Algorithm:
A sequence of numbers is called a wiggle sequence if the differences
between successive numbers strictly alternate between positive and
negative. The first difference (if one exists) may be either positive
or negative. A sequence with fewer than two elements is trivially a
wiggle sequence.
For example, [1,7,4,9,2,5] is a wiggle sequence because the
differences (6,-3,5,-7,3) are alternately positive and negative. In
contrast, [1,4,7,2,5] and [1,7,4,5,5] are not wiggle sequences, the
first because its first two differences are positive and the second
because its last difference is zero.
Given a sequence of integers, return the length of the longest
subsequence that is a wiggle sequence. A subsequence is obtained by
deleting some number of elements (eventually, also zero) from the
original sequence, leaving the remaining elements in their original
order.
Examples:
Input: [1,7,4,9,2,5]
Output: 6
The entire sequence is a wiggle sequence.
Input: [1,17,5,10,13,15,10,5,16,8]
Output: 7
There are several subsequences that achieve this length. One is [1,17,10,13,10,16,8].
Input: [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
Output: 2
My soln:
def wiggle_max_length(nums)
[ build_seq(nums, 0, 0, true, -1.0/0.0),
build_seq(nums, 0, 0, false, 1.0/0.0)
].max
end
def build_seq(nums, index, len, wiggle_up, prev)
return len if index >= nums.length
if wiggle_up && nums[index] - prev > 0 || !wiggle_up && nums[index] - prev < 0
build_seq(nums, index + 1, len + 1, !wiggle_up, nums[index])
else
build_seq(nums, index + 1, len, wiggle_up, prev)
end
end
This is working for smaller inputs (e.g [1,1,1,3,2,4,1,6,3,10,8] and for all the sample inputs, but its failing for very large inputs (which is harder to debug) like:
[33,53,12,64,50,41,45,21,97,35,47,92,39,0,93,55,40,46,69,42,6,95,51,68,72,9,32,84,34,64,6,2,26,98,3,43,30,60,3,68,82,9,97,19,27,98,99,4,30,96,37,9,78,43,64,4,65,30,84,90,87,64,18,50,60,1,40,32,48,50,76,100,57,29,63,53,46,57,93,98,42,80,82,9,41,55,69,84,82,79,30,79,18,97,67,23,52,38,74,15]
which should have output: 67 but my soln outputs 57. Does anyone know what is wrong here?
The approach tried is a greedy solution (because it always uses the current element if it satisfies the wiggle condition), but this does not always work.
I will try illustrating this with this simpler counter-example: 1 100 99 6 7 4 5 2 3.
One best sub-sequence is: 1 100 6 7 4 5 2 3, but the two build_seq calls from the algorithm will produce these sequences:
1 100 99
1
Edit: A slightly modified greedy approach does work -- see this link, thanks Peter de Rivaz.
Dynamic Programming can be used to obtain an optimal solution.
Note: I wrote this before seeing the article mentioned by #PeterdeRivaz. While dynamic programming (O(n2)) works, the article presents a superior (O(n)) "greedy" algorithm ("Approach #5"), which is also far easier to code than a dynamic programming solution. I have added a second answer that implements that method.
Code
def longest_wiggle(arr)
best = [{ pos_diff: { length: 0, prev_ndx: nil },
neg_diff: { length: 0, prev_ndx: nil } }]
(1..arr.size-1).each do |i|
calc_best(arr, i, :pos_diff, best)
calc_best(arr, i, :neg_diff, best)
end
unpack_best(best)
end
def calc_best(arr, i, diff, best)
curr = arr[i]
prev_indices = (0..i-1).select { |j|
(diff==:pos_diff) ? (arr[j] < curr) : (arr[j] > curr) }
best[i] = {} if best.size == i
best[i][diff] =
if prev_indices.empty?
{ length: 0, prev_ndx: nil }
else
prev_diff = previous_diff(diff)
j = prev_indices.max_by { |j| best[j][prev_diff][:length] }
{ length: (1 + best[j][prev_diff][:length]), prev_ndx: j }
end
end
def previous_diff(diff)
diff==:pos_diff ? :neg_diff : :pos_diff·
end
def unpack_best(best)
last_idx, last_diff =
best.size.times.to_a.product([:pos_diff, :neg_diff]).
max_by { |i,diff| best[i][diff][:length] }
return [0, []] if best[last_idx][last_diff][:length].zero?
best_path = []
loop do
best_path.unshift(last_idx)
prev_index = best[last_idx][last_diff][:prev_ndx]
break if prev_index.nil?
last_idx = prev_index·
last_diff = previous_diff(last_diff)
end
best_path
end
Examples
longest_wiggle([1, 4, 2, 6, 8, 3, 2, 5])
#=> [0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7]]
The length of the longest wiggle is 6 and consists of the elements at indices 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, that is, [1, 4, 2, 6, 3, 5].
A second example uses the larger array given in the question.
arr = [33, 53, 12, 64, 50, 41, 45, 21, 97, 35, 47, 92, 39, 0, 93, 55, 40, 46,
69, 42, 6, 95, 51, 68, 72, 9, 32, 84, 34, 64, 6, 2, 26, 98, 3, 43, 30,
60, 3, 68, 82, 9, 97, 19, 27, 98, 99, 4, 30, 96, 37, 9, 78, 43, 64, 4,
65, 30, 84, 90, 87, 64, 18, 50, 60, 1, 40, 32, 48, 50, 76, 100, 57, 29,
arr.size 63, 53, 46, 57, 93, 98, 42, 80, 82, 9, 41, 55, 69, 84, 82, 79, 30, 79,
18, 97, 67, 23, 52, 38, 74, 15]
#=> 100
longest_wiggle(arr).size
#=> 67
longest_wiggle(arr)
#=> [0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25,
# 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50,
# 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 80,
# 81, 83, 84, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99]
As indicated, the largest wiggle is comprised of 67 elements of arr. Solution time was essentially instantaneous.
The values of arr at those indices are as follows.
[33, 53, 12, 64, 41, 45, 21, 97, 35, 47, 39, 93, 40, 46, 42, 95, 51, 68, 9,
84, 34, 64, 6, 26, 3, 43, 30, 60, 3, 68, 9, 97, 19, 27, 4, 96, 37, 78, 43,
64, 4, 65, 30, 84, 18, 50, 1, 40, 32, 76, 57, 63, 53, 57, 42, 80, 9, 41, 30,
79, 18, 97, 23, 52, 38, 74, 15]
[33, 53, 12, 64, 41, 45, 21, 97, 35, 92, 0, 93, 40, 69, 6, 95, 51, 72, 9, 84, 34, 64, 2, 98, 3, 43, 30, 60, 3, 82, 9, 97, 19, 99, 4, 96, 9, 78, 43, 64, 4, 65, 30, 90, 18, 60, 1, 40, 32, 100, 29, 63, 46, 98, 42, 82, 9, 84, 30, 79, 18, 97, 23, 52, 38, 74]
Explanation
I had intended to provide an explanation of the algorithm and its implementation, but having since learned there is a superior approach (see my note at the beginning of my answer), I have decided against doing that, but would of course be happy to answer any questions. The link in my note explains, among other things, how dynamic programming can be used here.
Let Wp[i] be the longest wiggle sequence starting at element i, and where the first difference is positive. Let Wn[i] be the same, but where the first difference is negative.
Then:
Wp[k] = max(1+Wn[k'] for k<k'<n, where A[k'] > A[k]) (or 1 if no such k' exists)
Wn[k] = max(1+Wp[k'] for k<k'<n, where A[k'] < A[k]) (or 1 if no such k' exists)
This gives an O(n^2) dynamic programming solution, here in pseudocode
Wp = [1, 1, ..., 1] -- length n
Wn = [1, 1, ..., 1] -- length n
for k = n-1, n-2, ..., 0
for k' = k+1, k+2, ..., n-1
if A[k'] > A[k]
Wp[k] = max(Wp[k], Wn[k']+1)
else if A[k'] < A[k]
Wn[k] = max(Wn[k], Wp[k']+1)
result = max(max(Wp[i], Wn[i]) for i = 0, 1, ..., n-1)
In a comment on #quertyman's answer, #PeterdeRivaz provided a link to an article that considers various approaches to solving the "longest wiggle subsequence" problem. I have implemented "Approach #5", which has a time-complexity of O(n).
The algorithm is simple as well as fast. The first step is to remove one element from each pair of consecutive elements that are equal, and continue to do so until there are no consecutive elements that are equal. For example, [1,2,2,2,3,4,4] would be converted to [1,2,3,4]. The longest wiggle subsequence includes the first and last elements of the resulting array, a, and every element a[i], 0 < i < a.size-1 for which a[i-1] < a[i] > a[i+1] ora[i-1] > a[i] > a[i+1]. In other words, it includes the first and last elements and all peaks and valley bottoms. Those elements are A, D, E, G, H, I in the graph below (taken from the above-referenced article, with permission).
Code
def longest_wiggle(arr)
arr.each_cons(2).
reject { |a,b| a==b }.
map(&:first).
push(arr.last).
each_cons(3).
select { |triple| [triple.min, triple.max].include? triple[1] }.
map { |_,n,_| n }.
unshift(arr.first).
push(arr.last)
end
Example
arr = [33, 53, 12, 64, 50, 41, 45, 21, 97, 35, 47, 92, 39, 0, 93, 55, 40,
46, 69, 42, 6, 95, 51, 68, 72, 9, 32, 84, 34, 64, 6, 2, 26, 98, 3,
43, 30, 60, 3, 68, 82, 9, 97, 19, 27, 98, 99, 4, 30, 96, 37, 9, 78,
43, 64, 4, 65, 30, 84, 90, 87, 64, 18, 50, 60, 1, 40, 32, 48, 50, 76,
100, 57, 29, 63, 53, 46, 57, 93, 98, 42, 80, 82, 9, 41, 55, 69, 84,
82, 79, 30, 79, 18, 97, 67, 23, 52, 38, 74, 15]
a = longest_wiggle(arr)
#=> [33, 53, 12, 64, 41, 45, 21, 97, 35, 92, 0, 93, 40, 69, 6, 95, 51, 72,
# 9, 84, 34, 64, 2, 98, 3, 43, 30, 60, 3, 82, 9, 97, 19, 99, 4, 96, 9,
# 78, 43, 64, 4, 65, 30, 90, 18, 60, 1, 40, 32, 100, 29, 63, 46, 98, 42,
# 82, 9, 84, 30, 79, 18, 97, 23, 52, 38, 74, 15]
a.size
#=> 67
Explanation
The steps are as follows.
arr = [3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 7, 4]
enum1 = arr.each_cons(2)
#=> #<Enumerator: [3, 4, 4, 5, 2, 3, 7, 4]:each_cons(2)>
We can see the elements that will be generated by this enumerator by converting it to an array.
enum1.to_a
#=> [[3, 4], [4, 4], [4, 5], [5, 2], [2, 3], [3, 7], [7, 4]]
Continuing, remove all but one of each group of successive equal elements.
d = enum1.reject { |a,b| a==b }
#=> [[3, 4], [4, 5], [5, 2], [2, 3], [3, 7], [7, 4]]
e = d.map(&:first)
#=> [3, 4, 5, 2, 3, 7]
Add the last element.
f = e.push(arr.last)
#=> [3, 4, 5, 2, 3, 7, 4]
Next, find the peaks and valley bottoms.
enum2 = f.each_cons(3)
#=> #<Enumerator: [3, 4, 5, 2, 3, 7, 4]:each_cons(3)>
enum2.to_a
#=> [[3, 4, 5], [4, 5, 2], [5, 2, 3], [2, 3, 7], [3, 7, 4]]
g = enum2.select { |triple| [triple.min, triple.max].include? triple[1] }
#=> [[4, 5, 2], [5, 2, 3], [3, 7, 4]]
h = g.map { |_,n,_| n }
#=> [5, 2, 7]
Lastly, add the first and last values of arr.
i = h.unshift(arr.first)
#=> [3, 5, 2, 7]
i.push(arr.last)
#=> [3, 5, 2, 7, 4]
I want to write a program that splits an array into two arrays, where any element in one array is smaller than any element in the other array.
The input that I have is:
a = [6, 45, 23, 65, 17, 48, 97, 32, 18, 9, 88]
And I'd like output like this:
[6, 23, 17, 18 , 9] < [45, 65, 48, 97, 32, 88]
I've tried:
i = 0
max = 0
while i < a.size
if a[i] > max
max = a[i]
end
i+=1
end
puts "this is the larger array: " + max.to_s
Which is completely off. As I am new to this, any help is appreciated.
small, large = a.sort!.shift(a.size/2) ,a
p small, large
#=> [6, 9, 17, 18, 23]
#=> [32, 45, 48, 65, 88, 97]
Try this:
newarray = a.sort.each_slice((a.size/2.0).round).to_a
It will give you an array containing your split array:
newarray = [[6,9,17,18,23,32],[45,48,65,88,97]]
In this case, if you have an odd number of elements in your array, the first array returned will always have the extra element. You can also save the arrays separately if you would like, but this way you can call each of the halves with newarray[0] and newarray[1]. If you want to split them simply add:
b = newarray[0]
c = newarray[1]
Don't use a while loop - sort the array and then split it in two
a.sort
a.in_groups_of( a.size/2)
a.sort.each_slice( a.size/2) probably does the trick without rails.
a = [6, 45, 23, 65, 17, 48, 97, 32, 18, 9, 88]
a = a.sort
print a.shift(a.count/2), " < " , a
#=> [6, 9, 17, 18, 23] < [32, 45, 48, 65, 88, 97]
Another variation
a = [6, 45, 23, 65, 17, 48, 97, 32, 18, 9, 88]
a = a.sort
print a.values_at(0..a.count/2), " < ", a.values_at((a.count/2)+1 .. -1)
#=> [6, 9, 17, 18, 23] < [32, 45, 48, 65, 88, 97]
Assuming you want to preserve order, as in your example:
def split_it(a,n)
f = a.select {|e| e <= n}
[f, a-f]
end
a = [6, 45, 23, 65, 17, 48, 97, 32, 18, 9, 88]
f, l = split_it(a,23)
puts "#{f} < #{l}" # => [6, 23, 17, 18, 9] < [45, 65, 48, 97, 32, 88]
If you want to preserve order and have the first subarray contain nbr elements, add this:
def split_nbr(a, nbr)
n = 1
loop do
return [] if n > a.max
b = split_it(a,n)
return b if b.first.size == nbr
n += 1
end
end
f, l = split_nbr(a,3)
puts "#{f} < #{l}" # => [6, 17, 9] < [45, 23, 65, 48, 97, 32, 18, 88]
I'm looking to make a 3-column layout similar to that of piccsy.com. Given a number of images of the same width but varying height, what is a algorithm to order them so that the difference in column lengths is minimal? Ideally in Python or JavaScript...
Thanks a lot for your help in advance!
Martin
How many images?
If you limit the maximum page size, and have a value for the minimum picture height, you can calculate the maximum number of images per page. You would need this when evaluating any solution.
I think there were 27 pictures on the link you gave.
The following uses the first_fit algorithm mentioned by Robin Green earlier but then improves on this by greedy swapping.
The swapping routine finds the column that is furthest away from the average column height then systematically looks for a swap between one of its pictures and the first picture in another column that minimizes the maximum deviation from the average.
I used a random sample of 30 pictures with heights in the range five to 50 'units'. The convergenge was swift in my case and improved significantly on the first_fit algorithm.
The code (Python 3.2:
def first_fit(items, bincount=3):
items = sorted(items, reverse=1) # New - improves first fit.
bins = [[] for c in range(bincount)]
binsizes = [0] * bincount
for item in items:
minbinindex = binsizes.index(min(binsizes))
bins[minbinindex].append(item)
binsizes[minbinindex] += item
average = sum(binsizes) / float(bincount)
maxdeviation = max(abs(average - bs) for bs in binsizes)
return bins, binsizes, average, maxdeviation
def swap1(columns, colsize, average, margin=0):
'See if you can do a swap to smooth the heights'
colcount = len(columns)
maxdeviation, i_a = max((abs(average - cs), i)
for i,cs in enumerate(colsize))
col_a = columns[i_a]
for pic_a in set(col_a): # use set as if same height then only do once
for i_b, col_b in enumerate(columns):
if i_a != i_b: # Not same column
for pic_b in set(col_b):
if (abs(pic_a - pic_b) > margin): # Not same heights
# new heights if swapped
new_a = colsize[i_a] - pic_a + pic_b
new_b = colsize[i_b] - pic_b + pic_a
if all(abs(average - new) < maxdeviation
for new in (new_a, new_b)):
# Better to swap (in-place)
colsize[i_a] = new_a
colsize[i_b] = new_b
columns[i_a].remove(pic_a)
columns[i_a].append(pic_b)
columns[i_b].remove(pic_b)
columns[i_b].append(pic_a)
maxdeviation = max(abs(average - cs)
for cs in colsize)
return True, maxdeviation
return False, maxdeviation
def printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation):
print('columns')
pp(columns)
print('colsize:', colsize)
print('average, maxdeviation:', average, maxdeviation)
print('deviations:', [abs(average - cs) for cs in colsize])
print()
if __name__ == '__main__':
## Some data
#import random
#heights = [random.randint(5, 50) for i in range(30)]
## Here's some from the above, but 'fixed'.
from pprint import pprint as pp
heights = [45, 7, 46, 34, 12, 12, 34, 19, 17, 41,
28, 9, 37, 32, 30, 44, 17, 16, 44, 7,
23, 30, 36, 5, 40, 20, 28, 42, 8, 38]
columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation = first_fit(heights)
printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
while 1:
swapped, maxdeviation = swap1(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
if not swapped:
break
#input('Paused: ')
The output:
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 28, 32, 17, 44, 5, 40, 8, 38],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 34, 9, 37, 44, 30, 20, 28]]
colsize: [286, 267, 248]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 19.0
deviations: [19.0, 0.0, 19.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 28, 17, 44, 5, 40, 8, 38, 9],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 34, 37, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32]]
colsize: [263, 267, 271]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 4.0
deviations: [4.0, 0.0, 4.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 17, 44, 5, 40, 8, 38, 9, 34],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 37, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32, 28]]
colsize: [269, 267, 265]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 2.0
deviations: [2.0, 0.0, 2.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 17, 44, 5, 8, 38, 9, 34, 37],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32, 28, 40]]
colsize: [266, 267, 268]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 1.0
deviations: [1.0, 0.0, 1.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 17, 44, 5, 8, 38, 9, 34, 37],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32, 28, 40]]
colsize: [266, 267, 268]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 1.0
deviations: [1.0, 0.0, 1.0]
Nice problem.
Heres the info on reverse-sorting mentioned in my separate comment below.
>>> h = sorted(heights, reverse=1)
>>> h
[46, 45, 44, 44, 42, 41, 40, 38, 37, 36, 34, 34, 32, 30, 30, 28, 28, 23, 20, 19, 17, 17, 16, 12, 12, 9, 8, 7, 7, 5]
>>> columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation = first_fit(h)
>>> printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
columns
[[46, 41, 40, 34, 30, 28, 19, 12, 12, 5],
[45, 42, 38, 36, 30, 28, 17, 16, 8, 7],
[44, 44, 37, 34, 32, 23, 20, 17, 9, 7]]
colsize: [267, 267, 267]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 0.0
deviations: [0.0, 0.0, 0.0]
If you have the reverse-sorting, this extra code appended to the bottom of the above code (in the 'if name == ...), will do extra trials on random data:
for trial in range(2,11):
print('\n## Trial %i' % trial)
heights = [random.randint(5, 50) for i in range(random.randint(5, 50))]
print('Pictures:',len(heights))
columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation = first_fit(heights)
print('average %7.3f' % average, '\nmaxdeviation:')
print('%5.2f%% = %6.3f' % ((maxdeviation * 100. / average), maxdeviation))
swapcount = 0
while maxdeviation:
swapped, maxdeviation = swap1(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
if not swapped:
break
print('%5.2f%% = %6.3f' % ((maxdeviation * 100. / average), maxdeviation))
swapcount += 1
print('swaps:', swapcount)
The extra output shows the effect of the swaps:
## Trial 2
Pictures: 11
average 72.000
maxdeviation:
9.72% = 7.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 3
Pictures: 14
average 118.667
maxdeviation:
6.46% = 7.667
4.78% = 5.667
3.09% = 3.667
0.56% = 0.667
swaps: 3
## Trial 4
Pictures: 46
average 470.333
maxdeviation:
0.57% = 2.667
0.35% = 1.667
0.14% = 0.667
swaps: 2
## Trial 5
Pictures: 40
average 388.667
maxdeviation:
0.43% = 1.667
0.17% = 0.667
swaps: 1
## Trial 6
Pictures: 5
average 44.000
maxdeviation:
4.55% = 2.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 7
Pictures: 30
average 295.000
maxdeviation:
0.34% = 1.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 8
Pictures: 43
average 413.000
maxdeviation:
0.97% = 4.000
0.73% = 3.000
0.48% = 2.000
swaps: 2
## Trial 9
Pictures: 33
average 342.000
maxdeviation:
0.29% = 1.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 10
Pictures: 26
average 233.333
maxdeviation:
2.29% = 5.333
1.86% = 4.333
1.43% = 3.333
1.00% = 2.333
0.57% = 1.333
swaps: 4
This is the offline makespan minimisation problem, which I think is equivalent to the multiprocessor scheduling problem. Instead of jobs you have images, and instead of job durations you have image heights, but it's exactly the same problem. (The fact that it involves space instead of time doesn't matter.) So any algorithm that (approximately) solves either of them will do.
Here's an algorithm (called First Fit Decreasing) that will get you a very compact arrangement, in a reasonable amount of time. There may be a better algorithm but this is ridiculously simple.
Sort the images in order from tallest to shortest.
Take the first image, and place it in the shortest column.
(If multiple columns are the same height (and shortest) pick any one.)
Repeat step 2 until no images remain.
When you're done, you can re-arrange the elements in the each column however you choose if you don't like the tallest-to-shortest look.
Here's one:
// Create initial solution
<run First Fit Decreasing algorithm first>
// Calculate "error", i.e. maximum height difference
// after running FFD
err = (maximum_height - minimum_height)
minerr = err
// Run simple greedy optimization and random search
repeat for a number of steps: // e.g. 1000 steps
<find any two random images a and b from two different columns such that
swapping a and b decreases the error>
if <found>:
swap a and b
err = (maximum_height - minimum_height)
if (err < minerr):
<store as best solution so far> // X
else:
swap two random images from two columns
err = (maximum_height - minimum_height)
<output the best solution stored on line marked with X>