My data has large number of sets (few millions). Each of those set size is between few members to several tens of thousands integers. Many of those sets are subsets of larger sets (there are many of those super-sets). I'm trying to assign each subset to it's largest superset.
Please can anyone recommend algorithm for this type of task?
There are many algorithms for generating all possible sub-sets of a set, but this type of approach is time-prohibitive given my data size (e.g. this paper or SO question).
Example of my data-set:
A {1, 2, 3}
B {1, 3}
C {2, 4}
D {2, 4, 9}
E {3, 5}
F {1, 2, 3, 7}
Expected answer: B and A are subset of F (it's not important B is also subset of A); C is a subset of D; E remains unassigned.
Here's an idea that might work:
Build a table that maps number to a sorted list of sets, sorted first by size with largest first, and then, by size, arbitrarily but with some canonical order. (Say, alphabetically by set name.) So in your example, you'd have a table that maps 1 to [F, A, B], 2 to [F, A, D, C], 3 to [F, A, B, E] and so on. This can be implemented to take O(n log n) time where n is the total size of the input.
For each set in the input:
fetch the lists associated with each entry in that set. So for A, you'd get the lists associated with 1, 2, and 3. The total number of selects you'll issue in the runtime of the whole algorithm is O(n), so runtime so far is O(n log n + n) which is still O(n log n).
Now walk down each list simultaneously. If a set is the first entry in all three lists, then it's the largest set that contains the input set. Output that association and continue with the next input list. If not, then discard the smallest item among all the items in the input lists and try again. Implementing this last bit is tricky, but you can store the heads of all lists in a heap and get (IIRC) something like O(n log k) overall runtime where k is the maximum size of any individual set, so you can bound that at O(n log n) in the worst case.
So if I got everything straight, the runtime of the algorithm is overall O(n log n), which seems like probably as good as you're going to get for this problem.
Here is a python implementation of the algorithm:
from collections import defaultdict, deque
import heapq
def LargestSupersets(setlists):
'''Computes, for each item in the input, the largest superset in the same input.
setlists: A list of lists, each of which represents a set of items. Items must be hashable.
'''
# First, build a table that maps each element in any input setlist to a list of records
# of the form (-size of setlist, index of setlist), one for each setlist that contains
# the corresponding element
element_to_entries = defaultdict(list)
for idx, setlist in enumerate(setlists):
entry = (-len(setlist), idx) # cheesy way to make an entry that sorts properly -- largest first
for element in setlist:
element_to_entries[element].append(entry)
# Within each entry, sort so that larger items come first, with ties broken arbitrarily by
# the set's index
for entries in element_to_entries.values():
entries.sort()
# Now build up the output by going over each setlist and walking over the entries list for
# each element in the setlist. Since the entries list for each element is sorted largest to
# smallest, the first entry we find that is in every entry set we pulled will be the largest
# element of the input that contains each item in this setlist. We are guaranteed to eventually
# find such an element because, at the very least, the item we're iterating on itself is in
# each entries list.
output = []
for idx, setlist in enumerate(setlists):
num_elements = len(setlist)
buckets = [element_to_entries[element] for element in setlist]
# We implement the search for an item that appears in every list by maintaining a heap and
# a queue. We have the invariants that:
# 1. The queue contains the n smallest items across all the buckets, in order
# 2. The heap contains the smallest item from each bucket that has not already passed through
# the queue.
smallest_entries_heap = []
smallest_entries_deque = deque([], num_elements)
for bucket_idx, bucket in enumerate(buckets):
smallest_entries_heap.append((bucket[0], bucket_idx, 0))
heapq.heapify(smallest_entries_heap)
while (len(smallest_entries_deque) < num_elements or
smallest_entries_deque[0] != smallest_entries_deque[num_elements - 1]):
# First extract the next smallest entry in the queue ...
(smallest_entry, bucket_idx, element_within_bucket_idx) = heapq.heappop(smallest_entries_heap)
smallest_entries_deque.append(smallest_entry)
# ... then add the next-smallest item from the bucket that we just removed an element from
if element_within_bucket_idx + 1 < len(buckets[bucket_idx]):
new_element = buckets[bucket_idx][element_within_bucket_idx + 1]
heapq.heappush(smallest_entries_heap, (new_element, bucket_idx, element_within_bucket_idx + 1))
output.append((idx, smallest_entries_deque[0][1]))
return output
Note: don't trust my writeup too much here. I just thought of this algorithm right now, I haven't proved it correct or anything.
So you have millions of sets, with thousands of elements each. Just representing that dataset takes billions of integers. In your comparisons you'll quickly get to trillions of operations without even breaking a sweat.
Therefore I'll assume that you need a solution which will distribute across a lot of machines. Which means that I'll think in terms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce. A series of them.
Read the sets in, mapping them to k:v pairs of i: s where i is an element of the set s.
Receive a key of an integers, along with a list of sets. Map them off to pairs (s1, s2): i where s1 <= s2 are both sets that included to i. Do not omit to map each set to be paired with itself!
For each pair (s1, s2) count the size k of the intersection, and send off pairs s1: k, s2: k. (Only send the second if s1 and s2 are different.
For each set s receive the set of supersets. If it is maximal, send off s: s. Otherwise send off t: s for every t that is a strict superset of s.
For each set s, receive the set of subsets, with s in the list only if it is maximal. If s is maximal, send off t: s for every t that is a subset of s.
For each set we receive the set of maximal sets that it is a subset of. (There may be many.)
There are a lot of steps for this, but at its heart it requires repeated comparisons between pairs of sets with a common element for each common element. Potentially that is O(n * n * m) where n is the number of sets and m is the number of distinct elements that are in many sets.
Here is a simple suggestion for an algorithm that might give better results based on your numbers (n = 10^6 to 10^7 sets with m = 2 to 10^5 members, a lot of super/subsets). Of course it depends a lot on your data. Generally speaking complexity is much worse than for the other proposed algorithms. Maybe you could only process the sets with less than X, e.g. 1000 members that way and for the rest use the other proposed methods.
Sort the sets by their size.
Remove the first (smallest) set and start comparing it against the others from behind (largest set first).
Stop as soon as you found a superset and create a relation. Just remove if no superset was found.
Repeat 2. and 3. for all but the last set.
If you're using Excel, you could structure it as follows:
1) Create a cartesian plot as a two-way table that has all your data sets as titles on both the side and the top
2) In a seperate tab, create a row for each data set in the first column, along with a second column that will count the number of entries (ex: F has 4) and then just stack FIND(",") and MID formulas across the sheet to split out all the entries within each data set. Use the counter in the second column to do COUNTIF(">0"). Each variable you find can be your starting point in a subsequent FIND until it runs out of variables and just returns a blank.
3) Go back to your cartesian plot, and bring over the separate entries you just generated for your column titles (ex: F is 1,2,3,7). Use an AND statement to then check that each entry in your left hand column is in your top row data set using an OFFSET to your seperate area and utilizing your counter as the width for the OFFSET
Related
I'm working with arrays of integer, all of the same size l.
I have a static set of them and I need to build a function to efficiently look them up.
The tricky part is that the elements in the array I need to search might be off by 1.
Given the arrays {A_1, A_2, ..., A_n}, and an array S, I need a function search such that:
search(S)=x iff ∀i: A_x[i] ∈ {S[i]-1, S[i], S[i]+1}.
A possible solution is treating each vector as a point in an l-dimensional space and looking for the closest point, but it'd cost something like O(l*n) in space and O(l*log(n)) in time.
Would there be a solution with a better space complexity (and/or time, of course)?
My arrays are pretty different from each other, and good heuristics might be enough.
Consider a search array S with the values:
S = [s1, s2, s3, ... , sl]
and the average value:
s̅ = (s1 + s2 + s3 + ... + sl) / l
and two matching arrays, one where every value is one greater than the corresponding value in S, and one where very value is one smaller:
A1 = [s1+1, s2+1, s3+1, ... , sl+1]
A2 = [s1−1, s2−1, s3−1, ... , sl−1]
These two arrays would have the average values:
a̅1 = (s1 + 1 + s2 + 1 + s3 + 1 + ... + sl + 1) / l = s̅ + 1
a̅2 = (s1 − 1 + s2 − 1 + s3 − 1 + ... + sl − 1) / l = s̅ − 1
So every matching array, whose values are at most 1 away from the corresponding values in the search array, has an average value that is at most 1 away from the average value of the search array.
If you calculate and store the average value of each array, and then sort the arrays based on their average value (or use an extra data structure that enables you to find all arrays with a certain average value), you can quickly identify which arrays have an average value within 1 of the search array's average value. Depending on the data, this could drastically reduce the number of arrays you have to check for similarity.
After having pre-processed the arrays and stores their average values, performing a search would mean iterating over the search array to calculate the average value, looking up which arrays have a similar average value, and then iterating over those arrays to check every value.
If you expect many arrays to have a similar average value, you could use several averages to detect arrays that are locally very different but similar on average. You could e.g. calculate these four averages:
the first half of the array
the second half of the array
the odd-numbered elements
the even-numbered elements
Analysis of the actual data should give you more information about how to divide the array and combine different averages to be most effective.
If the total sum of an array cannot exceed the integer size, you could store the total sum of each array, and check whether it is within l of the total sum of the search array, instead of using averages. This would avoid having to use floats and divisions.
(You could expand this idea by also storing other properties which are easily calculated and don't take up much space to store, such as the highest and lowest value, the biggest jump, ... They could help create a fingerprint of each array that is near-unique, depending on the data.)
If the number of dimensions is not very small, then probably the best solution will be to build a decision tree that recursively partitions the set along different dimensions.
Each node, including the root, would be a hash table from the possible values for some dimension to either:
The list of points that match that value within tolerance, if it's small enough; or
Those same points in a similar tree partitioning on the remaining dimensions.
Since each level completely eliminates one dimension, the depth of the tree is at most L, and search takes O(L) time.
The order in which the dimensions are chosen along each path is important, of course -- the wrong choice could explode the size of the data structure, with each point appearing many times.
Since your points are "pretty different", though, it should be possible to build a tree with minimal duplication. I would try the ID3 algorithm to choose the dimensions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3_algorithm. That basically means you greedily choose the dimension that maximizes the overall reduction in set size, using an entropy metric.
I would personally create something like a Trie for the lookup. I said "something like" because we have up to 3 values per index that might match. So we aren't creating a decision tree, but a DAG. Where sometimes we have choices.
That is straightforward and will run (with backtracking) in maximum time O(k*l).
But here is the trick. Whenever we see a choice of matching states that we can go into next, we can create a merged state which tries all of them. We can create a few or a lot of these merged states. Each one will defer a choice by 1 step. And if we're careful to keep track of which merged states we've created, we can reuse the same one over and over again.
In theory we can be generating partial matches for somewhat arbitrary subsets of our arrays. Which can grow exponentially in the number of arrays. In practice are likely to only wind up with a few of these merged states. But still we can guarantee a tradeoff - more states up front runs faster later. So we optimize until we are done or have hit the limit of how much data we want to have.
Here is some proof of concept code for this in Python. It will likely build the matcher in time O(n*l) and match in time O(l). However it is only guaranteed to build the matcher in time O(n^2 * l^2) and match in time O(n * l).
import pprint
class Matcher:
def __init__ (self, arrays, optimize_limit=None):
# These are the partial states we could be in during a match.
self.states = [{}]
# By state, this is what we would be trying to match.
self.state_for = ['start']
# By combination we could try to match for, which state it is.
self.comb_state = {'start': 0}
for i in range(len(arrays)):
arr = arrays[i]
# Set up "matched the end".
state_index = len(self.states)
this_state = {'matched': [i]}
self.comb_state[(i, len(arr))] = state_index
self.states.append(this_state)
self.state_for.append((i, len(arr)))
for j in reversed(range(len(arr))):
this_for = (i, j)
prev_state = {}
if 0 == j:
prev_state = self.states[0]
matching_values = set((arr[k] for k in range(max(j-1, 0), min(j+2, len(arr)))))
for v in matching_values:
if v in prev_state:
prev_state[v].append(state_index)
else:
prev_state[v] = [state_index]
if 0 < j:
state_index = len(self.states)
self.states.append(prev_state)
self.state_for.append(this_for)
self.comb_state[this_for] = state_index
# Theoretically optimization can take space
# O(2**len(arrays) * len(arrays[0]))
# We will optimize until we are done or hit a more reasonable limit.
if optimize_limit is None:
# Normally
optimize_limit = len(self.states)**2
# First we find all of the choices at the root.
# This will be an array of arrays with format:
# [state, key, values]
todo = []
for k, v in self.states[0].iteritems():
if 1 < len(v):
todo.append([self.states[0], k, tuple(v)])
while len(todo) and len(self.states) < optimize_limit:
this_state, this_key, this_match = todo.pop(0)
if this_key == 'matched':
pass # We do not need to optimize this!
elif this_match in self.comb_state:
this_state[this_key] = self.comb_state[this_match]
else:
# Construct a new state that is all of these.
new_state = {}
for state_ind in this_match:
for k, v in self.states[state_ind].iteritems():
if k in new_state:
new_state[k] = new_state[k] + v
else:
new_state[k] = v
i = len(self.states)
self.states.append(new_state)
self.comb_state[this_match] = i
self.state_for.append(this_match)
this_state[this_key] = [i]
for k, v in new_state.iteritems():
if 1 < len(v):
todo.append([new_state, k, tuple(v)])
#pp = pprint.PrettyPrinter()
#pp.pprint(self.states)
#pp.pprint(self.comb_state)
#pp.pprint(self.state_for)
def match (self, list1, ind=0, state=0):
this_state = self.states[state]
if 'matched' in this_state:
return this_state['matched']
elif list1[ind] in this_state:
answer = []
for next_state in this_state[list1[ind]]:
answer = answer + self.match(list1, ind+1, next_state)
return answer;
else:
return []
foo = Matcher([[1, 2, 3], [2, 3, 4]])
print(foo.match([2, 2, 3]))
Please note that I deliberately set up a situation where there are 2 matches. It reports both of them. :-)
I came up with a further approach derived off Matt Timmermans's answer: building a simple decision tree that might have certain some arrays in multiple branches. It works even if the error in the array I'm searching is larger than 1.
The idea is the following: given the set of arrays As...
Pick an index and a pivot.
I fixed the pivot to a constant value that works well with my data, and tried all indices to find the best one. Trying multiple pivots might work better, but I didn't need to.
Partition As into two possibly-intersecting subsets, one for the arrays (whose index-th element is) smaller than the pivot, one for the larger arrays. Arrays very close to the pivot are added to both sets:
function partition( As, pivot, index ):
return {
As.filter( A => A[index] <= pivot + 1 ),
As.filter( A => A[index] >= pivot - 1 ),
}
Apply both previous steps to each subset recursively, stopping when a subset only contains a single element.
Here an example of a possible tree generated with this algorithm (note that A2 appears both on the left and right child of the root node):
{A1, A2, A3, A4}
pivot:15
index:73
/ \
/ \
{A1, A2} {A2, A3, A4}
pivot:7 pivot:33
index:54 index:0
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
A1 A2 {A2, A3} A4
pivot:5
index:48
/ \
/ \
A2 A3
The search function then uses this as a normal decision tree: it starts from the root node and recurses either to the left or the right child depending on whether its value at index currentNode.index is greater or less than currentNode.pivot. It proceeds recursively until it reaches a leaf.
Once the decision tree is built, the time complexity is in the worst case O(n), but in practice it's probably closer to O(log(n)) if we choose good indices and pivots (and if the dataset is diverse enough) and find a fairly balanced tree.
The space complexity can be really bad in the worst case (O(2^n)), but it's closer to O(n) with balanced trees.
This question already has answers here:
Stable separation for two classes of elements in an array
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Suppose I have a function f and array of elements.
The function returns A or B for any element; you could visualize the elements this way ABBAABABAA.
I need to sort the elements according to the function, so the result is: AAAAAABBBB
The number of A values doesn't have to equal the number of B values. The total number of elements can be arbitrary (not fixed). Note that you don't sort chars, you sort objects that have a single char representation.
Few more things:
the sort should take linear time - O(n),
it should be performed in place,
it should be a stable sort.
Any ideas?
Note: if the above is not possible, do you have ideas for algorithms sacrificing one of the above requirements?
If it has to be linear and in-place, you could do a semi-stable version. By semi-stable I mean that A or B could be stable, but not both. Similar to Dukeling's answer, but you move both iterators from the same side:
a = first A
b = first B
loop while next A exists
if b < a
swap a,b elements
b = next B
a = next A
else
a = next A
With the sample string ABBAABABAA, you get:
ABBAABABAA
AABBABABAA
AAABBBABAA
AAAABBBBAA
AAAAABBBBA
AAAAAABBBB
on each turn, if you make a swap you move both, if not you just move a. This will keep A stable, but B will lose its ordering. To keep B stable instead, start from the end and work your way left.
It may be possible to do it with full stability, but I don't see how.
A stable sort might not be possible with the other given constraints, so here's an unstable sort that's similar to the partition step of quick-sort.
Have 2 iterators, one starting on the left, one starting on the right.
While there's a B at the right iterator, decrement the iterator.
While there's an A at the left iterator, increment the iterator.
If the iterators haven't crossed each other, swap their elements and repeat from 2.
Lets say,
Object_Array[1...N]
Type_A objs are A1,A2,...Ai
Type_B objs are B1,B2,...Bj
i+j = N
FOR i=1 :N
if Object_Array[i] is of Type_A
obj_A_count=obj_A_count+1
else
obj_B_count=obj_B_count+1
LOOP
Fill the resultant array with obj_A and obj_B with their respective counts depending on obj_A > obj_B
The following should work in linear time for a doubly-linked list. Because up to N insertion/deletions are involved that may cause quadratic time for arrays though.
Find the location where the first B should be after "sorting". This can be done in linear time by counting As.
Start with 3 iterators: iterA starts from the beginning of the container, and iterB starts from the above location where As and Bs should meet, and iterMiddle starts one element prior to iterB.
With iterA skip over As, find the 1st B, and move the object from iterA to iterB->previous position. Now iterA points to the next element after where the moved element used to be, and the moved element is now just before iterB.
Continue with step 3 until you reach iterMiddle. After that all elements between first() and iterB-1 are As.
Now set iterA to iterB-1.
Skip over Bs with iterB. When A is found move it to just after iterA and increment iterA.
Continue step 6 until iterB reaches end().
This would work as a stable sort for any container. The algorithm includes O(N) insertion/deletion, which is linear time for containers with O(1) insertions/deletions, but, alas, O(N^2) for arrays. Applicability in you case depends on whether the container is an array rather than a list.
If your data structure is a linked list instead of an array, you should be able to meet all three of your constraints. You just skim through the list and accumulating and moving the "B"s will be trivial pointer changes. Pseudo code below:
sort(list) {
node = list.head, blast = null, bhead = null
while(node != null) {
nextnode = node.next
if(node.val == "a") {
if(blast != null){
//move the 'a' to the front of the 'B' list
bhead.prev.next = node, node.prev = bhead.prev
blast.next = node.next, node.next.prev = blast
node.next = bhead, bhead.prev = node
}
}
else if(node.val == "b") {
if(blast == null)
bhead = blast = node
else //accumulate the "b"s..
blast = node
}
3
node = nextnode
}
}
So, you can do this in an array, but the memcopies, that emulate the list swap, will make it quiet slow for large arrays.
Firstly, assuming the array of A's and B's is either generated or read-in, I wonder why not avoid this question entirely by simply applying f as the list is being accumulated into memory into two lists that would subsequently be merged.
Otherwise, we can posit an alternative solution in O(n) time and O(1) space that may be sufficient depending on Sir Bohumil's ultimate needs:
Traverse the list and sort each segment of 1,000,000 elements in-place using the permutation cycles of the segment (once this step is done, the list could technically be sorted in-place by recursively swapping the inner-blocks, e.g., ABB AAB -> AAABBB, but that may be too time-consuming without extra space). Traverse the list again and use the same constant space to store, in two interval trees, the pointers to each block of A's and B's. For example, segments of 4,
ABBAABABAA => AABB AABB AA + pointers to blocks of A's and B's
Sequential access to A's or B's would be immediately available, and random access would come from using the interval tree to locate a specific A or B. One option could be to have the intervals number the A's and B's; e.g., to find the 4th A, look for the interval containing 4.
For sorting, an array of 1,000,000 four-byte elements (3.8MB) would suffice to store the indexes, using one bit in each element for recording visited indexes during the swaps; and two temporary variables the size of the largest A or B. For a list of one billion elements, the maximum combined interval trees would number 4000 intervals. Using 128 bits per interval, we can easily store numbered intervals for the A's and B's, and we can use the unused bits as pointers to the block index (10 bits) and offset in the case of B (20 bits). 4000*16 bytes = 62.5KB. We can store an additional array with only the B blocks' offsets in 4KB. Total space under 5MB for a list of one billion elements. (Space is in fact dependent on n but because it is extremely small in relation to n, for all practical purposes, we may consider it O(1).)
Time for sorting the million-element segments would be - one pass to count and index (here we can also accumulate the intervals and B offsets) and one pass to sort. Constructing the interval tree is O(nlogn) but n here is only 4000 (0.00005 of the one-billion list count). Total time O(2n) = O(n)
This should be possible with a bit of dynamic programming.
It works a bit like counting sort, but with a key difference. Make arrays of size n for both a and b count_a[n] and count_b[n]. Fill these arrays with how many As or Bs there has been before index i.
After just one loop, we can use these arrays to look up the correct index for any element in O(1). Like this:
int final_index(char id, int pos){
if(id == 'A')
return count_a[pos];
else
return count_a[n-1] + count_b[pos];
}
Finally, to meet the total O(n) requirement, the swapping needs to be done in a smart order. One simple option is to have recursive swapping procedure that doesn't actually perform any swapping until both elements would be placed in correct final positions. EDIT: This is actually not true. Even naive swapping will have O(n) swaps. But doing this recursive strategy will give you absolute minimum required swaps.
Note that in general case this would be very bad sorting algorithm since it has memory requirement of O(n * element value range).
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.
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.
I have a symmetric matrix like shown in the image attached below.
I've made up the notation A.B which represents the value at grid point (A, B). Furthermore, writing A.B.C gives me the minimum grid point value like so: MIN((A,B), (A,C), (B,C)).
As another example A.B.D gives me MIN((A,B), (A,D), (B,D)).
My goal is to find the minimum values for ALL combinations of letters (not repeating) for one row at a time e.g for this example I need to find min values with respect to row A which are given by the calculations:
A.B = 6
A.C = 8
A.D = 4
A.B.C = MIN(6,8,6) = 6
A.B.D = MIN(6, 4, 4) = 4
A.C.D = MIN(8, 4, 2) = 2
A.B.C.D = MIN(6, 8, 4, 6, 4, 2) = 2
I realize that certain calculations can be reused which becomes increasingly important as the matrix size increases, but the problem is finding the most efficient way to implement this reuse.
Can point me in the right direction to finding an efficient algorithm/data structure I can use for this problem?
You'll want to think about the lattice of subsets of the letters, ordered by inclusion. Essentially, you have a value f(S) given for every subset S of size 2 (that is, every off-diagonal element of the matrix - the diagonal elements don't seem to occur in your problem), and the problem is to find, for each subset T of size greater than two, the minimum f(S) over all S of size 2 contained in T. (And then you're interested only in sets T that contain a certain element "A" - but we'll disregard that for the moment.)
First of all, note that if you have n letters, that this amounts to asking Omega(2^n) questions, roughly one for each subset. (Excluding the zero- and one-element subsets and those that don't include "A" saves you n + 1 sets and a factor of two, respectively, which is allowed for big Omega.) So if you want to store all these answers for even moderately large n, you'll need a lot of memory. If n is large in your applications, it might be best to store some collection of pre-computed data and do some computation whenever you need a particular data point; I haven't thought about what would work best, but for example computing data only for a binary tree contained in the lattice would not necessarily help you anything beyond precomputing nothing at all.
With these things out of the way, let's assume you actually want all the answers computed and stored in memory. You'll want to compute these "layer by layer", that is, starting with the three-element subsets (since the two-element subsets are already given by your matrix), then four-element, then five-element, etc. This way, for a given subset S, when we're computing f(S) we will already have computed all f(T) for T strictly contained in S. There are several ways that you can make use of this, but I think the easiest might be to use two such subset S: let t1 and t2 be two different elements of T that you may select however you like; let S be the subset of T that you get when you remove t1 and t2. Write S1 for S plus t1 and write S2 for S plus t2. Now every pair of letters contained in T is either fully contained in S1, or it is fully contained in S2, or it is {t1, t2}. Look up f(S1) and f(S2) in your previously computed values, then look up f({t1, t2}) directly in the matrix, and store f(T) = the minimum of these 3 numbers.
If you never select "A" for t1 or t2, then indeed you can compute everything you're interested in while not computing f for any sets T that don't contain "A". (This is possible because the steps outlined above are only interesting whenever T contains at least three elements.) Good! This leaves just one question - how to store the computed values f(T). What I would do is use a 2^(n-1)-sized array; represent each subset-of-your-alphabet-that-includes-"A" by the (n-1) bit number where the ith bit is 1 whenever the (i+1)th letter is in that set (so 0010110, which has bits 2, 4, and 5 set, represents the subset {"A", "C", "D", "F"} out of the alphabet "A" .. "H" - note I'm counting bits starting at 0 from the right, and letters starting at "A" = 0). This way, you can actually iterate through the sets in numerical order and don't need to think about how to iterate through all k-element subsets of an n-element set. (You do need to include a special case for when the set under consideration has 0 or 1 element, in which case you'll want to do nothing, or 2 elements, in which case you just copy the value from the matrix.)
Well, it looks simple to me, but perhaps I misunderstand the problem. I would do it like this:
let P be a pattern string in your notation X1.X2. ... .Xn, where Xi is a column in your matrix
first compute the array CS = [ (X1, X2), (X1, X3), ... (X1, Xn) ], which contains all combinations of X1 with every other element in the pattern; CS has n-1 elements, and you can easily build it in O(n)
now you must compute min (CS), i.e. finding the minimum value of the matrix elements corresponding to the combinations in CS; again you can easily find the minimum value in O(n)
done.
Note: since your matrix is symmetric, given P you just need to compute CS by combining the first element of P with all other elements: (X1, Xi) is equal to (Xi, X1)
If your matrix is very large, and you want to do some optimization, you may consider prefixes of P: let me explain with an example
when you have solved the problem for P = X1.X2.X3, store the result in an associative map, where X1.X2.X3 is the key
later on, when you solve a problem P' = X1.X2.X3.X7.X9.X10.X11 you search for the longest prefix of P' in your map: you can do this by starting with P' and removing one component (Xi) at a time from the end until you find a match in your map or you end up with an empty string
if you find a prefix of P' in you map then you already know the solution for that problem, so you just have to find the solution for the problem resulting from combining the first element of the prefix with the suffix, and then compare the two results: in our example the prefix is X1.X2.X3, and so you just have to solve the problem for
X1.X7.X9.X10.X11, and then compare the two values and choose the min (don't forget to update your map with the new pattern P')
if you don't find any prefix, then you must solve the entire problem for P' (and again don't forget to update the map with the result, so that you can reuse it in the future)
This technique is essentially a form of memoization.