Inversion Count for an array indicates – how far (or close) the array is from being sorted. If array is already sorted then inversion count is 0. If array is sorted in reverse order that inversion count is the maximum.
Formally speaking, two elements a[i] and a[j] form an inversion if a[i] > a[j] and i < j Example:
The sequence 2, 4, 1, 3, 5 has three inversions (2, 1), (4, 1), (4, 3).
Now, there are various algorithms to solve this in O(n log n).
There is a special case where the array only has 3 types of elements - 1, 2 and 3. Now, is it possible to count the inversions in O(n) ?
Eg 1,1,3,2,3,1,3
Yes it is. Just take 3 integers a,b,c where a is number of 1's encountered till now, b is number of 2's encountered till now and c is number of 3's encountered till now. Given this follow the algorithm below ( I assume numbers are given in array arr and the size is n, with 1 based indexing, also following is just a pseudocode )
no_of_inv = 0
a = 0
b = 0
c = 0
for i from 1 to n:
if arr[i] == 1:
no_of_inv = no_of_inv + b + c
a++
else if arr[i] == 2:
no_of_inv = no_of_inv + c
b++
else:
c++
(This algorithm is extremely similar to Sasha's. I just wanted to provide an explanation as well.)
Every inversion (i, j) satisfies 0 ≤ i < j < n. Let's define S[j] to be the number of inversions of the form (i, j); that is, S[j] is the number of times A[i] > A[j] for 0 ≤ i < j. Then the total number of inversions is T = S[0] + S[1] + … + S[n - 1].
Let C[x][j] be the number of times A[i] > x for 0 ≤ i < j. Then S[j] = C[A[j]][j] for all j. If we can compute the 3n values C[x][j] in linear time, then we can compute S in linear time.
Here is some Python code:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> A = np.array([1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 3])
>>> C = {x: np.cumsum(A > x) for x in np.unique(A)}
>>> T = sum(C[A[j]][j] for j in range(len(A)))
>>> print T
4
This could be made more efficient—although not in asmpytotic terms—by not storing all C values at once. The algorithm really only needs a single pass through the array. I have chosen to present it this way because it is most concise.
Related
B is a subsequence of A if and only if we can turn A to B by removing zero or more element(s).
A = [1,2,3,4]
B = [1,4] is a subsequence of A.(Just remove 2 and 4).
B = [4,1] is not a subsequence of A.
Count all subsequences of A that satisfy this condition : A[i]%i = 0
Note that i starts from 1 not 0.
Example :
Input :
5
2 2 1 22 14
Output:
13
All of these 13 subsequences satisfy B[i]%i = 0 condition.
{2},{2,2},{2,22},{2,14},{2},{2,22},{2,14},{1},{1,22},{1,14},{22},{22,14},{14}
My attempt :
The only solution that I could came up with has O(n^2) complexity.
Assuming the maximum element in A is C, the following is an algorithm with time complexity O(n * sqrt(C)):
For every element x in A, find all divisors of x.
For every i from 1 to n, find every j such that A[j] is a multiple of i, using the result of step 1.
For every i from 1 to n and j such that A[j] is a multiple of i (using the result of step 2), find the number of B that has i elements and the last element is A[j] (dynamic programming).
def find_factors(x):
"""Returns all factors of x"""
for i in range(1, int(x ** 0.5) + 1):
if x % i == 0:
yield i
if i != x // i:
yield x // i
def solve(a):
"""Returns the answer for a"""
n = len(a)
# b[i] contains every j such that a[j] is a multiple of i+1.
b = [[] for i in range(n)]
for i, x in enumerate(a):
for factor in find_factors(x):
if factor <= n:
b[factor - 1].append(i)
# There are dp[i][j] sub arrays of A of length (i+1) ending at b[i][j]
dp = [[] for i in range(n)]
dp[0] = [1] * n
for i in range(1, n):
k = x = 0
for j in b[i]:
while k < len(b[i - 1]) and b[i - 1][k] < j:
x += dp[i - 1][k]
k += 1
dp[i].append(x)
return sum(sum(dpi) for dpi in dp)
For every divisor d of A[i], where d is greater than 1 and at most i+1, A[i] can be the dth element of the number of subsequences already counted for d-1.
JavaScript code:
function getDivisors(n, max){
let m = 1;
const left = [];
const right = [];
while (m*m <= n && m <= max){
if (n % m == 0){
left.push(m);
const l = n / m;
if (l != m && l <= max)
right.push(l);
}
m += 1;
}
return right.concat(left.reverse());
}
function f(A){
const dp = [1, ...new Array(A.length).fill(0)];
let result = 0;
for (let i=0; i<A.length; i++){
for (d of getDivisors(A[i], i+1)){
result += dp[d-1];
dp[d] += dp[d-1];
}
}
return result;
}
var A = [2, 2, 1, 22, 14];
console.log(JSON.stringify(A));
console.log(f(A));
I believe that for the general case we can't provably find an algorithm with complexity less than O(n^2).
First, an intuitive explanation:
Let's indicate the elements of the array by a1, a2, a3, ..., a_n.
If the element a1 appears in a subarray, it must be element no. 1.
If the element a2 appears in a subarray, it can be element no. 1 or 2.
If the element a3 appears in a subarray, it can be element no. 1, 2 or 3.
...
If the element a_n appears in a subarray, it can be element no. 1, 2, 3, ..., n.
So to take all the possibilities into account, we have to perform the following tests:
Check if a1 is divisible by 1 (trivial, of course)
Check if a2 is divisible by 1 or 2
Check if a3 is divisible by 1, 2 or 3
...
Check if a_n is divisible by 1, 2, 3, ..., n
All in all we have to perform 1+ 2 + 3 + ... + n = n(n - 1) / 2 tests, which gives a complexity of O(n^2).
Note that the above is somewhat inaccurate, because not all the tests are strictly necessary. For example, if a_i is divisible by 2 and 3 then it must be divisible by 6. Nevertheless, I think this gives a good intuition.
Now for a more formal argument:
Define an array like so:
a1 = 1
a2 = 1× 2
a3 = 1× 2 × 3
...
a_n = 1 × 2 × 3 × ... × n
By the definition, every subarray is valid.
Now let (m, p) be such that m <= n and p <= n and change a_mtoa_m / p`. We can now choose one of two paths:
If we restrict p to be prime, then each tuple (m, p) represents a mandatory test, because the corresponding change in the value of a_m changes the number of valid subarrays. But that requires prime factorization of each number between 1 and n. By the known methods, I don't think we can get here a complexity less than O(n^2).
If we omit the above restriction, then we clearly perform n(n - 1) / 2 tests, which gives a complexity of O(n^2).
I am pretty new to Dynamic Programming, but I am trying to get better. I have an exercise from a book, which asks me the following question (slightly abridged):
You want to construct sequence of length N from numbers from the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. However, you cannot place the number i (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) more than A[i] times consecutively, where A is a given array. Given the sequence length N (1 <= N <= 10^5) and the constraint array A (1 <= A[i] <= 50), how many sequences are possible?
For instance if A = {1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2} and N = 2, this would mean you can only have one consecutive 1, two consecutive 2's, one consecutive 3, etc. Here, something like "11" is invalid since it has two consecutive 1's, whereas something like "12" or "22" are both valid. It turns out that the actual answer for this case is 33 (there are 36 total two-digit sequences, but "11", "33", and "55" are all invalid, which gives 33).
Somebody told me that one way to solve this problem is to use dynamic programming with three states. More specifically, they say to keep a 3d array dp(i, j, k) with i representing the current position we are at in the sequence, j representing the element put in position i - 1, and k representing the number of times that this element has been repeated in the block. They also told me that for the transitions, we can put in position i every element different from j, and we can only put j in if A[j] > k.
It all makes sense to me in theory, but I've been struggling with implementing this. I have no clue how to begin with the actual implementation other than initializing the matrix dp. Typically, most of the other exercises had some sort of "base case" that were manually set in the matrix, and then a loop was used to fill in the other entries.
I guess I am particularly confused because this is a 3D array.
For a moment let's just not care about the array. Let's implement this recursively. Let dp(i, j, k) be the number of sequences with length i, last element j, and k consecutive occurrences of j at the end of the array.
The question now becomes how do we write the solution of dp(i, j, k) recursively.
Well we know that we are adding a j the kth time, so we have to take each sequence of length i - 1, and has j occurring k - 1 times, and add another j to that sequence. Notice that this is simply dp(i - 1, j, k - 1).
But what if k == 1? If that's the case we can add one occurence of j to every sequence of length i - 1 that doesn't end with j. Essentially we need the sum of all dp(i, x, k), such that A[x] >= k and x != j.
This gives our recurrence relation:
def dp(i, j, k):
# this is the base case, the number of sequences of length 1
# one if k is valid, otherwise zero
if i == 1: return int(k == 1)
if k > 1:
# get all the valid sequences [0...i-1] and add j to them
return dp(i - 1, j, k - 1)
if k == 1:
# get all valid sequences that don't end with j
res = 0
for last in range(len(A)):
if last == j: continue
for n_consec in range(1, A[last] + 1):
res += dp(i - 1, last, n_consec)
return res
We know that our answer will be all valid subsequences of length N, so our final answer is sum(dp(N, j, k) for j in range(len(A)) for k in range(1, A[j] + 1))
Believe it or not this is the basis of dynamic programming. We just broke our main problem down into a set of subproblems. Of course, right now our time is exponential because of the recursion. We have two ways to lower this:
Caching, we can simply keep track of the result of each (i, j, k) and then spit out what we originally computed when it's called again.
Use an array. We can reimplement this idea with bottom-up dp, and have an array dp[i][j][k]. All of our function calls just become array accesses in a for loop. Note that using this method forces us iterate over the array in topological order which may be tricky.
There are 2 kinds of dp approaches: top-down and bottom-up
In bottom up, you fill the terminal cases in dp table and then use for loops to build up from that. Lets consider bottom-up algo to generate Fibonacci sequence. We set dp[0] = 1 and dp[1] = 1 and run a for loop from i = 2 to n.
In top down approach, we start from the "top" view of the problem and go down from there. Consider the recursive function to get n-th Fibonacci number:
def fib(n):
if n <= 1:
return 1
if dp[n] != -1:
return dp[n]
dp[n] = fib(n - 1) + fib(n - 2)
return dp[n]
Here we don't fill the complete table, but only the cases we encounter.
Why I am talking about these 2 types is because when you start learning dp, it is often difficult to come up with bottom-up approaches (like you are trying to). When this happens, first you want to come up with a top-down approach, and then try to get a bottom up solution from that.
So let's create a recursive dp function first:
# let m be size of A
# initialize dp table with all values -1
def solve(i, j, k, n, m):
# first write terminal cases
if k > A[j]:
# this means sequence is invalid. so return 0
return 0
if i >= n:
# this means a valid sequence.
return 1
if dp[i][j][k] != -1:
return dp[i][j][k]
result = 0
for num = 1 to m:
if num == j:
result += solve(i + 1, num, k + 1, n)
else:
result += solve(i + 1, num, 1, n)
dp[i][j][k] = result
return dp[i][j][k]
So we know what terminal cases are. We create a dp table of size dp[n + 1][m][50]. Initialize it with all values 0, not -1.
So we can do bottom-up as:
# initially all values in table are zero. With loop below, we set the valid endings as 1.
# So any state trying to reach valid terminal states will get 1, but invalid states will
# return the values 0
for num = 1 to m:
for occour = 1 to A[num]:
dp[n][num][occour] = 1
# now to build up from bottom, we start by filling n-1 th position
for i = n-1 to 1:
for num = 1 to m:
for occour = 1 to A[num]:
for next_num = 1 to m:
if next_num != num:
dp[i][num][occour] += dp[i + 1][next_num][1]
else:
dp[i][num][occour] += dp[i + 1][num][occour + 1]
The answer will be:
sum = 0
for num = 1 to m:
sum += dp[1][num][1]
I am sure there must be some more elegant dp solution, but I believe this answers your question. Note that I considered that k is the number of times j-th number has been repeated consecutively, correct me if I am wrong with this.
Edit:
With the given constraints the size of the table will be, in the worst case, 10^5 * 6 * 50 = 3e7. This would be > 100MB. It is workable, but can be considered too much space use (I think some kernels doesn't allow that much stack space to a process). One way to reduce it would be to use a hash-map instead of an array with top down approach since top-down doesn't visit all the states. That would be mostly true in this case, for example if A[1] is 2, then all the other states where 1 has occoured more that twice need not be stored. Ofcourse this would not save much space if A[i] has large values, say [50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50]. Another approach would be to modify our approach a bit. We dont actually need to store the dimension k, i.e. the times j has appeared consecutively:
dp[i][j] = no of ways from i-th position if (i - 1)th position didn't have j and i-th position is j.
Then, we would need to modify our algo to be like:
def solve(i, j):
if i == n:
return 1
if i > n:
return 0
if dp[i][j] != -1
return dp[i][j]
result = 0
# we will first try 1 consecutive j, then 2 consecutive j's then 3 and so on
for count = 1 to A[j]:
for num = 1 to m:
if num != j:
result += solve(i + count, num)
dp[i][j] = result
return dp[i][j]
This approach will reduce our space complexity to O(10^6) ~= 2mb, while time complexity is still the same : O(N * 6 * 50)
Given two arrays A and B, each containing n non-negative numbers, remove a>0 elements from the end of A and b>0 elements from the end of B. Evaluate the cost of such an operation as X*Y where X is the sum of the a elements removed from A and Y the sum of the b elements removed from B. Keep doing this until both arrays are empty. The goal is to minimize the total cost.
Using dynamic programming and the fact that an optimal strategy will always take exactly one element from either A or B I can find an O(n^3) solution. Now I'm curious to know if there is an even faster solution to this problem?
EDIT: Stealing an example from #recursive in the comments:
A = [1,9,1] and B = [1, 9, 1]. Possible to do with a cost of 20. (1) *
(1 + 9) + (9 + 1) * (1)
Here's O(n^2). Let CostA(i, j) be the min cost of eliminating A[1..i], B[1..j] in such a way that the first removal takes only one element from B. Let CostB(i, j) be the min cost of eliminating A[1..i], B[1..j] in such a way that the first removal takes only one element from A. We have mutually recursive recurrences
CostA(i, j) = A[i] * B[j] + min(CostA(i - 1, j),
CostA(i - 1, j - 1),
CostB(i - 1, j - 1))
CostB(i, j) = A[i] * B[j] + min(CostB(i, j - 1),
CostA(i - 1, j - 1),
CostB(i - 1, j - 1))
with base cases
CostA(0, 0) = 0
CostA(>0, 0) = infinity
CostA(0, >0) = infinity
CostB(0, 0) = 0
CostB(>0, 0) = infinity
CostB(0, >0) = infinity.
The answer is min(CostA(n, n), CostB(n, n)).
Given an array A with N elements, I want to find the sum of minimum elements in all the possible contiguous sub-sequences of A. I know if N is small we can look for all possible sub sequences but as N is upto 10^5 what can be best way to find this sum?
Example: Let N=3 and A[1,2,3] then ans is 10 as Possible contiguous sub sequences {(1),(2),(3),(1,2),(1,2,3),(2,3)} so Sum of minimum elements = 1 + 2 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 10
Let's fix one element(a[i]). We want to know the position of the rightmost element smaller than this one located to the left from i(L). We also need to know the position of the leftmost element smaller than this one located to the right from i(R).
If we know L and R, we should add (i - L) * (R - i) * a[i] to the answer.
It is possible to precompute L and R for all i in linear time using a stack. Pseudo code:
s = new Stack
L = new int[n]
fill(L, -1)
for i <- 0 ... n - 1:
while !s.isEmpty() && s.top().first > a[i]:
s.pop()
if !s.isEmpty():
L[i] = s.top().second
s.push(pair(a[i], i))
We can reverse the array and run the same algorithm to find R.
How to deal with equal elements? Let's assume that a[i] is a pair <a[i], i>. All elements are distinct now.
The time complexity is O(n).
Here is a full pseudo code(I assume that int can hold any integer value here, you should
choose a feasible type to avoid an overflow in a real code. I also assume that all elements are distinct):
int[] getLeftSmallerElementPositions(int[] a):
s = new Stack
L = new int[n]
fill(L, -1)
for i <- 0 ... n - 1:
while !s.isEmpty() && s.top().first > a[i]:
s.pop()
if !s.isEmpty():
L[i] = s.top().second
s.push(pair(a[i], i))
return L
int[] getRightSmallerElementPositions(int[] a):
R = getLeftSmallerElementPositions(reversed(a))
for i <- 0 ... n - 1:
R[i] = n - 1 - R[i]
return reversed(R)
int findSum(int[] a):
L = getLeftSmallerElementPositions(a)
R = getRightSmallerElementPositions(a)
int res = 0
for i <- 0 ... n - 1:
res += (i - L[i]) * (R[i] - i) * a[i]
return res
If the list is sorted, you can consider all subsets for size 1, then 2, then 3, to N. The algorithm is initially somewhat inefficient, but an optimized version is below. Here's some pseudocode.
let A = {1, 2, 3}
let total_sum = 0
for set_size <- 1 to N
total_sum += sum(A[1:N-(set_size-1)])
First, sets with one element:{{1}, {2}, {3}}: sum each of the elements.
Then, sets of two element {{1, 2}, {2, 3}}: sum each element but the last.
Then, sets of three elements {{1, 2, 3}}: sum each element but the last two.
But this algorithm is inefficient. To optimize to O(n), multiply each ith element by N-i and sum (indexing from zero here). The intuition is that the first element is the minimum of N sets, the second element is the minimum of N-1 sets, etc.
I know it's not a python question, but sometimes code helps:
A = [1, 2, 3]
# This is [3, 2, 1]
scale = range(len(A), 0, -1)
# Take the element-wise product of the vectors, and sum
sum(a*b for (a,b) in zip(A, scale))
# Or just use the dot product
np.dot(A, scale)
Given an array a and integer k. Someone uses following algorithm to get first k smallest elements:
cnt = 0
for i in [1, k]:
for j in [i + 1, n]:
if a[i] > a[j]:
swap(a[i], a[j])
cnt = cnt + 1
The problem is: How to calculate value of cnt (when we get final k-sorted array), i.e. the number of swaps, in O(n log n) or better ?
Or simply put: calculate the number of swaps needed to get first k-smallest number sorted using the above algorithm, in less than O(n log n).
I am thinking about a binary search tree, but I get confused (How array will change when increase i ? How to calculate number of swap for a fixed i ?...).
This is a very good question: it involves Inverse Pairs, Stack and some proof techniques.
Note 1: All index used below are 1-based, instead of traditional 0-based.
Note 2: If you want to see the algorithm directly, please start reading from the bottom.
First we define Inverse Pairs as:
For a[i] and a[j], in which i < j holds, if we have a[i] > a[j], then a[i] and a[j] are called an Inverse Pair.
For example, In the following array:
3 2 1 5 4
a[1] and a[2] is a pair of Inverse Pair, a[2] and a[3] is another pair.
Before we start the analysis, let's define a common language: in the reset of the post, "inverse pair starting from i" means the total number of inverse pairs involving a[i].
For example, for a = {3, 1, 2}, inverse pair starting from 1 is 2, and inverse pair starting from 2 is 0.
Now let's look at some facts:
If we have i < j < k, and a[i] > a[k], a[j] > a[k], swap a[i] and a[j] (if they are an inverse pair) won't affect the total number of inverse pair starting from j;
Total inverse pairs starting from i may change after a swap (e.g. suppose we have a = {5, 3, 4}, before a[1] is swapped with a[2], total number of inverse pair starting from 1 is 2, but after swap, array becomes a = {3, 5, 4}, and the number of inverse pair starting from 1 becomes 1);
Given an array A and 2 numbers, a and b, as the head element of A, if we can form more inverse pair with a than b, we have a > b;
Let's denote the total number of inverse pair starting from i as ip[i], then we have: if k is the min number satisfies ip[i] > ip[i + k], then a[i] > a[i + k] while a[i] < a[i + 1 .. i + k - 1] must be true. In words, if ip[i + k] is the first number smaller than ip[i], a[i + k] is also the first number smaller than a[i];
Proof of point 1:
By definition of inverse pair, for all a[k], k > j that forms inverse pair with a[j], a[k] < a[j] must hold. Since a[i] and a[j] are a pair of inverse and provided that i < j, we have a[i] > a[j]. Therefore, we have a[i] > a[j] > a[k], which indicates the inverse-pair-relationships are not broken.
Proof of point 3:
Leave as empty since quite obvious.
Proof of point 4:
First, it's easy to see that when i < j, a[i] > a[j], we have ip[i] >= ip[j] + 1 > ip[j]. Then, it's inverse-contradict statement is also true, i.e. when i < j, ip[i] <= ip[j], we have a[i] <= a[j].
Now back to the point. Since k is the min number to satisfy ip[i] > ip[i + k], then we have ip[i] <= ip[i + 1 .. i + k - 1], which indicates a[i] <= a[i + 1.. i + k - 1] by the lemma we just proved, which also indicates there's no inverse pairs in the region [i + 1, i + k - 1]. Therefore, ip[i] is the same as the number of inverse pairs starting from i + k, but involving a[i]. Given ip[i + k] < ip[i], we know a[i + k] has less inverse pair than a[i] in the region of [i + k + 1, n], which indicates a[i + k] < a[i] (by Point 3).
You can write down some sequences and try out the 4 facts mentioned above and convince yourself or disprove them :P
Now it's about the algorithm.
A naive implementation will take O(nk) to compute the result, and the worst case will be O(n^2) when k = n.
But how about we make use of the facts above:
First we compute ip[i] using Fenwick Tree (see Note 1 below), which takes O(n log n) to construct and O(n log n) to get all ip[i] calculated.
Next, we need to make use of facts. Since swap of 2 numbers only affect current position's inverse pair number but not values after (point 1 and 2), we don't need to worry about the value change. Also, since the nearest smaller number to the right shares the same index in ip and a, we only need to find the first ip[j] that is smaller than ip[i] in [i + 1, n]. If we denote the number of swaps to get first i element sorted as f[i], we have f[i] = f[j] + 1.
But how to find this "first smaller number" fast? Use stack! Here is a post which asks a highly similar problem: Given an array A,compute B s.t B[i] stores the nearest element to the left of A[i] which is smaller than A[i]
In short, we are able to do this in O(n).
But wait, the post says "to the left" but in our case it's "to the right". The solution is simple: we do backward in our case, then everything the same :D
Therefore, in summary, the total time complexity of the algorithm is O(n log n) + O(n) = O(n log n).
Finally, let's talk with an example (a simplified example of #make_lover's example in the comment):
a = {2, 5, 3, 4, 1, 6}, k = 2
First, let's get the inverse pairs:
ip = {1, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0}
To calculate f[i], we do backward (since we need to use the stack technique):
f[6] = 0, since it's the last one
f[5] = 0, since we could not find any number that is smaller than 0
f[4] = f[5] + 1 = 1, since ip[5] is the first smaller number to the right
f[3] = f[5] + 1 = 1, since ip[5] is the first smaller number to the right
f[2] = f[3] + 1 = 2, since ip[3] is the first smaller number to the right
f[1] = f[5] + 1 = 1, since ip[5] is the first smaller number to the right
Therefore, ans = f[1] + f[2] = 3
Note 1: Using Fenwick Tree (Binary Index Tree) to get inverse pair can be done in O(N log N), here is a post on this topic, please have a look :)
Update
Aug/20/2014: There was a critical error in my previous post (thanks to #make_lover), here is the latest update.