Related
I'm looking for a sorting algorithm that honors a min and max range for each element1. The problem domain is a recommendations engine that combines a set of business rules (the restrictions) with a recommendation score (the value). If we have a recommendation we want to promote (e.g. a special product or deal) or an announcement we want to appear near the top of the list (e.g. "This is super important, remember to verify your email address to participate in an upcoming promotion!") or near the bottom of the list (e.g. "If you liked these recommendations, click here for more..."), they will be curated with certain position restriction in place. For example, this should always be the top position, these should be in the top 10, or middle 5 etc. This curation step is done ahead of time and remains fixed for a given time period and for business reasons must remain very flexible.
Please don't question the business purpose, UI or input validation. I'm just trying to implement the algorithm in the constraints I've been given. Please treat this as an academic question. I will endeavor to provide a rigorous problem statement, and feedback on all other aspects of the problem is very welcome.
So if we were sorting chars, our data would have a structure of
struct {
char value;
Integer minPosition;
Integer maxPosition;
}
Where minPosition and maxPosition may be null (unrestricted). If this were called on an algorithm where all positions restrictions were null, or all minPositions were 0 or less and all maxPositions were equal to or greater than the size of the list, then the output would just be chars in ascending order.
This algorithm would only reorder two elements if the minPosition and maxPosition of both elements would not be violated by their new positions. An insertion-based algorithm which promotes items to the top of the list and reorders the rest has obvious problems in that every later element would have to be revalidated after each iteration; in my head, that rules out such algorithms for having O(n3) complexity, but I won't rule out such algorithms without considering evidence to the contrary, if presented.
In the output list, certain elements will be out of order with regard to their value, if and only if the set of position constraints dictates it. These outputs are still valid.
A valid list is any list where all elements are in a position that does not conflict with their constraints.
An optimal list is a list which cannot be reordered to more closely match the natural order without violating one or more position constraint. An invalid list is never optimal. I don't have a strict definition I can spell out for 'more closely matching' between one ordering or another. However, I think it's fairly easy to let intuition guide you, or choose something similar to a distance metric.
Multiple optimal orderings may exist if multiple inputs have the same value. You could make an argument that the above paragraph is therefore incorrect, because either one can be reordered to the other without violating constraints and therefore neither can be optimal. However, any rigorous distance function would treat these lists as identical, with the same distance from the natural order and therefore reordering the identical elements is allowed (because it's a no-op).
I would call such outputs the correct, sorted order which respects the position constraints, but several commentators pointed out that we're not really returning a sorted list, so let's stick with 'optimal'.
For example, the following are a input lists (in the form of <char>(<minPosition>:<maxPosition>), where Z(1:1) indicates a Z that must be at the front of the list and M(-:-) indicates an M that may be in any position in the final list and the natural order (sorted by value only) is A...M...Z) and their optimal orders.
Input order
A(1:1) D(-:-) C(-:-) E(-:-) B(-:-)
Optimal order
A B C D E
This is a trivial example to show that the natural order prevails in a list with no constraints.
Input order
E(1:1) D(2:2) C(3:3) B(4:4) A(5:5)
Optimal order
E D C B A
This example is to show that a fully constrained list is output in the same order it is given. The input is already a valid and optimal list. The algorithm should still run in O(n log n) time for such inputs. (Our initial solution is able to short-circuit any fully constrained list to run in linear time; I added the example both to drive home the definitions of optimal and valid and because some swap-based algorithms I considered handled this as the worse case.)
Input order
E(1:1) C(-:-) B(1:5) A(4:4) D(2:3)
Optimal Order
E B D A C
E is constrained to 1:1, so it is first in the list even though it has the lowest value. A is similarly constrained to 4:4, so it is also out of natural order. B has essentially identical constraints to C and may appear anywhere in the final list, but B will be before C because of value. D may be in positions 2 or 3, so it appears after B because of natural ordering but before C because of its constraints.
Note that the final order is correct despite being wildly different from the natural order (which is still A,B,C,D,E). As explained in the previous paragraph, nothing in this list can be reordered without violating the constraints of one or more items.
Input order
B(-:-) C(2:2) A(-:-) A(-:-)
Optimal order
A(-:-) C(2:2) A(-:-) B(-:-)
C remains unmoved because it already in its only valid position. B is reordered to the end because its value is less than both A's. In reality, there will be additional fields that differentiate the two A's, but from the standpoint of the algorithm, they are identical and preserving OR reversing their input ordering is an optimal solution.
Input order
A(1:1) B(1:1) C(3:4) D(3:4) E(3:4)
Undefined output
This input is invalid for two reasons: 1) A and B are both constrained to position 1 and 2) C, D, and E are constrained to a range than can only hold 2 elements. In other words, the ranges 1:1 and 3:4 are over-constrained. However, the consistency and legality of the constraints are enforced by UI validation, so it's officially not the algorithms problem if they are incorrect, and the algorithm can return a best-effort ordering OR the original ordering in that case. Passing an input like this to the algorithm may be considered undefined behavior; anything can happen. So, for the rest of the question...
All input lists will have elements that are initially in valid positions.
The sorting algorithm itself can assume the constraints are valid and an optimal order exists.2
We've currently settled on a customized selection sort (with runtime complexity of O(n2)) and reasonably proved that it works for all inputs whose position restrictions are valid and consistent (e.g. not overbooked for a given position or range of positions).
Is there a sorting algorithm that is guaranteed to return the optimal final order and run in better than O(n2) time complexity?3
I feel that a library standard sorting algorithm could be modified to handle these constrains by providing a custom comparator that accepts the candidate destination position for each element. This would be equivalent to the current position of each element, so maybe modifying the value holding class to include the current position of the element and do the extra accounting in the comparison (.equals()) and swap methods would be sufficient.
However, the more I think about it, an algorithm that runs in O(n log n) time could not work correctly with these restrictions. Intuitively, such algorithms are based on running n comparisons log n times. The log n is achieved by leveraging a divide and conquer mechanism, which only compares certain candidates for certain positions.
In other words, input lists with valid position constraints (i.e. counterexamples) exist for any O(n log n) sorting algorithm where a candidate element would be compared with an element (or range in the case of Quicksort and variants) with/to which it could not be swapped, and therefore would never move to the correct final position. If that's too vague, I can come up with a counter example for mergesort and quicksort.
In contrast, an O(n2) sorting algorithm makes exhaustive comparisons and can always move an element to its correct final position.
To ask an actual question: Is my intuition correct when I reason that an O(n log n) sort is not guaranteed to find a valid order? If so, can you provide more concrete proof? If not, why not? Is there other existing research on this class of problem?
1: I've not been able to find a set of search terms that points me in the direction of any concrete classification of such sorting algorithm or constraints; that's why I'm asking some basic questions about the complexity. If there is a term for this type of problem, please post it up.
2: Validation is a separate problem, worthy of its own investigation and algorithm. I'm pretty sure that the existence of a valid order can be proven in linear time:
Allocate array of tuples of length equal to your list. Each tuple is an integer counter k and a double value v for the relative assignment weight.
Walk the list, adding the fractional value of each elements position constraint to the corresponding range and incrementing its counter by 1 (e.g. range 2:5 on a list of 10 adds 0.4 to each of 2,3,4, and 5 on our tuple list, incrementing the counter of each as well)
Walk the tuple list and
If no entry has value v greater than the sum of the series from 1 to k of 1/k, a valid order exists.
If there is such a tuple, the position it is in is over-constrained; throw an exception, log an error, use the doubles array to correct the problem elements etc.
Edit: This validation algorithm itself is actually O(n2). Worst case, every element has the constraints 1:n, you end up walking your list of n tuples n times. This is still irrelevant to the scope of the question, because in the real problem domain, the constraints are enforced once and don't change.
Determining that a given list is in valid order is even easier. Just check each elements current position against its constraints.
3: This is admittedly a little bit premature optimization. Our initial use for this is for fairly small lists, but we're eyeing expansion to longer lists, so if we can optimize now we'd get small performance gains now and large performance gains later. And besides, my curiosity is piqued and if there is research out there on this topic, I would like to see it and (hopefully) learn from it.
On the existence of a solution: You can view this as a bipartite digraph with one set of vertices (U) being the k values, and the other set (V) the k ranks (1 to k), and an arc from each vertex in U to its valid ranks in V. Then the existence of a solution is equivalent to the maximum matching being a bijection. One way to check for this is to add a source vertex with an arc to each vertex in U, and a sink vertex with an arc from each vertex in V. Assign each edge a capacity of 1, then find the max flow. If it's k then there's a solution, otherwise not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_flow_problem
--edit-- O(k^3) solution: First sort to find the sorted rank of each vertex (1-k). Next, consider your values and ranks as 2 sets of k vertices, U and V, with weighted edges from each vertex in U to all of its legal ranks in V. The weight to assign each edge is the distance from the vertices rank in sorted order. E.g., if U is 10 to 20, then the natural rank of 10 is 1. An edge from value 10 to rank 1 would have a weight of zero, to rank 3 would have a weight of 2. Next, assume all missing edges exist and assign them infinite weight. Lastly, find the "MINIMUM WEIGHT PERFECT MATCHING" in O(k^3).
http://www-math.mit.edu/~goemans/18433S09/matching-notes.pdf
This does not take advantage of the fact that the legal ranks for each element in U are contiguous, which may help get the running time down to O(k^2).
Here is what a coworker and I have come up with. I think it's an O(n2) solution that returns a valid, optimal order if one exists, and a closest-possible effort if the initial ranges were over-constrained. I just tweaked a few things about the implementation and we're still writing tests, so there's a chance it doesn't work as advertised. This over-constrained condition is detected fairly easily when it occurs.
To start, things are simplified if you normalize your inputs to have all non-null constraints. In linear time, that is:
for each item in input
if an item doesn't have a minimum position, set it to 1
if an item doesn't have a maximum position, set it to the length of your list
The next goal is to construct a list of ranges, each containing all of the candidate elements that have that range and ordered by the remaining capacity of the range, ascending so ranges with the fewest remaining spots are on first, then by start position of the range, then by end position of the range. This can be done by creating a set of such ranges, then sorting them in O(n log n) time with a simple comparator.
For the rest of this answer, a range will be a simple object like so
class Range<T> implements Collection<T> {
int startPosition;
int endPosition;
Collection<T> items;
public int remainingCapacity() {
return endPosition - startPosition + 1 - items.size();
}
// implement Collection<T> methods, passing through to the items collection
public void add(T item) {
// Validity checking here exposes some simple cases of over-constraining
// We'll catch these cases with the tricky stuff later anyways, so don't choke
items.add(item);
}
}
If an element A has range 1:5, construct a range(1,5) object and add A to its elements. This range has remaining capacity of 5 - 1 + 1 - 1 (max - min + 1 - size) = 4. If an element B has range 1:5, add it to your existing range, which now has capacity 3.
Then it's a relatively simple matter of picking the best element that fits each position 1 => k in turn. Iterate your ranges in their sorted order, keeping track of the best eligible element, with the twist that you stop looking if you've reached a range that has a remaining size that can't fit into its remaining positions. This is equivalent to the simple calculation range.max - current position + 1 > range.size (which can probably be simplified, but I think it's most understandable in this form). Remove each element from its range as it is selected. Remove each range from your list as it is emptied (optional; iterating an empty range will yield no candidates. That's a poor explanation, so lets do one of our examples from the question. Note that C(-:-) has been updated to the sanitized C(1:5) as described in above.
Input order
E(1:1) C(1:5) B(1:5) A(4:4) D(2:3)
Built ranges (min:max) <remaining capacity> [elements]
(1:1)0[E] (4:4)0[A] (2:3)1[D] (1:5)3[C,B]
Find best for 1
Consider (1:1), best element from its list is E
Consider further ranges?
range.max - current position + 1 > range.size ?
range.max = 1; current position = 1; range.size = 1;
1 - 1 + 1 > 1 = false; do not consider subsequent ranges
Remove E from range, add to output list
Find best for 2; current range list is:
(4:4)0[A] (2:3)1[D] (1:5)3[C,B]
Consider (4:4); skip it because it is not eligible for position 2
Consider (2:3); best element is D
Consider further ranges?
3 - 2 + 1 > 1 = true; check next range
Consider (2:5); best element is B
End of range list; remove B from range, add to output list
An added simplifying factor is that the capacities do not need to be updated or the ranges reordered. An item is only removed if the rest of the higher-sorted ranges would not be disturbed by doing so. The remaining capacity is never checked after the initial sort.
Find best for 3; output is now E, B; current range list is:
(4:4)0[A] (2:3)1[D] (1:5)3[C]
Consider (4:4); skip it because it is not eligible for position 3
Consider (2:3); best element is D
Consider further ranges?
same as previous check, but current position is now 3
3 - 3 + 1 > 1 = false; don't check next range
Remove D from range, add to output list
Find best for 4; output is now E, B, D; current range list is:
(4:4)0[A] (1:5)3[C]
Consider (4:4); best element is A
Consider further ranges?
4 - 4 + 1 > 1 = false; don't check next range
Remove A from range, add to output list
Output is now E, B, D, A and there is one element left to be checked, so it gets appended to the end. This is the output list we desired to have.
This build process is the longest part. At its core, it's a straightforward n2 selection sorting algorithm. The range constraints only work to shorten the inner loop and there is no loopback or recursion; but the worst case (I think) is still sumi = 0 n(n - i), which is n2/2 - n/2.
The detection step comes into play by not excluding a candidate range if the current position is beyond the end of that ranges max position. You have to track the range your best candidate came from in order to remove it, so when you do the removal, just check if the position you're extracting the candidate for is greater than that ranges endPosition.
I have several other counter-examples that foiled my earlier algorithms, including a nice example that shows several over-constraint detections on the same input list and also how the final output is closest to the optimal as the constraints will allow. In the mean time, please post any optimizations you can see and especially any counter examples where this algorithm makes an objectively incorrect choice (i.e. arrives at an invalid or suboptimal output when one exists).
I'm not going to accept this answer, because I specifically asked if it could be done in better than O(n2). I haven't wrapped my head around the constraints satisfaction approach in #DaveGalvin's answer yet and I've never done a maximum flow problem, but I thought this might be helpful for others to look at.
Also, I discovered the best way to come up with valid test data is to start with a valid list and randomize it: for 0 -> i, create a random value and constraints such that min < i < max. (Again, posting it because it took me longer than it should have to come up with and others might find it helpful.)
Not likely*. I assume you mean average run time of O(n log n) in-place, non-stable, off-line. Most Sorting algorithms that improve on bubble sort average run time of O(n^2) like tim sort rely on the assumption that comparing 2 elements in a sub set will produce the same result in the super set. A slower variant of Quicksort would be a good approach for your range constraints. The worst case won't change but the average case will likely decrease and the algorithm will have the extra constraint of a valid sort existing.
Is ... O(n log n) sort is not guaranteed to find a valid order?
All popular sort algorithms I am aware of are guaranteed to find an order so long as there constraints are met. Formal analysis (concrete proof) is on each sort algorithems wikepedia page.
Is there other existing research on this class of problem?
Yes; there are many journals like IJCSEA with sorting research.
*but that depends on your average data set.
Continued from my last question "Range Minimum Query approach (from tree to restricted RMQ)" (It's recommended to give it a read)
Again, from this tutorial on TopCoder, I have a few questions here and there, and I hope someone can clear them out.
So I transform a RMQ (Range Minimum Query) problem to a LCA (Lowest Common Ancestor) problem, and then transform it back, I can have an array that's simplified. (both transform can be found in the tutorial, and the simplified array is array L discussed in "From LCA to RMQ")
Anyway, I can get that array by using Euler Tour, and that's the core part of all the calculation.
First, I need to make it even simpler by making the whole array consists of only 1 and -1, so this is what I do: Ls[i] = L[i] - L[i-1].
The second step is actually partition, and that's simple enough, but there's this third step that confuses me.
Let A'[i] be the minimum value for the i-th block in A and B[i] be the
position of this minimum value in A.
A refers to the L array in this sentence, so the minimum value would always be 1 or -1, and there's gonna be multiple 1s and -1s. It confuses me since I don't think this makes calculation easier.
The fourth step,
Now, we preprocess A' using the ST algorithm described in Section1.
This will take O(N/l * log(N/l)) = O(N) time and space.
If A' only keep records of 1s and -1s, it would seemed useless to do anything on it.
The last step,
To index table P, preprocess the type of each block in A and store it
in array T[1, N/l]. The block type is a binary number obtained by
replacing -1 with 0 and +1 with 1.
What does it mean? To calculate each kind of combination? Like, 000 - 001 -.....?
It looks like multiple questions, but I was hoping that someone can just walk me thorough these last steps. Thanks!
Hopefully this helps explain things.
A refers to the L array in this sentence, so the minimum value would always be 1 or -1, and there's gonna be multiple 1s and -1s. It confuses me since I don't think this makes calculation easier.
I think that the author is mixing up terms here. In this case, I believe that array A refers to the array of original values before they've been preprocessed into -1's and +1's. These values are good to have lying around, since having the minimum value computed for each block of the original array makes it a lot faster to do RMQ. More on that later. For now, don't worry about the +1 and -1 values. They come into play later.
If A' only keep records of 1s and -1s, it would seemed useless to do anything on it.
That's true. However, here A' holds the minimum values from each block before they've been preprocessed into -1 and +1 values, so this actually is an interesting problem to solve. Again, the -1 and +1 steps haven't come into play yet.
To index table P, preprocess the type of each block in A and store it in array T[1, N/l]. The block type is a binary number obtained by replacing -1 with 0 and +1 with 1.
This is where the -1 and +1 values come in. The key idea behind this step is that with small block sizes, there aren't very many possible combinations of -1's and +1's in a block. For example, if the block size is 3, then the possible blocks are
---
--+
-+-
-++
+--
+-+
++-
+++
Here, I'm using + and - to mean +1 and -1.
The article you're reading gives the following trick. Rather than using -1 and +1, use binary 0 and 1. This means the possible blocks are
000 = 0
001 = 1
010 = 2
011 = 3
100 = 4
101 = 5
110 = 6
111 = 7
The advantage of this scheme is twofold. First, since there are only finitely many blocks, it's possible to precompute, for each possible block, the RMQ answer for any pair of indices within that block. Second, since each block can be interpreted as an integer, it's possible to store the answers to these questions in an array keyed by integers, where each integer is what you get by converting the block's -1 and +1 values into 0s and 1s.
Hope this helps!
So, this is a common interview question. There's already a topic up, which I have read, but it's dead, and no answer was ever accepted. On top of that, my interests lie in a slightly more constrained form of the question, with a couple practical applications.
Given a two dimensional array such that:
Elements are unique.
Elements are sorted along the x-axis and the y-axis.
Neither sort predominates, so neither sort is a secondary sorting parameter.
As a result, the diagonal is also sorted.
All of the sorts can be thought of as moving in the same direction. That is to say that they are all ascending, or that they are all descending.
Technically, I think as long as you have a >/=/< comparator, any total ordering should work.
Elements are numeric types, with a single-cycle comparator.
Thus, memory operations are the dominating factor in a big-O analysis.
How do you find an element? Only worst case analysis matters.
Solutions I am aware of:
A variety of approaches that are:
O(nlog(n)), where you approach each row separately.
O(nlog(n)) with strong best and average performance.
One that is O(n+m):
Start in a non-extreme corner, which we will assume is the bottom right.
Let the target be J. Cur Pos is M.
If M is greater than J, move left.
If M is less than J, move up.
If you can do neither, you are done, and J is not present.
If M is equal to J, you are done.
Originally found elsewhere, most recently stolen from here.
And I believe I've seen one with a worst-case O(n+m) but a optimal case of nearly O(log(n)).
What I am curious about:
Right now, I have proved to my satisfaction that naive partitioning attack always devolves to nlog(n). Partitioning attacks in general appear to have a optimal worst-case of O(n+m), and most do not terminate early in cases of absence. I was also wondering, as a result, if an interpolation probe might not be better than a binary probe, and thus it occurred to me that one might think of this as a set intersection problem with a weak interaction between sets. My mind cast immediately towards Baeza-Yates intersection, but I haven't had time to draft an adaptation of that approach. However, given my suspicions that optimality of a O(N+M) worst case is provable, I thought I'd just go ahead and ask here, to see if anyone could bash together a counter-argument, or pull together a recurrence relation for interpolation search.
Here's a proof that it has to be at least Omega(min(n,m)). Let n >= m. Then consider the matrix which has all 0s at (i,j) where i+j < m, all 2s where i+j >= m, except for a single (i,j) with i+j = m which has a 1. This is a valid input matrix, and there are m possible placements for the 1. No query into the array (other than the actual location of the 1) can distinguish among those m possible placements. So you'll have to check all m locations in the worst case, and at least m/2 expected locations for any randomized algorithm.
One of your assumptions was that matrix elements have to be unique, and I didn't do that. It is easy to fix, however, because you just pick a big number X=n*m, replace all 0s with unique numbers less than X, all 2s with unique numbers greater than X, and 1 with X.
And because it is also Omega(lg n) (counting argument), it is Omega(m + lg n) where n>=m.
An optimal O(m+n) solution is to start at the top-left corner, that has minimal value. Move diagonally downwards to the right until you hit an element whose value >= value of the given element. If the element's value is equal to that of the given element, return found as true.
Otherwise, from here we can proceed in two ways.
Strategy 1:
Move up in the column and search for the given element until we reach the end. If found, return found as true
Move left in the row and search for the given element until we reach the end. If found, return found as true
return found as false
Strategy 2:
Let i denote the row index and j denote the column index of the diagonal element we have stopped at. (Here, we have i = j, BTW). Let k = 1.
Repeat the below steps until i-k >= 0
Search if a[i-k][j] is equal to the given element. if yes, return found as true.
Search if a[i][j-k] is equal to the given element. if yes, return found as true.
Increment k
1 2 4 5 6
2 3 5 7 8
4 6 8 9 10
5 8 9 10 11
Is there a way to generate all of the subset sums s1, s2, ..., sk that fall in a range [A,B] faster than O((k+N)*2N/2), where k is the number of sums there are in [A,B]? Note that k is only known after we have enumerated all subset sums within [A,B].
I'm currently using a modified Horowitz-Sahni algorithm. For example, I first call it to for the smallest sum greater than or equal to A, giving me s1. Then I call it again for the next smallest sum greater than s1, giving me s2. Repeat this until we find a sum sk+1 greater than B. There is a lot of computation repeated between each iteration, even without rebuilding the initial two 2N/2 lists, so is there a way to do better?
In my problem, N is about 15, and the magnitude of the numbers is on the order of millions, so I haven't considered the dynamic programming route.
Check the subset sum on Wikipedia. As far as I know, it's the fastest known algorithm, which operates in O(2^(N/2)) time.
Edit:
If you're looking for multiple possible sums, instead of just 0, you can save the end arrays and just iterate through them again (which is roughly an O(2^(n/2) operation) and save re-computing them. The value of all the possible subsets is doesn't change with the target.
Edit again:
I'm not wholly sure what you want. Are we running K searches for one independent value each, or looking for any subset that has a value in a specific range that is K wide? Or are you trying to approximate the second by using the first?
Edit in response:
Yes, you do get a lot of duplicate work even without rebuilding the list. But if you don't rebuild the list, that's not O(k * N * 2^(N/2)). Building the list is O(N * 2^(N/2)).
If you know A and B right now, you could begin iteration, and then simply not stop when you find the right answer (the bottom bound), but keep going until it goes out of range. That should be roughly the same as solving subset sum for just one solution, involving only +k more ops, and when you're done, you can ditch the list.
More edit:
You have a range of sums, from A to B. First, you solve subset sum problem for A. Then, you just keep iterating and storing the results, until you find the solution for B, at which point you stop. Now you have every sum between A and B in a single run, and it will only cost you one subset sum problem solve plus K operations for K values in the range A to B, which is linear and nice and fast.
s = *i + *j; if s > B then ++i; else if s < A then ++j; else { print s; ... what_goes_here? ... }
No, no, no. I get the source of your confusion now (I misread something), but it's still not as complex as what you had originally. If you want to find ALL combinations within the range, instead of one, you will just have to iterate over all combinations of both lists, which isn't too bad.
Excuse my use of auto. C++0x compiler.
std::vector<int> sums;
std::vector<int> firstlist;
std::vector<int> secondlist;
// Fill in first/secondlist.
std::sort(firstlist.begin(), firstlist.end());
std::sort(secondlist.begin(), secondlist.end());
auto firstit = firstlist.begin();
auto secondit = secondlist.begin();
// Since we want all in a range, rather than just the first, we need to check all combinations. Horowitz/Sahni is only designed to find one.
for(; firstit != firstlist.end(); firstit++) {
for(; secondit = secondlist.end(); secondit++) {
int sum = *firstit + *secondit;
if (sum > A && sum < B)
sums.push_back(sum);
}
}
It's still not great. But it could be optimized if you know in advance that N is very large, for example, mapping or hashmapping sums to iterators, so that any given firstit can find any suitable partners in secondit, reducing the running time.
It is possible to do this in O(N*2^(N/2)), using ideas similar to Horowitz Sahni, but we try and do some optimizations to reduce the constants in the BigOh.
We do the following
Step 1: Split into sets of N/2, and generate all possible 2^(N/2) sets for each split. Call them S1 and S2. This we can do in O(2^(N/2)) (note: the N factor is missing here, due to an optimization we can do).
Step 2: Next sort the larger of S1 and S2 (say S1) in O(N*2^(N/2)) time (we optimize here by not sorting both).
Step 3: Find Subset sums in range [A,B] in S1 using binary search (as it is sorted).
Step 4: Next, for each sum in S2, find using binary search the sets in S1 whose union with this gives sum in range [A,B]. This is O(N*2^(N/2)). At the same time, find if that corresponding set in S2 is in the range [A,B]. The optimization here is to combine loops. Note: This gives you a representation of the sets (in terms of two indexes in S2), not the sets themselves. If you want all the sets, this becomes O(K + N*2^(N/2)), where K is the number of sets.
Further optimizations might be possible, for instance when sum from S2, is negative, we don't consider sums < A etc.
Since Steps 2,3,4 should be pretty clear, I will elaborate further on how to get Step 1 done in O(2^(N/2)) time.
For this, we use the concept of Gray Codes. Gray codes are a sequence of binary bit patterns in which each pattern differs from the previous pattern in exactly one bit.
Example: 00 -> 01 -> 11 -> 10 is a gray code with 2 bits.
There are gray codes which go through all possible N/2 bit numbers and these can be generated iteratively (see the wiki page I linked to), in O(1) time for each step (total O(2^(N/2)) steps), given the previous bit pattern, i.e. given current bit pattern, we can generate the next bit pattern in O(1) time.
This enables us to form all the subset sums, by using the previous sum and changing that by just adding or subtracting one number (corresponding to the differing bit position) to get the next sum.
If you modify the Horowitz-Sahni algorithm in the right way, then it's hardly slower than original Horowitz-Sahni. Recall that Horowitz-Sahni works two lists of subset sums: Sums of subsets in the left half of the original list, and sums of subsets in the right half. Call these two lists of sums L and R. To obtain subsets that sum to some fixed value A, you can sort R, and then look up a number in R that matches each number in L using a binary search. However, the algorithm is asymmetric only to save a constant factor in space and time. It's a good idea for this problem to sort both L and R.
In my code below I also reverse L. Then you can keep two pointers into R, updated for each entry in L: A pointer to the last entry in R that's too low, and a pointer to the first entry in R that's too high. When you advance to the next entry in L, each pointer might either move forward or stay put, but they won't have to move backwards. Thus, the second stage of the Horowitz-Sahni algorithm only takes linear time in the data generated in the first stage, plus linear time in the length of the output. Up to a constant factor, you can't do better than that (once you have committed to this meet-in-the-middle algorithm).
Here is a Python code with example input:
# Input
terms = [29371, 108810, 124019, 267363, 298330, 368607,
438140, 453243, 515250, 575143, 695146, 840979, 868052, 999760]
(A,B) = (500000,600000)
# Subset iterator stolen from Sage
def subsets(X):
yield []; pairs = []
for x in X:
pairs.append((2**len(pairs),x))
for w in xrange(2**(len(pairs)-1), 2**(len(pairs))):
yield [x for m, x in pairs if m & w]
# Modified Horowitz-Sahni with toolow and toohigh indices
L = sorted([(sum(S),S) for S in subsets(terms[:len(terms)/2])])
R = sorted([(sum(S),S) for S in subsets(terms[len(terms)/2:])])
(toolow,toohigh) = (-1,0)
for (Lsum,S) in reversed(L):
while R[toolow+1][0] < A-Lsum and toolow < len(R)-1: toolow += 1
while R[toohigh][0] <= B-Lsum and toohigh < len(R): toohigh += 1
for n in xrange(toolow+1,toohigh):
print '+'.join(map(str,S+R[n][1])),'=',sum(S+R[n][1])
"Moron" (I think he should change his user name) raises the reasonable issue of optimizing the algorithm a little further by skipping one of the sorts. Actually, because each list L and R is a list of sizes of subsets, you can do a combined generate and sort of each one in linear time! (That is, linear in the lengths of the lists.) L is the union of two lists of sums, those that include the first term, term[0], and those that don't. So actually you should just make one of these halves in sorted form, add a constant, and then do a merge of the two sorted lists. If you apply this idea recursively, you save a logarithmic factor in the time to make a sorted L, i.e., a factor of N in the original variable of the problem. This gives a good reason to sort both lists as you generate them. If you only sort one list, you have some binary searches that could reintroduce that factor of N; at best you have to optimize them somehow.
At first glance, a factor of O(N) could still be there for a different reason: If you want not just the subset sum, but the subset that makes the sum, then it looks like O(N) time and space to store each subset in L and in R. However, there is a data-sharing trick that also gets rid of that factor of O(N). The first step of the trick is to store each subset of the left or right half as a linked list of bits (1 if a term is included, 0 if it is not included). Then, when the list L is doubled in size as in the previous paragraph, the two linked lists for a subset and its partner can be shared, except at the head:
0
|
v
1 -> 1 -> 0 -> ...
Actually, this linked list trick is an artifact of the cost model and never truly helpful. Because, in order to have pointers in a RAM architecture with O(1) cost, you have to define data words with O(log(memory)) bits. But if you have data words of this size, you might as well store each word as a single bit vector rather than with this pointer structure. I.e., if you need less than a gigaword of memory, then you can store each subset in a 32-bit word. If you need more than a gigaword, then you have a 64-bit architecture or an emulation of it (or maybe 48 bits), and you can still store each subset in one word. If you patch the RAM cost model to take account of word size, then this factor of N was never really there anyway.
So, interestingly, the time complexity for the original Horowitz-Sahni algorithm isn't O(N*2^(N/2)), it's O(2^(N/2)). Likewise the time complexity for this problem is O(K+2^(N/2)), where K is the length of the output.
Suppose there is given two String:
String s1= "MARTHA"
String s2= "MARHTA"
here we exchange positions of T and H. I am interested to write code which counts how many changes are necessary to transform from one String to another String.
There are several edit distance algorithms, the given Wikipeida link has links to a few.
Assuming that the distance counts only swaps, here is an idea based on permutations, that runs in linear time.
The first step of the algorithm is ensuring that the two strings are really equivalent in their character contents. This can be done in linear time using a hash table (or a fixed array that covers all the alphabet). If they are not, then s2 can't be considered a permutation of s1, and the "swap count" is irrelevant.
The second step counts the minimum number of swaps required to transform s2 to s1. This can be done by inspecting the permutation p that corresponds to the transformation from s1 to s2. For example, if s1="abcde" and s2="badce", then p=(2,1,4,3,5), meaning that position 1 contains element #2, position 2 contains element #1, etc. This permutation can be broke up into permutation cycles in linear time. The cycles in the example are (2,1) (4,3) and (5). The minimum swap count is the total count of the swaps required per cycle. A cycle of length k requires k-1 swaps in order to "fix it". Therefore, The number of swaps is N-C, where N is the string length and C is the number of cycles. In our example, the result is 2 (swap 1,2 and then 3,4).
Now, there are two problems here, and I think I'm too tired to solve them right now :)
1) My solution assumes that no character is repeated, which is not always the case. Some adjustment is needed to calculate the swap count correctly.
2) My formula #MinSwaps=N-C needs a proof... I didn't find it in the web.
Your problem is not so easy, since before counting the swaps you need to ensure that every swap reduces the "distance" (in equality) between these two strings. Then actually you look for the count but you should look for the smallest count (or at least I suppose), otherwise there exists infinite ways to swap a string to obtain another one.
You should first check which charaters are already in place, then for every character that is not look if there is a couple that can be swapped so that the next distance between strings is reduced. Then iterate over until you finish the process.
If you don't want to effectively do it but just count the number of swaps use a bit array in which you have 1 for every well-placed character and 0 otherwise. You will finish when every bit is 1.