Can QuickSelect find smallest element in an Array with duplicate values? - algorithm

Does the QuickSelect algorithm work with duplicate values?
If I haven an Array
int[] array = {9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 6, 5, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 200};
Will it be able to get the kth smallest element even though there are duplicates?

Yes, it works. By the end of every iteration you have all elements less than current pivot stored to the left of the pivot.
Let's consider case when all elements are the same. In this case every iteration ends up putting pivot element to the left of the array. And the next iteration will continue with one element shorter array. So we need k iterations to find k-th smallest element.

Related

Return an index of the most common element in a list of integers with equal probability using O(1) space

I came across this coding problem and am having a hard time coming up with a solution.
Given an array of integers, find the most common element in a list of integers
and return any of its indexes randomly with equal probability. The solution must run in O(N) time and use O(1) space.
Example:
List contains: [-1, 4, 9, 7, 7, 2, 7, 3, 0, 9, 6, 5, 7, 8, 9]
7 is most common element so output should be one of: 3, 4, 6, 12
Now this problem would be fairly trivial if not for the constant space constraint. I know reservoir sampling can be used to solve the problem with these constraints if we know the the most common element ahead of time. But if we don't know the most common element, how could this problem be solved?

How to find the largest number in an array made by a ascendingly sorted array and a descendingly sorted array

for an array like [1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 7, 5], how do we efficiently find the largest number in it?
We know that the first part of the array is 1, 2, 4, 6, which is ascendingly sorted and the second part is 8, 7, 5 which is a descendingly sorted array.
The simply solution would be iterate through the array, but given the array is made of two sorted array, I would image the search can be done by some sort of binary search variation to achieve o(logn) runtime complexity. However I cannot seem to come up with the solution.
What you are asking for is equivalent to finding the "peak" of an array. Here is logarithmic time solution to the problem

What does kth largest/smallest element mean?

I'm currently studying selection algorithms, namely, median of medians.
I came across two following sentences:
In computer science, a selection algorithm is an algorithm for finding
the kth smallest number in a list or array;
In computer science, the median of medians is an approximate (median)
selection algorithm, frequently used to supply a good pivot for an
exact selection algorithm, mainly the quickselect, that selects the
kth largest element of an initially unsorted array.
What does kth smallest/largest element mean?
To make question a bit more concrete, consider following (unsorted) array:
[19, 1, 7, 20, 8, 10, 19, 24, 23, 6]
For example, what is 5th smallest element? And what is 5th largest element?
If you sort the array from smallest to largest, the kth smallest element is the kth element in the sorted array. The kth largest element is the kth from the end in the sorted array. Let's examine your example array in Python:
In [2]: sorted([19, 1, 7, 20, 8, 10, 19, 24, 23, 6])
Out[2]: [1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 19, 19, 20, 23, 24]
The smallest element is 1, second smallest is 6, and so on. So the kth smallest is the kth element from the left. Similarly, 24 is the largest, 23 the second largest, and so on, so the kth largest element is the kth element from the right. So if k = 5:
In [3]: sorted([19, 1, 7, 20, 8, 10, 19, 24, 23, 6])[4] # index 4 is 5th from the start
Out[3]: 10
In [4]: sorted([19, 1, 7, 20, 8, 10, 19, 24, 23, 6])[-5] # index -5 is 5th from the end
Out[4]: 19
Note that you don't have to sort the array in order to get the kth smallest/largest value. Sorting is just an easy way to see which value corresponds to k.

Finding permutations for balanced distribution of values in lists

Sorry for the bad title, but I don't know how to call this.
I have K lists, N elements in each, for example:
[8, 5, 6]
[4, 3, 2]
[6, 5, 0]
and I want to find such a permutation of the lists' elements, so that the sum of elements in first column, second column etc are as close to each other as possible (so the distribution is "fair").
In my example that would be (probably):
[8, 5, 6]
[4, 2, 3] -- the lists contain the same values
[0, 6, 5] just in different order
sums: 12, 13, 14
Is there some more elegant way than finding all the permutations for each list, and brute-force finding the "ideal" combination of them?
I'm not asking for code, just give me a hint how to do it, if you know.
Thanks!
ps. the lists can be quite large, and more of them - think ~20x~20 max.
If you can accept an approximation, I would do it iteratively :
Sort matrix lines by descending weight (sum of line elements).
Edit : Sorting first by max element in line could be better.
Each time you are going to add a new line to your result matrix, put smaller elements into higher columns.
Order lines of your result matrix back to their initial state (if you have to).
It works with your example, but will obviously not be always perfect.
Here is an example (javascript)

Find the middle element in merged arrays in O(logn)

We have two sorted arrays of the same size n. Let's call the array a and b.
How to find the middle element in an sorted array merged by a and b?
Example:
n = 4
a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
b = [3, 4, 5, 6]
merged = [1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6]
mid_element = merged[(0 + merged.length - 1) / 2] = merged[3] = 3
More complicated cases:
Case 1:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
b = [3, 4, 5, 6]
Case 2:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 8]
b = [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Case 3:
a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 8]
b = [0, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Case 4:
a = [1, 3, 5, 7]
b = [2, 4, 6, 8]
Time required: O(log n). Any ideas?
Look at the middle of both the arrays. Let's say one value is smaller and the other is bigger.
Discard the lower half of the array with the smaller value. Discard the upper half of the array with the higher value. Now we are left with half of what we started with.
Rinse and repeat until only one element is left in each array. Return the smaller of those two.
If the two middle values are the same, then pick arbitrarily.
Credits: Bill Li's blog
Quite interesting task. I'm not sure about O(logn), but solution O((logn)^2) is obvious for me.
If you know position of some element in first array then you can find how many elements are smaller in both arrays then this value (you know already how many smaller elements are in first array and you can find count of smaller elements in second array using binary search - so just sum up this two numbers). So if you know that number of smaller elements in both arrays is less than N, you should look in to the upper half in first array, otherwise you should move to the lower half. So you will get general binary search with internal binary search. Overall complexity will be O((logn)^2)
Note: if you will not find median in first array then start initial search in the second array. This will not have impact on complexity
So, having
n = 4 and a = [1, 2, 3, 4] and b = [3, 4, 5, 6]
You know the k-th position in result array in advance based on n, which is equal to n.
The result n-th element could be in first array or second.
Let's first assume that element is in first array then
do binary search taking middle element from [l,r], at the beginning l = 0, r = 3;
So taking middle element you know how many elements in the same array smaller, which is middle - 1.
Knowing that middle-1 element is less and knowing you need n-th element you may have [n - (middle-1)]th element from second array to be smaller, greater. If that's greater and previos element is smaller that it's what you need, if it's greater and previous is also greater we need to L = middle, if it's smaller r = middle.
Than do the same for the second array in case you did not find solution for first.
In total log(n) + log(n)

Resources