; c < 9; ++c)
{
unsigned short buffer = r/3*3+c/3;
// check horizontally
bitFlags |= 1 << (27-grid[(r<<3)+r+c])
// check vertically
| 1 << (18-grid[(c<<3)+c+r])
// check subgrids
| 1 << (9-grid[(buffer<<3)+buffer+r%3*3+c%3]);
}
if (bitFlags != 0x7ffffff)
return 0; // invalid
}
return 1; // valid
}
if the sum and the multiplication of a row/col equals to the right number 45/362880
First, you would need to make a boolean, "correct". Then, make a for loop, as previously stated. The code for the loop and everything afterwards (in java) is as stated, where field is a 2D array with equal sides, col is another one with the same dimensions, and l is a 1D one:
for(int i=0; i<field.length(); i++){
for(int j=0; j<field[i].length; j++){
if(field[i][j]>9||field[i][j]<1){
checking=false;
break;
}
else{
col[field[i].length()-j][i]=field[i][j];
}
}
}
I don't know the exact algorithim to check the 3x3 boxes, but you should check all the rows in field and col with "/*array name goes here*/[i].contains(1)&&/*array name goes here*/[i].contains(2)" (continues until you reach the length of a row) inside another for loop.
def solution(board):
for i in board:
if sum(i) != 45:
return "Incorrect"
for i in range(9):
temp2 = []
for x in range(9):
temp2.append(board[i][x])
if sum(temp2) != 45:
return "Incorrect"
return "Correct"
board = []
for i in range(9):
inp = raw_input()
temp = [int(i) for i in inp]
board.append(temp)
print solution(board)
Here's a nice readable approach in Python:
from itertools import chain
def valid(puzzle):
def get_block(x,y):
return chain(*[puzzle[i][3*x:3*x+3] for i in range(3*y, 3*y+3)])
rows = [set(row) for row in puzzle]
columns = [set(column) for column in zip(*puzzle)]
blocks = [set(get_block(x,y)) for x in range(0,3) for y in range(0,3)]
return all(map(lambda s: s == set([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]), rows + columns + blocks))
Each 3x3 square is referred to as a block, and there are 9 of them in a 3x3 grid. It is assumed as the puzzle is input as a list of list, with each inner list being a row.
Let's say int sudoku[0..8,0..8] is the sudoku field.
bool CheckSudoku(int[,] sudoku)
{
int flag = 0;
// Check rows
for(int row = 0; row < 9; row++)
{
flag = 0;
for (int col = 0; col < 9; col++)
{
// edited : check range step (see comments)
if ((sudoku[row, col] < 1)||(sudoku[row, col] > 9))
{
return false;
}
// if n-th bit is set.. but you can use a bool array for readability
if ((flag & (1 << sudoku[row, col])) != 0)
{
return false;
}
// set the n-th bit
flag |= (1 << sudoku[row, col]);
}
}
// Check columns
for(int col= 0; col < 9; col++)
{
flag = 0;
for (int row = 0; row < 9; row++)
{
if ((flag & (1 << sudoku[row, col])) != 0)
{
return false;
}
flag |= (1 << sudoku[row, col]);
}
}
// Check 3x3 boxes
for(int box= 0; box < 9; box++)
{
flag = 0;
for (int ofs = 0; ofs < 9; ofs++)
{
int col = (box % 3) * 3;
int row = ((int)(box / 3)) * 3;
if ((flag & (1 << sudoku[row, col])) != 0)
{
return false;
}
flag |= (1 << sudoku[row, col]);
}
}
return true;
}
Let's assume that your board goes from 1 - n.
We'll create a verification array, fill it and then verify it.
grid [0-(n-1)][0-(n-1)]; //this is the input grid
//each verification takes n^2 bits, so three verifications gives us 3n^2
boolean VArray (3*n*n) //make sure this is initialized to false
for i = 0 to n
for j = 0 to n
/*
each coordinate consists of three parts
row/col/box start pos, index offset, val offset
*/
//to validate rows
VArray( (0) + (j*n) + (grid[i][j]-1) ) = 1
//to validate cols
VArray( (n*n) + (i*n) + (grid[i][j]-1) ) = 1
//to validate boxes
VArray( (2*n*n) + (3*(floor (i/3)*n)+ floor(j/3)*n) + (grid[i][j]-1) ) = 1
next
next
if every array value is true then the solution is correct.
I think that will do the trick, although i'm sure i made a couple of stupid mistakes in there. I might even have missed the boat entirely.
array = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
sudoku = int [][]
puzzle = 9 #9x9
columns = map []
units = map [] # box
unit_l = 3 # box width/height
check_puzzle()
def strike_numbers(line, line_num, columns, units, unit_l):
count = 0
for n in line:
# check which unit we're in
unit = ceil(n / unit_l) + ceil(line_num / unit_l) # this line is wrong - rushed
if units[unit].contains(n): #is n in unit already?
return columns, units, 1
units[unit].add(n)
if columns[count].contains(n): #is n in column already?
return columns, units, 1
columns[count].add(n)
line.remove(n) #remove num from temp row
return columns, units, line.length # was a number not eliminated?
def check_puzzle(columns, sudoku, puzzle, array, units):
for (i=0;i< puzzle;i++):
columns, units, left_over = strike_numbers(sudoku[i], i, columns, units) # iterate through rows
if (left_over > 0): return false
Without thoroughly checking, off the top of my head, this should work (with a bit of debugging) while only looping twice. O(n^2) instead of O(3(n^2))
Here is paper by math professor J.F. Crook: A Pencil-and-Paper Algorithm for Solving Sudoku Puzzles
This paper was published in April 2009 and it got lots of publicity as definite Sudoku solution (check google for "J.F.Crook Sudoku" ).
Besides algorithm, there is also a mathematical proof that algorithm works (professor admitted that he does not find Sudoku very interesting, so he threw some math in paper to make it more fun).
I'd write an interface that has functions that receive the sudoku field and returns true/false if it's a solution.
Then implement the constraints as single validation classes per constraint.
To verify just iterate through all constraint classes and when all pass the sudoku is correct. To speedup put the ones that most likely fail to the front and stop in the first result that points to invalid field.
Pretty generic pattern. ;-)
You can of course enhance this to provide hints which field is presumably wrong and so on.
First constraint, just check if all fields are filled out. (Simple loop)
Second check if all numbers are in each block (nested loops)
Third check for complete rows and columns (almost same procedure as above but different access scheme)
Here is mine in C. Only pass each square once.
int checkSudoku(int board[]) {
int i;
int check[13] = { 0 };
for (i = 0; i < 81; i++) {
if (i % 9 == 0) {
check[9] = 0;
if (i % 27 == 0) {
check[10] = 0;
check[11] = 0;
check[12] = 0;
}
}
if (check[i % 9] & (1 << board[i])) {
return 0;
}
check[i % 9] |= (1 << board[i]);
if (check[9] & (1 << board[i])) {
return 0;
}
check[9] |= (1 << board[i]);
if (i % 9 < 3) {
if (check[10] & (1 << board[i])) {
return 0;
}
check[10] |= (1 << board[i]);
} else if (i % 9 < 6) {
if (check[11] & (1 << board[i])) {
return 0;
}
check[11] |= (1 << board[i]);
} else {
if (check[12] & (1 << board[i])) {
return 0;
}
check[12] |= (1 << board[i]);
}
}
}
Here is what I just did for this:
boolean checkers=true;
String checking="";
if(a.length/3==1){}
else{
for(int l=1; l<a.length/3; l++){
for(int n=0;n<3*l;n++){
for(int lm=1; lm<a[n].length/3; lm++){
for(int m=0;m<3*l;m++){
System.out.print(" "+a[n][m]);
if(a[n][m]<=0){
System.out.print(" (Values must be positive!) ");
}
if(n==0){
if(m!=0){
checking+=", "+a[n][m];
}
else{
checking+=a[n][m];
}
}
else{
checking+=", "+a[n][m];
}
}
}
System.out.print(" "+checking);
System.out.println();
}
}
for (int i=1;i<=a.length*a[1].length;i++){
if(checking.contains(Integer.toString(i))){
}
else{
checkers=false;
}
}
}
checkers=checkCol(a);
if(checking.contains("-")&&!checking.contains("--")){
checkers=false;
}
System.out.println();
if(checkers==true){
System.out.println("This is correct! YAY!");
}
else{
System.out.println("Sorry, it's not right. :-(");
}
}
private static boolean checkCol(int[][]a){
boolean checkers=true;
int[][]col=new int[][]{{0,0,0},{0,0,0},{0,0,0}};
for(int i=0; i<a.length; i++){
for(int j=0; j<a[i].length; j++){
if(a[i][j]>9||a[i][j]<1){
checkers=false;
break;
}
else{
col[a[i].length-j][i]=a[i][j];
}
}
}
String alia="";
for(int i=0; i<col.length; i++){
for(int j=1; j<=col[i].length; j++){
alia=a[i].toString();
if(alia.contains(""+j)){
alia=col[i].toString();
if(alia.contains(""+j)){}
else{
checkers=false;
}
}
else{
checkers=false;
}
}
}
return checkers;
}
You can check if sudoku is solved, in these two similar ways:
Check if the number is unique in each row, column and block.
A naive solution would be to iterate trough every square and check if the number is unique in the row, column block that number occupies.
But there is a better way.
Sudoku is solved if every row, column and block contains a permutation of the numbers (1 trough 9)
This only requires to check every row, column and block, instead of doing that for every number. A simple implementation would be to have a bitfield of numbers 1 trough 9 and remove them when you iterate the columns, rows and blocks. If you try to remove a missing number or if the field isn't empty when you finish then sudoku isn't correctly solved.
Here's a very concise version in Swift, that only uses an array of Ints to track the groups of 9 numbers, and only iterates over the sudoku once.
import UIKit
func check(_ sudoku:[[Int]]) -> Bool {
var groups = Array(repeating: 0, count: 27)
for x in 0...8 {
for y in 0...8 {
groups[x] += 1 << sudoku[x][y] // Column (group 0 - 8)
groups[y + 9] += 1 << sudoku[x][y] // Row (group 9 - 17)
groups[(x + y * 9) / 9 + 18] += 1 << sudoku[x][y] // Box (group 18 - 27)
}
}
return groups.filter{ $0 != 1022 }.count == 0
}
let sudoku = [
[7, 5, 1, 8, 4, 3, 9, 2, 6],
[8, 9, 3, 6, 2, 5, 1, 7, 4],
[6, 4, 2, 1, 7, 9, 5, 8, 3],
[4, 2, 5, 3, 1, 6, 7, 9, 8],
[1, 7, 6, 9, 8, 2, 3, 4, 5],
[9, 3, 8, 7, 5, 4, 6, 1, 2],
[3, 6, 4, 2, 9, 7, 8, 5, 1],
[2, 8, 9, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 7],
[5, 1, 7, 4, 6, 8, 2, 3, 9]
]
if check(sudoku) {
print("Pass")
} else {
print("Fail")
}
One minor optimization you can make is that you can check for duplicates in a row, column, or box in O(n) time rather than O(n^2): as you iterate through the set of numbers, you add each one to a hashset. Depending on the language, you may actually be able to use a true hashset, which is constant time lookup and insertion; then checking for duplicates can be done in the same step by seeing if the insertion was successful or not. It's a minor improvement in the code, but going from O(n^2) to O(n) is a significant optimization.