I had a question on my exams for which I had to come up with an efficient algorithm. The problem was like this:
We have some objects which have two properties:
H = <1,1000000>
R = <1,1000000>
we can insert one object into another if H1>H2 and R1>R2. The input contains pairs of H and R, one pair per line. if the current object can be inserted in any previous objects, we choose such with the least H and then we destroy both of them. print the number of left objects in the output.
I wonder how can this problem be solved in O(n.log(n)) time complexity using binary search trees or segment tree, or with fenwick tree.
Thanks in advance.
A solution with fenwick tree, as follows;
Let's sort the whole array by R at first (right now, we are not caring about H), and assign each item a token (which is equal to it's position in the sorted array).
Let's get back to our original array. We are going to run a sweep on the given array. Say, we have a fenwick tree, which will, instead of cumulative sum, store maximum (from beginning to that position) only for H.
For an item, say, we couldn't fit it into another item. Then we'll insert it into the tree. We'll insert in such position that is equal to it's token.
So, right now, we've a fenwick tree, which contains only the items we've dealt with till now. Other values are 0. The items in the tree are positioned in R sorted order.
Now, how to find out if we can fit current item to another object? We can actually run a binary search (upper bound) on fenwick tree for current item's H. And, as the items are already sorted in R order, instead of whole tree, we need to search in the effective range.
Binary search in fenwick tree can be done in O(log(n)). Check out the Find index with given cumulative frequency part of this article.
Related
Problem- Given a sorted doubly link list and two numbers C and K. You need to decrease the info of node with data K by C and insert the new node formed at its correct position such that the list remains sorted.
I would think of insertion sort for such problem, because, insertion sort at any instance looks like, shown bunch of cards,
that are partially sorted. For insertion sort, number of swaps is equivalent to number of inversions. Number of compares is equivalent to number of exchanges + (N-1).
So, in the given problem(above), if node with data K is decreased by C, then the sorted linked list became partially sorted. Insertion sort is the best fit.
Another point is, amidst selection of sorting algorithm, if sorting logic applied for array representation of data holds best fit, then same sorting logic should holds best fit for linked list representation of same data.
For this problem, Is my thought process correct in choosing insertion sort?
Maybe you mean something else, but insertion sort is not the best algorithm, because you actually don't need to sort anything. If there is only one element with value K then it doesn't make a big difference, but otherwise it does.
So I would suggest the following algorithm O(n), ignoring edge cases for simplicity:
Go forward in the list until the value of the current node is > K - C.
Save this node, all the reduced nodes will be inserted before this one.
Continue to go forward while the value of the current node is < K
While the value of the current node is K, remove node, set value to K - C and insert it before the saved node. This could be optimized further, so that you only do one remove and insert operation of the whole sublist of nodes which had value K.
If these decrease operations can be batched up before the sorted list must be available, then you can simply remove all the decremented nodes from the list. Then, sort them, and perform a two-way merge into the list.
If the list must be maintained in order after each node decrement, then there is little choice but to remove the decremented node and re-insert in order.
Doing this with a linear search for a deck of cards is probably acceptable, unless you're running some monstrous Monte Carlo simulation involving cards, that runs for hours or day, so that optimization counts.
Otherwise the way we would deal with the need to maintain order would be to use an ordered sequence data structure: balanced binary tree (red-black, splay) or a skip list. Take the node out of the structure, adjust value, re-insert: O(log N).
Build a Data structure that has functions:
set(arr,n) - initialize the structure with array arr of length n. Time O(n)
fetch(i) - fetch arr[i]. Time O(log(n))
invert(k,j) - (when 0 <= k <= j <= n) inverts the sub-array [k,j]. meaning [4,7,2,8,5,4] with invert(2,5) becomes [4,7,4,5,8,2]. Time O(log(n))
How about saving the indices in binary search tree and using a flag saying the index is inverted? But if I do more than 1 invert, it mess it up.
Here is how we can approach designing such a data structure.
Indeed, using a balanced binary search tree is a good idea to start.
First, let us store array elements as pairs (index, value).
Naturally, the elements are sorted by index, so that the in-order traversal of a tree will yield the array in its original order.
Now, if we maintain a balanced binary search tree, and store the size of the subtree in each node, we can already do fetch in O(log n).
Next, let us only pretend we store the index.
Instead, we still arrange elements as we did with (index, value) pairs, but store only the value.
The index is now stored implicitly and can be calculated as follows.
Start from the root and go down to the target node.
Whenever we move to a left subtree, the index does not change.
When moving to a right subtree, add the size of the left subtree plus one (the size of the current vertex) to the index.
What we got at this point is a fixed-length array stored in a balanced binary search tree. It takes O(log n) to access (read or write) any element, as opposed to O(1) for a plain fixed-length array, so it is about time to get some benefit for all the trouble.
The next step is to devise a way to split our array into left and right parts in O(log n) given the required size of the left part, and merge two arrays by concatenation.
This step introduces dependency on our choice of the balanced binary search tree.
Treap is the obvious candidate since it is built on top of the split and merge primitives, so this improvement comes for free.
Perhaps it is also possible to split a Red-black tree or a Splay tree in O(log n) (though I admit I didn't try to figure out the details myself).
Right now, the structure is already more powerful than an array: it allows splitting and concatenation of "arrays" in O(log n), although element access is as slow as O(log n) too.
Note that this would not be possible if we still stored index explicitly at this point, since indices would be broken in the right part of a split or merge operation.
Finally, it is time to introduce the invert operation.
Let us store a flag in each node to signal whether the whole subtree of this node has to be inverted.
This flag will be lazily propagating: whenever we access a node, before doing anything, check if the flag is true.
If this is the case, swap the left and right subtrees, toggle (true <-> false) the flag in the root nodes of both subtrees, and set the flag in the current node to false.
Now, when we want to invert a subarray:
split the array into three parts (before the subarray, the subarray itself, and after the subarray) by two split operations,
toggle (true <-> false) the flag in the root of the middle (subarray) part,
then merge the three parts back in their original order by two merge operations.
I can't figure out how to solve question 2 in the following link in an efficient manner:
http://www.iarcs.org.in/inoi/2012/inoi2012/inoi2012-qpaper.pdf
You can do this in On log n) time. (Or linear if you really care to.) First, pad the input array out to the next power of two using some really big negative number. Now, build an interval tree-like data structure; recursively partition your array by dividing it in half. Each node in the tree represents a subarray whose length is a power of two and which begins at a position that is a multiple of its length, and each nonleaf node has a "left half" child and a "right half" child.
Compute, for each node in your tree, what happens when you add 0,1,2,3,... to that subarray and take the maximum element. Notice that this is trivial for the leaves, which represent subarrays of length 1. For internal nodes, this is simply the maximum of the left child with length/2 + right child. So you can build this tree in linear time.
Now we want to run a sequence of n queries on this tree and print out the answers. The queries are of the form "what happens if I add k,k+1,k+2,...n,1,...,k-1 to the array and report the maximum?"
Notice that, when we add that sequence to the whole array, the break between n and 1 either occurs at the beginning/end, or smack in the middle, or somewhere in the left half, or somewhere in the right half. So, partition the array into the k,k+1,k+2,...,n part and the 1,2,...,k-1 part. If you identify all of the nodes in the tree that represent subarrays lying completely inside one of the two sequences but whose parents either don't exist or straddle the break-point, you will have O(log n) nodes. You need to look at their values, add various constants, and take the maximum. So each query takes O(log n) time.
I thought a problem which is as follows:
We have an array A of integers of size n, and we have test cases t and in every test cases we are given a number m and a range [s,e] i.e. we are given s and e and we have to find the closest number of m in the range of that array(A[s]-A[e]).
You may assume array indexed are from 1 to n.
For example:
A = {5, 12, 9, 18, 19}
m = 13
s = 4 and e = 5
So the answer should be 18.
Constraints:
n<=10^5
t<=n
All I can thought is an O(n) solution for every test case, and I think a better solution exists.
This is a rough sketch:
Create a segment tree from the data. At each node, besides the usual data like left and right indices, you also store the numbers found in the sub-tree rooted at that node, stored in sorted order. You can achieve this when you construct the segment tree in bottom-up order. In the node just above the leaf, you store the two leaf values in sorted order. In an intermediate node, you keep the numbers in the left child, and right child, which you can merge together using standard merging. There are O(n) nodes in the tree, and keeping this data should take overall O(nlog(n)).
Once you have this tree, for every query, walk down the path till you reach the appropriate node(s) in the given range ([s, e]). As the tutorial shows, one or more different nodes would combine to form the given range. As the tree depth is O(log(n)), that is the time per query to reach these nodes. Each query should be O(log(n)). For all the nodes which lie completely inside the range, find the closest number using binary search in the sorted array stored in those nodes. Again, O(log(n)). Find the closest among all these, and that is the answer. Thus, you can answer each query in O(log(n)) time.
The tutorial I link to contains other data structures, such as sparse table, which are easier to implement, and should give O(sqrt(n)) per query. But I haven't thought much about this.
sort the array and do binary search . complexity : o(nlogn + logn *t )
I'm fairly sure no faster solution exists. A slight variation of your problem is:
There is no array A, but each test case contains an unsorted array of numbers to search. (The array slice of A from s to e).
In that case, there is clearly no better way than a linear search for each test case.
Now, in what way is your original problem more specific than the variation above? The only added information is that all the slices come from the same array. I don't think that this additional constraint can be used for an algorithmic speedup.
EDIT: I stand corrected. The segment tree data structure should work.
Let A[1..n] be an array of real numbers. Design an algorithm to perform any sequence of the following operations:
Add(i,y) -- Add the value y to the ith number.
Partial-sum(i) -- Return the sum of the first i numbers, i.e.
There are no insertions or deletions; the only change is to the values of the numbers. Each operation should take O(logn) steps. You may use one additional array of size n as a work space.
How to design a data structure for above algorithm?
Construct a balanced binary tree with n leaves; stick the elements along the bottom of the tree in their original order.
Augment each node in the tree with "sum of leaves of subtree"; a tree has #leaves-1 nodes so this takes O(n) setup time (which we have).
Querying a partial-sum goes like this: Descend the tree towards the query (leaf) node, but whenever you descend right, add the subtree-sum on the left plus the element you just visited, since those elements are in the sum.
Modifying a value goes like this: Find the query (left) node. Calculate the difference you added. Travel to the root of the tree; as you travel to the root, update each node you visit by adding in the difference (you may need to visit adjacent nodes, depending if you're storing "sum of leaves of subtree" or "sum of left-subtree plus myself" or some variant); the main idea is that you appropriately update all the augmented branch data that needs updating, and that data will be on the root path or adjacent to it.
The two operations take O(log(n)) time (that's the height of a tree), and you do O(1) work at each node.
You can probably use any search tree (e.g. a self-balancing binary search tree might allow for insertions, others for quicker access) but I haven't thought that one through.
You may use Fenwick Tree
See this question