How to find, in a binary string, the longest substring where the balance, i.e. the difference between the number of ones and zeros, is >= 0?
Example:
01110000010 -> 6: 011100
1110000011110000111 -> 19: entire string
While this problem looks very similar to the Maximum Value Contiguous Subsequence (Maximum Contiguous Sum) problem, a dynamic programming solution doesn't seem to be obvious. In a divide-and-conquer approach, how to do the merging? Is an "efficient" algorithm possible after all? (A trivial O(n^2) algorithm will just iterate over all substrings for all possible starting points.)
This is a modified variant of Finding a substring, with some additional conditions. The difference is that in the linked question, only such substrings are allowed where balance never falls below zero (looking at the string in either forward or backward direction). In the given problem, balance is allowed to fall below zero, provided it recovers at some later stage.
I have a solution that requires O(n) additional memory and O(n) time.
Let's denote the 'height' of an index h(i) as
h(i) = <number of 1s in the substring 1..i> - <number of 0s in the same substring>
The problem can now be reformulated as: find i and j such as h(i) <= h(j) and j-i -> max.
Obviously, h(0) = 0, and if h(n) = 0, then the solution is the entire string.
Now let's compute the array B so that B[x] = min{i: h(i) = -x}. In other words, let B[x] be the leftmost index i at which h(i)= -x.
The array B[x] has a length of at most n, and is computed in one linear pass.
Now we can iterate over the original string and for each index i compute the length of the longest sequence with non-negative balance that ends on i as follows:
Lmax(i) = i - B[MIN{0, h(i)}]
The largest Lmax(i) across all i will give you the desired length.
I leave the proof as an exercise :) Contact me if you can't figure it out.
Also, my algorithm needs 2 passes of the original string, but you can collapse them into one.
This can be answered quite easily in O(n) using "height array", representing the number of 1's relative to the number of 0's. Like my answer in the linked question.
Now, instead of focusing on the original array, we now focus on two arrays indexed by the heights, and one will contain the smallest index such height is found, and the other will contain the largest index such height is found. Since we don't want a negative index, we can shift everything up, such that the minimum height is 0.
So for the sample cases (I added two more 1's at the end to show my point):
1110000011010000011111
Array height visualization
/\
/ \
/ \
\ /\/\ /
\/ \ /
\ /
\ /
\/
(lowest height = -5)
Shifted height array:
[5, 6, 7, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3]
Height: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
first_view = [17,16,15, 8, 7, 0, 1, 2, 3]
last_view = [17,18,19,20,21,22, 5, 4, 3]
note that we have 22 numbers and 23 distinct indices, 0-22, representing the 23 spaces between and padding the numbers
We can build the first_view and last_view array in O(n).
Now, for each height in the first_view, we only need to check every larger heights in last_view, and take the index with maximum difference from the first_view index. For example, from height 0, the maximum value of index in larger heights is 22. So the longest substring starting at index 17+1 will end at index 22.
To find the maximum index on the last_view array, you can convert it to a maximum to the right in O(n):
last_view_max = [22,22,22,22,22,22, 5, 4, 3]
And so finding answer is simply subtracting first_view from last_view_max,
first_view = [17,16,15, 8, 7, 0, 1, 2, 3]
last_view_max = [22,22,22,22,22,22, 5, 4, 3]
result = [ 5, 6, 7,14,15,22, 4, 2, 0]
and taking the maximum (again in O(n)), which is 22, achieved from starting index 0 to ending index 22, i.e., the whole string. =D
Proof of correctness:
Suppose that the maximum substring starts at index i, ends at index j.
If the height at index i is the same as the height at index k<i, then k..j would be a longer substring still satisfying the requirement. Therefore it suffices to consider the first index of each height. Analogously for the last index.
Compressed quadratic runtime
We will be looking for (locally) longest substrings with balance zero, starting at the beginning. We will ignore strings of zeros. (Corner cases: All zeros -> empty string, balance never reaches zero again -> entire string.) Of these substrings with balance zero, all trailing zeros will be removed.
Denote by B a substring with balance > 0 and by Z a substring with only zeros. Each input string can be decomposed as follows (pseudo-regex notation):
B? (Z B)* Z?
Each of the Bs is a maximum feasible solution, meaning that it cannot be extended in either direction without reducing balance. However, it might be possible to collapse sequences of BZB or ZBZ if the balance is still larger than zero after collapsing.
Note that it is always possible to collapse sequences of BZBZB to a single B if the ZBZ part has balance >= 0. (Can be done in one pass in linear time.) Once all such sequences have been collapsed, the balance of each ZBZ part is below zero. Still, it is possible that there exist BZB parts with balance above zero -- even that in a BZBZB sequence with balance below zero both the leading and trailing BZB parts have balance over zero. At this point, it seems to be difficult to decide which BZB to collapse.
Still quadratic...
Anyway, with this simplified data structure one can try all Bs as starting points (possibly extending to the left if there's still balance left). Run time is still quadratic, but (in practice) with a much smaller n.
Divide and conquer
Another classic. Should run in O(n log n), but rather difficult to implement.
Idea
The longest feasible substring is either in the left half, in the right half, or it passes over the boundary. Call the algorithm for both halves. For the boundary:
Assume problem size n. For the longest feasible substring that crosses the boundary, we are going to compute the balance of the left-half part of the substring.
Determine, for each possible balance between -n/2 and n/2, in the left half, the length of the longest string that ends at the boundary and has this (or a larger) balance. (Linear time!) Do the same for the right half and the longest string that starts at the boundary. The result is two arrays of size n + 1; we reverse one of them, add them element-wise and find the maximum. (Again, linear.)
Why does it work?
A substring with balance >= 0 that crosses the boundary can have balance < 0 in either the left or the right part, if the other part compensates this. ("Borrowing" balance.) The crucial question is how much to borrow; we iterate over all potential "balance credits" and find the best trade-off.
Why is this O(n log n)?
Because merging (looking at boundary-crossing string) takes only linear time.
Why is merging O(n)?
Exercise left to the reader.
Dynamic programming -- linear run time (finally!)
inspired by this blog post. Simple and efficient, one-pass online algorithm, but takes some time to explain.
Idea
The link above shows a different problem: Maximum subsequence sum. It cannot be mapped 1:1 to the given problem, here a "state" of O(n) is needed, in contrast to O(1) for the original problem. Still, the state can be updated in O(1).
Let's rephrase the problem. We are looking for the longest substring in the input where the balance, i.e. the difference between 0's and 1's, is greater than zero.
The state is similar to my other divide-and-conquer solution: We compute, for each position i and for each possible balance b the starting position s(i, b) of the longest string with balance b or greater that ends at position i. That is, the string that starts at index s(i, b) + 1 and ends at i has balance b or greater, and there is no longer such string that ends at i.
We find the result by maximizing i - s(i, 0).
Algorithm
Of course, we do not keep all s(i, b) in memory, just those for the current i (which we iterate over the input). We start with s(0, b) := 0 for b <= 0 and := undefined for b > 0. For each i, we update with the following rule:
If 1 is read: s(i, b) := s(i - 1, b - 1).
If 0 is read: s(i, b) := s(i - 1, b + 1) if defined, s(i, 0) := i if s(i - 1, 1) undefined.
The function s (for current i) can be implemented as a pointer into an array of length 2n + 1; this pointer is moved forward or backward depending on the input. At each iteration, we note the value of s(i, 0).
How does it work?
The state function s becomes effective especially if the balance from the start to i is negative. It records the earliest start point where zero balance is reached, for all possible numbers of 1s that have not been read yet.
Why does it work?
Because the recursive definition of the state function is equivalent to its direct definition -- the starting position of the longest string with balance b or greater that ends at position i.
Why is the recursive definition correct?
Proof by induction.
Related
I have an exercise that needs to be done with O(n) time complexity, however, I can only solve it with an O(n^2) solution.
You have an array and you need to count the longest contiguous sequence such that it's sum can be divided to 3 without any remainder. For example for array {1,2,3,-4,-1), the function will return 4 because the longest sequence that its sum(0) can be divided to 3 is {2,3,-4,-1}.
My solution O(n^2) is based on arithmetic progression. Is there any way to do it with O(n) complexity?
Please, I only want a clue or a theoretical explanation. Please don't write the full solution :)
Let's take a look at prefix sums. A [L, R] subarray is divisble by 3 if and only if prefixSum[L - 1] mod 3 = prefixSum[R] mod 3. This observation gives a very simple linear solution(because there are only 3 possible values of a prefix sum mod 3, we can simply find the first and the last one).
For example, if the input array is {1, 2, 3, -4, -1}, the prefix sums are {0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1}. (there are n + 1 prefix sums because of an empty prefix). Now you can just take a look at the first and last occurrence of 0, 1 and 2.
As a non-CS person, this is interesting. First approach of mine was simply to calc the running sum mod 3. You'll get a sequence of {0,1,2}. Now look for the first and the last 0, the first and the last 1 and the first and the last 2, and compare their respective distances...
Iterate through the array, summing the total as you go. Record the position of the first position where the modulo sum is 0. Also, record the position of he first position where the modulo sum is 1. And, finally, record the position of he first position where the modulo sum is 2.
Do the same thing backwards also, recording the last position where the modulo sum is 0, 1, and 2. That gives three possibilities for the longest sequence - you just check which pair are farthest apart.
You apply dynamic programming.
For every position you compute 3 values:
The longest sequence ending in that position which has sum s = 0 mod 3
The longest sequence ending in that position which has sum s = 1 mod 3
The longest sequence ending in that position which has sum s = 2 mod 3
So given this value for position i you can easily compute the new ones for position i+1.
I was given a tricky question.
Given:
A = [a1,a2,...an] (list of positive integers with length "n")
r (positive integer)
Find a list of { *, + } operators
O = [o1,o2,...on-1]
so that if we placed those operators between the elements of "A", the resulting expression would evaluate to "r". Only one solution is required.
So for example if
A = [1,2,3,4]
r = 14
then
O = [*, +, *]
I've implemented a simple recursive solution with some optimisation, but of course it's exponential O(2^n) time, so for an input with length 40, it works for ages.
I wanted to ask if any of you know a sub-exponential solution for this?
Update
Elements of A are between 0-10000,
r can be arbitrarily big
Let A and B be positive integers. Then A + B ≤ A × B + 1.
This little fact can be used to construct a very efficient algorithm.
Let's define a graph. The graph nodes correspond to operations lists, for example, [+, ×, +, +, ×]. There is an edge from graph node X to graph node Y if the Y can be obtained by changing a single + to a × in X. The graph has a source at the node corresponding to [+, +, ..., +].
Now perform a breadth-first search from the source node, constructing the graph as you go. When expanding a node [+, ×, +, +, ×], for example, you (optionally construct then) connect to the nodes [×, ×, +, +, ×], [+, ×, ×, +, ×], and [+, ×, +, ×, ×]. Do not expand to a node if the result of evaluating it is greater than r + k(O), where k(O) is the number of +'s in the operation list O. This is because of the "+ 1" in the fact at the beginning of the answer - consider the case of a = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1], r = 1.
This approach uses O(n 2n) time and O(2n) space (where both are potentially very-loose worst case bounds). This is still an exponential algorithm, however I think you will find it performs very reasonably for non-sinister inputs. (I suspect this problem is NP-complete, which is why I am happy with this "non-sinister inputs" escape clause.)
Here's an O(rn^2)-time, O(rn)-space DP approach. If r << 2^n then this will have better worst-case behaviour than exponential-time branch-and-bound approaches, though even then the latter may still be faster on many instances. This is pseudo-polynomial time, because it takes time proportional to the value of part of its input (r), not its size (which would be log2(r)). Specifically it needs rn bits of memory, so it should give answers in a few seconds for up to around rn < 1,000,000,000 and n < 1000 (e.g. n = 100, r = 10,000,000).
The key observation is that any formula involving all n numbers has a final term that consists of some number i of factors, where 1 <= i <= n. That is, any formula must be in one of the following n cases:
(a formula on the first n-1 terms) + a[n]
(a formula on the first n-2 terms) + a[n-1] * a[n]
(a formula on the first n-3 terms) + a[n-2] * a[n-1] * a[n]
...
a[1] * a[2] * ... * a[n]
Let's call the "prefix" of a[] consisting of the first i numbers P[i]. If we record, for each 0 <= i <= n-1, the complete set of values <= r that can be reached by some formula on P[i], then based on the above, we can quite easily compute the complete set of values <= r that can be reached by P[n]. Specifically, let X[i][j] be a true or false value that indicates whether the prefix P[i] can achieve the value j. (X[][] could be stored as an array of n size-(r+1) bitmaps.) Then what we want to do is compute X[n][r], which will be true if r can be reached by some formula on a[], and false otherwise. (X[n][r] isn't quite the full answer yet, but it can be used to get the answer.)
X[1][a[1]] = true. X[1][j] = false for all other j. For any 2 <= i <= n and 0 <= j <= r, we can compute X[i][j] using
X[i][j] = X[i - 1][j - a[i]] ||
X[i - 2][j - a[i-1]*a[i]] ||
X[i - 3][j - a[i-2]*a[i-1]*a[i]] ||
... ||
X[1][j - a[2]*a[3]*...*a[i]] ||
(a[1]*a[2]*...*a[i] == j)
Note that the last line is an equality test that compares the product of all i numbers in P[i] to j, and returns true or false. There are i <= n "terms" (rows) in the expression for X[i][j], each of which can be computed in constant time (note in particular that the multiplications can be built up in constant time per row), so computing a single value X[i][j] can be done in O(n) time. To find X[n][r], we need to calculate X[i][j] for every 1 <= i <= n and every 0 <= j <= r, so there is O(rn^2) overall work to do. (Strictly speaking we may not need to compute all of these table entries if we use memoization instead of a bottom-up approach, but many inputs will require us to compute a large fraction of them anyway, so it's likely that the latter is faster by a small constant factor. Also a memoization approach requires keeping an "already processed" flag for each DP cell -- which doubles the memory usage when each cell is just 1 bit!)
Reconstructing a solution
If X[n][r] is true, then the problem has a solution (satisfying formula), and we can reconstruct one in O(n^2) time by tracing back through the DP table, starting from X[n][r], at each location looking for any term that enabled the current location to assume the value "true" -- that is, any true term. (We could do this reconstruction step faster by storing more than a single bit per (i, j) combination -- but since r is allowed to be "arbitrarily big", and this faster reconstruction won't improve the overall time complexity, it probably makes more sense to go with the approach that uses the fewest bits per DP table entry.) All satisfying solutions can be reconstructed this way, by backtracking through all true terms instead of just picking any one -- but there may be an exponential number of them.
Speedups
There are two ways that calculation of an individual X[i][j] value can be sped up. First, because all the terms are combined with ||, we can stop as soon as the result becomes true, since no later term can make it false again. Second, if there is no zero anywhere to the left of i, we can stop as soon as the product of the final numbers becomes larger than r, since there's no way for that product to be decreased again.
When there are no zeroes in a[], that second optimisation is likely to be very important in practice: it has the potential to make the inner loop much smaller than the full i-1 iterations. In fact if a[] contains no zeroes, and its average value is v, then after k terms have been computed for a particular X[i][j] value the product will be around v^k -- so on average, the number of inner loop iterations (terms) needed drops from n to log_v(r) = log(r)/log(v). That might be much smaller than n, in which case the average time complexity for this model drops to O(rn*log(r)/log(v)).
[EDIT: We actually can save multiplications with the following optimisation :)]
8/32/64 X[i][j]s at a time: X[i][j] is independent of X[i][k] for k != j, so if we are using bitsets to store these values, we can calculate 8, 32 or 64 of them (or maybe more, with SSE2 etc.) in parallel using simple bitwise OR operations. That is, we can calculate the first term of X[i][j], X[i][j+1], ..., X[i][j+31] in parallel, OR them into the results, then calculate their second terms in parallel and OR them in, etc. We still need to perform the same number of subtractions this way, but the products are all the same, so we can reduce the number of multiplications by a factor of 8/32/64 -- as well as, of course, the number of memory accesses. OTOH, this makes the first optimisation from the previous paragraph harder to accomplish -- you have to wait until an entire block of 8/32/64 bits have become true before you can stop iterating.
Zeroes: Zeroes in a[] may allow us to stop early. Specifically, if we have just computed X[i][r] for some i < n and found it to be true, and there is a zero anywhere to the right of position i in a[], then we can stop: we already have a formula on the first i numbers that evaluates to r, and we can use that zero to "kill off" all numbers to the right of position i by creating one big product term that includes all of them.
Ones: An interesting property of any a[] entry containing the value 1 is that it can be moved to any other position in a[] without affecting whether or not there is a solution. This is because every satisfying formula either has a * on at least one side of this 1, in which case it multiplies some other term and has no effect there, and would likewise have no effect anywhere else; or it has a + on both sides (imagine extra + signs before the first position and after the last), in which case it might as well be added in anywhere.
So, we can safely shunt all 1 values to the end of a[] before doing anything else. The point of doing this is that now we don't have to evaluate these rows of X[][] at all, because they only influence the outcome in a very simple way. Suppose there are m < n ones in a[], which we have moved to the end. Then after computing the m+1 values X[n-m][r-m], X[n-m][r-m+1], X[n-m][r-m+2], ..., X[n-m][r], we already know what X[n][r] must be: if any of them are true, then X[n][r] must be true, otherwise (if they are all false) it must be false. This is because the final m ones can add anywhere from 0 up to m to a formula on the first n-m values. (But if a[] consists entirely of 1s, then at least 1 must be "added" -- they can't all multiply some other term.)
Here is another approach that might be helpful. It is sometimes known as a "meet-in-the-middle" algorithm and runs in O(n * 2^(n/2)). The basic idea is this. Suppose n = 40 and you know that the middle slot is a +. Then, you can brute force all N := 2^20 possibilities for each side. Let A be a length N array storing the possible values of the left side, and similarly let B be a length N array storing the values for the right side.
Then, after sorting A and B, it is not hard to efficiently check for whether any two of them sum to r (e.g. for each value in A, do a binary search on B, or you can even do it in linear time if both arrays are sorted). This part takes O(N * log N) = O(n * 2^(n/2)) time.
Now, this was all assuming the middle slot is a +. If not, then it has to be a *, and you can combine the middle two elements into one (their product), reducing the problem to n = 39. Then you try the same thing, and so on. If you analyze it carefully, you should get O(n * 2^(n/2)) as the asymptotic complexity, since actually the largest term dominates.
You need to do some bookkeeping to actually recover the +'s and *'s, which I have left out to simplify the explanation.
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()
There are N characters in a string of types A and B in the array (same amount of each type). What is the minimal number of swaps to make sure that no two adjacent chars are same if we can only swap two adjacent characters ?
For example, input is:
AAAABBBB
The minimal number of swaps is 6 to make the array ABABABAB. But how would you solve it for any kind of input ? I can only think of O(N^2) solution. Maybe some kind of sort ?
If we need just to count swaps, then we can do it with O(N).
Let's assume for simplicity that array X of N elements should become ABAB... .
GetCount()
swaps = 0, i = -1, j = -1
for(k = 0; k < N; k++)
if(k % 2 == 0)
i = FindIndexOf(A, max(k, i))
X[k] <-> X[i]
swaps += i - k
else
j = FindIndexOf(B, max(k, j))
X[k] <-> X[j]
swaps += j - k
return swaps
FindIndexOf(element, index)
while(index < N)
if(X[index] == element) return index
index++
return -1; // should never happen if count of As == count of Bs
Basically, we run from left to right, and if a misplaced element is found, it gets exchanged with the correct element (e.g. abBbbbA** --> abAbbbB**) in O(1). At the same time swaps are counted as if the sequence of adjacent elements would be swapped instead. Variables i and j are used to cache indices of next A and B respectively, to make sure that all calls together of FindIndexOf are done in O(N).
If we need to sort by swaps then we cannot do better than O(N^2).
The rough idea is the following. Let's consider your sample: AAAABBBB. One of Bs needs O(N) swaps to get to the A B ... position, another B needs O(N) to get to A B A B ... position, etc. So we get O(N^2) at the end.
Observe that if any solution would swap two instances of the same letter, then we can find a better solution by dropping that swap, which necessarily has no effect. An optimal solution therefore only swaps differing letters.
Let's view the string of letters as an array of indices of one kind of letter (arbitrarily chosen, say A) into the string. So AAAABBBB would be represented as [0, 1, 2, 3] while ABABABAB would be [0, 2, 4, 6].
We know two instances of the same letter will never swap in an optimal solution. This lets us always safely identify the first (left-most) instance of A with the first element of our index array, the second instance with the second element, etc. It also tells us our array is always in sorted order at each step of an optimal solution.
Since each step of an optimal solution swaps differing letters, we know our index array evolves at each step only by incrementing or decrementing a single element at a time.
An initial string of length n = 2k will have an array representation A of length k. An optimal solution will transform this array to either
ODDS = [1, 3, 5, ... 2k]
or
EVENS = [0, 2, 4, ... 2k - 1]
Since we know in an optimal solution instances of a letter do not pass each other, we can conclude an optimal solution must spend min(abs(ODDS[0] - A[0]), abs(EVENS[0] - A[0])) swaps to put the first instance in correct position.
By realizing the EVENS or ODDS choice is made only once (not once per letter instance), and summing across the array, we can count the minimum number of needed swaps as
define count_swaps(length, initial, goal)
total = 0
for i from 0 to length - 1
total += abs(goal[i] - initial[i])
end
return total
end
define count_minimum_needed_swaps(k, A)
return min(count_swaps(k, A, EVENS), count_swaps(k, A, ODDS))
end
Notice the number of loop iterations implied by count_minimum_needed_swaps is 2 * k = n; it runs in O(n) time.
By noting which term is smaller in count_minimum_needed_swaps, we can also tell which of the two goal states is optimal.
Since you know N, you can simply write a loop that generates the values with no swaps needed.
#define N 4
char array[N + N];
for (size_t z = 0; z < N + N; z++)
{
array[z] = 'B' - ((z & 1) == 0);
}
return 0; // The number of swaps
#Nemo and #AlexD are right. The algorithm is order n^2. #Nemo misunderstood that we are looking for a reordering where two adjacent characters are not the same, so we can not use that if A is after B they are out of order.
Lets see the minimum number of swaps.
We dont care if our first character is A or B, because we can apply the same algorithm but using A instead of B and viceversa everywhere. So lets assume that the length of the word WORD_N is 2N, with N As and N Bs, starting with an A. (I am using length 2N to simplify the calculations).
What we will do is try to move the next B right to this A, without taking care of the positions of the other characters, because then we will have reduce the problem to reorder a new word WORD_{N-1}. Lets also assume that the next B is not just after A if the word has more that 2 characters, because then the first step is done and we reduce the problem to the next set of characters, WORD_{N-1}.
The next B should be as far as possible to be in the worst case, so it is after half of the word, so we need $N-1$ swaps to put this B after the A (maybe less than that). Then our word can be reduced to WORD_N = [A B WORD_{N-1}].
We se that we have to perform this algorithm as most N-1 times, because the last word (WORD_1) will be already ordered. Performing the algorithm N-1 times we have to make
N_swaps = (N-1)*N/2.
where N is half of the lenght of the initial word.
Lets see why we can apply the same algorithm for WORD_{N-1} also assuming that the first word is A. In this case it matters than the first word should be the same as in the already ordered pair. We can be sure that the first character in WORD_{N-1} is A because it was the character just next to the first character in our initial word, ant if it was B the first work can perform only a swap between these two words and or none and we will already have WORD_{N-1} starting with the same character than WORD_{N}, while the first two characters of WORD_{N} are different at the cost of almost 1 swap.
I think this answer is similar to the answer by phs, just in Haskell. The idea is that the resultant-indices for A's (or B's) are known so all we need to do is calculate how far each starting index has to move and sum the total.
Haskell code:
Prelude Data.List> let is = elemIndices 'B' "AAAABBBB"
in minimum
$ map (sum . zipWith ((abs .) . (-)) is) [[1,3..],[0,2..]]
6 --output
I am trying to solve a dynamic programming problem from Cormem's Introduction to Algorithms 3rd edition (pg 405) which asks the following:
A palindrome is a nonempty string over
some alphabet that reads the same
forward and backward. Examples of
palindromes are all strings of length
1, civic, racecar, and aibohphobia
(fear of palindromes).
Give an efficient algorithm to find
the longest palindrome that is a
subsequence of a given input string.
For example, given the input
character, your algorithm should
return carac.
Well, I could solve it in two ways:
First solution:
The Longest Palindrome Subsequence (LPS) of a string is simply the Longest Common Subsequence of itself and its reverse. (I've build this solution after solving another related question which asks for the Longest Increasing Subsequence of a sequence).
Since it's simply a LCS variant, it also takes O(n²) time and O(n²) memory.
Second solution:
The second solution is a bit more elaborated, but also follows the general LCS template. It comes from the following recurrence:
lps(s[i..j]) =
s[i] + lps(s[i+1]..[j-1]) + s[j], if s[i] == s[j];
max(lps(s[i+1..j]), lps(s[i..j-1])) otherwise
The pseudocode for calculating the length of the lps is the following:
compute-lps(s, n):
// palindromes with length 1
for i = 1 to n:
c[i, i] = 1
// palindromes with length up to 2
for i = 1 to n-1:
c[i, i+1] = (s[i] == s[i+1]) ? 2 : 1
// palindromes with length up to j+1
for j = 2 to n-1:
for i = 1 to n-i:
if s[i] == s[i+j]:
c[i, i+j] = 2 + c[i+1, i+j-1]
else:
c[i, i+j] = max( c[i+1, i+j] , c[i, i+j-1] )
It still takes O(n²) time and memory if I want to effectively construct the lps (because I 'll need all cells on the table). Analysing related problems, such as LIS, which can be solved with approaches other than LCS-like with less memory (LIS is solvable with O(n) memory), I was wondering if it's possible to solve it with O(n) memory, too.
LIS achieves this bound by linking the candidate subsequences, but with palindromes it's harder because what matters here is not the previous element in the subsequence, but the first. Does anyone know if is possible to do it, or are the previous solutions memory optimal?
Here is a very memory efficient version. But I haven't demonstrated that it is always O(n) memory. (With a preprocessing step it can better than O(n2) CPU, though O(n2) is the worst case.)
Start from the left-most position. For each position, keep track of a table of the farthest out points at which you can generate reflected subsequences of length 1, 2, 3, etc. (Meaning that a subsequence to the left of our point is reflected to the right.) For each reflected subsequence we store a pointer to the next part of the subsequence.
As we work our way right, we search from the RHS of the string to the position for any occurrences of the current element, and try to use those matches to improve the bounds we previously had. When we finish, we look at the longest mirrored subsequence and we can easily construct the best palindrome.
Let's consider this for character.
We start with our best palindrome being the letter 'c', and our mirrored subsequence being reached with the pair (0, 11) which are off the ends of the string.
Next consider the 'c' at position 1. Our best mirrored subsequences in the form (length, end, start) are now [(0, 11, 0), (1, 6, 1)]. (I'll leave out the linked list you need to generate to actually find the palindrome.
Next consider the h at position 2. We do not improve the bounds [(0, 11, 0), (1, 6, 1)].
Next consider the a at position 3. We improve the bounds to [(0, 11, 0), (1, 6, 1), (2, 5, 3)].
Next consider the r at position 4. We improve the bounds to [(0, 11, 0), (1, 10, 4), (2, 5, 3)]. (This is where the linked list would be useful.
Working through the rest of the list we do not improve that set of bounds.
So we wind up with the longest mirrored list is of length 2. And we'd follow the linked list (that I didn't record in this description to find it is ac. Since the ends of that list are at positions (5, 3) we can flip the list, insert character 4, then append the list to get carac.
In general the maximum memory that it will require is to store all of the lengths of the maximal mirrored subsequences plus the memory to store the linked lists of said subsequences. Typically this will be a very small amount of memory.
At a classic memory/CPU tradeoff you can preprocess the list once in time O(n) to generate a O(n) sized hash of arrays of where specific sequence elements appear. This can let you scan for "improve mirrored subsequence with this pairing" without having to consider the whole string, which should generally be a major saving on CPU for longer strings.
First solution in #Luiz Rodrigo's question is wrong: Longest Common Subsesquence (LCS) of a string and its reverse is not necessarily a palindrome.
Example: for string CBACB, CAB is LCS of the string and its reverse and it's obviously not a palindrome.
There is a way, however, to make it work. After LCS of a string and its reverse is built, take left half of it (including mid-character for odd-length strings) and complement it on the right with reversed left half (not including mid-character if length of the string is odd).
It will obviously be a palindrome and it can be trivially proven that it will be a subsequence of the string.
For above LCS, the palindrome built this way will be CAC.