I have a generic weighted tree (undirected graph without cycles, connected) with n nodes and n-1 edges connecting a node to another one.
My algorithm does the following:
do
compute the actual leaves (nodes with degree 1)
remove all the leaves and their edges from the tree labelling each parent with the maximum value of the cost of his connected leaves
(for example if an internal node is connected to two leaf with edges with costs 5,6 then we label the internal node after removing the leaves with 6)
until the tree has size <= 2
return the node with maximum cost labelled
Can I say that the complexity is O(n) to compute the leaves and O(n) to eliminate each edge with leaf, so I have O(n)+O(n) = O(n)?
You can easily do this in O(n) with a set implemented as a simple list, queue, or stack (order of processing is unimportant).
Put all the leaves in the set.
In a loop, remove a leaf from the set, delete it and its edge from the graph. Process the label by updating the max of the parent. If the parent is now a leaf, add it to the set and keep going.
When the set is empty you're done, and the node labels are correct.
Initially constructing the set is O(n). Every vertex is placed on the set, removed and its label processed exactly once. That's all constant time. So for n nodes it is O(n) time. So we have O(n) + O(n) = O(n).
It's certainly possible to do this process in O(n), but whether or not your algorithm actually does depends.
If either "compute the actual leaves" or "remove all the leaves and their edges" loops over the entire tree, that step would take O(n).
And both the above steps will be repeated O(n) times in the worst case (if the tree is greatly unbalanced), so, in total, it could take O(n2).
To do this in O(n), you could have each node point to its parent so you can remove the leaf in constant time and maintain a collection of leaves so you always have the leaves, rather than having to calculate them - this would lead to O(n) running time.
As your tree is an artitary one. It can also be a link list in which case you would eliminate one node in each iteration and you would need (n-2) iterations of O(n) to find the leaf.
So your algorithm is actually O(N^2)
Here is an better algorithm that does that in O(N) for any tree
deleteLeaf(Node k) {
for each child do
value = deleteLeaf(child)
if(value>max)
max = value
delete(child)
return max
}
deleteLeaf(root) or deleteLeaf(root.child)
Related
enter image description here
enter image description here
above are the pseudocode of BFS and DFS.
Now with my calculation I think time complexity for both the code will be O(n), but I also have another confusion that it might be O(V+E) where V stands for Vertex and E stands for Edges. Can anyone give me a detailed time complexity of both the pseudocode.
So in short, what will be the time complexity of the BFS and DFS on both Matrix and Adjacency List.
Let us analyze the time complexity of BFS first for adjacency list implementation.
For breadth-first search, that's what we do:
Start from a node and mark it as visited. Then mark all of the neighbors of that node as visited and add them to a queue. Then fetch the next node from the queue and perform the same operation until the queue is empty. If queue is empty but there are still unvisited nodes, call the BFS function again for that node.
When we are at a node, we check each neighbor of that node to fill up the queue. If a neighbor is already visited (visited[int(neighbor) - 1] = 1), we do not add it to the queue. Neighbor of a node is another node connected to it by an edge, therefore checking all neighbors means checking all the edges. This makes our time complexity O(E). Also since we add each node to the queue (and pop it later), it makes the time complexity O(V).
So which one should we take?
Well, we should take the maximum of E and V. That's why we say O(V+E). If one of them is larger than the other, then smaller can be seen as a constant.
For example, if we have a connected graph with N many nodes, we'll have N*(N-1) edges. At each node, we will check all the neighbors, which makes N*(N-1) many checks. Therefore time complexity will be max(N, N*(N-1)) = N*(N-1) = O(N^2)
For example, if we have a sparse graph with N many nodes, and say sqrt(N) many edges, we have to say time complexity of BFS should be O(N).
Same logic can be applied for DFS. You visit each node and check each edge to dive into the depths of the graph. And again it makes it O(V+E).
As to your assumption, it is partially correct. However, as I explained above we cannot say that time complexity will always be O(N). (I assume N is the number of vertices, you didn't specify that in your question.)
Notice that these are for the adjacency list implementation.
For adjacency matrix implementation, to check neighbors of a node, we have to check all the columns corresponding to the related row, which makes O(V). And we have to do it for all vertices, therefore it is O(V^2).
So, for matrix implementation, time complexity is not dependent on the number of edges. However in most cases O(V+E) << O(V^2), therefore prefer adjacency list implementation.
I've looked at various other StackOverflow answer's and they all are different to what my lecturer has written in his slides.
Depth First Search has a time complexity of O(b^m), where b is the
maximum branching factor of the search tree and m is the maximum depth
of the state space. Terrible if m is much larger than d, but if search
tree is "bushy", may be much faster than Breadth First Search.
He goes on to say..
The space complexity is O(bm), i.e. space linear in length of action
sequence! Need only store a single path from the root to the leaf
node, along with remaining unexpanded sibling nodes for each node on
path.
Another answer on StackOverflow states that it is O(n + m).
Time Complexity: If you can access each node in O(1) time, then with branching factor of b and max depth of m, the total number of nodes in this tree would be worst case = 1 + b + b2 + … + bm-1. Using the formula for summing a geometric sequence (or even solving it ourselves) tells that this sums to = (bm - 1)/(b - 1), resulting in total time to visit each node proportional to bm. Hence the complexity = O(bm).
On the other hand, if instead of using the branching factor and max depth you have the number of nodes n, then you can directly say that the complexity will be proportional to n or equal to O(n).
The other answers that you have linked in your question are similarly using different terminologies. The idea is same everywhere. Some solutions have added the edge count too to make the answer more precise, but in general, node count is sufficient to describe the complexity.
Space Complexity: The length of longest path = m. For each node, you have to store its siblings so that when you have visited all the children, and you come back to a parent node, you can know which sibling to explore next. For m nodes down the path, you will have to store b nodes extra for each of the m nodes. That’s how you get an O(bm) space complexity.
The complexity is O(n + m) where n is the number of nodes in your tree, and m is the number of edges.
The reason why your teacher represents the complexity as O(b ^ m), is probably because he wants to stress the difference between Depth First Search and Breadth First Search.
When using BFS, if your tree has a very large amount of spread compared to it's depth, and you're expecting results to be found at the leaves, then clearly DFS would make much more sense here as it reaches leaves faster than BFS, even though they both reach the last node in the same amount of time (work).
When a tree is very deep, and non-leaves can give information about deeper nodes, BFS can detect ways to prune the search tree in order to reduce the amount of nodes necessary to find your goal. Clearly, the higher up the tree you discover you can prune a sub tree, the more nodes you can skip.
This is harder when you're using DFS, because you're prioritize reaching a leaf over exploring nodes that are closer to the root.
I suppose this DFS time/space complexity is taught on an AI class but not on Algorithm class.
The DFS Search Tree here has slightly different meaning:
A node is a bookkeeping data structure used to represent the search
tree. A state corresponds to a configuration of the world. ...
Furthermore, two different nodes can contain the same world state if
that state is generated via two different search paths.
Quoted from book 'Artificial Intelligence - A Modern Approach'
So the time/space complexity here is focused on you visit nodes and check whether this is the goal state. #displayName already give a very clear explanation.
While O(m+n) is in algorithm class, the focus is the algorithm itself, when we store the graph as adjacency list and how we discover nodes.
Prove that K-successive calls to tree successor takes O(k+h) time. Since each node is visited atmost twice the maximum bound on number of nodes visited must be 2k. The time complexity must be O(k). I dont get where is the factor of O(h) coming. Is it because of nodes which are visited but are not the successor. I am not exactly able to explain myself how is the factor O(h) is involved in the whole process
PS:I know this question already exists but I was not able to understand the solution.
Plus in the O(k+h) notation is an alternative form of writing O(MAX(k, h)).
Finding a successor once could take up to O(h) time. To see why this is true, consider a situation when you are looking for a successor of the rightmost node of the left subtree of the root: its successor is at the bottom of the right subtree, so you must traverse the height of the tree twice. That's why you need to include h in the calculation: if k is small compared to h, then h would dominate the timing of the algorithm.
The point of the exercise is to prove that the time of calling the successor k times in a row is not O(k*h), as one could imagine after observing that a single call could take up to O(h). You prove it by showing that the cost of traversing the height of the tree is distributed among the k calls, as you did by noting that each node is visited at most twice.
I can't seem to figure out how the in-order traversal of a threaded binary tree is O(N)..
Because you have to descend the links to find the the leftmost child and then go back by the thread when you want to add the parent to the traversal path. would not that be O(N^2)?
Thanks!
The traversal of a tree (threaded or not) is O(N) because visiting any node, starting from its parent, is O(1). The visitation of a node consists of three fixed operations: descending to the node from parent, the visitation proper (spending time at the node), and then returning to the parent. O(1 * N) is O(N).
The ultimate way to look at it is that the tree is a graph, and the traversal crosses each edge in the graph only twice. And the number of edges is proportional to the number of nodes since there are no cycles or redundant edges (each node can be reached by one unique path). A tree with N nodes has exactly N-1 edges: each node has an edge leading to it from its parent node, except for the root node of the tree.
At times it appears as if visiting a node requires more than one descent. For instance, after visiting the rightmost node in a subtree, we have to pop back up numerous levels before we can march to the right into the next subtree. But we did not descend all the way down just to visit that node. Each one-level descent can be accounted for as being necessary for visiting just the node immediately below, and the opposite ascent's
cost is lumped with that. By visiting a node V, we also gain access to all the nodes below it, but all those nodes benefit from and share the edge traversal from V's parent down to V, and back up again.
This is related to amortized analysis, which applies in situations where we can globally understand the overall cost based on some general observation about the structure of the problem, but at the detailed level of the individual operations, the costs are distributed in an uneven way that appears confusing.
Amortized analysis helps us understand that, for instance, N insertions into a hash table which resizes itself by growing exponentially are O(N). Most of the insertion operations are quick, but from time to time, we grow the table and process its contents. This is similar to how, from time to time during a tree traversal, we have to perform numerous consecutive ascents to climb out of a deep subtree.
The global observation about the hash table is that each item inserted into the table will move to a larger table on average about three times in three resize operations, and so each insertion can be regarded as "pre paying" for three re-insertions, which is a fixed cost. Of course, "older" items will be moved more times, but this is offset by "younger" entries that move fewer times, diluting the cost. And the global observation about the tree was already noted above: it has N-1 edges, each of which are traversed exactly twice during the traversal, so the visitation of each node "pays" for the double traversal of its respective edge. Because this is so easy to see, we don't actually have to formally apply amortized analysis to tree traversal.
Now suppose we performed an individual searches for each node (and the tree is a balanced search tree). Then the traversal would still not be O(N*N), but rather O(N log N). Suppose we have an ordered search tree which holds consecutive integers. If we increment over the integers and perform individual searches for each value, then each search is O(log N), and we end up doing N of these. In this situation, the edge traversals are no longer shared, so amortization does not apply. To reach some given node that we are searching for which is found at depth D, we have to cross D edges twice, for the sake of that node and that node alone. The next search in the loop for another integer will be completely independent of the previous one.
It may also help you to think of a linked list, which can be regarded as a very unbalanced tree. To visit all the items in a linked list of length N and return back to the head node is obviously O(N). Searching for each item individually is O(N*N), but in a traversal, we are not searching for each node individually, but using each predecessor as a springboard into finding the next node.
There is no loop to find the parent. Otherwise said, you are going through each arc between two node twice. That would be 2*number of arc = 2*(number of node -1) which is O(N).
I am looking for an algorithm to split a tree with N nodes (where the maximum degree of each node is 3) by removing one edge from it, so that the two trees that come as the result have as close as possible to N/2. How do I find the edge that is "the most centered"?
The tree comes as an input from a previous stage of the algorithm and is input as a graph - so it's not balanced nor is it clear which node is the root.
My idea is to find the longest path in the tree and then select the edge in the middle of the longest path. Does it work?
Optimally, I am looking for a solution that can ensure that neither of the trees has more than 2N / 3 nodes.
Thanks for your answers.
I don't believe that your initial algorithm works for the reason I mentioned in the comments. However, I think that you can solve this in O(n) time and space using a modified DFS.
Begin by walking the graph to count how many total nodes there are; call this n. Now, choose an arbitrary node and root the tree at it. We will now recursively explore the tree starting from the root and will compute for each subtree how many nodes are in each subtree. This can be done using a simple recursion:
If the current node is null, return 0.
Otherwise:
For each child, compute the number of nodes in the subtree rooted at that child.
Return 1 + the total number of nodes in all child subtrees
At this point, we know for each edge what split we will get by removing that edge, since if the subtree below that edge has k nodes in it, the spilt will be (k, n - k). You can thus find the best cut to make by iterating across all nodes and looking for the one that balances (k, n - k) most evenly.
Counting the nodes takes O(n) time, and running the recursion visits each node and edge at most O(1) times, so that takes O(n) time as well. Finding the best cut takes an additional O(n) time, for a net runtime of O(n). Since we need to store the subtree node counts, we need O(n) memory as well.
Hope this helps!
If you see my answer to Divide-And-Conquer Algorithm for Trees, you can see I'll find a node that partitions tree into 2 nearly equal size trees (bottom up algorithm), now you just need to choose one of the edges of this node to do what you want.
Your current approach is not working assume you have a complete binary tree, now add a path of length 3*log n to one of leafs (name it bad leaf), your longest path will be within one of a other leafs to the end of path connected to this bad leaf, and your middle edge will be within this path (in fact after you passed bad leaf) and if you partition base on this edge you have a part of O(log n) and another part of size O(n) .