I run into a dynamic programming problem on interviewstreet named "Far Vertices".
The problem is like:
You are given a tree that has N vertices and N-1 edges. Your task is
to mark as small number of verices as possible so that the maximum
distance between two unmarked vertices be less than or equal to K. You
should write this value to the output. Distance between two vertices i
and j is defined as the minimum number of edges you have to pass in
order to reach vertex i from vertex j.
I was trying to do dfs from every node of the tree, in order to find the max connected subset of the nodes, so that every pair of subset did not have distance more than K.
But I could not define the state, and transitions between states.
Is there anybody that could help me?
Thanks.
The problem consists essentially of finding the largest subtree of diameter <= k, and subtracting its size from n. You can solve it using DP.
Some useful observations:
The diameter of a tree rooted at node v (T(v)) is:
1 if n has no children,
max(diameter T(c), height T(c) + 1) if there is one child c,
max(max(diameter T(c)) for all children c of v, max(height T(c1) + height T(c2) + 2) for all children c1, c2 of v, c1 != c2)
Since we care about maximizing tree size and bounding tree diameter, we can flip the above around to suggest limits on each subtree:
For any tree rooted at v, the subtree of interest is at most k deep.
If n is a node in T(v) and has no children <= k away from v, its maximum size is 1.
If n has one child c, the maximum size of T(n) of diameter <= k is max size T(c) + 1.
Now for the tricky bit. If n has more than one child, we have to find all the possible tree sizes resulting from allocating the available depth to each child. So say we are at depth 3, k = 7, we have 4 depth left to play with. If we have three children, we could allocate all 4 to child 1, 3 to child 1 and 1 to child 2, 2 to child 1 and 1 to children 2 and 3, etc. We have to do this carefully, making sure we don't exceed diameter k. You can do this with a local DP.
What we want for each node is to calculate maxSize(d), which gives the max size of the tree rooted at that node that is up to d deep that has diameter <= k. Nodes with 0 and 1 children are easy to figure this for, as above (for example, for one child, v.maxSize(i) = c.maxSize(i - 1) + 1, v.maxSize(0) = 1). Nodes with 2 or more children, you compute dp[i][j], which gives the max size of a k-diameter-bound tree using up to the ith child taking up to j depth. The recursion is dp[i][j] = max(child(i).maxSize(m - 1) + dp[i - 1][min(j, k - m)] for m from 1 to j. d[i][0] = 1. This says, try giving the ith child 1 to j depth, and give the rest of the available depth to the previous nodes. The "rest of the available depth" is the minimum of j, the depth we are working with, or k - m, because depth given to child i + depth given to the rest cannot exceed k. Transfer the values of the last row of dp to the maxSize table for this node. If you run the above using a depth-limited DFS, it will compute all the necessary maxSize entries in the correct order, and the answer for node v is v.maxSize(k). Then you do this once for every node in the tree, and the answer is the maximum value found.
Sorry for the muddled nature of the explanation. It was hard for me to think through, and difficult to describe. Working through a few simple examples should make it clearer. I haven't calculated the complexity, but n is small, and it went through all the test cases in .5 to 1s in Scala.
A few basic things I can notice (maybe very obvious to others):
1. There is only one route possible between two given vertices.
2. The farthest vertices would be the one with only one outgoing edge.
Now to solve the issue.
I would start with the set of Vertices that have only one edge and call them EDGE[] calculate the distances between the vertices in EDGE[]. This will give you (EDGE[i],EDGE[j],distance ) value pairs
For all the vertices pairs in EDGE that have a distance of > K, DO EDGE[i].occur++,EDGE[i].distance = MAX(EDGE[i].distance, distance)
EDGE[j].occur++,EDGE[j].distance = MAX(EDGE[j].distance, distance)
Find the CANDIDATES in EDGE[] that have max(distance) from those Mark the with with max (occur)
Repeat till all edge vertices pair have distance less then or equal to K
Related
I have a tree with N nodes and each edge has some weight. I have to find, for all pairs (u,v) 1<=u<=N 1<=V<=N, the maximum weight in the path from U to V. How can I find the total sum of the maximum weight for every pair (U,V)?
You can use Floyd Warshall Algorithm. You can multiply each edges with (-1), and solve your problem like finding the shortest path between all pairs, then multiply your result with (-1).
For every node, you can extend it to a tree. The extend process of node x is, for every edge (x, y), if value[x] > value[y] then we go to node y and continue the process, so the result of extending node x is a tree, and the value of x is the largest of all.
There are possibility that some value of the tree are equal maximum, to break the tie, we can assign each node an index, to make the value like a pair (value[x], idx[x]), and each idx is different.
Then for each extended tree, suppose the node with max value is x, take it as the root, suppose it has m subtree, each has total node number num[i], then every path between two node from different subtree has max weight value[x], so value[x] counts SUM[num[i]*num[j]] (i != j) times, ie. (SUM[num[i]]^2-SUM[num[i]^2])/2, and we miss the path starting from node x, so we should also count SUM[num[i]] more times. num can be generated during the extending process.
This is a O(n^2) solution. And I believe there is other much more faster algorithm.
Given a tree T, let S(T) be the sum you're interested in: the sum over every pair of vertices of the largest weight of an edge in the path between them.
If T has no edges then it has 1 vertex, and S(T) = 0.
Otherwise, consider the largest edge E in the tree, and say its weight is W. If you remove this edge from the tree, you end up with two smaller trees (call them T1 and T2). Let's say T1 is the tree above the edge (that is, the subtree that contains the root of T).
If u is in T1 and v is in T2, then the largest edge in any path between them goes through E, which has weight W and is guaranteed to be the largest weight in the path. Otherwise, if u and v are both in T1, then the path between them stays inside T1. Same for T2.
Thus S(T) = 2*W*v(T1)*v(T2) + S(T1) + S(T2). (where v(T) means the number of vertices of T).
This gives you a recursive formula for computing S(T), and the only difficulty is finding the largest edge quickly in the subproblems.
One way is to store in each vertex of the tree the maximum weight of any edge below that vertex. Then you can find the largest weight in the whole tree in O(log(v(T)) time, and when you, following the algorithm above, remove that largest weight, you can patch up the weights in the part of the tree above the edge in log(v(T1)) time. The weights in T2 don't need adjusting.
Overall, this gives you an O(v(T)log(v(T))) algorithm. Each edge is removed exactly once, and there's at most O(log(v(T))) work per step.
I have a non-rooted bidirectional unweighted non-binary tree. I know how to find the diameter of the tree, the greatest distance between any pair of points in the tree, but I'm interested in finding the number of pairs with that max distance. Is there an algorithm to find the number of pairs with diameter distance in better than O(V^2) time, where V is the number of nodes?
Thank you!
Yes, there's a linear-time algorithm that operates bottom-up and resembles the algorithm for just finding the diameter. Here's the signature in Java-ish pseudocode; I'll leave the algorithm itself as an exercise.
class Node {
Collection<Node> children;
}
class Result {
int height; // height of the tree
int num_deep_nodes; // number of nodes whose depth equals the height
int diameter; // length of the longest path inside the tree
int num_long_paths; // number of pairs of nodes at distance |diameter|
}
Result computeNumberOfLongPaths(Node root); // recursive
Yes there is an algorithm with O(V+E) time.It is simply a modified version of finding the diameter.
As we know we can find the diameter using two calls of BFS by first making first call on any node and then remembering the last node discovered u and running a second call BFS(u),and remembering the last node discovered ,say v.The distance between u and v gives us the diameter.
Coming to number of pairs with that max distance.
1.Before invoking the first BFS,initialize an array distance of length |V| and distance[s]=0.s is the starting vertex for first BFS call on any node.
2.In the BFS,modify the while loop as:
while(Q is not empty)
{
e=deque(Q);
for all vertices w adjacent to e
{
if(w is not visited)
{
enque(w)
mark w as visited
distance[w]=distance[e]+1
parent[w]=e
}
}
}
3.Like I said,remembering the last node visited,say u is that node. Now counting the number of vertices that are at the same level as vertex u. mark is an array of length n,which has all its value initialized to 0,0 implies that vertex not counted initially.
n1=0
for i = 1 to number of vertices
{
if(distance[i]==distance[u]&&mark[i]==0)
{
n1++
mark[i]=1/*vertex counted*/
}
}
n1 gives the number of vertices,that are at the same level as vertex u,now for all vertices that have mark[i] = 1 ,are marked and they will not be counted again.
4.Similarly before performing second BFS on u,initialize another array distance2 of length |V| and distance2[u]=0.
5.Run BFS(u) and again get the last node discovered say v
6.Repeat 3rd step,this time on distance2 array and taking a different variable say n2=0 and the condition being
if(distance2[i]==distance2[v]&&mark[i]==0)
n2++
else if(distance2[i]==distance2[v]&&mark[i]==1)
set_common=1
7.set_common is a global variable that is set when there are a set of vertices such that between any two vertices the path is that of a diameter and the first bfs did not mark all those vertices but did mark at least one of those that is why mark[i]==1.
Suppose that first bfs did mark all such vertices in first call then n2 would be = 0 and set_common would not be set and there is no need also.But this situation is same as above
In any case the number of pairs giving diameter are:=
(n+n2)combination2 - X=(n1+n2)!/((2!)((n1+n2-2)!)) - X
I will elaborate on what X is.Else the number of pairs are = n1*n2,which is the case when 2 disjoint set of vertices are giving the diameter
So the Condition used is
if(n2==0||set_common==1)
number_of_pairs=(n1+n2)C2-X
else n1*n2
Now talking about X.It can occur that the vertices that are marked may have common parent.In that case we must not count there combinations.So before using the above condition it is advised to run the following algorithm
X=0/*Initialize*/
for(i = 1 to number of vertices)
{
s = 0,p = -1
if(mark[i]==0)
continue
else
{
s++
if(p==-1)
p=parent[i]
while((i+1)<=number_of_vertices&& p==parent[i+1])
{s++;i++}
}
if(s>1)
X=X+sC2
}
Proof of correctness
It is very easy.Since BFS traverses a tree level by level,n1 will give you the number of vertices at the level of u and n2 gives you the number of vertices at the level of v and since the distance between u and v = diameter.Therefore, distance between any vertex on level of u and any vertex on level of v will be equal to diameter.
The time taken is 2(|V|) + 2*time_of_DFS=O(V+E).
I was trying to split a binary-tree into k similar-sized parts (by removing k-1 edges). Is there any efficient algorithm for this problem? Or is it NP-hard? Any pointers to papers, problem definitions, etc?
-- One reasonable metric for evaluating the quality of partitioning could be the size gap between the largest and smallest partition; another metric could be making the smallest partition having as many vertices as possible.
I can suggest pretty fast solution for making the smallest part having as many vertices as possible metric.
Let suppose we guess the size S of smallest partit and want check if it's correct.
First I want to make a few statements:
If total size of tree bigger than S there is at least one subtree which is bigger than S and all subtrees of that subtree are smaller. (It's enough to check both biggest.)
If there is some way to split tree where size of smallest part >= S and we have subtree T all subtrees of which are smaller than S than we can grant that no edges inside T are deleted. (Cause any such deletion will create a partition which will be smaller than S)
If there is some way to split tree where size of smallest part >= S, and we have some subtree T which size >= S, has no deleted edges inside but is not one of parts, we can split the tree in other way where subtree T will be one of parts itself and all parts will be no smaller than S. (Just move some extra vertices from original part to any other part, this other part will not become smaller.)
So here is an algorithm to check if we can split the tree in k parts no smaller than S.
find all suitable vertices (roots of subtrees of size >= S and size for both childs < S) and add them in list. You can start from the root and move through all vertices while subtrees are bigger than S.
While list not empty and number of parts lesser then K take a vertice from the list and cut it off the tree. Than update size of subtrees for parent vertices and add to the list if one of them become suitable.
You even have no need to update all the parent vertices, only until you will find first which's new subtree size is bigger than S, parent vertices cant't be suitable for adding in list yet and can be updated later.
You may need to construct tree back to restore original subtree sizes assigned to the vertices.
Now we can use bisection method. We can determine upper bound as Smax = n/k and lower bound can be retrieved from equation (2*Smin- 1)*(K - 1) + Smin = N it will grants that if we will cut off k-1 subtrees with two child subtrees of size Smin - 1 each, we will have part of size Smin left. Smin = (n + k -1)/(2*k - 1)
And now we can check S = (Smax + Smin)/2
If we manage to construct partition using the method above than S is smaller or equal to it's largest possible value, also smallest part in constructed partition may be bigger than S and we can set new lower bound to it instead of S, if we fail S is bigger than possible.
Time complexity of one check is k multiplied by number of parent nodes updated each time, for well balanced tree number of updated nodes is constant (we will use trick explaned earlier and will not update all parent nodes), still it's not bigger than (n/k) in worst case for ultimately unbalanced tree. Searching for suitable vertices has very similar behavior (all vertices passed while searching will be updated later.).
Difference between n/k and (n + k -1)/(2*k - 1) is proportional to n/k.
So we have time complexity O(k * log(n/k)) in best case if we have precalculated subtree sizes, O(n) if subtree sizes are not precalculated and O(n * log(n/k)) in worst case.
This method may lead to situation when last of parts will be comparably big but I suppose once you've got suggested method you can figure out some improvements to minimize it.
Here is a polynomial deterministic solution:
Let's assume that the tree is rooted and there are two fixed values: MIN and MAX - minimum and maximum allowed size of one component.
Then one can use dynamic programming to check if there is a partition such that each component size is between MIN and MAX:
Let's assume f(node, cuts_count, current_count) is true if and only if there is a way to make exactly cuts_count cuts in node's subtree so that current_count vertices are connected to the node so that condition 2) holds true.
The base case for the leaves is: f(leaf, 1, 0)(cut the edge from the parent to the leaf) is true if and only if MIN <= 1 and MAX >= 1 f(leaf, 0, 1)(do not cut it) is always true(it is false for all other values of cuts_count and current_count).
To compute f for a node(not a leaf), one can use the following algorithm:
//Combine all possible children states.
for cuts_left in 0..k
for cuts_right in 0..k
for cnt_left in 0..left_subtree_size
for cnt_right in 0..right_subtree_size
if f(left_child, cuts_left, cnt_left) is true and
f(right_child, cuts_right, cnt_right) is true and then
f(node, cuts_left + cuts_right, cnt_left + cnt_right + 1) = true
//Cut an edge from this node to its parent.
for cuts in 0..k-1
for cnt in 0..node's_subtree_size
if f(node, cuts, node's_subtree_size) is true and MIN <= cnt <= MAX:
f(node, cuts + 1, 0) = true
What this pseudo code does is combining all possible states of node's children to compute all reachable states for this node(the first bunch of for loops) and then produces the rest of reachable states by cutting the edge between this node and its parent(the second bunch of for loops)(the state means (node, cuts_count, current_count) tuple. I call it reachable if f(state) is true).
That is the case for a node with two children, the case with one child can be processes in similar manner.
Finally, if f(root, k, 0) is true then it is possible to find the partition which stratifies the condition 2) and it is not possible otherwise. We need to "pretend" that we did k cuts here because we also cut an imaginary edge from root to its parent(this edge and this parent doesn't exist actually) when we computed f for the root(to avoid corner case).
The space complexity of this algorithm(for fixed MIN and MAX) is O(n^2 * k)(n is the number of nodes), time complexity is O(k^2 * n^2). It might seem that the complexity is actually O(k^2 * n^3), but is not so because the product of number of vertices in left and right subtree of a node is exactly the number of pairs of node's such that their least common ancestor is this node. But the total number of pairs of nodes is O(n^2)(and each pair has only one least common ancestor). Thus, the sum of products of left and right subtree sizes over all nodes is O(n^2).
One can simply try all possible MIN and MAX values and choose the best, but it can be done faster. The key observation is that if there is a solution for MIN and MAX, there is always a solution for MIN and MAX + 1. Thus, one can iterate over all possible values of MIN(n / k different values) and apply binary search to find the smallest MAX which gives a valid solution(log n iterations). So the overall time complexity is O(n^2 * k^2 * n / k * log n) = O(n^3 * k * log n). However, if you want to maximize MIN(not to minimize the difference between MAX and MIN), you can simply use this algorithm and ignore MAX value everywhere(by setting its value to n). Then no binary search over MAX would be required, but one would be able to binary search over MIN instead and obtain an O(n^2 * k^2 * log n) solution.
To reconstruct the partition itself, one can start from f(root, k, 0) and apply the steps we used to compute f, but this time in opposite direction(from root to leaves). It is also possible to save the information about how to get the value of each state(what children's states were combined or what was the state before the edge was cut)(and update it appropriately during the initial computation of f) and then reconstruct the partition using this data(if my explanation of this step seems not very clear, reading an article on dynamic programming and reconstructing the answer might help).
So, there is a polynomial solution for this problem on a binary tree(even though it is NP-hard for an arbitrary graph).
You are given a complete undirected graph with N vertices. All but K edges have a cost of A. Those K edges have a cost of B and you know them (as a list of pairs). What's the minimum cost from node 0 to node N - 1.
2 <= N <= 500k
0 <= K <= 500k
1 <= A, B <= 500k
The problem is, obviously, when those K edges cost more than the other ones and node 0 and node N - 1 are connected by a K-edge.
Dijkstra doesn't work. I've even tried something very similar with a BFS.
Step1: Let G(0) be the set of "good" adjacent nodes with node 0.
Step2: For each node in G(0):
compute G(node)
if G(node) contains N - 1
return step
else
add node to some queue
repeat step2 and increment step
The problem is that this uses up a lot of time due to the fact that for every node you have to make a loop from 0 to N - 1 in order to find the "good" adjacent nodes.
Does anyone have any better ideas? Thank you.
Edit: Here is a link from the ACM contest: http://acm.ro/prob/probleme/B.pdf
This is laborous case work:
A < B and 0 and N-1 are joined by A -> trivial.
B < A and 0 and N-1 are joined by B -> trivial.
B < A and 0 and N-1 are joined by A ->
Do BFS on graph with only K edges.
A < B and 0 and N-1 are joined by B ->
You can check in O(N) time is there is a path with length 2*A (try every vertex in middle).
To check other path lengths following algorithm should do the trick:
Let X(d) be set of nodes reachable by using d shorter edges from 0. You can find X(d) using following algorithm: Take each vertex v with unknown distance and iterativelly check edges between v and vertices from X(d-1). If you found short edge, then v is in X(d) otherwise you stepped on long edge. Since there are at most K long edges you can step on them at most K times. So you should find distance of each vertex in at most O(N + K) time.
I propose a solution to a somewhat more general problem where you might have more than two types of edges and the edge weights are not bounded. For your scenario the idea is probably a bit overkill, but the implementation is quite simple, so it might be a good way to go about the problem.
You can use a segment tree to make Dijkstra more efficient. You will need the operations
set upper bound in a range as in, given U, L, R; for all x[i] with L <= i <= R, set x[i] = min(x[i], u)
find a global minimum
The upper bounds can be pushed down the tree lazily, so both can be implemented in O(log n)
When relaxing outgoing edges, look for the edges with cost B, sort them and update the ranges in between all at once.
The runtime should be O(n log n + m log m) if you sort all the edges upfront (by outgoing vertex).
EDIT: Got accepted with this approach. The good thing about it is that it avoids any kind of special casing. It's still ~80 lines of code.
In the case when A < B, I would go with kind of a BFS, where you would check where you can't reach instead of where you can. Here's the pseudocode:
G(k) is the set of nodes reachable by k cheap edges and no less. We start with G(0) = {v0}
while G(k) isn't empty and G(k) doesn't contain vN-1 and k*A < B
A = array[N] of zeroes
for every node n in G(k)
for every expensive edge (n,m)
A[m]++
# now we have that A[m] == |G(k)| iff m can't be reached by a cheap edge from any of G(k)
set G(k+1) to {m; A[m] < |G(k)|} except {n; n is in G(0),...G(k)}
k++
This way you avoid iterating through the (many) cheap edges and only iterate through the relatively few expensive edges.
As you have correctly noted, the problem comes when A > B and edge from 0 to n-1 has a cost of A.
In this case you can simply delete all edges in the graph that have a cost of A. This is because an optimal route shall only have edges with cost B.
Then you can perform a simple BFS since the costs of all edges are the same. It will give you optimal performance as pointed out by this link: Finding shortest path for equal weighted graph
Moreover, you can stop your BFS when the total cost exceeds A.
Can anybody give me proof how the number of nodes in strictly binary tree is 2n-1 where n is the number of leaf nodes??
Proof by induction.
Base case is when you have one leaf. Suppose it is true for k leaves. Then you should proove for k+1. So you get the new node, his parent and his other leaf (by definition of strict binary tree). The rest leaves are k-1 and then you can use the induction hypothesis. So the actual number of nodes are 2*(k-1) + 3 = 2k+1 == 2*(k+1)-1.
just go with the basics, assuming there are x nodes in total, then we have n nodes with degree 1(leaves), 1 with degree 2(the root) and x-n-1 with degree 3(the inner nodes)
as a tree with x nodes will have x-1 edges. so summing
n + 3*(x-n-1) + 2 = 2(x-1) (equating the total degrees)
solving for x we get x = 2n-1
I'm guessing that what you really want is something like a proof that the depth is log2(N), where N is the number of nodes. In this case, the answer is fairly simple: for any given depth D, the number of nodes is 2D.
Edit: in response to edited question: the same fact pretty much applies. Since the number of nodes at any depth is 2D, the number of nodes further up the tree is 2D-1 + 2D-2 + ...20 = 2D-1. Therefore, the total number of nodes in a balanced binary tree is 2D + 2D-1. If you set n = 2D, you've gone the full circle back to the original equation.
I think you are trying to work out a proof for: N = 2L - 1 where L is the number
of leaf nodes and N is the total number of nodes in a binary tree.
For this formula to hold you need to put a few restrictions on how the binary
tree is constructed. Each node is either a leaf, which means it has no children, or
it is an internal node. Internal nodes have 3
possible configurations:
2 child nodes
1 child and 1 internal node
2 internal nodes
All three configurations imply that an internal node connects to two other nodes. This explicitly
rules out the situation where node connects to a single child as in:
o
/
o
Informal Proof
Start with a minimal tree of 1 leaf: L = 1, N = 1 substitute into N = 2L - 1 and the see that
the formula holds true (1 = 1, so far so good).
Now add another minimal chunk to the tree. To do that you need to add another two nodes and
tree looks like:
o
/ \
o o
Notice that you must add nodes in pairs to satisfy the restriction stated earlier.
Adding a pair of nodes always adds
one leaf (two new leaf nodes, but you loose one as it becomes an internal node). Node growth
progresses as the series: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9... but leaf growth is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That is why the formula
N = 2L - 1 holds for this type of tree.
You might use mathematical induction to construct a formal proof, but this works find for me.
Proof by mathematical induction:
The statement that there are (2n-1) of nodes in a strictly binary tree with n leaf nodes is true for n=1. { tree with only one node i.e root node }
let us assume that the statement is true for tree with n-1 leaf nodes. Thus the tree has 2(n-1)-1 = 2n-3 nodes
to form a tree with n leaf nodes we need to add 2 child nodes to any of the leaf nodes in the above tree. Thus the total number of nodes = 2n-3+2 = 2n-1.
hence, proved
To prove: A strictly binary tree with n leaves contains 2n-1 nodes.
Show P(1): A strictly binary tree with 1 leaf contains 2(1)-1 = 1 node.
Show P(2): A strictly binary tree with 2 leaves contains 2(2)-1 = 3 nodes.
Show P(3): A strictly binary tree with 3 leaves contains 2(3)-1 = 5 nodes.
Assume P(K): A strictly binary tree with K leaves contains 2K-1 nodes.
Prove P(K+1): A strictly binary tree with K+1 leaves contains 2(K+1)-1 nodes.
2(K+1)-1 = 2K+2-1
= 2K+1
= 2K-1 +2*
* This result indicates that, for each leaf that is added, another node must be added to the father of the leaf , in order for it to continue to be a strictly binary tree. So, for every additional leaf, a total of two nodes must be added, as expected.
int N = 1000; insert here the value of N
int sum = 0; // the number of total nodes
int currFactor = 1;
for (int i = 0; i< log(N); ++i) //the is log(N) levels
{
sum += currFactor;
currFactor *= 2; //in each level the number of node is double than the upper level
}
if(sum == 2*N - 1)
{
cout<<"wow that the number of nodes is 2*N-1";
}