Find number of leaves under each node of a tree - algorithm

Question

I have a tree which is represented in the following format:
nodes is a list of nodes in the tree in the order of their height from top. Node at height 0 is the first element of nodes. Nodes at height 1 (read from left to right) are the next elements of nodes and so on.
n_children is a list of integers such that n_children[i] = num children of nodes[i]
For example given a tree like {1: {2, 3:{4,5,2}}}, nodes=[1,2,3,4,5,2], n_children = [2,0,3,0,0,0].
Given a Tree, is it possible to generate nodes and n_children and the number of leaves corresponding to each node in nodes by traversing the tree only once?
Is such a representation unique? Or is it possible for two different trees to have the same representation?

Answer 1

For the first question - creating the representation given a tree:
I am assuming by "a given tree" we mean a tree that is given in the form of node-objects, each holding its value and a list of references to its children-node-objects.
I propose this algorithm:
Start at node=root.
if node.children is empty return {values_list:[[node.value]], children_list:[[0]]}
otherwise:
3.1. construct two lists. One will be called values_list and each element there shall be a list of values. The other will be called children_list and each element there shall be a list of integers. Each element in these two lists will represent a level in the sub-tree beginning with node, including node itself (will be added at step 3.3).
So values_list[1] will become the list of values of the children-nodes of node, and values_list[2] will become the list of values of the grandchildren-nodes of node. values_list[1][0] will be the value of the leftmost child-node of node. And values_list[0] will be a list with one element alone, values_list[0][0], which will be the value of node.
3.2. for each child-node of node (for which we have references through node.children):
3.2.1. start over at (2.) with the child-node set to node, and the returned results will be assigned back (when the function returns) to child_values_list and child_children_list accordingly.
3.2.2. for each index i in the lists (they are of same length) if there is a list already in values_list[i] - concatenate child_values_list[i] to values_list[i] and concatenate child_children_list[i] to children_list[i]. Otherwise assign values_list[i]=child_values_list[i] and children_list[i]=child.children.list[i] (that would be a push - adding to the end of the list).
3.3. Make node.value the sole element of a new list and add that list to the beginning of values_list. Make node.children.length the sole element of a new list and add that list to the beginning of children_list.
3.4. return values_list and children_list
when the above returns with values_list and children_list for node=root (from step (1)), all we need to do is concatenate the elements of the lists (because they are lists, each for one specific level of the tree). After concatenating the list-elements, the resulting values_list_concatenated and children_list_concatenated will be the wanted representation.
In the algorithm above we visit a node only by starting step (2) with it set as node and we do that only once for each child of a node we visit. We start at the root-node and each node has only one parent => every node is visited exactly once.
For the number of leaves associated with each node: (if I understand correctly - the number of leaves in the sub-tree a node is its root), we can add another list that will be generated and returned: leaves_list.
In the stop-case (no children to node - step (2)) we will return leaves_list:[[1]]. In step (3.2.2) we will concatenate the list-elements like the other two lists' list-elements. And in step (3.3) we will sum the first list-element leaves_list[0] and will make that sum the sole element in a new list that we will add to the beginning of leaves_list. (something like leaves_list.add_to_eginning([leaves_list[0].sum()]))
For the second question - is this representation unique:
To prove uniqueness we actually want to show that the function (let's call it rep for "representation") preserves distinctiveness over the space of trees. i.e. that it is an injection. As you can see in the wiki linked, for that it suffices to show that there exists a function (let's call it tre for "tree") that given a representation gives a tree back, and that for every tree t it holds that tre(rep(t))=t. In simple words - that we can make a method that takes a representation and builds a tree out of it, and for every tree if we make its representation and passes that representation through that methos we'll get the exact same tree back.
So let's get cracking!
Actually the first job - creating that method (the function tre) is already done by you - by the way you explained what the representation is. But let's make it explicit:
if the lists are empty return the empty tree. Otherwise continue
make the root node with values[0] as its value and n_children[0] as its number of children (without making the children nodes yet).
initiate a list-index i=1 and a level index li=1 and level-elements index lei=root.children.length and a next-level-elements accumulator nle_acc=0
while lei>0:
4.1. for lei times:
4.1.1. make a node with values[i] as value and n_children[i] as the number of children.
4.1.2. add the new node as the leftmost child in level li that has not been filled yet (traverse the tree to the li level from the leftmost in right direction and assign the new node to the first reference that is not assigned yet. We know the previous level is done, so each node in the li-1 level has a children.length property we can check and see if each has filled the number of children they should have)
4.1.3. add nle_acc+=n_children[i]
4.1.4. increment ++i
4.2. assign lei=nle_acc (level-elements can take what the accumulator gathered for it)
4.3. clear nle_acc=0 (next-level-elements accumulator needs to accumulate from the start for the next round)
Now we need to prove that an arbitrary tree that is passed through the first algorithm and then through the second algorithm (this one here) will get out of all of that the same as it was originally.
As I'm not trying to prove the corectness of the algorithms (although I should), let's assume they do what I intended them to do. i.e. the first one writes the representation as you described it, and the second one makes a tree level-by-level, left-to-right, assigning a value and the number of children from the representation and fills the children references according to those numbers when it comes to the next level.
So each node has the right amount of children according to the representation (that's how the children were filled), and that number was written from the tree (when generating the representation). And the same is true for the values and thus it is the same tree as the original.
The proof actually should be much more elaborate and detailed - but I think I'll leave it at that now. If there will be a demand for elaboration maybe I'll make it an actual proof.