This question already has answers here:
How to check whether two lists are circularly identical in Python
(18 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm looking for an efficient way to compare lists of numbers to see if they match at any rotation (comparing 2 circular lists).
When the lists don't have duplicates, picking smallest/largest value and rotating both lists before comparisons works.
But when there may be many duplicate large values, this isn't so simple.
For example, lists [9, 2, 0, 0, 9] and [0, 0, 9, 9, 2] are matches,where [9, 0, 2, 0, 9] won't (since the order is different).
Heres an example of an in-efficient function which works.
def min_list_rotation(ls):
return min((ls[i:] + ls[:i] for i in range(len(ls))))
# example use
ls_a = [9, 2, 0, 0, 9]
ls_b = [0, 0, 9, 9, 2]
print(min_list_rotation(ls_a) == min_list_rotation(ls_b))
This can be improved on for efficiency...
check sorted lists match before running exhaustive tests.
only test rotations that start with the minimum value(skipping matching values after that)effectively finding the minimum value with the furthest & smallest number after it (continually - in the case there are multiple matching next-biggest values).
compare rotations without creating the new lists each time..
However its still not a very efficient method since it relies on checking many possibilities.
Is there a more efficient way to perform this comparison?
Related question:
Compare rotated lists in python
If you are looking for duplicates in a large number of lists, you could rotate each list to its lexicographically minimal string representation, then sort the list of lists or use a hash table to find duplicates. This canonicalisation step means that you don't need to compare every list with every other list. There are clever O(n) algorithms for finding the minimal rotation described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographically_minimal_string_rotation.
You almost have it.
You can do some kind of "normalization" or "canonicalisation" of a list independently of the others, then you only need to compare item by item (or if you want, put them in a map, in a set to eliminate duplicates, ..."
1 take the minimum item, which is not preceded by itself (in a circular way)
In you example 92009, you should take the first 0 (not the second one)
2 If you have always the same item (say 00000), you just keep that: 00000
3 If you have the same item several times, take the next item, which is minimal, and keep going until you find one unique path with minimums.
Example: 90148301562 => you have 0148.. and 0156.. => you take 0148
4 If you can not separate the different paths (= if you have equality at infinite), you have a repeating pattern: then, no matters: you take any of them.
Example: 014376501437650143765 : you have the same pattern 0143765...
It is like AAA, where A = 0143765
5 When you have your list in this form, it is easy to compare two of them.
How to do that efficiently:
Iterate on your list to get the minimums Mx (not preceded by itself). If you find several, keep all of them.
Then, iterate from each minimum Mx, take the next item, and keep the minimums. If you do an entire cycle, you have a repeating pattern.
Except the case of repeating pattern, this must be the minimal way.
Hope it helps.
I would do this in expected O(N) time using a polynomial hash function to compute the hash of list A, and every cyclic shift of list B. Where a shift of list B has the same hash as list A, I'd compare the actual elements to see if they are equal.
The reason this is fast is that with polynomial hash functions (which are extremely common!), you can calculate the hash of each cyclic shift from the previous one in constant time, so you can calculate hashes for all of the cyclic shifts in O(N) time.
It works like this:
Let's say B has N elements, then the the hash of B using prime P is:
Hb=0;
for (i=0; i<N ; i++)
{
Hb = Hb*P + B[i];
}
This is an optimized way to evaluate a polynomial in P, and is equivalent to:
Hb=0;
for (i=0; i<N ; i++)
{
Hb += B[i] * P^(N-1-i); //^ is exponentiation, not XOR
}
Notice how every B[i] is multiplied by P^(N-1-i). If we shift B to the left by 1, then every every B[i] will be multiplied by an extra P, except the first one. Since multiplication distributes over addition, we can multiply all the components at once just by multiplying the whole hash, and then fix up the factor for the first element.
The hash of the left shift of B is just
Hb1 = Hb*P + B[0]*(1-(P^N))
The second left shift:
Hb2 = Hb1*P + B[1]*(1-(P^N))
and so on...
Related
This question already has answers here:
Stable separation for two classes of elements in an array
(3 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Suppose I have a function f and array of elements.
The function returns A or B for any element; you could visualize the elements this way ABBAABABAA.
I need to sort the elements according to the function, so the result is: AAAAAABBBB
The number of A values doesn't have to equal the number of B values. The total number of elements can be arbitrary (not fixed). Note that you don't sort chars, you sort objects that have a single char representation.
Few more things:
the sort should take linear time - O(n),
it should be performed in place,
it should be a stable sort.
Any ideas?
Note: if the above is not possible, do you have ideas for algorithms sacrificing one of the above requirements?
If it has to be linear and in-place, you could do a semi-stable version. By semi-stable I mean that A or B could be stable, but not both. Similar to Dukeling's answer, but you move both iterators from the same side:
a = first A
b = first B
loop while next A exists
if b < a
swap a,b elements
b = next B
a = next A
else
a = next A
With the sample string ABBAABABAA, you get:
ABBAABABAA
AABBABABAA
AAABBBABAA
AAAABBBBAA
AAAAABBBBA
AAAAAABBBB
on each turn, if you make a swap you move both, if not you just move a. This will keep A stable, but B will lose its ordering. To keep B stable instead, start from the end and work your way left.
It may be possible to do it with full stability, but I don't see how.
A stable sort might not be possible with the other given constraints, so here's an unstable sort that's similar to the partition step of quick-sort.
Have 2 iterators, one starting on the left, one starting on the right.
While there's a B at the right iterator, decrement the iterator.
While there's an A at the left iterator, increment the iterator.
If the iterators haven't crossed each other, swap their elements and repeat from 2.
Lets say,
Object_Array[1...N]
Type_A objs are A1,A2,...Ai
Type_B objs are B1,B2,...Bj
i+j = N
FOR i=1 :N
if Object_Array[i] is of Type_A
obj_A_count=obj_A_count+1
else
obj_B_count=obj_B_count+1
LOOP
Fill the resultant array with obj_A and obj_B with their respective counts depending on obj_A > obj_B
The following should work in linear time for a doubly-linked list. Because up to N insertion/deletions are involved that may cause quadratic time for arrays though.
Find the location where the first B should be after "sorting". This can be done in linear time by counting As.
Start with 3 iterators: iterA starts from the beginning of the container, and iterB starts from the above location where As and Bs should meet, and iterMiddle starts one element prior to iterB.
With iterA skip over As, find the 1st B, and move the object from iterA to iterB->previous position. Now iterA points to the next element after where the moved element used to be, and the moved element is now just before iterB.
Continue with step 3 until you reach iterMiddle. After that all elements between first() and iterB-1 are As.
Now set iterA to iterB-1.
Skip over Bs with iterB. When A is found move it to just after iterA and increment iterA.
Continue step 6 until iterB reaches end().
This would work as a stable sort for any container. The algorithm includes O(N) insertion/deletion, which is linear time for containers with O(1) insertions/deletions, but, alas, O(N^2) for arrays. Applicability in you case depends on whether the container is an array rather than a list.
If your data structure is a linked list instead of an array, you should be able to meet all three of your constraints. You just skim through the list and accumulating and moving the "B"s will be trivial pointer changes. Pseudo code below:
sort(list) {
node = list.head, blast = null, bhead = null
while(node != null) {
nextnode = node.next
if(node.val == "a") {
if(blast != null){
//move the 'a' to the front of the 'B' list
bhead.prev.next = node, node.prev = bhead.prev
blast.next = node.next, node.next.prev = blast
node.next = bhead, bhead.prev = node
}
}
else if(node.val == "b") {
if(blast == null)
bhead = blast = node
else //accumulate the "b"s..
blast = node
}
3
node = nextnode
}
}
So, you can do this in an array, but the memcopies, that emulate the list swap, will make it quiet slow for large arrays.
Firstly, assuming the array of A's and B's is either generated or read-in, I wonder why not avoid this question entirely by simply applying f as the list is being accumulated into memory into two lists that would subsequently be merged.
Otherwise, we can posit an alternative solution in O(n) time and O(1) space that may be sufficient depending on Sir Bohumil's ultimate needs:
Traverse the list and sort each segment of 1,000,000 elements in-place using the permutation cycles of the segment (once this step is done, the list could technically be sorted in-place by recursively swapping the inner-blocks, e.g., ABB AAB -> AAABBB, but that may be too time-consuming without extra space). Traverse the list again and use the same constant space to store, in two interval trees, the pointers to each block of A's and B's. For example, segments of 4,
ABBAABABAA => AABB AABB AA + pointers to blocks of A's and B's
Sequential access to A's or B's would be immediately available, and random access would come from using the interval tree to locate a specific A or B. One option could be to have the intervals number the A's and B's; e.g., to find the 4th A, look for the interval containing 4.
For sorting, an array of 1,000,000 four-byte elements (3.8MB) would suffice to store the indexes, using one bit in each element for recording visited indexes during the swaps; and two temporary variables the size of the largest A or B. For a list of one billion elements, the maximum combined interval trees would number 4000 intervals. Using 128 bits per interval, we can easily store numbered intervals for the A's and B's, and we can use the unused bits as pointers to the block index (10 bits) and offset in the case of B (20 bits). 4000*16 bytes = 62.5KB. We can store an additional array with only the B blocks' offsets in 4KB. Total space under 5MB for a list of one billion elements. (Space is in fact dependent on n but because it is extremely small in relation to n, for all practical purposes, we may consider it O(1).)
Time for sorting the million-element segments would be - one pass to count and index (here we can also accumulate the intervals and B offsets) and one pass to sort. Constructing the interval tree is O(nlogn) but n here is only 4000 (0.00005 of the one-billion list count). Total time O(2n) = O(n)
This should be possible with a bit of dynamic programming.
It works a bit like counting sort, but with a key difference. Make arrays of size n for both a and b count_a[n] and count_b[n]. Fill these arrays with how many As or Bs there has been before index i.
After just one loop, we can use these arrays to look up the correct index for any element in O(1). Like this:
int final_index(char id, int pos){
if(id == 'A')
return count_a[pos];
else
return count_a[n-1] + count_b[pos];
}
Finally, to meet the total O(n) requirement, the swapping needs to be done in a smart order. One simple option is to have recursive swapping procedure that doesn't actually perform any swapping until both elements would be placed in correct final positions. EDIT: This is actually not true. Even naive swapping will have O(n) swaps. But doing this recursive strategy will give you absolute minimum required swaps.
Note that in general case this would be very bad sorting algorithm since it has memory requirement of O(n * element value range).
Source : Google Interview Question
Write a routine to ensure that identical elements in the input are maximally spread in the output?
Basically, we need to place the same elements,in such a way , that the TOTAL spreading is as maximal as possible.
Example:
Input: {1,1,2,3,2,3}
Possible Output: {1,2,3,1,2,3}
Total dispersion = Difference between position of 1's + 2's + 3's = 4-1 + 5-2 + 6-3 = 9 .
I am NOT AT ALL sure, if there's an optimal polynomial time algorithm available for this.Also,no other detail is provided for the question other than this .
What i thought is,calculate the frequency of each element in the input,then arrange them in the output,each distinct element at a time,until all the frequencies are exhausted.
I am not sure of my approach .
Any approaches/ideas people .
I believe this simple algorithm would work:
count the number of occurrences of each distinct element.
make a new list
add one instance of all elements that occur more than once to the list (order within each group does not matter)
add one instance of all unique elements to the list
add one instance of all elements that occur more than once to the list
add one instance of all elements that occur more than twice to the list
add one instance of all elements that occur more than trice to the list
...
Now, this will intuitively not give a good spread:
for {1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4} ==> {1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 1, 1}
for {1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4} ==> {1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2}
However, i think this is the best spread you can get given the scoring function provided.
Since the dispersion score counts the sum of the distances instead of the squared sum of the distances, you can have several duplicates close together, as long as you have a large gap somewhere else to compensate.
for a sum-of-squared-distances score, the problem becomes harder.
Perhaps the interview question hinged on the candidate recognizing this weakness in the scoring function?
In perl
#a=(9,9,9,2,2,2,1,1,1);
then make a hash table of the counts of different numbers in the list, like a frequency table
map { $x{$_}++ } #a;
then repeatedly walk through all the keys found, with the keys in a known order and add the appropriate number of individual numbers to an output list until all the keys are exhausted
#r=();
$g=1;
while( $g == 1 ) {
$g=0;
for my $n (sort keys %x)
{
if ($x{$n}>1) {
push #r, $n;
$x{$n}--;
$g=1
}
}
}
I'm sure that this could be adapted to any programming language that supports hash tables
python code for algorithm suggested by Vorsprung and HugoRune:
from collections import Counter, defaultdict
def max_spread(data):
cnt = Counter()
for i in data: cnt[i] += 1
res, num = [], list(cnt)
while len(cnt) > 0:
for i in num:
if num[i] > 0:
res.append(i)
cnt[i] -= 1
if cnt[i] == 0: del cnt[i]
return res
def calc_spread(data):
d = defaultdict()
for i, v in enumerate(data):
d.setdefault(v, []).append(i)
return sum([max(x) - min(x) for _, x in d.items()])
HugoRune's answer takes some advantage of the unusual scoring function but we can actually do even better: suppose there are d distinct non-unique values, then the only thing that is required for a solution to be optimal is that the first d values in the output must consist of these in any order, and likewise the last d values in the output must consist of these values in any (i.e. possibly a different) order. (This implies that all unique numbers appear between the first and last instance of every non-unique number.)
The relative order of the first copies of non-unique numbers doesn't matter, and likewise nor does the relative order of their last copies. Suppose the values 1 and 2 both appear multiple times in the input, and that we have built a candidate solution obeying the condition I gave in the first paragraph that has the first copy of 1 at position i and the first copy of 2 at position j > i. Now suppose we swap these two elements. Element 1 has been pushed j - i positions to the right, so its score contribution will drop by j - i. But element 2 has been pushed j - i positions to the left, so its score contribution will increase by j - i. These cancel out, leaving the total score unchanged.
Now, any permutation of elements can be achieved by swapping elements in the following way: swap the element in position 1 with the element that should be at position 1, then do the same for position 2, and so on. After the ith step, the first i elements of the permutation are correct. We know that every swap leaves the scoring function unchanged, and a permutation is just a sequence of swaps, so every permutation also leaves the scoring function unchanged! This is true at for the d elements at both ends of the output array.
When 3 or more copies of a number exist, only the position of the first and last copy contribute to the distance for that number. It doesn't matter where the middle ones go. I'll call the elements between the 2 blocks of d elements at either end the "central" elements. They consist of the unique elements, as well as some number of copies of all those non-unique elements that appear at least 3 times. As before, it's easy to see that any permutation of these "central" elements corresponds to a sequence of swaps, and that any such swap will leave the overall score unchanged (in fact it's even simpler than before, since swapping two central elements does not even change the score contribution of either of these elements).
This leads to a simple O(nlog n) algorithm (or O(n) if you use bucket sort for the first step) to generate a solution array Y from a length-n input array X:
Sort the input array X.
Use a single pass through X to count the number of distinct non-unique elements. Call this d.
Set i, j and k to 0.
While i < n:
If X[i+1] == X[i], we have a non-unique element:
Set Y[j] = Y[n-j-1] = X[i].
Increment i twice, and increment j once.
While X[i] == X[i-1]:
Set Y[d+k] = X[i].
Increment i and k.
Otherwise we have a unique element:
Set Y[d+k] = X[i].
Increment i and k.
I have a collection of objects, each of which has a weight and a value. I want to pick the pair of objects with the highest total value subject to the restriction that their combined weight does not exceed some threshold. Additionally, I am given two arrays, one containing the objects sorted by weight and one containing the objects sorted by value.
I know how to do it in O(n2) but how can I do it in O(n)?
This is a combinatorial optimization problem, and the fact the values are sorted means you can easily try a branch and bound approach.
I think that I have a solution that works in O(n log n) time and O(n) extra space. This isn't quite the O(n) solution you wanted, but it's still better than the naive quadratic solution.
The intuition behind the algorithm is that we want to be able to efficiently determine, for any amount of weight, the maximum value we can get with a single item that uses at most that much weight. If we can do this, we have a simple algorithm for solving the problem: iterate across the array of elements sorted by value. For each element, see how much additional value we could get by pairing a single element with it (using the values we precomputed), then find which of these pairs is maximum. If we can do the preprocessing in O(n log n) time and can answer each of the above queries in O(log n) time, then the total time for the second step will be O(n log n) and we have our answer.
An important observation we need to do the preprocessing step is as follows. Our goal is to build up a structure that can answer the question "which element with weight less than x has maximum value?" Let's think about how we might do this by adding one element at a time. If we have an element (value, weight) and the structure is empty, then we want to say that the maximum value we can get using weight at most "weight" is "value". This means that everything in the range [0, max_weight - weight) should be set to value. Otherwise, suppose that the structure isn't empty when we try adding in (value, weight). In that case, we want to say that any portion of the range [0, weight) whose value is less than value should be replaced by value.
The problem here is that when we do these insertions, there might be, on iteration k, O(k) different subranges that need to be updated, leading to an O(n2) algorithm. However, we can use a very clever trick to avoid this. Suppose that we insert all of the elements into this data structure in descending order of value. In that case, when we add in (value, weight), because we add the elements in descending order of value, each existing value in the data structure must be higher than our value. This means that if the range [0, weight) intersects any range at all, those ranges will automatically be higher than value and so we don't need to update them. If we combine this with the fact that each range we add always spans from zero to some value, the only portion of the new range that could ever be added to the data structure is the range [weight, x), where x is the highest weight stored in the data structure so far.
To summarize, assuming that we visit the (value, weight) pairs in descending order of value, we can update our data structure as follows:
If the structure is empty, record that the range [0, value) has value "value."
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded in the structure is greater than weight, skip this element.
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded so far is x, record that the range [weight, x) has value "value."
Notice that this means that we are always splitting ranges at the front of the list of ranges we have encountered so far. Because of this, we can think about storing the list of ranges as a simple array, where each array element tracks the upper endpoint of some range and the value assigned to that range. For example, we might track the ranges [0, 3), [3, 9), and [9, 12) as the array
3, 9, 12
If we then needed to split the range [0, 3) into [0, 1) and [1, 3), we could do so by prepending 1 to he list:
1, 3, 9, 12
If we represent this array in reverse (actually storing the ranges from high to low instead of low to high), this step of creating the array runs in O(n) time because at each point we just do O(1) work to decide whether or not to add another element onto the end of the array.
Once we have the ranges stored like this, to determine which of the ranges a particular weight falls into, we can just use a binary search to find the largest element smaller than that weight. For example, to look up 6 in the above array we'd do a binary search to find 3.
Finally, once we have this data structure built up, we can just look at each of the objects one at a time. For each element, we see how much weight is left, use a binary search in the other structure to see what element it should be paired with to maximize the total value, and then find the maximum attainable value.
Let's trace through an example. Given maximum allowable weight 10 and the objects
Weight | Value
------+------
2 | 3
6 | 5
4 | 7
7 | 8
Let's see what the algorithm does. First, we need to build up our auxiliary structure for the ranges. We look at the objects in descending order of value, starting with the object of weight 7 and value 8. This means that if we ever have at least seven units of weight left, we can get 8 value. Our array now looks like this:
Weight: 7
Value: 8
Next, we look at the object of weight 4 and value 7. This means that with four or more units of weight left, we can get value 7:
Weight: 7 4
Value: 8 7
Repeating this for the next item (weight six, value five) does not change the array, since if the object has weight six, if we ever had six or more units of free space left, we would never choose this; we'd always take the seven-value item of weight four. We can tell this since there is already an object in the table whose range includes remaining weight four.
Finally, we look at the last item (value 3, weight 2). This means that if we ever have weight two or more free, we could get 3 units of value. The final array now looks like this:
Weight: 7 4 2
Value: 8 7 3
Finally, we just look at the objects in any order to see what the best option is. When looking at the object of weight 2 and value 3, since the maximum allowed weight is 10, we need tom see how much value we can get with at most 10 - 2 = 8 weight. A binary search over the array tells us that this value is 8, so one option would give us 11 weight. If we look at the object of weight 6 and value 5, a binary search tells us that with five remaining weight the best we can do would be to get 7 units of value, for a total of 12 value. Repeating this on the next two entries doesn't turn up anything new, so the optimum value found has value 12, which is indeed the correct answer.
Hope this helps!
Here is an O(n) time, O(1) space solution.
Let's call an object x better than an object y if and only if (x is no heavier than y) and (x is no less valuable) and (x is lighter or more valuable). Call an object x first-choice if no object is better than x. There exists an optimal solution consisting either of two first-choice objects, or a first-choice object x and an object y such that only x is better than y.
The main tool is to be able to iterate the first-choice objects from lightest to heaviest (= least valuable to most valuable) and from most valuable to least valuable (= heaviest to lightest). The iterator state is an index into the objects by weight (resp. value) and a max value (resp. min weight) so far.
Each of the following steps is O(n).
During a scan, whenever we encounter an object that is not first-choice, we know an object that's better than it. Scan once and consider these pairs of objects.
For each first-choice object from lightest to heaviest, determine the heaviest first-choice object that it can be paired with, and consider the pair. (All lighter objects are less valuable.) Since the latter object becomes lighter over time, each iteration of the loop is amortized O(1). (See also searching in a matrix whose rows and columns are sorted.)
Code for the unbelievers. Not heavily tested.
from collections import namedtuple
from operator import attrgetter
Item = namedtuple('Item', ('weight', 'value'))
sentinel = Item(float('inf'), float('-inf'))
def firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byweight:
if x.value > bestsofar.value:
bestsofar = x
yield (x, bestsofar)
def firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byvalue:
if x.weight < bestsofar.weight:
bestsofar = x
yield x
def optimize(items, maxweight):
byweight = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('weight'))
byvalue = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('value'), reverse=True)
maxvalue = float('-inf')
try:
i = firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue)
y = i.next()
for x, z in firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
if z is not x and x.weight + z.weight <= maxweight:
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + z.value)
while x.weight + y.weight > maxweight:
y = i.next()
if y is x:
break
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + y.value)
except StopIteration:
pass
return maxvalue
items = [Item(1, 1), Item(2, 2), Item(3, 5), Item(3, 7), Item(5, 8)]
for maxweight in xrange(3, 10):
print maxweight, optimize(items, maxweight)
This is similar to Knapsack problem. I will use naming from it (num - weight, val - value).
The essential part:
Start with a = 0 and b = n-1. Assuming 0 is the index of heaviest object and n-1 is the index of lightest object.
Increase a til objects a and b satisfy the limit.
Compare current solution with best solution.
Decrease b by one.
Go to 2.
Update:
It's the knapsack problem, except there is a limit of 2 items. You basically need to decide how much space you want for the first object and how much for the other. There is n significant ways to split available space, so the complexity is O(n). Picking the most valuable objects to fit in those spaces can be done without additional cost.
I have a symmetric matrix like shown in the image attached below.
I've made up the notation A.B which represents the value at grid point (A, B). Furthermore, writing A.B.C gives me the minimum grid point value like so: MIN((A,B), (A,C), (B,C)).
As another example A.B.D gives me MIN((A,B), (A,D), (B,D)).
My goal is to find the minimum values for ALL combinations of letters (not repeating) for one row at a time e.g for this example I need to find min values with respect to row A which are given by the calculations:
A.B = 6
A.C = 8
A.D = 4
A.B.C = MIN(6,8,6) = 6
A.B.D = MIN(6, 4, 4) = 4
A.C.D = MIN(8, 4, 2) = 2
A.B.C.D = MIN(6, 8, 4, 6, 4, 2) = 2
I realize that certain calculations can be reused which becomes increasingly important as the matrix size increases, but the problem is finding the most efficient way to implement this reuse.
Can point me in the right direction to finding an efficient algorithm/data structure I can use for this problem?
You'll want to think about the lattice of subsets of the letters, ordered by inclusion. Essentially, you have a value f(S) given for every subset S of size 2 (that is, every off-diagonal element of the matrix - the diagonal elements don't seem to occur in your problem), and the problem is to find, for each subset T of size greater than two, the minimum f(S) over all S of size 2 contained in T. (And then you're interested only in sets T that contain a certain element "A" - but we'll disregard that for the moment.)
First of all, note that if you have n letters, that this amounts to asking Omega(2^n) questions, roughly one for each subset. (Excluding the zero- and one-element subsets and those that don't include "A" saves you n + 1 sets and a factor of two, respectively, which is allowed for big Omega.) So if you want to store all these answers for even moderately large n, you'll need a lot of memory. If n is large in your applications, it might be best to store some collection of pre-computed data and do some computation whenever you need a particular data point; I haven't thought about what would work best, but for example computing data only for a binary tree contained in the lattice would not necessarily help you anything beyond precomputing nothing at all.
With these things out of the way, let's assume you actually want all the answers computed and stored in memory. You'll want to compute these "layer by layer", that is, starting with the three-element subsets (since the two-element subsets are already given by your matrix), then four-element, then five-element, etc. This way, for a given subset S, when we're computing f(S) we will already have computed all f(T) for T strictly contained in S. There are several ways that you can make use of this, but I think the easiest might be to use two such subset S: let t1 and t2 be two different elements of T that you may select however you like; let S be the subset of T that you get when you remove t1 and t2. Write S1 for S plus t1 and write S2 for S plus t2. Now every pair of letters contained in T is either fully contained in S1, or it is fully contained in S2, or it is {t1, t2}. Look up f(S1) and f(S2) in your previously computed values, then look up f({t1, t2}) directly in the matrix, and store f(T) = the minimum of these 3 numbers.
If you never select "A" for t1 or t2, then indeed you can compute everything you're interested in while not computing f for any sets T that don't contain "A". (This is possible because the steps outlined above are only interesting whenever T contains at least three elements.) Good! This leaves just one question - how to store the computed values f(T). What I would do is use a 2^(n-1)-sized array; represent each subset-of-your-alphabet-that-includes-"A" by the (n-1) bit number where the ith bit is 1 whenever the (i+1)th letter is in that set (so 0010110, which has bits 2, 4, and 5 set, represents the subset {"A", "C", "D", "F"} out of the alphabet "A" .. "H" - note I'm counting bits starting at 0 from the right, and letters starting at "A" = 0). This way, you can actually iterate through the sets in numerical order and don't need to think about how to iterate through all k-element subsets of an n-element set. (You do need to include a special case for when the set under consideration has 0 or 1 element, in which case you'll want to do nothing, or 2 elements, in which case you just copy the value from the matrix.)
Well, it looks simple to me, but perhaps I misunderstand the problem. I would do it like this:
let P be a pattern string in your notation X1.X2. ... .Xn, where Xi is a column in your matrix
first compute the array CS = [ (X1, X2), (X1, X3), ... (X1, Xn) ], which contains all combinations of X1 with every other element in the pattern; CS has n-1 elements, and you can easily build it in O(n)
now you must compute min (CS), i.e. finding the minimum value of the matrix elements corresponding to the combinations in CS; again you can easily find the minimum value in O(n)
done.
Note: since your matrix is symmetric, given P you just need to compute CS by combining the first element of P with all other elements: (X1, Xi) is equal to (Xi, X1)
If your matrix is very large, and you want to do some optimization, you may consider prefixes of P: let me explain with an example
when you have solved the problem for P = X1.X2.X3, store the result in an associative map, where X1.X2.X3 is the key
later on, when you solve a problem P' = X1.X2.X3.X7.X9.X10.X11 you search for the longest prefix of P' in your map: you can do this by starting with P' and removing one component (Xi) at a time from the end until you find a match in your map or you end up with an empty string
if you find a prefix of P' in you map then you already know the solution for that problem, so you just have to find the solution for the problem resulting from combining the first element of the prefix with the suffix, and then compare the two results: in our example the prefix is X1.X2.X3, and so you just have to solve the problem for
X1.X7.X9.X10.X11, and then compare the two values and choose the min (don't forget to update your map with the new pattern P')
if you don't find any prefix, then you must solve the entire problem for P' (and again don't forget to update the map with the result, so that you can reuse it in the future)
This technique is essentially a form of memoization.
Most sort algorithms rely on a pairwise-comparison the determines whether A < B, A = B or A > B.
I'm looking for algorithms (and for bonus points, code in Python) that take advantage of a pairwise-comparison function that can distinguish a lot less from a little less or a lot more from a little more. So perhaps instead of returning {-1, 0, 1} the comparison function returns {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2} or {-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5} or even a real number on the interval (-1, 1).
For some applications (such as near sorting or approximate sorting) this would enable a reasonable sort to be determined with less comparisons.
The extra information can indeed be used to minimize the total number of comparisons. Calls to the super_comparison function can be used to make deductions equivalent to a great number of calls to a regular comparsion function. For example, a much-less-than b and c little-less-than b implies a < c < b.
The deductions cans be organized into bins or partitions which can each be sorted separately. Effectively, this is equivalent to QuickSort with n-way partition. Here's an implementation in Python:
from collections import defaultdict
from random import choice
def quicksort(seq, compare):
'Stable in-place sort using a 3-or-more-way comparison function'
# Make an n-way partition on a random pivot value
segments = defaultdict(list)
pivot = choice(seq)
for x in seq:
ranking = 0 if x is pivot else compare(x, pivot)
segments[ranking].append(x)
seq.clear()
# Recursively sort each segment and store it in the sequence
for ranking, segment in sorted(segments.items()):
if ranking and len(segment) > 1:
quicksort(segment, compare)
seq += segment
if __name__ == '__main__':
from random import randrange
from math import log10
def super_compare(a, b):
'Compare with extra logarithmic near/far information'
c = -1 if a < b else 1 if a > b else 0
return c * (int(log10(max(abs(a - b), 1.0))) + 1)
n = 10000
data = [randrange(4*n) for i in range(n)]
goal = sorted(data)
quicksort(data, super_compare)
print(data == goal)
By instrumenting this code with the trace module, it is possible to measure the performance gain. In the above code, a regular three-way compare uses 133,000 comparisons while a super comparison function reduces the number of calls to 85,000.
The code also makes it easy to experiment with a variety comparison functions. This will show that naïve n-way comparison functions do very little to help the sort. For example, if the comparison function returns +/-2 for differences greater than four and +/-1 for differences four or less, there is only a modest 5% reduction in the number of comparisons. The root cause is that the course grained partitions used in the beginning only have a handful of "near matches" and everything else falls in "far matches".
An improvement to the super comparison is to covers logarithmic ranges (i.e. +/-1 if within ten, +/-2 if within a hundred, +/- if within a thousand.
An ideal comparison function would be adaptive. For any given sequence size, the comparison function should strive to subdivide the sequence into partitions of roughly equal size. Information theory tells us that this will maximize the number of bits of information per comparison.
The adaptive approach makes good intuitive sense as well. People should first be partitioned into love vs like before making more refined distinctions such as love-a-lot vs love-a-little. Further partitioning passes should each make finer and finer distinctions.
You can use a modified quick sort. Let me explain on an example when you comparison function returns [-2, -1, 0, 1, 2]. Say, you have an array A to sort.
Create 5 empty arrays - Aminus2, Aminus1, A0, Aplus1, Aplus2.
Pick an arbitrary element of A, X.
For each element of the array, compare it with X.
Depending on the result, place the element in one of the Aminus2, Aminus1, A0, Aplus1, Aplus2 arrays.
Apply the same sort recursively to Aminus2, Aminus1, Aplus1, Aplus2 (note: you don't need to sort A0, as all he elements there are equal X).
Concatenate the arrays to get the final result: A = Aminus2 + Aminus1 + A0 + Aplus1 + Aplus2.
It seems like using raindog's modified quicksort would let you stream out results sooner and perhaps page into them faster.
Maybe those features are already available from a carefully-controlled qsort operation? I haven't thought much about it.
This also sounds kind of like radix sort except instead of looking at each digit (or other kind of bucket rule), you're making up buckets from the rich comparisons. I have a hard time thinking of a case where rich comparisons are available but digits (or something like them) aren't.
I can't think of any situation in which this would be really useful. Even if I could, I suspect the added CPU cycles needed to sort fuzzy values would be more than those "extra comparisons" you allude to. But I'll still offer a suggestion.
Consider this possibility (all strings use the 27 characters a-z and _):
11111111112
12345678901234567890
1/ now_is_the_time
2/ now_is_never
3/ now_we_have_to_go
4/ aaa
5/ ___
Obviously strings 1 and 2 are more similar that 1 and 3 and much more similar than 1 and 4.
One approach is to scale the difference value for each identical character position and use the first different character to set the last position.
Putting aside signs for the moment, comparing string 1 with 2, the differ in position 8 by 'n' - 't'. That's a difference of 6. In order to turn that into a single digit 1-9, we use the formula:
digit = ceiling(9 * abs(diff) / 27)
since the maximum difference is 26. The minimum difference of 1 becomes the digit 1. The maximum difference of 26 becomes the digit 9. Our difference of 6 becomes 3.
And because the difference is in position 8, out comparison function will return 3x10-8 (actually it will return the negative of that since string 1 comes after string 2.
Using a similar process for strings 1 and 4, the comparison function returns -5x10-1. The highest possible return (strings 4 and 5) has a difference in position 1 of '-' - 'a' (26) which generates the digit 9 and hence gives us 9x10-1.
Take these suggestions and use them as you see fit. I'd be interested in knowing how your fuzzy comparison code ends up working out.
Considering you are looking to order a number of items based on human comparison you might want to approach this problem like a sports tournament. You might allow each human vote to increase the score of the winner by 3 and decrease the looser by 3, +2 and -2, +1 and -1 or just 0 0 for a draw.
Then you just do a regular sort based on the scores.
Another alternative would be a single or double elimination tournament structure.
You can use two comparisons, to achieve this. Multiply the more important comparison by 2, and add them together.
Here is a example of what I mean in Perl.
It compares two array references by the first element, then by the second element.
use strict;
use warnings;
use 5.010;
my #array = (
[a => 2],
[b => 1],
[a => 1],
[c => 0]
);
say "$_->[0] => $_->[1]" for sort {
($a->[0] cmp $b->[0]) * 2 +
($a->[1] <=> $b->[1]);
} #array;
a => 1
a => 2
b => 1
c => 0
You could extend this to any number of comparisons very easily.
Perhaps there's a good reason to do this but I don't think it beats the alternatives for any given situation and certainly isn't good for general cases. The reason? Unless you know something about the domain of the input data and about the distribution of values you can't really improve over, say, quicksort. And if you do know those things, there are often ways that would be much more effective.
Anti-example: suppose your comparison returns a value of "huge difference" for numbers differing by more than 1000, and that the input is {0, 10000, 20000, 30000, ...}
Anti-example: same as above but with input {0, 10000, 10001, 10002, 20000, 20001, ...}
But, you say, I know my inputs don't look like that! Well, in that case tell us what your inputs really look like, in detail. Then someone might be able to really help.
For instance, once I needed to sort historical data. The data was kept sorted. When new data were added it was appended, then the list was run again. I did not have the information of where the new data was appended. I designed a hybrid sort for this situation that handily beat qsort and others by picking a sort that was quick on already sorted data and tweaking it to be fast (essentially switching to qsort) when it encountered unsorted data.
The only way you're going to improve over the general purpose sorts is to know your data. And if you want answers you're going to have to communicate that here very well.