In Cracking the Coding Interview, Fourth Edition, there is such a problem:
A circus is designing a tower routine consisting of people standing
atop one anoth- er’s shoulders For practical and aesthetic reasons,
each person must be both shorter and lighter than the person below him
or her Given the heights and weights of each person in the circus,
write a method to compute the largest possible number of people in
such a tower.
EXAMPLE: Input (ht, wt): (65, 100) (70, 150) (56, 90)
(75, 190) (60, 95) (68, 110)
Output: The longest tower is length 6 and
includes from top to bottom: (56, 90) (60,95) (65,100) (68,110)
(70,150) (75,190)
Here is its solution in the book
Step 1 Sort all items by height first, and then by weight This means that if all the heights are unique, then the items will be sorted by their height If heights are the same, items will be sorted by their weight
Step 2 Find the longest sequence which contains increasing heights and increasing weights
To do this, we:
a) Start at the beginning of the sequence Currently, max_sequence is empty
b) If, for the next item, the height and the weight is not greater than those of the previous item, we mark this item as “unfit”
c) If the sequence found has more items than “max sequence”, it becomes “max sequence”
d) After that the search is repeated from the “unfit item”, until we reach the end of the original sequence
I have some questions about its solutions.
Q1
I believe this solution is wrong.
For example
(3,2) (5,9) (6,7) (7,8)
Obviously, (6,7) is an unfit item, but how about (7,8)? According to the solution, it is NOT unfit as its h and w are bother bigger than (6,7), however, it cannot be considered into the sequence, because (7,8) does not fit (5,9).
Am I right?
If I am right, what is the fix?
Q2
I believe even if there is a fix for the above solution, the style of the solution will lead to at least O(n^2), because it need to iterate again and again, according to step 2-d.
So is it possible to have a O(nlogn) solution?
You can solve the problem with dynamic programming.
Sort the troupe by height. For simplicity, assume all the heights h_i and weights w_j are distinct. Thus h_i is an increasing sequence.
We compute a sequence T_i, where T_i is a tower with person i at the top of maximal size. T_1 is simply {1}. We can deduce subsequent T_k from the earlier T_j — find the largest tower T_j that can take k's weight (w_j < w_k) and stand k on it.
The largest possible tower from the troupe is then the largest of the T_i.
This algorithm takes O(n**2) time, where n is the cardinality of the troupe.
Tried solving this myself, did not meant to give 'ready made solution', but still giving , more to check my own understanding and if my code(Python) is ok and would work of all test cases. I tried for 3 cases and it seemed to work of correct answer.
#!/usr/bin/python
#This function takes a list of tuples. Tuple(n):(height,weight) of nth person
def htower_len(ht_wt):
ht_sorted = sorted(ht_wt,reverse=True)
wt_sorted = sorted(ht_wt,key=lambda ht_wt:ht_wt[1])
max_len = 1
len1 = len(ht_sorted)
i=0
j=0
while i < (len1-1):
if(ht_sorted[i+1][1] < ht_sorted[0][1]):
max_len = max_len+1
i=i+1
print "maximum tower length :" ,max_len
###Called above function with below sample app code.
testcase =1
print "Result of Test case ",testcase
htower_len([(5,75),(6.7,83),(4,78),(5.2,90)])
testcase = testcase + 1
print "Result of Test case ",testcase
htower_len([(65, 100),(70, 150),(56, 90),(75, 190),(60, 95),(68, 110)])
testcase = testcase + 1
print "Result of Test case ",testcase
htower_len([(3,2),(5,9),(6,7),(7,8)])
For example
(3,2) (5,9) (6,7) (7,8)
Obviously, (6,7) is an unfit item, but how about (7,8)?
In answer to your Question - the algorithm first runs starting with 3,2 and gets the sequence (3,2) (5,9) marking (6,7) and (7,8) as unfit.
It then starts again on (6,7) (the first unfit) and gets (6,7) (7,8), and that makes the answer 2. Since there are no more "unfit" items, the sequence terminates with maximum length 2.
After first sorting the array by height and weight, my code checks what the largest tower would be if we grabbed any of the remaining tuples in the array (and possible subsequent tuples). In order to avoid re-computing sub-problems, solution_a is used to store the optimal max length from the tail of the input_array.
The beginning_index is the index from which we can consider grabbing elements from (the index from which we can consider people who could go below on the human stack), and beginning_tuple refers to the element/person higher up on the stack.
This solution runs in O(nlogn) to do the sort. The space used is O(n) for the solution_a array and the copy of the input_array.
def determine_largest_tower(beginning_index, a, beginning_tuple, solution_a):
# base case
if beginning_index >= len(a):
return 0
if solution_a[beginning_index] != -1: # already computed
return solution_a[beginning_index]
# recursive case
max_len = 0
for i in range(beginning_index, len(a)):
# if we can grab that value, check what the max would be
if a[i][0] >= beginning_tuple[0] and a[i][1] >= beginning_tuple[1]:
max_len = max(1 + determine_largest_tower(i+1, a, a[i], solution_a), max_len)
solution_a[beginning_index] = max_len
return max_len
def algorithm_for_human_towering(input_array):
a = sorted(input_array)
return determine_largest_tower(0, a, (-1,-1), [-1] * len(a))
a = [(3,2),(5,9),(6,7),(7,8)]
print algorithm_for_human_towering(a)
Here is another way to approach the problem altogether with code;
Algorithm
Sorting first by height and then by width
Sorted array:
[(56, 90), (60, 95), (65, 100), (68, 110), (70, 150), (75, 190)]
Finding the length of the longest increasing subsequence of weights
Why the longest subsequence of weights is the answer?
The people are sorted by increasing height,
so when we are finding a subsequence of people with increasing weights too
these selected people would satisfy our requirement as they are both in increasing order of heights and weights and therefore can form a human tower.
For example:
[(56, 90) (60,95) (65,100) (68,110) (70,150) (75,190)]
Efficient Implementation
In the attached implementation we maintain a list of increasing numbers and uses bisect_left, which is implemented under the hood using binary search, to find the proper index for insertion.
Please Note; The sequence generated by longest_increasing_sequence method might not be the actual longest subsequence, however, the length of it - will surely be as the length of the longest increasing subsequence.
Kindly refer to Longest increasing subsequence Efficient algorithms for more details.
The overall time complexity is O(n log(n)) as desired.
Code
from bisect import bisect_left
def human_tower(height, weight):
def longest_increasing_sequence(A, get_property):
lis = []
for i in range(len(A)):
x = get_property(A[i])
i = bisect_left(lis, x)
if i == len(lis):
lis.append(x)
else:
lis[i] = x
return len(lis)
# Edge case, no people
if 0 == len(height):
return 0
# Creating array of heights and widths
people = [(h, w) for h, w in zip(height, weight)]
# Sorting array first by height and then by width
people.sort()
# Returning length longest increasing sequence
return longest_increasing_sequence(people, lambda t : t[1])
assert 6 == human_tower([65,70,56,75,60,68], [100,150,90,190,95,110])
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.
I'm trying to find a name for my problem, so I don't have to re-invent wheel when coding an algorithm which solves it...
I have say 2,000 binary (row) vectors and I need to pick 500 from them. In the picked sample I do column sums and I want my sample to be as close as possible to a pre-defined distribution of the column sums. I'll be working with 20 to 60 columns.
A tiny example:
Out of the vectors:
110
010
011
110
100
I need to pick 2 to get column sums 2, 1, 0. The solution (exact in this case) would be
110
100
My ideas so far
one could maybe call this a binary multidimensional knapsack, but I did not find any algos for that
Linear Programming could help, but I'd need some step by step explanation as I got no experience with it
as exact solution is not always feasible, something like simulated annealing brute force could work well
a hacky way using constraint solvers comes to mind - first set the constraints tight and gradually loosen them until some solution is found - given that CSP should be much faster than ILP...?
My concrete, practical (if the approximation guarantee works out for you) suggestion would be to apply the maximum entropy method (in Chapter 7 of Boyd and Vandenberghe's book Convex Optimization; you can probably find several implementations with your favorite search engine) to find the maximum entropy probability distribution on row indexes such that (1) no row index is more likely than 1/500 (2) the expected value of the row vector chosen is 1/500th of the predefined distribution. Given this distribution, choose each row independently with probability 500 times its distribution likelihood, which will give you 500 rows on average. If you need exactly 500, repeat until you get exactly 500 (shouldn't take too many tries due to concentration bounds).
Firstly I will make some assumptions regarding this problem:
Regardless whether the column sum of the selected solution is over or under the target, it weighs the same.
The sum of the first, second, and third column are equally weighted in the solution (i.e. If there's a solution whereas the first column sum is off by 1, and another where the third column sum is off by 1, the solution are equally good).
The closest problem I can think of this problem is the Subset sum problem, which itself can be thought of a special case of Knapsack problem.
However both of these problem are NP-Complete. This means there are no polynomial time algorithm that can solve them, even though it is easy to verify the solution.
If I were you the two most arguably efficient solution of this problem are linear programming and machine learning.
Depending on how many columns you are optimising in this problem, with linear programming you can control how much finely tuned you want the solution, in exchange of time. You should read up on this, because this is fairly simple and efficient.
With Machine learning, you need a lot of data sets (the set of vectors and the set of solutions). You don't even need to specify what you want, a lot of machine learning algorithms can generally deduce what you want them to optimise based on your data set.
Both solution has pros and cons, you should decide which one to use yourself based on the circumstances and problem set.
This definitely can be modeled as (integer!) linear program (many problems can). Once you have it, you can use a program such as lpsolve to solve it.
We model vector i is selected as x_i which can be 0 or 1.
Then for each column c, we have a constraint:
sum of all (x_i * value of i in column c) = target for column c
Taking your example, in lp_solve this could look like:
min: ;
+x1 +x4 +x5 >= 2;
+x1 +x4 +x5 <= 2;
+x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 <= 1;
+x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 >= 1;
+x3 <= 0;
+x3 >= 0;
bin x1, x2, x3, x4, x5;
If you are fine with a heuristic based search approach, here is one.
Go over the list and find the minimum squared sum of the digit wise difference between each bit string and the goal. For example, if we are looking for 2, 1, 0, and we are scoring 0, 1, 0, we would do it in the following way:
Take the digit wise difference:
2, 0, 1
Square the digit wise difference:
4, 0, 1
Sum:
5
As a side note, squaring the difference when scoring is a common method when doing heuristic search. In your case, it makes sense because bit strings that have a 1 in as the first digit are a lot more interesting to us. In your case this simple algorithm would pick first 110, then 100, which would is the best solution.
In any case, there are some optimizations that could be made to this, I will post them here if this kind of approach is what you are looking for, but this is the core of the algorithm.
You have a given target binary vector. You want to select M vectors out of N that have the closest sum to the target. Let's say you use the eucilidean distance to measure if a selection is better than another.
If you want an exact sum, have a look at the k-sum problem which is a generalization of the 3SUM problem. The problem is harder than the subset sum problem, because you want an exact number of elements to add to a target value. There is a solution in O(N^(M/2)). lg N), but that means more than 2000^250 * 7.6 > 10^826 operations in your case (in the favorable case where vectors operations have a cost of 1).
First conclusion: do not try to get an exact result unless your vectors have some characteristics that may reduce the complexity.
Here's a hill climbing approach:
sort the vectors by number of 1's: 111... first, 000... last;
use the polynomial time approximate algorithm for the subset sum;
you have an approximate solution with K elements. Because of the order of elements (the big ones come first), K should be a little as possible:
if K >= M, you take the M first vectors of the solution and that's probably near the best you can do.
if K < M, you can remove the first vector and try to replace it with 2 or more vectors from the rest of the N vectors, using the same technique, until you have M vectors. To sumarize: split the big vectors into smaller ones until you reach the correct number of vectors.
Here's a proof of concept with numbers, in Python:
import random
def distance(x, y):
return abs(x-y)
def show(ls):
if len(ls) < 10:
return str(ls)
else:
return ", ".join(map(str, ls[:5]+("...",)+ls[-5:]))
def find(is_xs, target):
# see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem#Pseudo-polynomial_time_dynamic_programming_solution
S = [(0, ())] # we store indices along with values to get the path
for i, x in is_xs:
T = [(x + t, js + (i,)) for t, js in S]
U = sorted(S + T)
y, ks = U[0]
S = [(y, ks)]
for z, ls in U:
if z == target: # use the euclidean distance here if you want an approximation
return ls
if z != y and z < target:
y, ks = z, ls
S.append((z, ls))
ls = S[-1][1] # take the closest element to target
return ls
N = 2000
M = 500
target = 1000
xs = [random.randint(0, 10) for _ in range(N)]
print ("Take {} numbers out of {} to make a sum of {}", M, xs, target)
xs = sorted(xs, reverse = True)
is_xs = list(enumerate(xs))
print ("Sorted numbers: {}".format(show(tuple(is_xs))))
ls = find(is_xs, target)
print("FIRST TRY: {} elements ({}) -> {}".format(len(ls), show(ls), sum(x for i, x in is_xs if i in ls)))
splits = 0
while len(ls) < M:
first_x = xs[ls[0]]
js_ys = [(i, x) for i, x in is_xs if i not in ls and x != first_x]
replace = find(js_ys, first_x)
splits += 1
if len(replace) < 2 or len(replace) + len(ls) - 1 > M or sum(xs[i] for i in replace) != first_x:
print("Give up: can't replace {}.\nAdd the lowest elements.")
ls += tuple([i for i, x in is_xs if i not in ls][len(ls)-M:])
break
print ("Replace {} (={}) by {} (={})".format(ls[:1], first_x, replace, sum(xs[i] for i in replace)))
ls = tuple(sorted(ls[1:] + replace)) # use a heap?
print("{} elements ({}) -> {}".format(len(ls), show(ls), sum(x for i, x in is_xs if i in ls)))
print("AFTER {} splits, {} -> {}".format(splits, ls, sum(x for i, x in is_xs if i in ls)))
The result is obviously not guaranteed to be optimal.
Remarks:
Complexity: find has a polynomial time complexity (see the Wikipedia page) and is called at most M^2 times, hence the complexity remains polynomial. In practice, the process is reasonably fast (split calls have a small target).
Vectors: to ensure that you reach the target with the minimum of elements, you can improve the order of element. Your target is (t_1, ..., t_c): if you sort the t_js from max to min, you get the more importants columns first. You can sort the vectors: by number of 1s and then by the presence of a 1 in the most important columns. E.g. target = 4 8 6 => 1 1 1 > 0 1 1 > 1 1 0 > 1 0 1 > 0 1 0 > 0 0 1 > 1 0 0 > 0 0 0.
find (Vectors) if the current sum exceed the target in all the columns, then you're not connecting to the target (any vector you add to the current sum will bring you farther from the target): don't add the sum to S (z >= target case for numbers).
I propose a simple ad hoc algorithm, which, broadly speaking, is a kind of gradient descent algorithm. It seems to work relatively well for input vectors which have a distribution of 1s “similar” to the target sum vector, and probably also for all “nice” input vectors, as defined in a comment of yours. The solution is not exact, but the approximation seems good.
The distance between the sum vector of the output vectors and the target vector is taken to be Euclidean. To minimize it means minimizing the sum of the square differences off sum vector and target vector (the square root is not needed because it is monotonic). The algorithm does not guarantee to yield the sample that minimizes the distance from the target, but anyway makes a serious attempt at doing so, by always moving in some locally optimal direction.
The algorithm can be split into 3 parts.
First of all the first M candidate output vectors out of the N input vectors (e.g., N=2000, M=500) are put in a list, and the remaining vectors are put in another.
Then "approximately optimal" swaps between vectors in the two lists are done, until either the distance would not decrease any more, or a predefined maximum number of iterations is reached. An approximately optimal swap is one where removing the first vector from the list of output vectors causes a maximal decrease or minimal increase of the distance, and then, after the removal of the first vector, adding the second vector to the same list causes a maximal decrease of the distance. The whole swap is avoided if the net result is not a decrease of the distance.
Then, as a last phase, "optimal" swaps are done, again stopping on no decrease in distance or maximum number of iterations reached. Optimal swaps cause a maximal decrease of the distance, without requiring the removal of the first vector to be optimal in itself. To find an optimal swap all vector pairs have to be checked. This phase is much more expensive, being O(M(N-M)), while the previous "approximate" phase is O(M+(N-M))=O(N). Luckily, when entering this phase, most of the work has already been done by the previous phase.
from typing import List, Tuple
def get_sample(vects: List[Tuple[int]], target: Tuple[int], n_out: int,
max_approx_swaps: int = None, max_optimal_swaps: int = None,
verbose: bool = False) -> List[Tuple[int]]:
"""
Get a sample of the input vectors having a sum close to the target vector.
Closeness is measured in Euclidean metrics. The output is not guaranteed to be
optimal (minimum square distance from target), but a serious attempt is made.
The max_* parameters can be used to avoid too long execution times,
tune them to your needs by setting verbose to True, or leave them None (∞).
:param vects: the list of vectors (tuples) with the same number of "columns"
:param target: the target vector, with the same number of "columns"
:param n_out: the requested sample size
:param max_approx_swaps: the max number of approximately optimal vector swaps,
None means unlimited (default: None)
:param max_optimal_swaps: the max number of optimal vector swaps,
None means unlimited (default: None)
:param verbose: print some info if True (default: False)
:return: the sample of n_out vectors having a sum close to the target vector
"""
def square_distance(v1, v2):
return sum((e1 - e2) ** 2 for e1, e2 in zip(v1, v2))
n_vec = len(vects)
assert n_vec > 0
assert n_out > 0
n_rem = n_vec - n_out
assert n_rem > 0
output = vects[:n_out]
remain = vects[n_out:]
n_col = len(vects[0])
assert n_col == len(target) > 0
sumvect = (0,) * n_col
for outvect in output:
sumvect = tuple(map(int.__add__, sumvect, outvect))
sqdist = square_distance(sumvect, target)
if verbose:
print(f"sqdist = {sqdist:4} after"
f" picking the first {n_out} vectors out of {n_vec}")
if max_approx_swaps is None:
max_approx_swaps = sqdist
n_approx_swaps = 0
while sqdist and n_approx_swaps < max_approx_swaps:
# find the best vect to subtract (the square distance MAY increase)
sqdist_0 = None
index_0 = None
sumvect_0 = None
for index in range(n_out):
tmp_sumvect = tuple(map(int.__sub__, sumvect, output[index]))
tmp_sqdist = square_distance(tmp_sumvect, target)
if sqdist_0 is None or sqdist_0 > tmp_sqdist:
sqdist_0 = tmp_sqdist
index_0 = index
sumvect_0 = tmp_sumvect
# find the best vect to add,
# but only if there is a net decrease of the square distance
sqdist_1 = sqdist
index_1 = None
sumvect_1 = None
for index in range(n_rem):
tmp_sumvect = tuple(map(int.__add__, sumvect_0, remain[index]))
tmp_sqdist = square_distance(tmp_sumvect, target)
if sqdist_1 > tmp_sqdist:
sqdist_1 = tmp_sqdist
index_1 = index
sumvect_1 = tmp_sumvect
if sumvect_1:
tmp = output[index_0]
output[index_0] = remain[index_1]
remain[index_1] = tmp
sqdist = sqdist_1
sumvect = sumvect_1
n_approx_swaps += 1
else:
break
if verbose:
print(f"sqdist = {sqdist:4} after {n_approx_swaps}"
f" approximately optimal swap{'s'[n_approx_swaps == 1:]}")
diffvect = tuple(map(int.__sub__, sumvect, target))
if max_optimal_swaps is None:
max_optimal_swaps = sqdist
n_optimal_swaps = 0
while sqdist and n_optimal_swaps < max_optimal_swaps:
# find the best pair to swap,
# but only if the square distance decreases
best_sqdist = sqdist
best_diffvect = diffvect
best_pair = None
for i0 in range(M):
tmp_diffvect = tuple(map(int.__sub__, diffvect, output[i0]))
for i1 in range(n_rem):
new_diffvect = tuple(map(int.__add__, tmp_diffvect, remain[i1]))
new_sqdist = sum(d * d for d in new_diffvect)
if best_sqdist > new_sqdist:
best_sqdist = new_sqdist
best_diffvect = new_diffvect
best_pair = (i0, i1)
if best_pair:
tmp = output[best_pair[0]]
output[best_pair[0]] = remain[best_pair[1]]
remain[best_pair[1]] = tmp
sqdist = best_sqdist
diffvect = best_diffvect
n_optimal_swaps += 1
else:
break
if verbose:
print(f"sqdist = {sqdist:4} after {n_optimal_swaps}"
f" optimal swap{'s'[n_optimal_swaps == 1:]}")
return output
from random import randrange
C = 30 # number of columns
N = 2000 # total number of vectors
M = 500 # number of output vectors
F = 0.9 # fill factor of the target sum vector
T = int(M * F) # maximum value + 1 that can be appear in the target sum vector
A = 10000 # maximum number of approximately optimal swaps, may be None (∞)
B = 10 # maximum number of optimal swaps, may be None (unlimited)
target = tuple(randrange(T) for _ in range(C))
vects = [tuple(int(randrange(M) < t) for t in target) for _ in range(N)]
sample = get_sample(vects, target, M, A, B, True)
Typical output:
sqdist = 2639 after picking the first 500 vectors out of 2000
sqdist = 9 after 27 approximately optimal swaps
sqdist = 1 after 4 optimal swaps
P.S.: As it stands, this algorithm is not limited to binary input vectors, integer vectors would work too. Intuitively I suspect that the quality of the optimization could suffer, though. I suspect that this algorithm is more appropriate for binary vectors.
P.P.S.: Execution times with your kind of data are probably acceptable with standard CPython, but get better (like a couple of seconds, almost a factor of 10) with PyPy. To handle bigger sets of data, the algorithm would have to be translated to C or some other language, which should not be difficult at all.
I have a set of points (x,y).
i need to return two points with minimal distance.
I use this:
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~suri/cs235/ClosestPair.pdf
but , i dont really understand how the algo is working.
Can explain in more simple how the algo working?
or suggest another idea?
Thank!
If the number of points is small, you can use the brute force approach i.e:
for each point find the closest point among other points and save the minimum distance with the current two indices till now.
If the number of points is large, I think you may find the answer in this thread:
Shortest distance between points algorithm
Solution for Closest Pair Problem with minimum time complexity O(nlogn) is divide-and-conquer methodology as it mentioned in the document that you have read.
Divide-and-conquer Approach for Closest-Pair Problem
Easiest way to understand this algorithm is reading an implementation of it in a high-level language (because sometimes understanding the algorithms or pseudo-codes can be harder than understanding the real codes) like Python:
# closest pairs by divide and conquer
# David Eppstein, UC Irvine, 7 Mar 2002
from __future__ import generators
def closestpair(L):
def square(x): return x*x
def sqdist(p,q): return square(p[0]-q[0])+square(p[1]-q[1])
# Work around ridiculous Python inability to change variables in outer scopes
# by storing a list "best", where best[0] = smallest sqdist found so far and
# best[1] = pair of points giving that value of sqdist. Then best itself is never
# changed, but its elements best[0] and best[1] can be.
#
# We use the pair L[0],L[1] as our initial guess at a small distance.
best = [sqdist(L[0],L[1]), (L[0],L[1])]
# check whether pair (p,q) forms a closer pair than one seen already
def testpair(p,q):
d = sqdist(p,q)
if d < best[0]:
best[0] = d
best[1] = p,q
# merge two sorted lists by y-coordinate
def merge(A,B):
i = 0
j = 0
while i < len(A) or j < len(B):
if j >= len(B) or (i < len(A) and A[i][1] <= B[j][1]):
yield A[i]
i += 1
else:
yield B[j]
j += 1
# Find closest pair recursively; returns all points sorted by y coordinate
def recur(L):
if len(L) < 2:
return L
split = len(L)/2
L = list(merge(recur(L[:split]), recur(L[split:])))
# Find possible closest pair across split line
# Note: this is not quite the same as the algorithm described in class, because
# we use the global minimum distance found so far (best[0]), instead of
# the best distance found within the recursive calls made by this call to recur().
for i in range(len(E)):
for j in range(1,8):
if i+j < len(E):
testpair(E[i],E[i+j])
return L
L.sort()
recur(L)
return best[1]
closestpair([(0,0),(7,6),(2,20),(12,5),(16,16),(5,8),\
(19,7),(14,22),(8,19),(7,29),(10,11),(1,13)])
# returns: (7,6),(5,8)
Taken from: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/161/python/closestpair.py
Detailed explanation:
First we define an Euclidean distance aka Square distance function to prevent code repetition.
def square(x): return x*x # Define square function
def sqdist(p,q): return square(p[0]-q[0])+square(p[1]-q[1]) # Define Euclidean distance function
Then we are taking the first two points as our initial best guess:
best = [sqdist(L[0],L[1]), (L[0],L[1])]
This is a function definition for comparing Euclidean distances of next pair with our current best pair:
def testpair(p,q):
d = sqdist(p,q)
if d < best[0]:
best[0] = d
best[1] = p,q
def merge(A,B): is just a rewind function for the algorithm to merge two sorted lists that previously divided to half.
def recur(L): function definition is the actual body of the algorithm. So I will explain this function definition in more detail:
if len(L) < 2:
return L
with this part, algorithm terminates the recursion if there is only one element/point left in the list of points.
Split the list to half: split = len(L)/2
Create a recursion (by calling function's itself) for each half: L = list(merge(recur(L[:split]), recur(L[split:])))
Then lastly this nested loops will test whole pairs in the current half-list with each other:
for i in range(len(E)):
for j in range(1,8):
if i+j < len(E):
testpair(E[i],E[i+j])
As the result of this, if a better pair is found best pair will be updated.
So they solve for the problem in Many dimensions using a divide-and-conquer approach. Binary search or divide-and-conquer is mega fast. Basically, if you can split a dataset into two halves, and keep doing that until you find some info you want, you are doing it as fast as humanly and computerly possible most of the time.
For this question, it means that we divide the data set of points into two sets, S1 and S2.
All the points are numerical, right? So we have to pick some number where to divide the dataset.
So we pick some number m and say it is the median.
So let's take a look at an example:
(14, 2)
(11, 2)
(5, 2)
(15, 2)
(0, 2)
What's the closest pair?
Well, they all have the same Y coordinate, so we can look at Xs only... X shortest distance is 14 to 15, a distance of 1.
How can we figure that out using divide-and-conquer?
We look at the greatest value of X and the smallest value of X and we choose the median as a dividing line to make our two sets.
Our median is 7.5 in this example.
We then make 2 sets
S1: (0, 2) and (5, 2)
S2: (11, 2) and (14, 2) and (15, 2)
Median: 7.5
We must keep track of the median for every split, because that is actually a vital piece of knowledge in this algorithm. They don't show it very clearly on the slides, but knowing the median value (where you split a set to make two sets) is essential to solving this question quickly.
We keep track of a value they call delta in the algorithm. Ugh I don't know why most computer scientists absolutely suck at naming variables, you need to have descriptive names when you code so you don't forget what the f000 you coded 10 years ago, so instead of delta let's call this value our-shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far
Since we have the median value of 7.5 let's go and see what our-shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far is for Set1 and Set2, respectively:
Set1 : shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far 2.5 (5 to m where m is 7.5)
Set 2: shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far 3.5 (looking at 11 to m)
So I think the key take-away from the algorithm is that this shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far is something that you're trying to improve upon every time you divide a set.
Since S1 in our case has 2 elements only, we are done with the left set, and we have 3 in the right set, so we continue dividing:
S2 = { (11,2) (14,2) (15,2) }
What do you do? You make a new median, call it S2-median
S2-median is halfway between 15 and 11... or 13, right? My math may be fuzzy, but I think that's right so far.
So let's look at the shortest-twig-so-far-for-our-right-side-with-median-thirteen ...
15 to 13 is... 2
11 to 13 is .... 2
14 to 13 is ... 1 (!!!)
So our m value or shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far is improved (where we updated our median from before because we're in a new chunk or Set...)
Now that we've found it we know that (14, 2) is one of the points that satisfies the shortest pair equation. You can then check exhaustively against the points in this subset (15, 11, 14) to see which one is the closer one.
Clearly, (15,2) and (14,2) are the winning pair in this case.
Does that make sense? You must keep track of the median when you cut the set, and keep a new median for everytime you cut the set until you have only 2 elements remaining on each side (or in our case 3)
The magic is in the median or shortest-twig-from-the-median-so-far
Thanks for asking this question, I went in not knowing how this algorithm worked but found the right highlighted bullet point on the slide and rolled with it. Do you get it now? I don't know how to explain the median magic other than binary search is f000ing awesome.
Recently I needed to do weighted random selection of elements from a list, both with and without replacement. While there are well known and good algorithms for unweighted selection, and some for weighted selection without replacement (such as modifications of the resevoir algorithm), I couldn't find any good algorithms for weighted selection with replacement. I also wanted to avoid the resevoir method, as I was selecting a significant fraction of the list, which is small enough to hold in memory.
Does anyone have any suggestions on the best approach in this situation? I have my own solutions, but I'm hoping to find something more efficient, simpler, or both.
One of the fastest ways to make many with replacement samples from an unchanging list is the alias method. The core intuition is that we can create a set of equal-sized bins for the weighted list that can be indexed very efficiently through bit operations, to avoid a binary search. It will turn out that, done correctly, we will need to only store two items from the original list per bin, and thus can represent the split with a single percentage.
Let's us take the example of five equally weighted choices, (a:1, b:1, c:1, d:1, e:1)
To create the alias lookup:
Normalize the weights such that they sum to 1.0. (a:0.2 b:0.2 c:0.2 d:0.2 e:0.2) This is the probability of choosing each weight.
Find the smallest power of 2 greater than or equal to the number of variables, and create this number of partitions, |p|. Each partition represents a probability mass of 1/|p|. In this case, we create 8 partitions, each able to contain 0.125.
Take the variable with the least remaining weight, and place as much of it's mass as possible in an empty partition. In this example, we see that a fills the first partition. (p1{a|null,1.0},p2,p3,p4,p5,p6,p7,p8) with (a:0.075, b:0.2 c:0.2 d:0.2 e:0.2)
If the partition is not filled, take the variable with the most weight, and fill the partition with that variable.
Repeat steps 3 and 4, until none of the weight from the original partition need be assigned to the list.
For example, if we run another iteration of 3 and 4, we see
(p1{a|null,1.0},p2{a|b,0.6},p3,p4,p5,p6,p7,p8) with (a:0, b:0.15 c:0.2 d:0.2 e:0.2) left to be assigned
At runtime:
Get a U(0,1) random number, say binary 0.001100000
bitshift it lg2(p), finding the index partition. Thus, we shift it by 3, yielding 001.1, or position 1, and thus partition 2.
If the partition is split, use the decimal portion of the shifted random number to decide the split. In this case, the value is 0.5, and 0.5 < 0.6, so return a.
Here is some code and another explanation, but unfortunately it doesn't use the bitshifting technique, nor have I actually verified it.
A simple approach that hasn't been mentioned here is one proposed in Efraimidis and Spirakis. In python you could select m items from n >= m weighted items with strictly positive weights stored in weights, returning the selected indices, with:
import heapq
import math
import random
def WeightedSelectionWithoutReplacement(weights, m):
elt = [(math.log(random.random()) / weights[i], i) for i in range(len(weights))]
return [x[1] for x in heapq.nlargest(m, elt)]
This is very similar in structure to the first approach proposed by Nick Johnson. Unfortunately, that approach is biased in selecting the elements (see the comments on the method). Efraimidis and Spirakis proved that their approach is equivalent to random sampling without replacement in the linked paper.
Here's what I came up with for weighted selection without replacement:
def WeightedSelectionWithoutReplacement(l, n):
"""Selects without replacement n random elements from a list of (weight, item) tuples."""
l = sorted((random.random() * x[0], x[1]) for x in l)
return l[-n:]
This is O(m log m) on the number of items in the list to be selected from. I'm fairly certain this will weight items correctly, though I haven't verified it in any formal sense.
Here's what I came up with for weighted selection with replacement:
def WeightedSelectionWithReplacement(l, n):
"""Selects with replacement n random elements from a list of (weight, item) tuples."""
cuml = []
total_weight = 0.0
for weight, item in l:
total_weight += weight
cuml.append((total_weight, item))
return [cuml[bisect.bisect(cuml, random.random()*total_weight)] for x in range(n)]
This is O(m + n log m), where m is the number of items in the input list, and n is the number of items to be selected.
I'd recommend you start by looking at section 3.4.2 of Donald Knuth's Seminumerical Algorithms.
If your arrays are large, there are more efficient algorithms in chapter 3 of Principles of Random Variate Generation by John Dagpunar. If your arrays are not terribly large or you're not concerned with squeezing out as much efficiency as possible, the simpler algorithms in Knuth are probably fine.
It is possible to do Weighted Random Selection with replacement in O(1) time, after first creating an additional O(N)-sized data structure in O(N) time. The algorithm is based on the Alias Method developed by Walker and Vose, which is well described here.
The essential idea is that each bin in a histogram would be chosen with probability 1/N by a uniform RNG. So we will walk through it, and for any underpopulated bin which would would receive excess hits, assign the excess to an overpopulated bin. For each bin, we store the percentage of hits which belong to it, and the partner bin for the excess. This version tracks small and large bins in place, removing the need for an additional stack. It uses the index of the partner (stored in bucket[1]) as an indicator that they have already been processed.
Here is a minimal python implementation, based on the C implementation here
def prep(weights):
data_sz = len(weights)
factor = data_sz/float(sum(weights))
data = [[w*factor, i] for i,w in enumerate(weights)]
big=0
while big<data_sz and data[big][0]<=1.0: big+=1
for small,bucket in enumerate(data):
if bucket[1] is not small: continue
excess = 1.0 - bucket[0]
while excess > 0:
if big==data_sz: break
bucket[1] = big
bucket = data[big]
bucket[0] -= excess
excess = 1.0 - bucket[0]
if (excess >= 0):
big+=1
while big<data_sz and data[big][0]<=1: big+=1
return data
def sample(data):
r=random.random()*len(data)
idx = int(r)
return data[idx][1] if r-idx > data[idx][0] else idx
Example usage:
TRIALS=1000
weights = [20,1.5,9.8,10,15,10,15.5,10,8,.2];
samples = [0]*len(weights)
data = prep(weights)
for _ in range(int(sum(weights)*TRIALS)):
samples[sample(data)]+=1
result = [float(s)/TRIALS for s in samples]
err = [a-b for a,b in zip(result,weights)]
print(result)
print([round(e,5) for e in err])
print(sum([e*e for e in err]))
The following is a description of random weighted selection of an element of a
set (or multiset, if repeats are allowed), both with and without replacement in O(n) space
and O(log n) time.
It consists of implementing a binary search tree, sorted by the elements to be
selected, where each node of the tree contains:
the element itself (element)
the un-normalized weight of the element (elementweight), and
the sum of all the un-normalized weights of the left-child node and all of
its children (leftbranchweight).
the sum of all the un-normalized weights of the right-child node and all of
its chilren (rightbranchweight).
Then we randomly select an element from the BST by descending down the tree. A
rough description of the algorithm follows. The algorithm is given a node of
the tree. Then the values of leftbranchweight, rightbranchweight,
and elementweight of node is summed, and the weights are divided by this
sum, resulting in the values leftbranchprobability,
rightbranchprobability, and elementprobability, respectively. Then a
random number between 0 and 1 (randomnumber) is obtained.
if the number is less than elementprobability,
remove the element from the BST as normal, updating leftbranchweight
and rightbranchweight of all the necessary nodes, and return the
element.
else if the number is less than (elementprobability + leftbranchweight)
recurse on leftchild (run the algorithm using leftchild as node)
else
recurse on rightchild
When we finally find, using these weights, which element is to be returned, we either simply return it (with replacement) or we remove it and update relevant weights in the tree (without replacement).
DISCLAIMER: The algorithm is rough, and a treatise on the proper implementation
of a BST is not attempted here; rather, it is hoped that this answer will help
those who really need fast weighted selection without replacement (like I do).
This is an old question for which numpy now offers an easy solution so I thought I would mention it. Current version of numpy is version 1.2 and numpy.random.choice allows the sampling to be done with or without replacement and with given weights.
Suppose you want to sample 3 elements without replacement from the list ['white','blue','black','yellow','green'] with a prob. distribution [0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.1, 0.2]. Using numpy.random module it is as easy as this:
import numpy.random as rnd
sampling_size = 3
domain = ['white','blue','black','yellow','green']
probs = [.1, .2, .4, .1, .2]
sample = rnd.choice(domain, size=sampling_size, replace=False, p=probs)
# in short: rnd.choice(domain, sampling_size, False, probs)
print(sample)
# Possible output: ['white' 'black' 'blue']
Setting the replace flag to True, you have a sampling with replacement.
More info here:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/generated/numpy.random.choice.html#numpy.random.choice
We faced a problem to randomly select K validators of N candidates once per epoch proportionally to their stakes. But this gives us the following problem:
Imagine probabilities of each candidate:
0.1
0.1
0.8
Probabilities of each candidate after 1'000'000 selections 2 of 3 without replacement became:
0.254315
0.256755
0.488930
You should know, those original probabilities are not achievable for 2 of 3 selection without replacement.
But we wish initial probabilities to be a profit distribution probabilities. Else it makes small candidate pools more profitable. So we realized that random selection with replacement would help us – to randomly select >K of N and store also weight of each validator for reward distribution:
std::vector<int> validators;
std::vector<int> weights(n);
int totalWeights = 0;
for (int j = 0; validators.size() < m; j++) {
int value = rand() % likehoodsSum;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
if (value < likehoods[i]) {
if (weights[i] == 0) {
validators.push_back(i);
}
weights[i]++;
totalWeights++;
break;
}
value -= likehoods[i];
}
}
It gives an almost original distribution of rewards on millions of samples:
0.101230
0.099113
0.799657
How can I generate the shortest sequence with contains all possible permutations?
Example:
For length 2 the answer is 121, because this list contains 12 and 21, which are all possible permutations.
For length 3 the answer is 123121321, because this list contains all possible permutations:
123, 231, 312, 121 (invalid), 213, 132, 321.
Each number (within a given permutation) may only occur once.
This greedy algorithm produces fairly short minimal sequences.
UPDATE: Note that for n ≥ 6, this algorithm does not produce the shortest possible string!
Make a collection of all permutations.
Remove the first permutation from the collection.
Let a = the first permutation.
Find the sequence in the collection that has the greatest overlap with the end of a. If there is a tie, choose the sequence is first in lexicographic order. Remove the chosen sequence from the collection and add the non-overlapping part to the end of a. Repeat this step until the collection is empty.
The curious tie-breaking step is necessary for correctness; breaking the tie at random instead seems to result in longer strings.
I verified (by writing a much longer, slower program) that the answer this algorithm gives for length 4, 123412314231243121342132413214321, is indeed the shortest answer. However, for length 6 it produces an answer of length 873, which is longer than the shortest known solution.
The algorithm is O(n!2).
An implementation in Python:
import itertools
def costToAdd(a, b):
for i in range(1, len(b)):
if a.endswith(b[:-i]):
return i
return len(b)
def stringContainingAllPermutationsOf(s):
perms = set(''.join(tpl) for tpl in itertools.permutations(s))
perms.remove(s)
a = s
while perms:
cost, next = min((costToAdd(a, x), x) for x in perms)
perms.remove(next)
a += next[-cost:]
return a
The length of the strings generated by this function are 1, 3, 9, 33, 153, 873, 5913, ... which appears to be this integer sequence.
I have a hunch you can do better than O(n!2).
Create all permutations.
Let each
permutation represent a node in a
graph.
Now, for any two states add an
edge with a value 1 if they share
n-1 digits (for the source from the
end, and for the target from the
end), two if they share n-2 digits
and so on.
Now, you are left to find
the shortest path containing n
vertices.
Here is a fast algorithm that produces a short string containing all permutations. I am pretty sure it produces the shortest possible answer, but I don't have a complete proof in hand.
Explanation. Below is a tree of All Permutations. The picture is incomplete; imagine that the tree goes on forever to the right.
1 --+-- 12 --+-- 123 ...
| |
| +-- 231 ...
| |
| +-- 312 ...
|
+-- 21 --+-- 213 ...
|
+-- 132 ...
|
+-- 321 ...
The nodes at level k of this tree are all the permutations of length
k. Furthermore, the permutations are in a particular order with a lot
of overlap between each permutation and its neighbors above and below.
To be precise, each node's first child is found by simply adding the next
symbol to the end. For example, the first child of 213 would be 2134. The rest
of the children are found by rotating to the first child to left one symbol at
a time. Rotating 2134 would produce 1342, 3421, 4213.
Taking all the nodes at a given level and stringing them together, overlapping
as much as possible, produces the strings 1, 121, 123121321, etc.
The length of the nth string in that sequence is the sum for x=1 to n of x!. (You can prove this by observing how much non-overlap there is between neighboring permutations. Siblings overlap in all but 1 symbol; first-cousins overlap in all but 2 symbols; and so on.)
Sketch of proof. I haven't completely proved that this is the best solution, but here's a sketch of how the proof would proceed. First show that any string containing n distinct permutations has length ≥ 2n - 1. Then show that adding any string containing n+1 distinct permutations has length 2n + 1. That is, adding one more permutation will cost you two digits. Proceed by calculating the minimum length of strings containing nPr and nPr + 1 distinct permutations, up to n!. In short, this sequence is optimal because you can't make it worse somewhere in the hope of making it better someplace else. It's already locally optimal everywhere. All the moves are forced.
Algorithm. Given all this background, the algorithm is very simple. Walk this tree to the desired depth and string together all the nodes at that depth.
Fortunately we do not actually have to build the tree in memory.
def build(node, s):
"""String together all descendants of the given node at the target depth."""
d = len(node) # depth of this node. depth of "213" is 3.
n = len(s) # target depth
if d == n - 1:
return node + s[n - 1] + node # children of 213 join to make "2134213"
else:
c0 = node + s[d] # first child node
children = [c0[i:] + c0[:i] for i in range(d + 1)] # all child nodes
strings = [build(c, s) for c in children] # recurse to the desired depth
for j in range(1, d + 1):
strings[j] = strings[j][d:] # cut off overlap with previous sibling
return ''.join(strings) # join what's left
def stringContainingAllPermutationsOf(s):
return build(s[:1], s)
Performance. The above code is already much faster than my other solution, and it does a lot of cutting and pasting of large strings that you can optimize away. The algorithm can be made to run in time and memory proportional to the size of the output.
For n 3 length chain is 8
12312132
Seems to me we are working with cycled system - it's ring, saying in other words. But we are are working with ring as if it is chain. Chain is realy 123121321 = 9
But the ring is 12312132 = 8
We take last 1 for 321 from the beginning of the sequence 12312132[1].
These are called (minimal length) superpermutations (cf. Wikipedia).
Interest on this has re-sparked when an anonymous user has posted a new lower bound on 4chan. (See Wikipedia and many other web pages for history.)
AFAIK, as of today we just know:
Their length is A180632(n) ≤ A007489(n) = Sum_{k=1..n} k! but this bound is only sharp for n ≤ 5, i.e., we have equality for n ≤ 5 but strictly less for n > 5.
There's a very simple recursive algorithm, given below, producing a superpermutation of length A007489(n), which is always palindromic (but as said above this is not the minimal length for n > 5).
For n ≥ 7 we have the better upper bound n! + (n−1)! + (n−2)! + (n−3)! + n − 3.
For n ≤ 5 all minimal SP's are known; and for all n > 5 we don't know which is the minimal SP.
For n = 1, 2, 3, 4 the minimal SP's are unique (up to changing the symbols), given by (1, 121, 123121321, 123412314231243121342132413214321) of length A007489(1..4) = (1, 3, 9, 33).
For n = 5 there are 8 inequivalent ones of minimal length 153 = A007489(5); the palindromic one produced by the algorithm below is the 3rd in lexicographic order.
For n = 6 Houston produced thousands of the smallest known length 872 = A007489(6) - 1, but AFAIK we still don't know whether this is minimal.
For n = 7 Egan produced one of length 5906 (one less than the better upper bound given above) but again we don't know whether that's minimal.
I've written a very short PARI/GP program (you can paste to run it on the PARI/GP web site) which implements the standard algorithm producing a palindromic superpermutation of length A007489(n):
extend(S,n=vecmax(s))={ my(t); concat([
if(#Set(s)<n, [], /* discard if not a permutation */
s=concat([s, n+1, s]); /* Now merge with preceding segment: */
forstep(i=min(#s, #t)-1, 0, -1,
if(s[1..1+i]==t[#t-i..#t], s=s[2+i..-1]; break));
t=s /* store as previous for next */
)/*endif*/
| s <- [ S[i+1..i+n] | i <- [0..#S-n] ]])
}
SSP=vector(6, n, s=if(n>1, extend(s), [1])); // gives the first 6, the 6th being non-minimal
I think that easily translates to any other language. (For non-PARI speaking persons: "| x <-" means "for x in".)