Related
I was recently doing a project euler problem (namely #31) which was basically finding out how many ways we can sum to 200 using elements of the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200}.
The idea that I used was this: the number of ways to sum to N is equal to
(the number of ways to sum N-k) * (number of ways to sum k), summed over all possible values of k.
I realized that this approach is WRONG, namely due to the fact that it creates several several duplicate counts. I have tried to adjust the formula to avoid duplicates, but to no avail. I am seeking the wisdom of stack overflowers regarding:
whether my recursive approach is concerned with the correct subproblem to solve
If there exists one, what would be an effective way to eliminate duplicates
how should we approach recursive problems such that we are concerned with the correct subproblem? what are some indicators that we've chosen a correct (or incorrect) subproblem?
When trying to avoid duplicate permutations, a straightforward strategy that works in most cases is to only create rising or falling sequences.
In your example, if you pick a value and then recurse with the whole set, you will get duplicate sequences like 50,50,100 and 50,100,50 and 100,50,50. However, if you recurse with the rule that the next value should be equal to or smaller than the currently selected value, out of those three you will only get the sequence 100,50,50.
So an algorithm that counts only unique combinations would be e.g.:
function uniqueCombinations(set, target, previous) {
for all values in set not greater than previous {
if value equals target {
increment count
}
if value is smaller than target {
uniqueCombinations(set, target - value, value)
}
}
}
uniqueCombinations([1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200], 200, 200)
Alternatively, you can create a copy of the set before every recursion, and remove the elements from it that you don't want repeated.
The rising/falling sequence method also works with iterations. Let's say you want to find all unique combinations of three letters. This algorithm will print results like a,c,e, but not a,e,c or e,a,c:
for letter1 is 'a' to 'x' {
for letter2 is first letter after letter1 to 'y' {
for letter3 is first letter after letter2 to 'z' {
print [letter1,letter2,letter3]
}
}
}
m69 gives a nice strategy that often works, but I think it's worthwhile to better understand why it works. When trying to count items (of any kind), the general principle is:
Think of a rule that classifies any given item into exactly one of several non-overlapping categories. That is, come up with a list of concrete categories A, B, ..., Z that will make the following sentence true: An item is either in category A, or in category B, or ..., or in category Z.
Once you have done this, you can safely count the number of items in each category and add these counts together, comfortable in the knowledge that (a) any item that is counted in one category is not counted again in any other category, and (b) any item that you want to count is in some category (i.e., none are missed).
How could we form categories for your specific problem here? One way to do it is to notice that every item (i.e., every multiset of coin values that sums to the desired total N) either contains the 50-coin exactly zero times, or it contains it exactly once, or it contains it exactly twice, or ..., or it contains it exactly RoundDown(N / 50) times. These categories don't overlap: if a solution uses exactly 5 50-coins, it pretty clearly can't also use exactly 7 50-coins, for example. Also, every solution is clearly in some category (notice that we include a category for the case in which no 50-coins are used). So if we had a way to count, for any given k, the number of solutions that use coins from the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200} to produce a sum of N and use exactly k 50-coins, then we could sum over all k from 0 to N/50 and get an accurate count.
How to do this efficiently? This is where the recursion comes in. The number of solutions that use coins from the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200} to produce a sum of N and use exactly k 50-coins is equal to the number of solutions that sum to N-50k and do not use any 50-coins, i.e. use coins only from the set {1,2,5,10,20,100,200}. This of course works for any particular coin denomination that we could have chosen, so these subproblems have the same shape as the original problem: we can solve each one by simply choosing another coin arbitrarily (e.g. the 10-coin), forming a new set of categories based on this new coin, counting the number of items in each category and summing them up. The subproblems become smaller until we reach some simple base case that we process directly (e.g. no allowed coins left: then there is 1 item if N=0, and 0 items otherwise).
I started with the 50-coin (instead of, say, the largest or the smallest coin) to emphasise that the particular choice used to form the set of non-overlapping categories doesn't matter for the correctness of the algorithm. But in practice, passing explicit representations of sets of coins around is unnecessarily expensive. Since we don't actually care about the particular sequence of coins to use for forming categories, we're free to choose a more efficient representation. Here (and in many problems), it's convenient to represent the set of allowed coins implicitly as simply a single integer, maxCoin, which we interpret to mean that the first maxCoin coins in the original ordered list of coins are the allowed ones. This limits the possible sets we can represent, but here that's OK: If we always choose the last allowed coin to form categories on, we can communicate the new, more-restricted "set" of allowed coins to subproblems very succinctly by simply passing the argument maxCoin-1 to it. This is the essence of m69's answer.
There's some good guidance here. Another way to think about this is as a dynamic program. For this, we must pose the problem as a simple decision among options that leaves us with a smaller version of the same problem. It boils out to a certain kind of recursive expression.
Put the coin values c0, c1, ... c_(n-1) in any order you like. Then define W(i,v) as the number of ways you can make change for value v using coins ci, c_(i+1), ... c_(n-1). The answer we want is W(0,200). All that's left is to define W:
W(i,v) = sum_[k = 0..floor(200/ci)] W(i+1, v-ci*k)
In words: the number of ways we can make change with coins ci onward is to sum up all the ways we can make change after a decision to use some feasible number k of coins ci, removing that much value from the problem.
Of course we need base cases for the recursion. This happens when i=n-1: the last coin value. At this point there's a way to make change if and only if the value we need is an exact multiple of c_(n-1).
W(n-1,v) = 1 if v % c_(n-1) == 0 and 0 otherwise.
We generally don't want to implement this as a simple recursive function. The same argument values occur repeatedly, which leads to an exponential (in n and v) amount of wasted computation. There are simple ways to avoid this. Tabular evaluation and memoization are two.
Another point is that it is more efficient to have the values in descending order. By taking big chunks of value early, the total number of recursive evaluations is minimized. Additionally, since c_(n-1) is now 1, the base case is just W(n-1)=1. Now it becomes fairly obvious that we can add a second base case as an optimization: W(n-2,v) = floor(v/c_(n-2)). That's how many times the for loop will sum W(n-1,1) = 1!
But this is gilding a lilly. The problem is so small that exponential behavior doesn't signify. Here is a little implementation to show that order really doesn't matter:
#include <stdio.h>
#define n 8
int cv[][n] = {
{200,100,50,20,10,5,2,1},
{1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200},
{1,10,100,2,20,200,5,50},
};
int *c;
int w(int i, int v) {
if (i == n - 1) return v % c[n - 1] == 0;
int sum = 0;
for (int k = 0; k <= v / c[i]; ++k)
sum += w(i + 1, v - c[i] * k);
return sum;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
unsigned p;
if (argc != 2 || sscanf(argv[1], "%d", &p) != 1 || p > 2) p = 0;
c = cv[p];
printf("Ways(%u) = %d\n", p, w(0, 200));
return 0;
}
Drumroll, please...
$ ./foo 0
Ways(0) = 73682
$ ./foo 1
Ways(1) = 73682
$ ./foo 2
Ways(2) = 73682
I'm looking for a data structure that roughly corresponds to (in Java terms) Map<Set<int>, double>. Essentially a set of sets of labeled marbles, where each set of marbles is associated with a scalar. I want it to be able to efficiently handle the following operations:
Add a given integer to every set.
Remove every set that contains (or does not contain) a given integer, or at least set the associated double to 0.
Union two of the maps, adding together the doubles for sets that appear in both.
Multiply all of the doubles by a given double.
Rarely, iterate over the entire map.
under the following conditions:
The integers will fall within a constrained range (between 1 and 10,000 or so); the exact range will be known at compile-time.
Most of the integers within the range (80-90%) will never be used, but which ones will not be easily determinable until the end of the calculation.
The number of integers used will almost always still be over 100.
Many of the sets will be very similar, differing only by a few elements.
It may be possible to identify certain groups of integers that frequently appear only in sequential order: for example, if a set contains the integers 27 and 29 then it (almost?) certainly contains 28 as well.
It may be possible to identify these groups prior to running the calculation.
These groups would typically have 100 or so integers.
I've considered tries, but I don't see a good way to handle the "remove every set that contains a given integer" operation.
The purpose of this data structure would be to represent discrete random variables and permit addition, multiplication, and scalar multiplication operations on them. Each of these discrete random variables would ultimately have been created by applying these operations to a fixed (at compile-time) set of independent Bernoulli random variables (i.e. each takes the value 1 or 0 with some probability).
The systems being modeled are close to being representable as a time-inhomogeneous Markov chains (which would of course simplify this immensely) but, unfortunately, it is essential to track the duration since various transitions.
Here's a data structure, that can do all of your operations pretty efficiently:
I'm going to refer to it as a BitmapArray for this explanation.
Thinking about it, apparently for just the operations you have described a sorted array with bitmaps as keys and weights(your doubles) as values will be pretty efficient.
The bitmaps are what maintain membership in your set. Since you said the range of integers in the set are between 1-10,000, we can maintain information about any set with a bitmap of length 10,000.
It's gonna be tough sorting an array where the keys can be as big as 2^10000, but you can be smart about implementing the comparison function in the following way:
Iterate from left to right on the two bitmaps
XOR the bits on each index
Say you get a 1 at ith position
Whichever bitmap has 1 at ith position is greater
If you never get a 1 they're equal
I know this is still a slow comparison.
But not too slow, Here's a benchmark fiddle I did on bitmaps with length 10000.
This is in Javascript, if you're going to write in Java, it's going to perform even better.
function runTest() {
var num = document.getElementById("txtValue").value;
num = isNaN(num * 1) ? 0 : num * 1;
/*For integers in the range 1-10,000 the worst case for comparison are any equal integers which will cause the comparision to iterate over the whole BitArray*/
bitmap1 = convertToBitmap(10000, num);
bitmap2 = convertToBitmap(10000, num);
before = new Date().getMilliseconds();
var result = firstIsGreater(bitmap1, bitmap2, 10000);
after = new Date().getMilliseconds();
alert(result + " in time: " + (after-before) + " ms");
}
function convertToBitmap(size, number) {
var bits = new Array();
var q = number;
do {
bits.push(q % 2);
q = Math.floor(q / 2);
} while (q > 0);
xbitArray = new Array();
for (var i = 0; i < size; i++) {
xbitArray.push(0);
}
var j = xbitArray.length - 1;
for (var i = bits.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
xbitArray[j] = bits[i];
j--
}
return xbitArray;
}
function firstIsGreater(bitArray1, bitArray2, lengthOfArrays) {
for (var i = 0; i < lengthOfArrays; i++) {
if (bitArray1[i] ^ bitArray2[i]) {
if (bitArray1[i]) return true;
else return false;
}
}
return false;
}
document.getElementById("btnTest").onclick = function (e) {
runTest();
};
Also, remember that you only have to do this once, when building your BitmapArray (or while taking unions) and then it's going to become pretty efficient for the operations you'd do most often:
Note: N is the length of the BitmapArray.
Add integer to every set: Worst/best case O(N) time. Flip a 0 to 1 in each bitmap.
Remove every set that contains a given integer: Worst case O(N) time.
For each bitmap check the bit that represents the given integer, if 1 mark it's index.
Compress the array by deleting all marked indices.
If you're okay with just setting the weights to 0 it'll be even more efficient. This also makes it very easy if you want to remove all sets that have any element in a given set.
Union of two maps: Worst case O(N1+N2) time. Just like merging two sorted arrays, except you have to be smart about comparisons once more.
Multiply all of the doubles by a given double: Worst/best case O(N) time. Iterate and multiply each value by the input double.
Iterate over the BitmapArray: Worst/best case O(1) time for next element.
I have an Array with 1 and 0 spread over the array randomly.
int arr[N] = {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1....................N}
Now I want to retrive all the 1's in the array as fast as possible, but the condition is I should not loose the exact position(based on index) of the array , so sorting option not valid.
So the only option left is linear searching ie O(n) , is there anything better than this.
The main problem behind linear scan is , I need to run the scan even
for X times. So I feel I need to have some kind of other datastructure
which maintains this list once the first linear scan happens, so that
I need not to run the linear scan again and again.
Let me be clear about final expectations-
I just need to find the number of 1's in a certain range of array , precisely I need to find numbers of 1's in the array within range of 40-100. So this can be random range and I need to find the counts of 1 within that range. I can't do sum and all as I need to iterate over the array over and over again because of different range requirements
I'm surprised you considered sorting as a faster alternative to linear search.
If you don't know where the ones occur, then there is no better way than linear searching. Perhaps if you used bits or char datatypes you could do some optimizations, but it depends on how you want to use this.
The best optimization that you could do on this is to overcome branch prediction. Because each value is zero or one, you can use it to advance the index of the array that is used to store the one-indices.
Simple approach:
int end = 0;
int indices[N];
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
if( arr[i] ) indices[end++] = i; // Slow due to branch prediction
}
Without branching:
int end = 0;
int indices[N];
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
indices[end] = i;
end += arr[i];
}
[edit] I tested the above, and found the version without branching was almost 3 times faster (4.36s versus 11.88s for 20 repeats on a randomly populated 100-million element array).
Coming back here to post results, I see you have updated your requirements. What you want is really easy with a dynamic programming approach...
All you do is create a new array that is one element larger, which stores the number of ones from the beginning of the array up to (but not including) the current index.
arr : 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1
count : 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 7
(I've offset arr above so it lines up better)
Now you can compute the number of 1s in any range in O(1) time. To compute the number of 1s between index A and B, you just do:
int num = count[B+1] - count[A];
Obviously you can still use the non-branch-prediction version to generate the counts initially. All this should give you a pretty good speedup over the naive approach of summing for every query:
int *count = new int[N+1];
int total = 0;
count[0] = 0;
for( int i = 0; i < N; i++ )
{
total += arr[i];
count[i+1] = total;
}
// to compute the ranged sum:
int range_sum( int *count, int a, int b )
{
if( b < a ) return range_sum(b,a);
return count[b+1] - count[a];
}
Well one time linear scanning is fine. Since you are looking for multiple scans across ranges of array I think that can be done in constant time. Here you go:
Scan the array and create a bitmap where key = key of array = sequence (1,2,3,4,5,6....).The value storedin bitmap would be a tuple<IsOne,cumulativeSum> where isOne is whether you have a one in there and cumulative Sum is addition of 1's as and wen you encounter them
Array = 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0
Tuple: (1,1) (1,2) (0,2) (0,2) (1,3) (0,3) (1,4) (1,5) (1,6) (0,6) (1,7) (0,7)
CASE 1: When lower bound of cumulativeSum has a 0. Number of 1's [6,11] =
cumulativeSum at 11th position - cumulativeSum at 6th position = 7 - 3 = 4
CASE 2: When lower bound of cumulativeSum has a 1. Number of 1's [2,11] =
cumulativeSum at 11th position - cumulativeSum at 2nd position + 1 = 7-2+1 = 6
Step 1 is O(n)
Step 2 is 0(1)
Total complexity is linear no doubt but for your task where you have to work with the ranges several times the above Algorithm seems to be better if you have ample memory :)
Does it have to be a simple linear array data structure? Or can you create your own data structure which happens to have the desired properties, for which you're able to provide the required API, but whose implementation details can be hidden (encapsulated)?
If you can implement your own and if there is some guaranteed sparsity (to either 1s or 0s) then you might be able to offer better than linear performance. I see that you want to preserve (or be able to regenerate) the exact stream, so you'll have to store an array or bitmap or run-length encoding for that. (RLE will be useless if the stream is actually random rather than arbitrary but could be quite useful if there are significant sparsity or patterns with long strings of one or the other. For example a black&white raster of a bitmapped image is often a good candidate for RLE).
Let's say that your guaranteed that the stream will be sparse --- that no more than 10%, for example, of the bits will be 1s (or, conversely that more than 90% will be). If that's the case then you might model your solution on an RLE and maintain a count of all 1s (simply incremented as you set bits and decremented as you clear them). If there might be a need to quickly get the number of set bits for arbitrary ranges of these elements then instead of a single counter you can have a conveniently sized array of counters for partitions of the stream. (Conveniently-sized, in this case, means something which fits easily within memory, within your caches, or register sets, but which offers a reasonable trade off between computing a sum (all the partitions fully within the range) and the linear scan. The results for any arbitrary range is the sum of all the partitions fully enclosed by the range plus the results of linear scans for any fragments that are not aligned on your partition boundaries.
For a very, very, large stream you could even have a multi-tier "index" of partition sums --- traversing from the largest (most coarse) granularity down toward the "fragments" to either end (using the next layer of partition sums) and finishing with the linear search of only the small fragments.
Obviously such a structure represents trade offs between the complexity of building and maintaining the structure (inserting requires additional operations and, for an RLE, might be very expensive for anything other than appending/prepending) vs the expense of performing arbitrarily long linear search/increment scans.
If:
the purpose is to be able to find the number of 1s in the array at any time,
given that relatively few of the values in the array might change between one moment when you want to know the number and another moment, and
if you have to find the number of 1s in a changing array of n values m times,
... you can certainly do better than examining every cell in the array m times by using a caching strategy.
The first time you need the number of 1s, you certainly have to examine every cell, as others have pointed out. However, if you then store the number of 1s in a variable (say sum) and track changes to the array (by, for instance, requiring that all array updates occur through a specific update() function), every time a 0 is replaced in the array with a 1, the update() function can add 1 to sum and every time a 1 is replaced in the array with a 0, the update() function can subtract 1 from sum.
Thus, sum is always up-to-date after the first time that the number of 1s in the array is counted and there is no need for further counting.
(EDIT to take the updated question into account)
If the need is to return the number of 1s in a given range of the array, that can be done with a slightly more sophisticated caching strategy than the one I've just described.
You can keep a count of the 1s in each subset of the array and update the relevant subset count whenever a 0 is changed to a 1 or vice versa within that subset. Finding the total number of 1s in a given range within the array would then be a matter of adding the number of 1s in each subset that is fully contained within the range and then counting the number of 1s that are in the range but not in the subsets that have already been counted.
Depending on circumstances, it might be worthwhile to have a hierarchical arrangement in which (say) the number of 1s in the whole array is at the top of the hierarchy, the number of 1s in each 1/q th of the array is in the second level of the hierarchy, the number of 1s in each 1/(q^2) th of the array is in the third level of the hierarchy, etc. e.g. for q = 4, you would have the total number of 1s at the top, the number of 1s in each quarter of the array at the second level, the number of 1s in each sixteenth of the array at the third level, etc.
Are you using C (or derived language)? If so, can you control the encoding of your array? If, for example, you could use a bitmap to count. The nice thing about a bitmap, is that you can use a lookup table to sum the counts, though if your subrange ends aren't divisible by 8, you'll have to deal with end partial bytes specially, but the speedup will be significant.
If that's not the case, can you at least encode them as single bytes? In that case, you may be able to exploit sparseness if it exists (more specifically, the hope that there are often multi index swaths of zeros).
So for:
u8 input = {1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,0,1....................N};
You can write something like (untested):
uint countBytesBy1FromTo(u8 *input, uint start, uint stop)
{ // function for counting one byte at a time, use with range of less than 4,
// use functions below for longer ranges
// assume it's just one's and zeros, otherwise we have to test/branch
uint sum;
u8 *end = input + stop;
for (u8 *each = input + start; each < end; each++)
sum += *each;
return sum;
}
countBytesBy8FromTo(u8 *input, uint start, uint stop)
{
u64 *chunks = (u64*)(input+start);
u64 *end = chunks + ((start - stop) >> 3);
uint sum = countBytesBy1FromTo((u8*)end, 0, stop - (u8*)end);
for (; chunks < end; chunks++)
{
if (*chunks)
{
sum += countBytesBy1FromTo((u8*)chunks, 0, 8);
}
}
}
The basic trick, is exploiting the ability to cast slices of your target array to single entities your language can look at in one swoop, and test by inference if ANY of the values of it are zeros, and then skip the whole block. The more zeros, the better it will work. In the case where your large cast integer always has at least one, this approach just adds overhead. You might find that using a u32 is better for your data. Or that adding a u32 test between the 1 and 8 helps. For datasets where zeros are much more common than ones, I've used this technique to great advantage.
Why is sorting invalid? You can clone the original array, sort the clone, and count and/or mark the locations of the 1s as needed.
Let me be clear at start that this is a contrived example and not a real world problem.
If I have a problem of creating a random number between 0 to 10. I do this 11 times making sure that a previously occurred number is not drawn again, if I get a repeated number,
I create another random number again to make sure it has not be seen earlier. So essentially I get a a sequence of unique numbers from 0 - 10 in a random order
e.g. 3 1 2 0 5 9 4 8 10 6 7 and so on
Now to come up with logic to make sure that the random numbers are unique and not one which we have drawn before, we could use many approaches
Use C++ std::bitset and set the bit corresponding to the index equal to value of each random no. and check it next time when a new random number is drawn.
Or
Use a std::map<int,int> to count the number of times or even simple C array with some sentinel values stored in that array to indicate if that number has occurred or not.
If I have to avoid these methods above and use some mathematical/logical/bitwise operation to find whether a random number has been draw before or not, is there a way?
You don't want to do it the way you suggest. Consider what happens when you have already selected 10 of the 11 items; your random number generator will cycle until it finds the missing number, which might be never, depending on your random number generator.
A better solution is to create a list of numbers 0 to 10 in order, then shuffle the list into a random order. The normal algorithm for doing this is due to Knuth, Fisher and Yates: starting at the first element, swap each element with an element at a location greater than the current element in the array.
function shuffle(a, n)
for i from n-1 to 1 step -1
j = randint(i)
swap(a[i], a[j])
We assume an array with indices 0 to n-1, and a randint function that sets j to the range 0 <= j <= i.
Use an array and add all possible values to it. Then pick one out of the array and remove it. Next time, pick again until the array is empty.
Yes, there is a mathematical way to do it, but it is a bit expansive.
have an array: primes[] where primes[i] = the i'th prime number. So its beginning will be [2,3,5,7,11,...].
Also store a number mult Now, once you draw a number (let it be i) you check if mult % primes[i] == 0, if it is - the number was drawn before, if it wasn't - then the number was not. chose it and do mult = mult * primes[i].
However, it is expansive because it might require a lot of space for large ranges (the possible values of mult increases exponentially
(This is a nice mathematical approach, because we actually look at a set of primes p_i, the array of primes is only the implementation to the abstract set of primes).
A bit manipulation alternative for small values is using an int or long as a bitset.
With this approach, to check a candidate i is not in the set you only need to check:
if (pow(2,i) & set == 0) // not in the set
else //already in the set
To enter an element i to the set:
set = set | pow(2,i)
A better approach will be to populate a list with all the numbers, shuffle it with fisher-yates shuffle, and iterate it for generating new random numbers.
If I have to avoid these methods above and use some
mathematical/logical/bitwise operation to find whether a random number
has been draw before or not, is there a way?
Subject to your contrived constraints yes, you can imitate a small bitset using bitwise operations:
You can choose different integer types on the right according to what size you need.
bitset code bitwise code
std::bitset<32> x; unsigned long x = 0;
if (x[i]) { ... } if (x & (1UL << i)) { ... }
// assuming v is 0 or 1
x[i] = v; x = (x & ~(1UL << i)) | ((unsigned long)v << i);
x[i] = true; x |= (1UL << i);
x[i] = false; x &= ~(1UL << i);
For a larger set (beyond the size in bits of unsigned long long), you will need an array of your chosen integer type. Divide the index by the width of each value to know what index to look up in the array, and use the modulus for the bit shifts. This is basically what bitset does.
I'm assuming that the various answers that tell you how best to shuffle 10 numbers are missing the point entirely: that your contrived constraints are there because you do not in fact want or need to know how best to shuffle 10 numbers :-)
Keep a variable too map the drawn numbers. The i'th bit of that variable will be 1 if the number was drawn before:
int mapNumbers = 0;
int generateRand() {
if (mapNumbers & ((1 << 11) - 1) == ((1 << 11) - 1)) return; // return if all numbers have been generated
int x;
do {
x = newVal();
} while (!x & mapNumbers);
mapNumbers |= (1 << x);
return x;
}
I have a string s and I want to search for the substring of length X that occurs most often in s. Overlapping substrings are allowed.
For example, if s="aoaoa" and X=3, the algorithm should find "aoa" (which appears 2 times in s).
Does an algorithm exist that does this in O(n) time?
You can do this using a rolling hash in O(n) time (assuming good hash distribution). A simple rolling hash would be the xor of the characters in the string, you can compute it incrementally from the previous substring hash using just 2 xors. (See the Wikipedia entry for better rolling hashes than xor.) Compute the hash of your n-x+1 substrings using the rolling hash in O(n) time. If there were no collisions, the answer is clear - if collisions happen, you'll need to do more work. My brain hurts trying to figure out if that can all be resolved in O(n) time.
Update:
Here's a randomized O(n) algorithm. You can find the top hash in O(n) time by scanning the hashtable (keeping it simple, assume no ties). Find one X-length string with that hash (keep a record in the hashtable, or just redo the rolling hash). Then use an O(n) string searching algorithm to find all occurrences of that string in s. If you find the same number of occurrences as you recorded in the hashtable, you're done.
If not, that means you have a hash collision. Pick a new random hash function and try again. If your hash function has log(n)+1 bits and is pairwise independent [Prob(h(s) == h(t)) < 1/2^{n+1} if s != t], then the probability that the most frequent x-length substring in s hash a collision with the <=n other length x substrings of s is at most 1/2. So if there is a collision, pick a new random hash function and retry, you will need only a constant number of tries before you succeed.
Now we only need a randomized pairwise independent rolling hash algorithm.
Update2:
Actually, you need 2log(n) bits of hash to avoid all (n choose 2) collisions because any collision may hide the right answer. Still doable, and it looks like hashing by general polynomial division should do the trick.
I don't see an easy way to do this in strictly O(n) time, unless X is fixed and can be considered a constant. If X is a parameter to the algorithm, then most simple ways of doing this will actually be O(n*X), as you will need to do comparison operations, string copies, hashes, etc., on a substring of length X at every iteration.
(I'm imagining, for a minute, that s is a multi-gigabyte string, and that X is some number over a million, and not seeing any simple ways of doing string comparison, or hashing substrings of length X, that are O(1), and not dependent on the size of X)
It might be possible to avoid string copies during scanning, by leaving everything in place, and to avoid re-hashing the entire substring -- perhaps by using an incremental hash algorithm where you can add a byte at a time, and remove the oldest byte -- but I don't know of any such algorithms that wouldn't result in huge numbers of collisions that would need to be filtered out with an expensive post-processing step.
Update
Keith Randall points out that this kind of hash is known as a rolling hash. It still remains, though, that you would have to store the starting string position for each match in your hash table, and then verify after scanning the string that all of your matches were true. You would need to sort the hashtable, which could contain n-X entries, based on the number of matches found for each hash key, and verify each result -- probably not doable in O(n).
It should be O(n*m) where m is the average length of a string in the list. For very small values of m then the algorithm will approach O(n)
Build a hashtable of counts for each string length
Iterate over your collection of strings, updating the hashtable accordingly, storing the current most prevelant number as an integer variable separate from the hashtable
done.
Naive solution in Python
from collections import defaultdict
from operator import itemgetter
def naive(s, X):
freq = defaultdict(int)
for i in range(len(s) - X + 1):
freq[s[i:i+X]] += 1
return max(freq.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1))
print naive("aoaoa", 3)
# -> ('aoa', 2)
In plain English
Create mapping: substring of length X -> how many times it occurs in the s string
for i in range(len(s) - X + 1):
freq[s[i:i+X]] += 1
Find a pair in the mapping with the largest second item (frequency)
max(freq.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1))
Here is a version I did in C. Hope that it helps.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(void)
{
char *string = NULL, *maxstring = NULL, *tmpstr = NULL, *tmpstr2 = NULL;
unsigned int n = 0, i = 0, j = 0, matchcount = 0, maxcount = 0;
string = "aoaoa";
n = 3;
for (i = 0; i <= (strlen(string) - n); i++) {
tmpstr = (char *)malloc(n + 1);
strncpy(tmpstr, string + i, n);
*(tmpstr + (n + 1)) = '\0';
for (j = 0; j <= (strlen(string) - n); j++) {
tmpstr2 = (char *)malloc(n + 1);
strncpy(tmpstr2, string + j, n);
*(tmpstr2 + (n + 1)) = '\0';
if (!strcmp(tmpstr, tmpstr2))
matchcount++;
}
if (matchcount > maxcount) {
maxstring = tmpstr;
maxcount = matchcount;
}
matchcount = 0;
}
printf("max string: \"%s\", count: %d\n", maxstring, maxcount);
free(tmpstr);
free(tmpstr2);
return 0;
}
You can build a tree of sub-strings. The idea is to organise your sub-strings like a telephone book. You then look up the sub-string and increase its count by one.
In your example above, the tree will have sections (nodes) starting with the letters: 'a' and 'o'. 'a' appears three times and 'o' appears twice. So those nodes will have a count of 3 and 2 respectively.
Next, under the 'a' node a sub-node of 'o' will appear corresponding to the sub-string 'ao'. This appears twice. Under the 'o' node 'a' also appears twice.
We carry on in this fashion until we reach the end of the string.
A representation of the tree for 'abac' might be (nodes on the same level are separated by a comma, sub-nodes are in brackets, counts appear after the colon).
a:2(b:1(a:1(c:1())),c:1()),b:1(a:1(c:1())),c:1()
If the tree is drawn out it will be a lot more obvious! What this all says for example is that the string 'aba' appears once, or the string 'a' appears twice etc. But, storage is greatly reduced and more importantly retrieval is greatly speeded up (compare this to keeping a list of sub-strings).
To find out which sub-string is most repeated, do a depth first search of the tree, every time a leaf node is reached, note the count, and keep a track of the highest one.
The running time is probably something like O(log(n)) not sure, but certainly better than O(n^2).
Python-3 Solution:
from collections import Counter
list = []
list.append([string[i: j] for i in range(len(string)) for j in range(i + 1, len(string) + 1) if len(string[i:j]) == K]) # Where K is length
# now find the most common value in this list
# you can do this natively, but I prefer using collections
most_frequent = Counter(list).most_common(1)[0][0]
print(most_freqent)
Here is the native way to get the most common (for those that are interested):
most_occurences = 0
current_most = ""
for i in list:
frequency = list.count(i)
if frequency > most_occurences:
most_occurences = frequency
current_most = list[i]
print(f"{current_most}, Occurences: {most_occurences}")
[Extract K length substrings (geeks for geeks)][1]
[1]: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python-extract-k-length-substrings/
LZW algorithm does this
This is exactly what Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW used in GIF image format) compression algorithm does. It finds prevalent repeated bytes and changes them for something short.
LZW on Wikipedia
There's no way to do this in O(n).
Feel free to downvote me if you can prove me wrong on this one, but I've got nothing.