You are given N and an int K[].
The task at hand is to generate a equal probabilistic random number between 0 to N-1 which doesn't exist in K.
N is strictly a integer >= 0.
And K.length is < N-1. And 0 <= K[i] <= N-1. Also assume K is sorted and each element of K is unique.
You are given a function uniformRand(int M) which generates uniform random number in the range 0 to M-1 And assume this functions's complexity is O(1).
Example:
N = 7
K = {0, 1, 5}
the function should return any random number { 2, 3, 4, 6 } with equal
probability.
I could get a O(N) solution for this : First generate a random number between 0 to N - K.length. And map the thus generated random number to a number not in K. The second step will take the complexity to O(N). Can it be done better in may be O(log N) ?
You can use the fact that all the numbers in K[] are between 0 and N-1 and they are distinct.
For your example case, you generate a random number from 0 to 3. Say you get a random number r. Now you conduct binary search on the array K[].
Initialize i = K.length/2.
Find K[i] - i. This will give you the number of numbers missing from the array in the range 0 to i.
For example K[2] = 5. So 3 elements are missing from K[0] to K[2] (2,3,4)
Hence you can decide whether you have to conduct the remaining search in the first part of array K or the next part. This is because you know r.
This search will give you a complexity of log(K.length)
EDIT: For example,
N = 7
K = {0, 1, 4} // modified the array to clarify the algorithm steps.
the function should return any random number { 2, 3, 5, 6 } with equal probability.
Random number generated between 0 and N-K.length = random{0-3}. Say we get 3. Hence we require the 4th missing number in array K.
Conduct binary search on array K[].
Initial i = K.length/2 = 1.
Now we see K[1] - 1 = 0. Hence no number is missing upto i = 1. Hence we search on the latter part of the array.
Now i = 2. K[2] - 2 = 4 - 2 = 2. Hence there are 2 missing numbers up to index i = 2. But we need the 4th missing element. So we again have to search in the latter part of the array.
Now we reach an empty array. What should we do now? If we reach an empty array between say K[j] & K[j+1] then it simply means that all elements between K[j] and K[j+1] are missing from the array K.
Hence all elements above K[2] are missing from the array, namely 5 and 6. We need the 4th element out of which we have already discarded 2 elements. Hence we will choose the second element which is 6.
Binary search.
The basic algorithm:
(not quite the same as the other answer - the number is only generated at the end)
Start in the middle of K.
By looking at the current value and it's index, we can determine the number of pickable numbers (numbers not in K) to the left.
Similarly, by including N, we can determine the number of pickable numbers to the right.
Now randomly go either left or right, weighted based on the count of pickable numbers on each side.
Repeat in the chosen subarray until the subarray is empty.
Then generate a random number in the range consisting of the numbers before and after the subarray in the array.
The running time would be O(log |K|), and, since |K| < N-1, O(log N).
The exact mathematics for number counts and weights can be derived from the example below.
Extension with K containing a bigger range:
Now let's say (for enrichment purposes) K can also contain values N or larger.
Then, instead of starting with the entire K, we start with a subarray up to position min(N, |K|), and start in the middle of that.
It's easy to see that the N-th position in K (if one exists) will be >= N, so this chosen range includes any possible number we can generate.
From here, we need to do a binary search for N (which would give us a point where all values to the left are < N, even if N could not be found) (the above algorithm doesn't deal with K containing values greater than N).
Then we just run the algorithm as above with the subarray ending at the last value < N.
The running time would be O(log N), or, more specifically, O(log min(N, |K|)).
Example:
N = 10
K = {0, 1, 4, 5, 8}
So we start in the middle - 4.
Given that we're at index 2, we know there are 2 elements to the left, and the value is 4, so there are 4 - 2 = 2 pickable values to the left.
Similarly, there are 10 - (4+1) - 2 = 3 pickable values to the right.
So now we go left with probability 2/(2+3) and right with probability 3/(2+3).
Let's say we went right, and our next middle value is 5.
We are at the first position in this subarray, and the previous value is 4, so we have 5 - (4+1) = 0 pickable values to the left.
And there are 10 - (5+1) - 1 = 3 pickable values to the right.
We can't go left (0 probability). If we go right, our next middle value would be 8.
There would be 2 pickable values to the left, and 1 to the right.
If we go left, we'd have an empty subarray.
So then we'd generate a number between 5 and 8, which would be 6 or 7 with equal probability.
This can be solved by basically solving this:
Find the rth smallest number not in the given array, K, subject to
conditions in the question.
For that consider the implicit array D, defined by
D[i] = K[i] - i for 0 <= i < L, where L is length of K
We also set D[-1] = 0 and D[L] = N
We also define K[-1] = 0.
Note, we don't actually need to construct D. Also note that D is sorted (and all elements non-negative), as the numbers in K[] are unique and increasing.
Now we make the following claim:
CLAIM: To find the rth smallest number not in K[], we need to find right most occurrence of r' in D (which occurs at position defined by j), where r' is the largest number in D, which is < r. Such an r' exists, because D[-1] = 0. Once we find such an r' (and j), the number we are looking for is r-r' + K[j].
Proof: Basically the definition of r' and j tells us that there are exactlyr' numbers missing from 0 to K[j], and more than r numbers missing from 0 to K[j+1]. Thus all the numbers from K[j]+1 to K[j+1]-1 are missing (and these missing are at least r-r' in number), and the number we seek is among them, given by K[j] + r-r'.
Algorithm:
In order to find (r',j) all we need to do is a (modified) binary search for r in D, where we keep moving to the left even if we find r in the array.
This is an O(log K) algorithm.
If you are running this many times, it probably pays to speed up your generation operation: O(log N) time just isn't acceptable.
Make an empty array G. Starting at zero, count upwards while progressing through the values of K. If a value isn't in K add it to G. If it is in K don't add it and progress your K pointer. (This relies on K being sorted.)
Now you have an array G which has only acceptable numbers.
Use your random number generator to choose a value from G.
This requires O(N) preparatory work and each generation happens in O(1) time. After N look-ups the amortized time of all operations is O(1).
A Python mock-up:
import random
class PRNG:
def __init__(self, K,N):
self.G = []
kptr = 0
for i in range(N):
if kptr<len(K) and K[kptr]==i:
kptr+=1
else:
self.G.append(i)
def getRand(self):
rn = random.randint(0,len(self.G)-1)
return self.G[rn]
prng=PRNG( [0,1,5], 7)
for i in range(20):
print prng.getRand()
Related
I want to maximize number of zigzag sequence in an array(without reordering).
I've a main array of random sequence of integers.I want a sub-array of index of main array that has zigzag pattern.
A sequence of integers is called zigzag sequence if each of its elements is either strictly less or strictly greater than its neighbors(and two adjacent of neighbors).
Example : The sequence 4 2 3 1 5 2 forms a zigzag, but 7 3 5 5 2 and 3 8 6 4 5
and 4 2 3 1 5 3 don't.
For a given array of integers we need to find (contiguous) sub-array of indexes that forms a zigzag sequence.
Can this be done in O(N) ?
Yes, this would seem to be solvable in O(n) time. I'll describe the algorithm as a dynamic program.
Setup
Let the array containing potential zig-zags be called Z.
Let U be an array such that len(U) == len(Z), and U[i] is an integer representing the largest contiguous left-to-right subsequence starting at i that is a zig-zag such that Z[i] < Z[i+1] (it zigs up).
Let D be similar to U, except that D[i] is an integer representing the largest contiguous left-to-right subsequence starting at i that is a zig-zag such that Z[i] > Z[i+1] (it zags down).
Subproblem
The subproblem is to find both U[i] and D[i] at each i. This can be done as follows:
U[i] = {
1 + D[i+1] if i < i+1
0 otherwise
}
L[i] = {
1 + U[i+1] if i > i+1
0 otherwise
}
The top version says that if we're looking for the largest sequence beginning with an up-zig, we see if the next element is larger (goes up), and then add a single zig to the size of the next down-zag sequence. The next one is the reverse.
Base Cases
If i == len(Z) (it is the last element), U[i] = L[i] = 0. The last element cannot have a left-to-right sequence after it because there is nothing after it.
Solution
To get the solution, first we find max(U[i]) and max(L[i]) for every i. Then get the maximum of those two values, store i, and store the length of this largest zig-zag (in a variable called length). The sequence begins at index i and ends at index i + length.
Runtime
There are n indexes, so there are 2n subproblems between U and L. Each subproblem takes O(1) time to solve, given that solutions to previously solved subproblems are memoized. Finally, iterating through U and L to get the final answer takes O(2n) time.
We thus have O(2n) + O(2n) time, or O(n).
This may be an overly complex solution, but it demonstrates that it can be done in O(n).
I have a number n and a set of numbers S ∈ [1..n]* with size s (which is substantially smaller than n). I want to sample a number k ∈ [1..n] with equal probability, but the number is not allowed to be in the set S.
I am trying to solve the problem in at worst O(log n + s). I am not sure whether it's possible.
A naive approach is creating an array of numbers from 1 to n excluding all numbers in S and then pick one array element. This will run in O(n) and is not an option.
Another approach may be just generating random numbers ∈[1..n] and rejecting them if they are contained in S. This has no theoretical bound as any number could be sampled multiple times even if it is in the set. But on average this might be a practical solution if s is substantially smaller than n.
Say s is sorted. Generate a random number between 1 and n-s, call it k. We've chosen the k'th element of {1,...,n} - s. Now we need to find it.
Use binary search on s to find the count of the elements of s <= k. This takes O(log |s|). Add this to k. In doing so, we may have passed or arrived at additional elements of s. We can adjust for this by incrementing our answer for each such element that we pass, which we find by checking the next larger element of s from the point we found in our binary search.
E.g., n = 100, s = {1,4,5,22}, and our random number is 3. So our approach should return the third element of [2,3,6,7,...,21,23,24,...,100] which is 6. Binary search finds that 1 element is at most 3, so we increment to 4. Now we compare to the next larger element of s which is 4 so increment to 5. Repeating this finds 5 in so we increment to 6. We check s once more, see that 6 isn't in it, so we stop.
E.g., n = 100, s = {1,4,5,22}, and our random number is 4. So our approach should return the fourth element of [2,3,6,7,...,21,23,24,...,100] which is 7. Binary search finds that 2 elements are at most 4, so we increment to 6. Now we compare to the next larger element of s which is 5 so increment to 7. We check s once more, see that the next number is > 7, so we stop.
If we assume that "s is substantially smaller than n" means |s| <= log(n), then we will increment at most log(n) times, and in any case at most s times.
If s is not sorted then we can do the following. Create an array of bits of size s. Generate k. Parse s and do two things: 1) count the number of elements < k, call this r. At the same time, set the i'th bit to 1 if k+i is in s (0 indexed so if k is in s then the first bit is set).
Now, increment k a number of times equal to r plus the number of set bits is the array with an index <= the number of times incremented.
E.g., n = 100, s = {1,4,5,22}, and our random number is 4. So our approach should return the fourth element of [2,3,6,7,...,21,23,24,...,100] which is 7. We parse s and 1) note that 1 element is below 4 (r=1), and 2) set our array to [1, 1, 0, 0]. We increment once for r=1 and an additional two times for the two set bits, ending up at 7.
This is O(s) time, O(s) space.
This is an O(1) solution with O(s) initial setup that works by mapping each non-allowed number > s to an allowed number <= s.
Let S be the set of non-allowed values, S(i), where i = [1 .. s] and s = |S|.
Here's a two part algorithm. The first part constructs a hash table based only on S in O(s) time, the second part finds the random value k ∈ {1..n}, k ∉ S in O(1) time, assuming we can generate a uniform random number in a contiguous range in constant time. The hash table can be reused for new random values and also for new n (assuming S ⊂ { 1 .. n } still holds of course).
To construct the hash, H. First set j = 1. Then iterate over S(i), the elements of S. They do not need to be sorted. If S(i) > s, add the key-value pair (S(i), j) to the hash table, unless j ∈ S, in which case increment j until it is not. Finally, increment j.
To find a random value k, first generate a uniform random value in the range s + 1 to n, inclusive. If k is a key in H, then k = H(k). I.e., we do at most one hash lookup to insure k is not in S.
Python code to generate the hash:
def substitute(S):
H = dict()
j = 1
for s in S:
if s > len(S):
while j in S: j += 1
H[s] = j
j += 1
return H
For the actual implementation to be O(s), one might need to convert S into something like a frozenset to insure the test for membership is O(1) and also move the len(S) loop invariant out of the loop. Assuming the j in S test and the insertion into the hash (H[s] = j) are constant time, this should have complexity O(s).
The generation of a random value is simply:
def myrand(n, s, H):
k = random.randint(s + 1, n)
return (H[k] if k in H else k)
If one is only interested in a single random value per S, then the algorithm can be optimized to improve the common case, while the worst case remains the same. This still requires S be in a hash table that allows for a constant time "element of" test.
def rand_not_in(n, S):
k = random.randint(len(S) + 1, n);
if k not in S: return k
j = 1
for s in S:
if s > len(S):
while j in S: j += 1
if s == k: return j
j += 1
Optimizations are: Only generate the mapping if the random value is in S. Don't save the mapping to a hash table. Short-circuit the mapping generation when the random value is found.
Actually, the rejection method seems like the practical approach.
Generate a number in 1...n and check whether it is forbidden; regenerate until the generated number is not forbidden.
The probability of a single rejection is p = s/n.
Thus the expected number of random number generations is 1 + p + p^2 + p^3 + ... which is 1/(1-p), which in turn is equal to n/(n-s).
Now, if s is much less than n, or even more up to s = n/2, this expected number is at most 2.
It would take s almost equal to n to make it infeasible in practice.
Multiply the expected time by log s if you use a tree-set to check whether the number is in the set, or by just 1 (expected value again) if it is a hash-set. So the average time is O(1) or O(log s) depending on the set implementation. There is also O(s) memory for storing the set, but unless the set is given in some special way, implicitly and concisely, I don't see how it can be avoided.
(Edit: As per comments, you do this only once for a given set.
If, additionally, we are out of luck, and the set is given as a plain array or list, not some fancier data structure, we get O(s) expected time with this approach, which still fits into the O(log n + s) requirement.)
If attacks against the unbounded algorithm are a concern (and only if they truly are), the method can include a fall-back algorithm for the cases when a certain fixed number of iterations didn't provide the answer.
Similarly to how IntroSort is QuickSort but falls back to HeapSort if the recursion depth gets too high (which is almost certainly a result of an attack resulting in quadratic QuickSort behavior).
Find all numbers that are in a forbidden set and less or equal then n-s. Call it array A.
Find all numbers that are not in a forbidden set and greater then n-s. Call it array B. It may be done in O(s) if set is sorted.
Note that lengths of A and B are equal, and create mapping map[A[i]] = B[i]
Generate number t up to n-s. If there is map[t] return it, otherwise return t
It will work in O(s) insertions to a map + 1 lookup which is either O(s) in average or O(s log s)
Given an array of length N and an integer K, sort the array as much as possible such that no element travels more than K positions to its left. An element however can travel as much as it likes to its right.
Let's define sortedness as the number of disordered pairs, i.e.: sortedness(1,2,3) = 0 and sortedness(3,1,2) = 2.
Clarification: If the first k+1 items of the array are moved to the end of the array, the other ones should be considered moved k+1 positions to the left.
This is an interview question. I thought of using a bubble sort. The outer loop would run K times with a run-time of O(nk). The smallest integer would be the only integer shifted to the left K times. The other integers would be shifted to the left less than K times.
Is there a more efficient way to approach this problem?
Use a min heap to sort the list of n elements in O(n log k).
Add the first k+1 unsorted elements to the heap.
Repeat this step: pop off the min element from the heap. Add it to the end of the sorted list. add the next unsorted element to the heap.
Because the heap always has at most k+1 elements regardless of n, all heap operations are O(log k), and the total running time is O(n log k)
Why is this correct?
Suppose it isn't. Then for some inputs my algorithm gives non-optimal sorts. Let I be such an input, let A be the output of my algorithm on I, and let B be the optimal sort.
Let i be the first index where A and B disagree. Let x = A[i], y = B[i], and let j be the index of x in B.
I claim that swapping x and y in B improve the sortedness of B, which is a contradiction.
Because A and B are identical for positions before i, the same set of k+1 elements are eligible to go into position i for both. Because my algorithm chose x to be the min of those elements, we know that x is less than y. We also know j is greater than i.
What happens when we swap x and y in B?
First, note that the change in sortedness is unaffected by anything to the left of i or to the right of j, because their positions relative to both x and y are unchanged by the swap.
We know there are no elements between i and j that are less than x, because my sort chose the smallest available element. Therefore all elements between i and j are at least as large as x.
For each element between i and j equal to x, swapping x and y improves sortedness by 1 because we improve y relative to these elements and x is unaffected.
For each element between i and j greater than x, the sortedness of x relative to these is improved by 1, and in the worst case the sortedness of y relative to these is degraded by 1, so the net effect is at worst 0.
Furthermore, swapping x and y improves the sortedness of x relative to y by 1, so this swap strictly improves overall sortedness.
Contradiction.
Naive approach:
iterate the array from left to right.For each position i we consider a subarray from i to i+k. Then we have to get the minimum valued element in this subarray and swap the 1st element of this subarray with this element. Now, go to position i+1 and do the same.
Optimized Approach:
We can use segment tree to solve this. Using this data structure you can find the minimum value between any range of an array and also edit any data online in O(logn). In your problem, we can get the solution array using following steps,
arr[1] = minimum value between position 1 to min(k,n), then edit this position with infinity
arr[2] = min value between position 1 to min(k+1,n), then edit this position with infinity
arr[3] = min value between position 1 to min(k+2,n), then edit this position with infinity
arr[4] = min value between position 1 to min(k+3,n), then edit this position with infinity
...
...
arr[n] = min value between position 1 to min(k+n,n), then edit this position with infinity
Overall complexity O(nlogn)
for example:
given array = 5 3 4 7 8 2 1 0 and K = 2
using this algorithm you will get the solution array as this:
3 4 5 2 1 0 7 8 sortedness value = 12
Hope it helps!
Best regards,
Agassaa
Given a set S of positive integers whose elements need not to be distinct i need to find minimal non-negative sum that cant be obtained from any subset of the given set.
Example : if S = {1, 1, 3, 7}, we can get 0 as (S' = {}), 1 as (S' = {1}), 2 as (S' = {1, 1}), 3 as (S' = {3}), 4 as (S' = {1, 3}), 5 as (S' = {1, 1, 3}), but we can't get 6.
Now we are given one array A, consisting of N positive integers. Their are M queries,each consist of two integers Li and Ri describe i'th query: we need to find this Sum that cant be obtained from array elements ={A[Li], A[Li+1], ..., A[Ri-1], A[Ri]} .
I know to find it by a brute force approach to be done in O(2^n). But given 1 ≤ N, M ≤ 100,000.This cant be done .
So is their any effective approach to do it.
Concept
Suppose we had an array of bool representing which numbers so far haven't been found (by way of summing).
For each number n we encounter in the ordered (increasing values) subset of S, we do the following:
For each existing True value at position i in numbers, we set numbers[i + n] to True
We set numbers[n] to True
With this sort of a sieve, we would mark all the found numbers as True, and iterating through the array when the algorithm finishes would find us the minimum unobtainable sum.
Refinement
Obviously, we can't have a solution like this because the array would have to be infinite in order to work for all sets of numbers.
The concept could be improved by making a few observations. With an input of 1, 1, 3, the array becomes (in sequence):
(numbers represent true values)
An important observation can be made:
(3) For each next number, if the previous numbers had already been found it will be added to all those numbers. This implies that if there were no gaps before a number, there will be no gaps after that number has been processed.
For the next input of 7 we can assert that:
(4) Since the input set is ordered, there will be no number less than 7
(5) If there is no number less than 7, then 6 cannot be obtained
We can come to a conclusion that:
(6) the first gap represents the minimum unobtainable number.
Algorithm
Because of (3) and (6), we don't actually need the numbers array, we only need a single value, max to represent the maximum number found so far.
This way, if the next number n is greater than max + 1, then a gap would have been made, and max + 1 is the minimum unobtainable number.
Otherwise, max becomes max + n. If we've run through the entire S, the result is max + 1.
Actual code (C#, easily converted to C):
static int Calculate(int[] S)
{
int max = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < S.Length; i++)
{
if (S[i] <= max + 1)
max = max + S[i];
else
return max + 1;
}
return max + 1;
}
Should run pretty fast, since it's obviously linear time (O(n)). Since the input to the function should be sorted, with quicksort this would become O(nlogn). I've managed to get results M = N = 100000 on 8 cores in just under 5 minutes.
With numbers upper limit of 10^9, a radix sort could be used to approximate O(n) time for the sorting, however this would still be way over 2 seconds because of the sheer amount of sorts required.
But, we can use statistical probability of 1 being randomed to eliminate subsets before sorting. On the start, check if 1 exists in S, if not then every query's result is 1 because it cannot be obtained.
Statistically, if we random from 10^9 numbers 10^5 times, we have 99.9% chance of not getting a single 1.
Before each sort, check if that subset contains 1, if not then its result is one.
With this modification, the code runs in 2 miliseconds on my machine. Here's that code on http://pastebin.com/rF6VddTx
This is a variation of the subset-sum problem, which is NP-Complete, but there is a pseudo-polynomial Dynamic Programming solution you can adopt here, based on the recursive formula:
f(S,i) = f(S-arr[i],i-1) OR f(S,i-1)
f(-n,i) = false
f(_,-n) = false
f(0,i) = true
The recursive formula is basically an exhaustive search, each sum can be achieved if you can get it with element i OR without element i.
The dynamic programming is achieved by building a SUM+1 x n+1 table (where SUM is the sum of all elements, and n is the number of elements), and building it bottom-up.
Something like:
table <- SUM+1 x n+1 table
//init:
for each i from 0 to SUM+1:
table[0][i] = true
for each j from 1 to n:
table[j][0] = false
//fill the table:
for each i from 1 to SUM+1:
for each j from 1 to n+1:
if i < arr[j]:
table[i][j] = table[i][j-1]
else:
table[i][j] = table[i-arr[j]][j-1] OR table[i][j-1]
Once you have the table, you need the smallest i such that for all j: table[i][j] = false
Complexity of solution is O(n*SUM), where SUM is the sum of all elements, but note that the algorithm can actually be trimmed after the required number was found, without the need to go on for the next rows, which are un-needed for the solution.
I have an interview question that I can't seem to figure out. Given an array of size N, find the subset of size k such that the elements in the subset are the furthest apart from each other. In other words, maximize the minimum pairwise distance between the elements.
Example:
Array = [1,2,6,10]
k = 3
answer = [1,6,10]
The bruteforce way requires finding all subsets of size k which is exponential in runtime.
One idea I had was to take values evenly spaced from the array. What I mean by this is
Take the 1st and last element
find the difference between them (in this case 10-1) and divide that by k ((10-1)/3=3)
move 2 pointers inward from both ends, picking out elements that are +/- 3 from your previous pick. So in this case, you start from 1 and 10 and find the closest elements to 4 and 7. That would be 6.
This is based on the intuition that the elements should be as evenly spread as possible. I have no idea how to prove it works/doesn't work. If anyone knows how or has a better algorithm please do share. Thanks!
This can be solved in polynomial time using DP.
The first step is, as you mentioned, sort the list A. Let X[i,j] be the solution for selecting j elements from first i elements A.
Now, X[i+1, j+1] = max( min( X[k,j], A[i+1]-A[k] ) ) over k<=i.
I will leave initialization step and memorization of subset step for you to work on.
In your example (1,2,6,10) it works the following way:
1 2 6 10
1 - - - -
2 - 1 5 9
3 - - 1 4
4 - - - 1
The basic idea is right, I think. You should start by sorting the array, then take the first and the last elements, then determine the rest.
I cannot think of a polynomial algorithm to solve this, so I would suggest one of the two options.
One is to use a search algorithm, branch-and-bound style, since you have a nice heuristic at hand: the upper bound for any solution is the minimum size of the gap between the elements picked so far, so the first guess (evenly spaced cells, as you suggested) can give you a good baseline, which will help prune most of the branches right away. This will work fine for smaller values of k, although the worst case performance is O(N^k).
The other option is to start with the same baseline, calculate the minimum pairwise distance for it and then try to improve it. Say you have a subset with minimum distance of 10, now try to get one with 11. This can be easily done by a greedy algorithm -- pick the first item in the sorted sequence such that the distance between it and the previous item is bigger-or-equal to the distance you want. If you succeed, try increasing further, if you fail -- there is no such subset.
The latter solution can be faster when the array is large and k is relatively large as well, but the elements in the array are relatively small. If they are bound by some value M, this algorithm will take O(N*M) time, or, with a small improvement, O(N*log(M)), where N is the size of the array.
As Evgeny Kluev suggests in his answer, there is also a good upper bound on the maximum pairwise distance, which can be used in either one of these algorithms. So the complexity of the latter is actually O(N*log(M/k)).
You can do this in O(n*(log n) + n*log(M)), where M is max(A) - min(A).
The idea is to use binary search to find the maximum separation possible.
First, sort the array. Then, we just need a helper function that takes in a distance d, and greedily builds the longest subarray possible with consecutive elements separated by at least d. We can do this in O(n) time.
If the generated array has length at least k, then the maximum separation possible is >=d. Otherwise, it's strictly less than d. This means we can use binary search to find the maximum value. With some cleverness, you can shrink the 'low' and 'high' bounds of the binary search, but it's already so fast that sorting would become the bottleneck.
Python code:
def maximize_distance(nums: List[int], k: int) -> List[int]:
"""Given an array of numbers and size k, uses binary search
to find a subset of size k with maximum min-pairwise-distance"""
assert len(nums) >= k
if k == 1:
return [nums[0]]
nums.sort()
def longest_separated_array(desired_distance: int) -> List[int]:
"""Given a distance, returns a subarray of nums
of length k with pairwise differences at least that distance (if
one exists)."""
answer = [nums[0]]
for x in nums[1:]:
if x - answer[-1] >= desired_distance:
answer.append(x)
if len(answer) == k:
break
return answer
low, high = 0, (nums[-1] - nums[0])
while low < high:
mid = (low + high + 1) // 2
if len(longest_separated_array(mid)) == k:
low = mid
else:
high = mid - 1
return longest_separated_array(low)
I suppose your set is ordered. If not, my answer will be changed slightly.
Let's suppose you have an array X = (X1, X2, ..., Xn)
Energy(Xi) = min(|X(i-1) - Xi|, |X(i+1) - Xi|), 1 < i <n
j <- 1
while j < n - k do
X.Exclude(min(Energy(Xi)), 1 < i < n)
j <- j + 1
n <- n - 1
end while
$length = length($array);
sort($array); //sorts the list in ascending order
$differences = ($array << 1) - $array; //gets the difference between each value and the next largest value
sort($differences); //sorts the list in ascending order
$max = ($array[$length-1]-$array[0])/$M; //this is the theoretical max of how large the result can be
$result = array();
for ($i = 0; i < $length-1; $i++){
$count += $differences[i];
if ($length-$i == $M - 1 || $count >= $max){ //if there are either no more coins that can be taken or we have gone above or equal to the theoretical max, add a point
$result.push_back($count);
$count = 0;
$M--;
}
}
return min($result)
For the non-code people: sort the list, find the differences between each 2 sequential elements, sort that list (in ascending order), then loop through it summing up sequential values until you either pass the theoretical max or there arent enough elements remaining; then add that value to a new array and continue until you hit the end of the array. then return the minimum of the newly created array.
This is just a quick draft though. At a quick glance any operation here can be done in linear time (radix sort for the sorts).
For example, with 1, 4, 7, 100, and 200 and M=3, we get:
$differences = 3, 3, 93, 100
$max = (200-1)/3 ~ 67
then we loop:
$count = 3, 3+3=6, 6+93=99 > 67 so we push 99
$count = 100 > 67 so we push 100
min(99,100) = 99
It is a simple exercise to convert this to the set solution that I leave to the reader (P.S. after all the times reading that in a book, I've always wanted to say it :P)