Given two arrays A and B, each containing n non-negative numbers, remove a>0 elements from the end of A and b>0 elements from the end of B. Evaluate the cost of such an operation as X*Y where X is the sum of the a elements removed from A and Y the sum of the b elements removed from B. Keep doing this until both arrays are empty. The goal is to minimize the total cost.
Using dynamic programming and the fact that an optimal strategy will always take exactly one element from either A or B I can find an O(n^3) solution. Now I'm curious to know if there is an even faster solution to this problem?
EDIT: Stealing an example from #recursive in the comments:
A = [1,9,1] and B = [1, 9, 1]. Possible to do with a cost of 20. (1) *
(1 + 9) + (9 + 1) * (1)
Here's O(n^2). Let CostA(i, j) be the min cost of eliminating A[1..i], B[1..j] in such a way that the first removal takes only one element from B. Let CostB(i, j) be the min cost of eliminating A[1..i], B[1..j] in such a way that the first removal takes only one element from A. We have mutually recursive recurrences
CostA(i, j) = A[i] * B[j] + min(CostA(i - 1, j),
CostA(i - 1, j - 1),
CostB(i - 1, j - 1))
CostB(i, j) = A[i] * B[j] + min(CostB(i, j - 1),
CostA(i - 1, j - 1),
CostB(i - 1, j - 1))
with base cases
CostA(0, 0) = 0
CostA(>0, 0) = infinity
CostA(0, >0) = infinity
CostB(0, 0) = 0
CostB(>0, 0) = infinity
CostB(0, >0) = infinity.
The answer is min(CostA(n, n), CostB(n, n)).
Related
I have come across this algorithmic problem that I was not able to solve: https://prologin.org/train/2017/semifinal/collection_de_feuilles (in French).
N, K, and M[] will be given as the input. N refers to the number of piles of items, and in M[i] is the number of items in the i-th pile. You can only merge the i-th pile of M[i] items into the j-th pile of M[j] items if j > i, and the cost of this merge is defined to be M[i] * (j - i). The output is the minimum cost of merging the initial N piles into K piles.
My idea was to use a function min_rearrange(x, num_piles) which calculates the minimum cost to rearrange piles from M[x] to M[N - 1] into the specified number of piles. When num_piles is equal to 1, this function returns the sum of the the costs to move M[j] into M[N -
1], x ≤ j < N. Otherwise, since there must exist an i with x ≤ i ≤ N - num_piles that we move all the piles from M[x] to M[i - 1] into M[i], we calculate that sum and then recursively call min_rearrange(i + 1, num_piles - 1) to find the minimum cost.
I have also tried to memoize the solutions:
# https://prologin.org/train/2017/semifinal/collection_de_feuilles
n, k = map(int, input().split())
piles = list(map(int, input().split()))
memory = {}
def min_rearrange(x, num_piles):
"""Min cost to rearrange piles[x:] into num_piles"""
if (x, num_piles) in memory:
return memory[x, num_piles]
if num_piles == 1:
memory[x, num_piles] = sum([(n - 1 - i) * piles[i] for i in range(x, n)])
return memory[x, num_piles]
min_cost = float('inf')
for i in range(x, n - num_piles + 1):
cost = sum([(i - j) * piles[j] for j in range(x, i)])
min_cost = min(min_cost, cost + min_rearrange(i + 1, num_piles - 1))
memory[x, num_piles] = min_cost
return min_cost
print(min_rearrange(0, k))
But it takes too much time for large input sizes. I'd like to know how the problem can be solved more efficiently.
Assume we have 2 sorted arrays of integers with sizes of n and m. What is the best way to find median of all m + n numbers?
It's easy to do this with log(n) * log(m) complexity. But i want to solve this problem in log(n) + log(m) time. So is there any suggestion to solve this problem?
Explanation
The key point of this problem is to ignore half part of A and B each step recursively by comparing the median of remaining A and B:
if (aMid < bMid) Keep [aMid +1 ... n] and [bLeft ... m]
else Keep [bMid + 1 ... m] and [aLeft ... n]
// where n and m are the length of array A and B
As the following: time complexity is O(log(m + n))
public double findMedianSortedArrays(int[] A, int[] B) {
int m = A.length, n = B.length;
int l = (m + n + 1) / 2;
int r = (m + n + 2) / 2;
return (getkth(A, 0, B, 0, l) + getkth(A, 0, B, 0, r)) / 2.0;
}
public double getkth(int[] A, int aStart, int[] B, int bStart, int k) {
if (aStart > A.length - 1) return B[bStart + k - 1];
if (bStart > B.length - 1) return A[aStart + k - 1];
if (k == 1) return Math.min(A[aStart], B[bStart]);
int aMid = Integer.MAX_VALUE, bMid = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
if (aStart + k/2 - 1 < A.length) aMid = A[aStart + k/2 - 1];
if (bStart + k/2 - 1 < B.length) bMid = B[bStart + k/2 - 1];
if (aMid < bMid)
return getkth(A, aStart + k / 2, B, bStart, k - k / 2); // Check: aRight + bLeft
else
return getkth(A, aStart, B, bStart + k / 2, k - k / 2); // Check: bRight + aLeft
}
Hope it helps! Let me know if you need more explanation on any part.
Here's a very good solution I found in Java on Stack Overflow. It's a method of finding the K and K+1 smallest items in the two arrays where K is the center of the merged array.
If you have a function for finding the Kth item of two arrays then finding the median of the two is easy;
Calculate the weighted average of the Kth and Kth+1 items of X and Y
But then you'll need a way to find the Kth item of two lists; (remember we're one indexing now)
If X contains zero items then the Kth smallest item of X and Y is the Kth smallest item of Y
Otherwise if K == 2 then the second smallest item of X and Y is the smallest of the smallest items of X and Y (min(X[0], Y[0]))
Otherwise;
i. Let A be min(length(X), K / 2)
ii. Let B be min(length(Y), K / 2)
iii. If the X[A] > Y[B] then recurse from step 1. with X, Y' with all elements of Y from B to the end of Y and K' = K - B, otherwise recurse with X' with all elements of X from A to the end of X, Y and K' = K - A
If I find the time tomorrow I will verify that this algorithm works in Python as stated and provide the example source code, it may have some off-by-one errors as-is.
Take the median element in list A and call it a. Compare a to the center elements in list B. Lets call them b1 and b2 (if B has odd length then exactly where you split b depends on your definition of the median of an even length list, but the procedure is almost identical regardless). if b1≤a≤b2 then a is the median of the merged array. This can be done in constant time since it requires exactly two comparisons.
If a is greater than b2 then we add the top half of A to the top of B and repeat. B will no longer be sorted, but it doesn't matter. If a is less than b1 then we add the bottom half of A to the bottom of B and repeat. These will iterate log(n) times at most (if the median is found sooner then stop, of course).
It is possible that this will not find the median. If this is the case then the median is in B. If so, perform the same algorithm with A and B reversed. This will require log(m) iterations. In total you will have performed at most 2*(log(n)+log(m)) iterations of a constant time operation, so you have solved the problem in order log(n)+log(m) time.
This is essentially the same answer as was given by iehrlich, but written out more explicitly.
Yes, this can be done. Given two arrays, A and B, in the worst-case scenario you have to first perform a binary search in A, and then, if it fails, binary search in B looking for the median. On each step of a binary search, you check if the current element is actually a median of a merged A+B array. Such check takes constant time.
Let's see why such check is constant. For simplicity, let's assume that |A| + |B| is an odd number, and that all numbers in both arrays are different. You can remove these restrictions later by applying the usual median definition approach (i.e., how to calculate the median of an array containing duplicates, or of an array with even length). Anyway, given that, we know for sure, that in the merged array there will be (|A| + |B| - 1) / 2 elements to the right and to the left of an actual median. In the process of a binary search in A, we know the index of current element x in array A (let it be i). Now, if x satisfies the condition B[j] < x < B[j+1], where i + j == (|A| + |B| - 1) / 2, then x is your median.
The overall complexity is O(log(max(|A|, |B|)) time and O(1) memory.
Inversion Count for an array indicates – how far (or close) the array is from being sorted. If array is already sorted then inversion count is 0. If array is sorted in reverse order that inversion count is the maximum.
Formally speaking, two elements a[i] and a[j] form an inversion if a[i] > a[j] and i < j Example:
The sequence 2, 4, 1, 3, 5 has three inversions (2, 1), (4, 1), (4, 3).
Now, there are various algorithms to solve this in O(n log n).
There is a special case where the array only has 3 types of elements - 1, 2 and 3. Now, is it possible to count the inversions in O(n) ?
Eg 1,1,3,2,3,1,3
Yes it is. Just take 3 integers a,b,c where a is number of 1's encountered till now, b is number of 2's encountered till now and c is number of 3's encountered till now. Given this follow the algorithm below ( I assume numbers are given in array arr and the size is n, with 1 based indexing, also following is just a pseudocode )
no_of_inv = 0
a = 0
b = 0
c = 0
for i from 1 to n:
if arr[i] == 1:
no_of_inv = no_of_inv + b + c
a++
else if arr[i] == 2:
no_of_inv = no_of_inv + c
b++
else:
c++
(This algorithm is extremely similar to Sasha's. I just wanted to provide an explanation as well.)
Every inversion (i, j) satisfies 0 ≤ i < j < n. Let's define S[j] to be the number of inversions of the form (i, j); that is, S[j] is the number of times A[i] > A[j] for 0 ≤ i < j. Then the total number of inversions is T = S[0] + S[1] + … + S[n - 1].
Let C[x][j] be the number of times A[i] > x for 0 ≤ i < j. Then S[j] = C[A[j]][j] for all j. If we can compute the 3n values C[x][j] in linear time, then we can compute S in linear time.
Here is some Python code:
>>> import numpy as np
>>> A = np.array([1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 3])
>>> C = {x: np.cumsum(A > x) for x in np.unique(A)}
>>> T = sum(C[A[j]][j] for j in range(len(A)))
>>> print T
4
This could be made more efficient—although not in asmpytotic terms—by not storing all C values at once. The algorithm really only needs a single pass through the array. I have chosen to present it this way because it is most concise.
Given an array a and integer k. Someone uses following algorithm to get first k smallest elements:
cnt = 0
for i in [1, k]:
for j in [i + 1, n]:
if a[i] > a[j]:
swap(a[i], a[j])
cnt = cnt + 1
The problem is: How to calculate value of cnt (when we get final k-sorted array), i.e. the number of swaps, in O(n log n) or better ?
Or simply put: calculate the number of swaps needed to get first k-smallest number sorted using the above algorithm, in less than O(n log n).
I am thinking about a binary search tree, but I get confused (How array will change when increase i ? How to calculate number of swap for a fixed i ?...).
This is a very good question: it involves Inverse Pairs, Stack and some proof techniques.
Note 1: All index used below are 1-based, instead of traditional 0-based.
Note 2: If you want to see the algorithm directly, please start reading from the bottom.
First we define Inverse Pairs as:
For a[i] and a[j], in which i < j holds, if we have a[i] > a[j], then a[i] and a[j] are called an Inverse Pair.
For example, In the following array:
3 2 1 5 4
a[1] and a[2] is a pair of Inverse Pair, a[2] and a[3] is another pair.
Before we start the analysis, let's define a common language: in the reset of the post, "inverse pair starting from i" means the total number of inverse pairs involving a[i].
For example, for a = {3, 1, 2}, inverse pair starting from 1 is 2, and inverse pair starting from 2 is 0.
Now let's look at some facts:
If we have i < j < k, and a[i] > a[k], a[j] > a[k], swap a[i] and a[j] (if they are an inverse pair) won't affect the total number of inverse pair starting from j;
Total inverse pairs starting from i may change after a swap (e.g. suppose we have a = {5, 3, 4}, before a[1] is swapped with a[2], total number of inverse pair starting from 1 is 2, but after swap, array becomes a = {3, 5, 4}, and the number of inverse pair starting from 1 becomes 1);
Given an array A and 2 numbers, a and b, as the head element of A, if we can form more inverse pair with a than b, we have a > b;
Let's denote the total number of inverse pair starting from i as ip[i], then we have: if k is the min number satisfies ip[i] > ip[i + k], then a[i] > a[i + k] while a[i] < a[i + 1 .. i + k - 1] must be true. In words, if ip[i + k] is the first number smaller than ip[i], a[i + k] is also the first number smaller than a[i];
Proof of point 1:
By definition of inverse pair, for all a[k], k > j that forms inverse pair with a[j], a[k] < a[j] must hold. Since a[i] and a[j] are a pair of inverse and provided that i < j, we have a[i] > a[j]. Therefore, we have a[i] > a[j] > a[k], which indicates the inverse-pair-relationships are not broken.
Proof of point 3:
Leave as empty since quite obvious.
Proof of point 4:
First, it's easy to see that when i < j, a[i] > a[j], we have ip[i] >= ip[j] + 1 > ip[j]. Then, it's inverse-contradict statement is also true, i.e. when i < j, ip[i] <= ip[j], we have a[i] <= a[j].
Now back to the point. Since k is the min number to satisfy ip[i] > ip[i + k], then we have ip[i] <= ip[i + 1 .. i + k - 1], which indicates a[i] <= a[i + 1.. i + k - 1] by the lemma we just proved, which also indicates there's no inverse pairs in the region [i + 1, i + k - 1]. Therefore, ip[i] is the same as the number of inverse pairs starting from i + k, but involving a[i]. Given ip[i + k] < ip[i], we know a[i + k] has less inverse pair than a[i] in the region of [i + k + 1, n], which indicates a[i + k] < a[i] (by Point 3).
You can write down some sequences and try out the 4 facts mentioned above and convince yourself or disprove them :P
Now it's about the algorithm.
A naive implementation will take O(nk) to compute the result, and the worst case will be O(n^2) when k = n.
But how about we make use of the facts above:
First we compute ip[i] using Fenwick Tree (see Note 1 below), which takes O(n log n) to construct and O(n log n) to get all ip[i] calculated.
Next, we need to make use of facts. Since swap of 2 numbers only affect current position's inverse pair number but not values after (point 1 and 2), we don't need to worry about the value change. Also, since the nearest smaller number to the right shares the same index in ip and a, we only need to find the first ip[j] that is smaller than ip[i] in [i + 1, n]. If we denote the number of swaps to get first i element sorted as f[i], we have f[i] = f[j] + 1.
But how to find this "first smaller number" fast? Use stack! Here is a post which asks a highly similar problem: Given an array A,compute B s.t B[i] stores the nearest element to the left of A[i] which is smaller than A[i]
In short, we are able to do this in O(n).
But wait, the post says "to the left" but in our case it's "to the right". The solution is simple: we do backward in our case, then everything the same :D
Therefore, in summary, the total time complexity of the algorithm is O(n log n) + O(n) = O(n log n).
Finally, let's talk with an example (a simplified example of #make_lover's example in the comment):
a = {2, 5, 3, 4, 1, 6}, k = 2
First, let's get the inverse pairs:
ip = {1, 3, 1, 1, 0, 0}
To calculate f[i], we do backward (since we need to use the stack technique):
f[6] = 0, since it's the last one
f[5] = 0, since we could not find any number that is smaller than 0
f[4] = f[5] + 1 = 1, since ip[5] is the first smaller number to the right
f[3] = f[5] + 1 = 1, since ip[5] is the first smaller number to the right
f[2] = f[3] + 1 = 2, since ip[3] is the first smaller number to the right
f[1] = f[5] + 1 = 1, since ip[5] is the first smaller number to the right
Therefore, ans = f[1] + f[2] = 3
Note 1: Using Fenwick Tree (Binary Index Tree) to get inverse pair can be done in O(N log N), here is a post on this topic, please have a look :)
Update
Aug/20/2014: There was a critical error in my previous post (thanks to #make_lover), here is the latest update.
Let A[1 .. n] be an array of n distinct numbers. If i < j and A[i] > A[j], then the pair (i, j) is called an inversion of A. (See Problem 2-4 for more on inversions.) Suppose that each element of A is chosen randomly, independently, and uniformly from the range 1 through n. Use indicator random variables to compute the expected number of inversions.
The problem is from exercise 5.2-5 in Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen. Here is my recursive solution:
Suppose x(i) is the number of inversions in a[1..i], and E(i) is the expected value of x(i), then E(i+1) can be computed as following:
Image we have i+1 positions to place all the numbers, if we place i+1 on the first position, then x(i+1) = i + x(i); if we place i+1 on the second position, then x(i+1) = i-1 + x(i),..., so E(i+1) = 1/(i+1)* sum(k) + E(i), where k = [0,i]. Finally we get E(i+1) = i/2 + E(i).
Because we know that E(2) = 0.5, so recursively we get: E(n) = (n-1 + n-2 + ... + 2)/2 + 0.5 = n* (n-1)/4.
Although the deduction above seems to be right, but I am still not very sure of that. So I share it here.
If there is something wrong, please correct me.
All the solutions seem to be correct, but the problem says that we should use indicator random variables. So here is my solution using the same:
Let Eij be the event that i < j and A[i] > A[j].
Let Xij = I{Eij} = {1 if (i, j) is an inversion of A
0 if (i, j) is not an inversion of A}
Let X = Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(Xij) = No. of inversions of A.
E[X] = E[Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(Xij)]
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(E[Xij])
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=1 to n)(P(Eij))
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=i + 1 to n)(P(Eij)) (as we must have i < j)
= Σ(i=1 to n)Σ(j=i + 1 to n)(1/2) (we can choose the two numbers in
C(n, 2) ways and arrange them
as required. So P(Eij) = C(n, 2) / n(n-1))
= Σ(i=1 to n)((n - i)/2)
= n(n - 1)/4
Another solution is even simpler, IMO, although it does not use "indicator random variables".
Since all of the numbers are distinct, every pair of elements is either an inversion (i < j with A[i] > A[j]) or a non-inversion (i < j with A[i] < A[j]). Put another way, every pair of numbers is either in order or out of order.
So for any given permutation, the total number of inversions plus non-inversions is just the total number of pairs, or n*(n-1)/2.
By symmetry of "less than" and "greater than", the expected number of inversions equals the expected number of non-inversions.
Since the expectation of their sum is n*(n-1)/2 (constant for all permutations), and they are equal, they are each half of that or n*(n-1)/4.
[Update 1]
Apparently my "symmetry of 'less than' and 'greater than'" statement requires some elaboration.
For any array of numbers A in the range 1 through n, define ~A as the array you get when you subtract each number from n+1. For example, if A is [2,3,1], then ~A is [2,1,3].
Now, observe that for any pair of numbers in A that are in order, the corresponding elements of ~A are out of order. (Easy to show because negating two numbers exchanges their ordering.) This mapping explicitly shows the symmetry (duality) between less-than and greater-than in this context.
So, for any A, the number of inversions equals the number of non-inversions in ~A. But for every possible A, there corresponds exactly one ~A; when the numbers are chosen uniformly, both A and ~A are equally likely. Therefore the expected number of inversions in A equals the expected number of inversions in ~A, because these expectations are being calculated over the exact same space.
Therefore the expected number of inversions in A equals the expected number of non-inversions. The sum of these expectations is the expectation of the sum, which is the constant n*(n-1)/2, or the total number of pairs.
[Update 2]
A simpler symmetry: For any array A of n elements, define ~A as the same elements but in reverse order. Associate the element at position i in A with the element at position n+1-i in ~A. (That is, associate each element with itself in the reversed array.)
Now any inversion in A is associated with a non-inversion in ~A, just as with the construction in Update 1 above. So the same argument applies: The number of inversions in A equals the number of inversions in ~A; both A and ~A are equally likely sequences; etc.
The point of the intuition here is that the "less than" and "greater than" operators are just mirror images of each other, which you can see either by negating the arguments (as in Update 1) or by swapping them (as in Update 2). So the expected number of inversions and non-inversions is the same, since you cannot tell whether you are looking at any particular array through a mirror or not.
Even simpler (similar to Aman's answer above, but perhaps clearer) ...
Let Xij be a random variable with Xij=1 if A[i] > A[j] and Xij=0 otherwise.
Let X=sum(Xij) over i, j where i < j
Number of pairs (ij)*: n(n-1)/2
Probability that Xij=1 (Pr(Xij=1))): 1/2
By linearity of expectation**: E(X) = E(sum(Xij))
= sum(E(Xij))
= sum(Pr(Xij=1))
= n(n-1)/2 * 1/2
= n(n-1)/4
* I think of this as the size of the upper triangle of a square matrix.
** All sums here are over i, j, where i < j.
I think it's right, but I think the proper way to prove it is to use conditionnal expectations :
for all X and Y we have : E[X] =E [E [X|Y]]
then in your case :
E(i+1) = E[x(i+1)] = E[E[x(i+1) | x(i)]] = E[SUM(k)/(1+i) + x(i)] = i/2 + E[x(i)] = i/2 + E(i)
about the second statement :
if :
E(n) = n* (n-1)/4.
then E(n+1) = (n+1)*n/4 = (n-1)*n/4 + 2*n/4 = (n-1)*n/4 + n/2 = E(n) +n/2
So n* (n-1)/4. verify the recursion relation for all n >=2 and it verifies it for n=2
So E(n) = n*(n-1)/4
Hope I understood your problem and it helps
Using indicator random variables:
Let X = random variable which is equal to the number of inversions.
Let Xij = 1 if A[i] and A[j] form an inversion pair, and Xij = 0 otherwise.
Number of inversion pairs = Sum over 1 <= i < j <= n of (Xij)
Now P[Xij = 1] = P[A[i] > A[j]] = (n choose 2) / (2! * n choose 2) = 1/2
E[X] = E[sum over all ij pairs such that i < j of Xij] = sum over all ij pairs such that i < j of E[Xij] = n(n - 1) / 4