Disclaimer: I'm not a professional programmer or mathematician and this is my first time encountering the field of optimisation problems. Now that's out of the way so let's get to the problem at hand:
I got several lists, each containing various items and number called 'mandatoryAmount':
listA (mandatoryAmountA, itemA1, itemA2, itemA2, ...)
Each item has certain values (each value is a number >= 0):
itemA1 (M, E, P, C, Al, Ac, D, Ab,S)
I have to choose a certain number of items from each list determined by 'mandatoryAmount'.
Within each list I can choose every item multiple times.
Once I have all of the items from each list, I'll add up the values of each.
For example:
totalM = listA (itemA1 (M) + itemA1 (M) + itemA3 (M)) + listB (itemB1 (M) + itemB2 (M))
The goals are:
-To have certain values (totalAl, totalAc, totalAb, totalS) reach a certain number cap while going over that cap as little as possible. Anything over that cap is wasted.
-To maximize the remaining values with different weightings each
The output should be the best possible selection of items to meet the goals stated above. I imagine the evaluation function to just add up all non-waste values times their respective weightings while subtracting all wasted stats times their respective weightings.
edit:
The total amount of items across all lists should be somewhere between 500 and 1000, the number of lists is around 10 and the mandatoryAmount for each list is between 0 and 14.
Here's some sample code that uses Python 3 and OR-Tools. Let's start by
defining the input representation and a random instance.
import collections
import random
Item = collections.namedtuple("Item", ["M", "E", "P", "C", "Al", "Ac", "D", "Ab", "S"])
List = collections.namedtuple("List", ["mandatoryAmount", "items"])
def RandomItem():
return Item(
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
)
lists = [
List(
random.randrange(5, 10), [RandomItem() for j in range(random.randrange(5, 10))]
)
for i in range(random.randrange(5, 10))
]
Time to formulate the optimization as a mixed-integer program. Let's import
the solver library and initialize the solver object.
from ortools.linear_solver import pywraplp
solver = pywraplp.Solver.CreateSolver("solver", "SCIP")
Make constraints for the totals that must reach a certain cap.
AlCap = random.random()
totalAl = solver.Constraint(AlCap, solver.infinity())
AcCap = random.random()
totalAc = solver.Constraint(AcCap, solver.infinity())
AbCap = random.random()
totalAb = solver.Constraint(AbCap, solver.infinity())
SCap = random.random()
totalS = solver.Constraint(SCap, solver.infinity())
We want to maximize the other values subject to some weighting.
MWeight = random.random()
EWeight = random.random()
PWeight = random.random()
CWeight = random.random()
DWeight = random.random()
solver.Objective().SetMaximization()
Create variables and fill in the constraints. For each list there is an
equality constraint on the number of items.
associations = []
for list_ in lists:
amount = solver.Constraint(list_.mandatoryAmount, list_.mandatoryAmount)
for item in list_.items:
x = solver.IntVar(0, solver.infinity(), "")
amount.SetCoefficient(x, 1)
totalAl.SetCoefficient(x, item.Al)
totalAc.SetCoefficient(x, item.Ac)
totalAb.SetCoefficient(x, item.Ab)
totalS.SetCoefficient(x, item.S)
solver.Objective().SetCoefficient(
x,
MWeight * item.M
+ EWeight * item.E
+ PWeight * item.P
+ CWeight * item.C
+ DWeight * item.D,
)
associations.append((item, x))
if solver.Solve() != solver.OPTIMAL:
raise RuntimeError
solution = []
for item, x in associations:
solution += [item] * round(x.solution_value())
print(solution)
I think David Eisenstat has the right idea with Integer programming, but let's see if we get some good solutions otherwise and perhaps provide some initial optimization. However, I think that we can just choose all of one item in each list may make this easier to solve that it normally would be. Basically that turns it into more of a Subset Sum problem. Especially with the cap.
There are two possibilities here:
There is no solution, no condition satisfies the requirement.
There is a solution that we need to be optimized.
We really want to try to find a solution first, if we can find one (regardless of the amount of waste), then that's nice.
So let's reframe the problem: We aim to simply minimize waste, but we also need to meet a min requirement. So let's try to get as much waste as possible in ways we need it.
I'm going to propose an algorithm you could use that should work "fairly well" and is polynomial time, though could probably have some optimizations. I'll be using K to mean mandatoryAmount as it's a bit of a customary variable in this situation. Also I'll be using N to mean the number of lists. Lastly, Z to represent the total number of items (across all lists).
Get the list of all items and sort them by the amount of each value they have (first the goal values, then the bonus values). If an item has 100A, 300C, 200B, 400D, 150E and the required are [B, D], then the sort order would look like: [400,200,300,150,100]. Repeat but for one goal value. Using the same example above we would have: [400,300,150,100] for goal: D and [200,300,150,100] for goal B. Create a boolean variable for optimization mode (we start by seeking for a solution, once we find one, we can try to optimize it). Create a counter/hash to contain the unassigned items. An item cannot be unassigned more than K times (to avoid infinite loops). This isn't strictly needed, but could work as an optimization for step 5, as it prioritize goals you actually need.
For each list, keep a counter of the number of assignable slots for each list, set each to K, as well as the number of total assignable slots, and set to K * N. This will be adjusted as needed along the way. You want to be able to quickly O(1) lookup for: a) which list an (sorted) item belongs to, b) how many available slots that item has, and c) How many times has the item been unassigned, d) Find the item is the sorted list.
General Assignment. While there are slots available (total slots), go through the list from highest to lowest order. If the list for that item is available, assign as many slots as possible to that item. Update the assignable and total slots. If result is a valid solution, record it, trip the "optimization mode flag". If slots remain unassigned, revert the previous unassignment (but do not change the assignment count).
Waste Optimization. Find the most wasteful item that can be unassigned (unassigned count < K). Unassign one slot of it. If in optimization mode, do not allow any of the goal values to go below their cap (skip if it would). Update the unassigned count for item. Goto #3, but start just after the wasteful item. If no assignment made, reassign this item until the list has no remaining assignments, but do not update the unassigned count (otherwise we might end up in an invalid state).
Goal value Optimization. Skip if current state is a valid solution. Find the value furthest from it's goal (IE: A/B/C/D/E above) that can be unassigned. Unassign one slot for that item. Update assignment count. Goto step 3, begin search at start of list (unlike Step 4), stop searching the list if you go below the value of this item (not this item itself, as others may have the same value). If no assignment made, reassign this item until the list has no remaining assignments, but do not update the unassigned count (otherwise we might end up in an invalid state).
No Assignments remain. Return current state as "best solution found".
Algorithm should end with the "best" solution that this approach can come up with. Increasing max unassignment counts may improve the solution, decreasing max assignment counts will speed up the algorithm. Algorithm will run until it has maxed out it's assignment counts.
This is a bit of a greedy algorithm, so I'm not sure it's optimal (in that it will always yield the best result) but it may give you some ideas as to how to approach it. It also feels like it should yield fairly good results, as it basically trying to bound the results. Algorithm performance is something like O(Z^2 * K), where K is the mandatoryAmount and Z is the total number of items. Each item is unassigned K items, and potentially each assignment also requires O(Z) checks before it is reassigned.
As an optimization, use a O(log N) or better delete/next operation sorted data structure to store the sorted lists. Doing so it would make it practical to delete items from the assignment lists once the unassignment count reaches K (rendering them no longer assignable) allowing for O(Z * log(Z) * K) performance instead.
Edit:
Hmmm, the above only works within a single list (IE: Item removed can only be added to it's own list, as only that list has room). To avoid this, do step 4 (remove too heavy) then step 5 (remove too light) and then goto step 3 (using step 5's rules for searching, but also disallow adding back the too heavy ones).
So basically we remove the heaviest one then the lightest one then we try to assign something that is as heavy as possible to make up for the lightest one we removed.
Related
I'm working on an algorithm to combine matching pairs of items into larger groups. The problem is that these pairs are not transitive; 1=2 and 2=3 does not necessarily mean that 1=3. They are, however, commutative, so 1=2 implies 2=1.
Each item can belong to multiple groups, but each group should be as large as possible; for example, if 1=2, 1=3, 1=4, 1=5, 2=3, 3=4, and 4=5, then we'd want to end up with groups of 1-2-3, 1-3-4, and 1-4-5.
The best solution I've come up with to this so far is to work recursively: for any given item, iterate through every later item, and if they match, recurse and iterate through every later item than that to see if it matches all of the ones you've collected so far. (and then check to make sure there isn't a larger group that already contains that combination, so e.g. in the above example I'd be about to output 4-5 but then would go back and find that they were already incorporated in 1-4-5)
The sets involved are not enormous - rarely more than 40 or 50 items - but I might be working with thousands of these little sets in a single operation. So computational-complexity-wise it's totally fine if it's O(n²) or whatever because it's not going to have to scale to enormous sets, but I'd like it to be as fast as possible on those little 50-item sets.
Anyway, while I can probably make do with the above solution, it feels needlessly awkward and slow, so if there's a better approach I'd love to hear about it.
If you want ALL maximal groups, then there is no subexponential algorithm for this problem. As https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/8390/the-number-of-cliques-in-a-graph-the-moon-and-moser-1965-result points out, the number of maximal cliques to find may itself grow exponentially in the size of the graph.
If you want just a set of maximal groups that covers all of the original relationships, then you can solve this in polynomial time (though not with a great bound).
def maximal_groups (pairs):
related = {}
not_included = {}
for pair in pairs:
for i in [0, 1]:
if pair[i] not in related:
related[pair[i]] = set()
not_included[pair[i]] = set()
if pair[1-i] not in related:
related[pair[1-i]] = set()
not_included[pair[1-i]] = set()
related[pair[0]].add(pair[1])
related[pair[1]].add(pair[0])
not_included[pair[0]].add(pair[1])
not_included[pair[1]].add(pair[0])
groups = []
for item in sorted(related.keys()):
while 0 < len(not_included[item]):
other_item = not_included[item].pop()
not_included[other_item].remove(item)
group = [item, other_item]
available = [x for x in sorted(related[item]) if x in related[other_item]]
while 0 < len(available):
next_item = available[0]
for prev_item in group:
if prev_item in not_included[next_item]:
not_included[next_item].remove(prev_item)
not_included[prev_item].remove(next_item)
group.append(next_item)
available = [x for x in available if x in related[next_item]]
groups.append(group)
return groups
print(maximal_groups([[1,2], [1,3], [1,4], [1,5], [2,3], [3,4], [4,5]]))
I was recently doing a project euler problem (namely #31) which was basically finding out how many ways we can sum to 200 using elements of the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200}.
The idea that I used was this: the number of ways to sum to N is equal to
(the number of ways to sum N-k) * (number of ways to sum k), summed over all possible values of k.
I realized that this approach is WRONG, namely due to the fact that it creates several several duplicate counts. I have tried to adjust the formula to avoid duplicates, but to no avail. I am seeking the wisdom of stack overflowers regarding:
whether my recursive approach is concerned with the correct subproblem to solve
If there exists one, what would be an effective way to eliminate duplicates
how should we approach recursive problems such that we are concerned with the correct subproblem? what are some indicators that we've chosen a correct (or incorrect) subproblem?
When trying to avoid duplicate permutations, a straightforward strategy that works in most cases is to only create rising or falling sequences.
In your example, if you pick a value and then recurse with the whole set, you will get duplicate sequences like 50,50,100 and 50,100,50 and 100,50,50. However, if you recurse with the rule that the next value should be equal to or smaller than the currently selected value, out of those three you will only get the sequence 100,50,50.
So an algorithm that counts only unique combinations would be e.g.:
function uniqueCombinations(set, target, previous) {
for all values in set not greater than previous {
if value equals target {
increment count
}
if value is smaller than target {
uniqueCombinations(set, target - value, value)
}
}
}
uniqueCombinations([1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200], 200, 200)
Alternatively, you can create a copy of the set before every recursion, and remove the elements from it that you don't want repeated.
The rising/falling sequence method also works with iterations. Let's say you want to find all unique combinations of three letters. This algorithm will print results like a,c,e, but not a,e,c or e,a,c:
for letter1 is 'a' to 'x' {
for letter2 is first letter after letter1 to 'y' {
for letter3 is first letter after letter2 to 'z' {
print [letter1,letter2,letter3]
}
}
}
m69 gives a nice strategy that often works, but I think it's worthwhile to better understand why it works. When trying to count items (of any kind), the general principle is:
Think of a rule that classifies any given item into exactly one of several non-overlapping categories. That is, come up with a list of concrete categories A, B, ..., Z that will make the following sentence true: An item is either in category A, or in category B, or ..., or in category Z.
Once you have done this, you can safely count the number of items in each category and add these counts together, comfortable in the knowledge that (a) any item that is counted in one category is not counted again in any other category, and (b) any item that you want to count is in some category (i.e., none are missed).
How could we form categories for your specific problem here? One way to do it is to notice that every item (i.e., every multiset of coin values that sums to the desired total N) either contains the 50-coin exactly zero times, or it contains it exactly once, or it contains it exactly twice, or ..., or it contains it exactly RoundDown(N / 50) times. These categories don't overlap: if a solution uses exactly 5 50-coins, it pretty clearly can't also use exactly 7 50-coins, for example. Also, every solution is clearly in some category (notice that we include a category for the case in which no 50-coins are used). So if we had a way to count, for any given k, the number of solutions that use coins from the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200} to produce a sum of N and use exactly k 50-coins, then we could sum over all k from 0 to N/50 and get an accurate count.
How to do this efficiently? This is where the recursion comes in. The number of solutions that use coins from the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200} to produce a sum of N and use exactly k 50-coins is equal to the number of solutions that sum to N-50k and do not use any 50-coins, i.e. use coins only from the set {1,2,5,10,20,100,200}. This of course works for any particular coin denomination that we could have chosen, so these subproblems have the same shape as the original problem: we can solve each one by simply choosing another coin arbitrarily (e.g. the 10-coin), forming a new set of categories based on this new coin, counting the number of items in each category and summing them up. The subproblems become smaller until we reach some simple base case that we process directly (e.g. no allowed coins left: then there is 1 item if N=0, and 0 items otherwise).
I started with the 50-coin (instead of, say, the largest or the smallest coin) to emphasise that the particular choice used to form the set of non-overlapping categories doesn't matter for the correctness of the algorithm. But in practice, passing explicit representations of sets of coins around is unnecessarily expensive. Since we don't actually care about the particular sequence of coins to use for forming categories, we're free to choose a more efficient representation. Here (and in many problems), it's convenient to represent the set of allowed coins implicitly as simply a single integer, maxCoin, which we interpret to mean that the first maxCoin coins in the original ordered list of coins are the allowed ones. This limits the possible sets we can represent, but here that's OK: If we always choose the last allowed coin to form categories on, we can communicate the new, more-restricted "set" of allowed coins to subproblems very succinctly by simply passing the argument maxCoin-1 to it. This is the essence of m69's answer.
There's some good guidance here. Another way to think about this is as a dynamic program. For this, we must pose the problem as a simple decision among options that leaves us with a smaller version of the same problem. It boils out to a certain kind of recursive expression.
Put the coin values c0, c1, ... c_(n-1) in any order you like. Then define W(i,v) as the number of ways you can make change for value v using coins ci, c_(i+1), ... c_(n-1). The answer we want is W(0,200). All that's left is to define W:
W(i,v) = sum_[k = 0..floor(200/ci)] W(i+1, v-ci*k)
In words: the number of ways we can make change with coins ci onward is to sum up all the ways we can make change after a decision to use some feasible number k of coins ci, removing that much value from the problem.
Of course we need base cases for the recursion. This happens when i=n-1: the last coin value. At this point there's a way to make change if and only if the value we need is an exact multiple of c_(n-1).
W(n-1,v) = 1 if v % c_(n-1) == 0 and 0 otherwise.
We generally don't want to implement this as a simple recursive function. The same argument values occur repeatedly, which leads to an exponential (in n and v) amount of wasted computation. There are simple ways to avoid this. Tabular evaluation and memoization are two.
Another point is that it is more efficient to have the values in descending order. By taking big chunks of value early, the total number of recursive evaluations is minimized. Additionally, since c_(n-1) is now 1, the base case is just W(n-1)=1. Now it becomes fairly obvious that we can add a second base case as an optimization: W(n-2,v) = floor(v/c_(n-2)). That's how many times the for loop will sum W(n-1,1) = 1!
But this is gilding a lilly. The problem is so small that exponential behavior doesn't signify. Here is a little implementation to show that order really doesn't matter:
#include <stdio.h>
#define n 8
int cv[][n] = {
{200,100,50,20,10,5,2,1},
{1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200},
{1,10,100,2,20,200,5,50},
};
int *c;
int w(int i, int v) {
if (i == n - 1) return v % c[n - 1] == 0;
int sum = 0;
for (int k = 0; k <= v / c[i]; ++k)
sum += w(i + 1, v - c[i] * k);
return sum;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
unsigned p;
if (argc != 2 || sscanf(argv[1], "%d", &p) != 1 || p > 2) p = 0;
c = cv[p];
printf("Ways(%u) = %d\n", p, w(0, 200));
return 0;
}
Drumroll, please...
$ ./foo 0
Ways(0) = 73682
$ ./foo 1
Ways(1) = 73682
$ ./foo 2
Ways(2) = 73682
How can I generate a random number that is in the range (1,n) but not in a certain list (i,j)?
Example: range is (1,500), list is [1,3,4,45,199,212,344].
Note: The list may not be sorted
Rejection Sampling
One method is rejection sampling:
Generate a number x in the range (1, 500)
Is x in your list of disallowed values? (Can use a hash-set for this check.)
If yes, return to step 1
If no, x is your random value, done
This will work fine if your set of allowed values is significantly larger than your set of disallowed values:if there are G possible good values and B possible bad values, then the expected number of times you'll have to sample x from the G + B values until you get a good value is (G + B) / G (the expectation of the associated geometric distribution). (You can sense check this. As G goes to infinity, the expectation goes to 1. As B goes to infinity, the expectation goes to infinity.)
Sampling a List
Another method is to make a list L of all of your allowed values, then sample L[rand(L.count)].
The technique I usually use when the list is length 1 is to generate a random
integer r in [1,n-1], and if r is greater or equal to that single illegal
value then increment r.
This can be generalised for a list of length k for small k but requires
sorting that list (you can't do your compare-and-increment in random order). If the list is moderately long, then after the sort you can start with a bsearch, and add the number of values skipped to r, and then recurse into the remainder of the list.
For a list of length k, containing no value greater or equal to n-k, you
can do a more direct substitution: generate random r in [1,n-k], and
then iterate through the list testing if r is equal to list[i]. If it is
then set r to n-k+i (this assumes list is zero-based) and quit.
That second approach fails if some of the list elements are in [n-k,n].
I could try to invest something clever at this point, but what I have so far
seems sufficient for uniform distributions with values of k much less than
n...
Create two lists -- one of illegal values below n-k, and the other the rest (this can be done in place).
Generate random r in [1,n-k]
Apply the direct substitution approach for the first list (if r is list[i] then set r to n-k+i and go to step 5).
If r was not altered in step 3 then we're finished.
Sort the list of larger values and use the compare-and-increment method.
Observations:
If all values are in the lower list, there will be no sort because there is nothing to sort.
If all values are in the upper list, there will be no sort because there is no occasion on which r is moved into the hazardous area.
As k approaches n, the maximum size of the upper (sorted) list grows.
For a given k, if more value appear in the upper list (the bigger the sort), the chance of getting a hit in the lower list shrinks, reducing the likelihood of needing to do the sort.
Refinement:
Obviously things get very sorty for large k, but in such cases the list has comparatively few holes into which r is allowed to settle. This could surely be exploited.
I might suggest something different if many random values with the same
list and limits were needed. I hope that the list of illegal values is not the
list of results of previous calls to this function, because if it is then you
wouldn't want any of this -- instead you would want a Fisher-Yates shuffle.
Rejection sampling would be the simplest if possible as described already. However, if you didn't want use that, you could convert the range and disallowed values to sets and find the difference. Then, you could choose a random value out of there.
Assuming you wanted the range to be in [1,n] but not in [i,j] and that you wanted them uniformly distributed.
In Python
total = range(1,n+1)
disallowed = range(i,j+1)
allowed = list( set(total) - set(disallowed) )
return allowed[random.randrange(len(allowed))]
(Note that this is not EXACTLY uniform since in all likeliness, max_rand%len(allowed) != 0 but this will in most practical applications be very close)
I assume that you know how to generate a random number in [1, n) and also your list is ordered like in the example above.
Let's say that you have a list with k elements. Make a map(O(logn)) structure, which will ensure speed if k goes higher. Put all elements from list in map, where element value will be the key and "good" value will be the value. Later on I'll explain about "good" value. So when we have the map then just find a random number in [1, n - k - p)(Later on I'll explain what is p) and if this number is in map then replace it with "good" value.
"GOOD" value -> Let's start from k-th element. It's good value is its own value + 1, because the very next element is "good" for us. Now let's look at (k-1)th element. We assume that its good value is again its own value + 1. If this value is equal to k-th element then the "good" value for (k-1)th element is k-th "good" value + 1. Also you will have to store the largest "good" value. If the largest value exceed n then p(from above) will be p = largest - n.
Of course I recommend you this only if k is big number otherwise #Timothy Shields' method is perfect.
Here is an exercise (3-15) in the book "Algorithm Design Manual".
Design a data structure that allows one to search, insert, and delete an integer X in O(1) time (i.e. , constant time, independent of the total number of integers stored). Assume that 1 ≤ X ≤ n and that there are m + n units of space available, where m is the maximum number of integers that can be in the table at any one time. (Hint: use two arrays A[1..n] and B[1..m].) You are not allowed to initialize either A or B, as that would take O(m) or O(n) operations. This means the arrays are full of random garbage to begin with, so you must be very careful.
I am not really seeking for the answer, because I don't even understand what this exercise asks.
From the first sentence:
Design a data structure that allows one to search, insert, and delete an integer X in O(1) time
I can easily design a data structure like that. For example:
Because 1 <= X <= n, so I just have an bit vector of n slots, and let X be the index of the array, when insert, e.g., 5, then a[5] = 1; when delete, e.g., 5, then a[5] = 0; when search, e.g.,5, then I can simply return a[5], right?
I know this exercise is harder than I imagine, but what's the key point of this question?
You are basically implementing a multiset with bounded size, both in number of elements (#elements <= m), and valid range for elements (1 <= elementValue <= n).
Search: myCollection.search(x) --> return True if x inside, else False
Insert: myCollection.insert(x) --> add exactly one x to collection
Delete: myCollection.delete(x) --> remove exactly one x from collection
Consider what happens if you try to store 5 twice, e.g.
myCollection.insert(5)
myCollection.insert(5)
That is why you cannot use a bit vector. But it says "units" of space, so the elaboration of your method would be to keep a tally of each element. For example you might have [_,_,_,_,1,_,...] then [_,_,_,_,2,_,...].
Why doesn't this work however? It seems to work just fine for example if you insert 5 then delete 5... but what happens if you do .search(5) on an uninitialized array? You are specifically told you cannot initialize it, so you have no way to tell if the value you'll find in that piece of memory e.g. 24753 actually means "there are 24753 instances of 5" or if it's garbage.
NOTE: You must allow yourself O(1) initialization space, or the problem cannot be solved. (Otherwise a .search() would not be able to distinguish the random garbage in your memory from actual data, because you could always come up with random garbage which looked like actual data.) For example you might consider having a boolean which means "I have begun using my memory" which you initialize to False, and set to True the moment you start writing to your m words of memory.
If you'd like a full solution, you can hover over the grey block to reveal the one I came up with. It's only a few lines of code, but the proofs are a bit longer:
SPOILER: FULL SOLUTION
Setup:
Use N words as a dispatch table: locationOfCounts[i] is an array of size N, with values in the range location=[0,M]. This is the location where the count of i would be stored, but we can only trust this value if we can prove it is not garbage. >!
(sidenote: This is equivalent to an array of pointers, but an array of pointers exposes you being able to look up garbage, so you'd have to code that implementation with pointer-range checks.)
To find out how many is there are in the collection, you can look up the value counts[loc] from above. We use M words as the counts themselves: counts is an array of size N, with two values per element. The first value is the number this represents, and the second value is the count of that number (in the range [1,m]). For example a value of (5,2) would mean that there are 2 instances of the number 5 stored in the collection.
(M words is enough space for all the counts. Proof: We know there can never be more than M elements, therefore the worst-case is we have M counts of value=1. QED)
(We also choose to only keep track of counts >= 1, otherwise we would not have enough memory.)
Use a number called numberOfCountsStored that IS initialized to 0 but is updated whenever the number of item types changes. For example, this number would be 0 for {}, 1 for {5:[1 times]}, 1 for {5:[2 times]}, and 2 for {5:[2 times],6:[4 times]}.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8...
locationOfCounts[<N]: [☠, ☠, ☠, ☠, ☠, 0, 1, ☠, ...]
counts[<M]: [(5,⨯2), (6,⨯4), ☠, ☠, ☠, ☠, ☠, ☠, ☠, ☠..., ☠]
numberOfCountsStored: 2
Below we flush out the details of each operation and prove why it's correct:
Algorithm:
There are two main ideas: 1) we can never allow ourselves to read memory without verifying that is not garbage first, or if we do we must be able to prove that it was garbage, 2) we need to be able to prove in O(1) time that the piece of counter memory has been initialized, with only O(1) space. To go about this, the O(1) space we use is numberOfItemsStored. Each time we do an operation, we will go back to this number to prove that everything was correct (e.g. see ★ below). The representation invariant is that we will always store counts in counts going from left-to-right, so numberOfItemsStored will always be the maximum index of the array that is valid.
.search(e) -- Check locationsOfCounts[e]. We assume for now that the value is properly initialized and can be trusted. We proceed to check counts[loc], but first we check if counts[loc] has been initialized: it's initialized if 0<=loc<numberOfCountsStored (if not, the data is nonsensical so we return False). After checking that, we look up counts[loc] which gives us a number,count pair. If number!=e, we got here by following randomized garbage (nonsensical), so we return False (again as above)... but if indeed number==e, this proves that the count is correct (★proof: numberOfCountsStored is a witness that this particular counts[loc] is valid, and counts[loc].number is a witness that locationOfCounts[number] is valid, and thus our original lookup was not garbage.), so we would return True.
.insert(e) -- Perform the steps in .search(e). If it already exists, we only need to increment the count by 1. However if it doesn't exist, we must tack on a new entry to the right of the counts subarray. First we increment numberOfCountsStored to reflect the fact that this new count is valid: loc = numberOfCountsStored++. Then we tack on the new entry: counts[loc] = (e,⨯1). Finally we add a reference back to it in our dispatch table so we can look it up quickly locationOfCounts[e] = loc.
.delete(e) -- Perform the steps in .search(e). If it doesn't exist, throw an error. If the count is >= 2, all we need to do is decrement the count by 1. Otherwise the count is 1, and the trick here to ensure the whole numberOfCountsStored-counts[...] invariant (i.e. everything remains stored on the left part of counts) is to perform swaps. If deletion would get rid of the last element, we will have lost a counts pair, leaving a hole in our array: [countPair0, countPair1, _hole_, countPair2, countPair{numberOfItemsStored-1}, ☠, ☠, ☠..., ☠]. We swap this hole with the last countPair, decrement numberOfCountsStored to invalidate the hole, and update locationOfCounts[the_count_record_we_swapped.number] so it now points to the new location of the count record.
Here is an idea:
treat the array B[1..m] as a stack, and make a pointer p to point to the top of the stack (let p = 0 to indicate that no elements have been inserted into the data structure). Now, to insert an integer X, use the following procedure:
p++;
A[X] = p;
B[p] = X;
Searching should be pretty easy to see here (let X' be the integer you want to search for, then just check that 1 <= A[X'] <= p, and that B[A[X']] == X'). Deleting is trickier, but still constant time. The idea is to search for the element to confirm that it is there, then move something into its spot in B (a good choice is B[p]). Then update A to reflect the pointer value of the replacement element and pop off the top of the stack (e.g. set B[p] = -1 and decrement p).
It's easier to understand the question once you know the answer: an integer is in the set if A[X]<total_integers_stored && B[A[X]]==X.
The question is really asking if you can figure out how to create a data structure that is usable with a minimum of initialization.
I first saw the idea in Cameron's answer in Jon Bentley Programming Pearls.
The idea is pretty simple but it's not straightforward to see why the initial random values that may be on the uninitialized arrays does not matter. This link explains pretty well the insertion and search operations. Deletion is left as an exercise, but is answered by one of the commenters:
remove-member(i):
if not is-member(i): return
j = dense[n-1];
dense[sparse[i]] = j;
sparse[j] = sparse[i];
n = n - 1
I have a collection of objects, each of which has a weight and a value. I want to pick the pair of objects with the highest total value subject to the restriction that their combined weight does not exceed some threshold. Additionally, I am given two arrays, one containing the objects sorted by weight and one containing the objects sorted by value.
I know how to do it in O(n2) but how can I do it in O(n)?
This is a combinatorial optimization problem, and the fact the values are sorted means you can easily try a branch and bound approach.
I think that I have a solution that works in O(n log n) time and O(n) extra space. This isn't quite the O(n) solution you wanted, but it's still better than the naive quadratic solution.
The intuition behind the algorithm is that we want to be able to efficiently determine, for any amount of weight, the maximum value we can get with a single item that uses at most that much weight. If we can do this, we have a simple algorithm for solving the problem: iterate across the array of elements sorted by value. For each element, see how much additional value we could get by pairing a single element with it (using the values we precomputed), then find which of these pairs is maximum. If we can do the preprocessing in O(n log n) time and can answer each of the above queries in O(log n) time, then the total time for the second step will be O(n log n) and we have our answer.
An important observation we need to do the preprocessing step is as follows. Our goal is to build up a structure that can answer the question "which element with weight less than x has maximum value?" Let's think about how we might do this by adding one element at a time. If we have an element (value, weight) and the structure is empty, then we want to say that the maximum value we can get using weight at most "weight" is "value". This means that everything in the range [0, max_weight - weight) should be set to value. Otherwise, suppose that the structure isn't empty when we try adding in (value, weight). In that case, we want to say that any portion of the range [0, weight) whose value is less than value should be replaced by value.
The problem here is that when we do these insertions, there might be, on iteration k, O(k) different subranges that need to be updated, leading to an O(n2) algorithm. However, we can use a very clever trick to avoid this. Suppose that we insert all of the elements into this data structure in descending order of value. In that case, when we add in (value, weight), because we add the elements in descending order of value, each existing value in the data structure must be higher than our value. This means that if the range [0, weight) intersects any range at all, those ranges will automatically be higher than value and so we don't need to update them. If we combine this with the fact that each range we add always spans from zero to some value, the only portion of the new range that could ever be added to the data structure is the range [weight, x), where x is the highest weight stored in the data structure so far.
To summarize, assuming that we visit the (value, weight) pairs in descending order of value, we can update our data structure as follows:
If the structure is empty, record that the range [0, value) has value "value."
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded in the structure is greater than weight, skip this element.
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded so far is x, record that the range [weight, x) has value "value."
Notice that this means that we are always splitting ranges at the front of the list of ranges we have encountered so far. Because of this, we can think about storing the list of ranges as a simple array, where each array element tracks the upper endpoint of some range and the value assigned to that range. For example, we might track the ranges [0, 3), [3, 9), and [9, 12) as the array
3, 9, 12
If we then needed to split the range [0, 3) into [0, 1) and [1, 3), we could do so by prepending 1 to he list:
1, 3, 9, 12
If we represent this array in reverse (actually storing the ranges from high to low instead of low to high), this step of creating the array runs in O(n) time because at each point we just do O(1) work to decide whether or not to add another element onto the end of the array.
Once we have the ranges stored like this, to determine which of the ranges a particular weight falls into, we can just use a binary search to find the largest element smaller than that weight. For example, to look up 6 in the above array we'd do a binary search to find 3.
Finally, once we have this data structure built up, we can just look at each of the objects one at a time. For each element, we see how much weight is left, use a binary search in the other structure to see what element it should be paired with to maximize the total value, and then find the maximum attainable value.
Let's trace through an example. Given maximum allowable weight 10 and the objects
Weight | Value
------+------
2 | 3
6 | 5
4 | 7
7 | 8
Let's see what the algorithm does. First, we need to build up our auxiliary structure for the ranges. We look at the objects in descending order of value, starting with the object of weight 7 and value 8. This means that if we ever have at least seven units of weight left, we can get 8 value. Our array now looks like this:
Weight: 7
Value: 8
Next, we look at the object of weight 4 and value 7. This means that with four or more units of weight left, we can get value 7:
Weight: 7 4
Value: 8 7
Repeating this for the next item (weight six, value five) does not change the array, since if the object has weight six, if we ever had six or more units of free space left, we would never choose this; we'd always take the seven-value item of weight four. We can tell this since there is already an object in the table whose range includes remaining weight four.
Finally, we look at the last item (value 3, weight 2). This means that if we ever have weight two or more free, we could get 3 units of value. The final array now looks like this:
Weight: 7 4 2
Value: 8 7 3
Finally, we just look at the objects in any order to see what the best option is. When looking at the object of weight 2 and value 3, since the maximum allowed weight is 10, we need tom see how much value we can get with at most 10 - 2 = 8 weight. A binary search over the array tells us that this value is 8, so one option would give us 11 weight. If we look at the object of weight 6 and value 5, a binary search tells us that with five remaining weight the best we can do would be to get 7 units of value, for a total of 12 value. Repeating this on the next two entries doesn't turn up anything new, so the optimum value found has value 12, which is indeed the correct answer.
Hope this helps!
Here is an O(n) time, O(1) space solution.
Let's call an object x better than an object y if and only if (x is no heavier than y) and (x is no less valuable) and (x is lighter or more valuable). Call an object x first-choice if no object is better than x. There exists an optimal solution consisting either of two first-choice objects, or a first-choice object x and an object y such that only x is better than y.
The main tool is to be able to iterate the first-choice objects from lightest to heaviest (= least valuable to most valuable) and from most valuable to least valuable (= heaviest to lightest). The iterator state is an index into the objects by weight (resp. value) and a max value (resp. min weight) so far.
Each of the following steps is O(n).
During a scan, whenever we encounter an object that is not first-choice, we know an object that's better than it. Scan once and consider these pairs of objects.
For each first-choice object from lightest to heaviest, determine the heaviest first-choice object that it can be paired with, and consider the pair. (All lighter objects are less valuable.) Since the latter object becomes lighter over time, each iteration of the loop is amortized O(1). (See also searching in a matrix whose rows and columns are sorted.)
Code for the unbelievers. Not heavily tested.
from collections import namedtuple
from operator import attrgetter
Item = namedtuple('Item', ('weight', 'value'))
sentinel = Item(float('inf'), float('-inf'))
def firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byweight:
if x.value > bestsofar.value:
bestsofar = x
yield (x, bestsofar)
def firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byvalue:
if x.weight < bestsofar.weight:
bestsofar = x
yield x
def optimize(items, maxweight):
byweight = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('weight'))
byvalue = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('value'), reverse=True)
maxvalue = float('-inf')
try:
i = firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue)
y = i.next()
for x, z in firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
if z is not x and x.weight + z.weight <= maxweight:
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + z.value)
while x.weight + y.weight > maxweight:
y = i.next()
if y is x:
break
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + y.value)
except StopIteration:
pass
return maxvalue
items = [Item(1, 1), Item(2, 2), Item(3, 5), Item(3, 7), Item(5, 8)]
for maxweight in xrange(3, 10):
print maxweight, optimize(items, maxweight)
This is similar to Knapsack problem. I will use naming from it (num - weight, val - value).
The essential part:
Start with a = 0 and b = n-1. Assuming 0 is the index of heaviest object and n-1 is the index of lightest object.
Increase a til objects a and b satisfy the limit.
Compare current solution with best solution.
Decrease b by one.
Go to 2.
Update:
It's the knapsack problem, except there is a limit of 2 items. You basically need to decide how much space you want for the first object and how much for the other. There is n significant ways to split available space, so the complexity is O(n). Picking the most valuable objects to fit in those spaces can be done without additional cost.