Related
Lets say that you are given n sorted arrays of numbers and you need to pick one number from each array such that the minimum distance between the n chosen elements is maximized.
Example:
arrays:
[0, 500]
[100, 350]
[200]
2<=n<=10 and every array could have ~10^3-10^4 elements.
In this example the optimal solution to maximize minimum distance is pick numbers: 500, 350, 200 or 0, 200, 350 where min distance is 150 and is the maximum possible of every combination.
I am looking for an algorithm to solve this. I know that I could binary search the max min distance but I can't see how to decide is there is a solution with max min distance of at least d, in order for the binary search to work. I am thinking maybe dynamic programming could help but haven't managed to find a solution with dp.
Of course generating all combination with n elements is not efficient. I have already tried backtracking but it is slow since it tries every combination.
n ≤ 10 suggests that we can take an exponential dependence on n. Here's
an O(2n m n)-time algorithm where m is the total size of the
arrays.
The dynamic programming approach I have in mind is, for each subset of
arrays, calculate all of the pairs (maximum number, minimum distance) on
the efficient frontier, where we have to choose one number from each of
the arrays in the subset. By efficient frontier I mean that if we have
two pairs (a, b) ≠ (c, d) with a ≤ c and b ≥ d, then (c, d) is not on
the efficient frontier. We'll want to keep these frontiers sorted for
fast merges.
The base case with the empty subset is easy: there's one pair, (minimum
distance = ∞, maximum number = −∞).
For every nonempty subset of arrays in some order that extends the
inclusion order, we compute a frontier for each array in the subset,
representing the subset of solutions where that array contributes the
maximum number. Then we merge these frontiers. (Naively this costs us
another factor of log n, which maybe isn't worth the hassle to avoid
given that n ≤ 10, but we can avoid it by merging the arrays once at the
beginning to enable future merges to use bucketing.)
To construct a new frontier from a subset of arrays and another array
also involves a merge. We initialize an iterator at the start of the
frontier (i.e., least maximum number) and an iterator at the start of
the array (i.e., least number). While neither iterator is past the end,
Emit a candidate pair (min(minimum distance, array number − maximum
number), array number).
If the min was less than or equal to minimum distance, increment the
frontier iterator. If the min was less than or equal to array number
− maximum number, increment the array iterator.
Cull the candidate pairs to leave only the efficient frontier. There is
an elegant way to do this in code that is more trouble to explain.
I am going to give an algorithm that for a given distance d, will output whether it is possible to make a selection where the distance between any pair of chosen numbers is at least d. Then, you can binary-search the maximum d for which the algorithm outputs "YES", in order to find the answer to your problem.
Assume the minimum distance d be given. Here is the algorithm:
for every permutation p of size n do:
last := -infinity
ok := true
for p_i in p do:
x := take the smallest element greater than or equal to last+d in the p_i^th array (can be done efficiently with binary search).
if no such x was found; then
ok = false
break
end
last = x
done
if ok; then
return "YES"
end
done
return "NO"
So, we brute-force the order of arrays. Then, for every possible order, we use a greedy method to choose elements from each array, following the order. For example, take the example you gave:
arrays:
[0, 500]
[100, 350]
[200]
and assume d = 150. For the permutation 1 3 2, we first take 0 from the 1st array, then we find the smallest element in the 3rd array that is greater than or equal to 0+150 (it is 200), then we find the smallest element in the 2nd array which is greater than or equal to 200+150 (it is 350). Since we could find an element from every array, the algorithm outputs "YES". But for d = 200 for instance, the algorithm would output "NO" because none of the possible orderings would result in a successful selection.
The complexity for the above algorithm is O(n! * n * log(m)) where m is the maximum number of elements in an array. I believe it would be sufficient, since n is very small. (For m = 10^4, 10! * 10 * 13 ~ 5*10^8. It can be computed under a second on a modern CPU.)
Lets look at an example with optimal choices, x (horizontal arrays A, B, C, D):
A x
B b x b
C x c
D d x
Our recurrence based on range could be: let f(low, excluded) represent the maximum closest distance between two chosen elements (from arrays 1 to n) of the subset without elements in excluded, where low is the lowest chosen element. Then:
(1)
f(low, excluded) when |excluded| = n-1:
max(low)
for low in the only permitted array
(2)
f(low, excluded):
max(
min(
a - low,
f(a, excluded')
)
)
for a ≥ low, a not in excluded'
where excluded' = excluded ∪ {low's array}
We can limit a. For one thing the maximum we can achieve is
(3)
m = (highest - low) / (n - |excluded| - 1)
which means a need not go higher than low + m.
Secondly, we can store results for all f(a, excluded'), keyed by excluded' (we have 2^10 possible keys), each in a decorated binary tree ordered by a. The decoration will be the highest result achievable in the right subtree, meaning we can find the max for all f(v, excluded'), v ≥ a in logarithmic time.
The latter establishes a dominance relationship and clearly we are intetested in both a larger a and a larger f(a, excluded') so as to maximise the min function in (2). Picking an a in the middle, we can use a binary search. If we have:
a - low < max(v, excluded'), v ≥ a
where max(v, excluded') is the lookup
for a in the decorated tree
then we look to the right since max(v, excluded) indicates there's a better answer on the right, where a - low is also larger.
And if we have:
a - low ≥ max(v, excluded), v ≥ a
then we record this candidate and look to the left since to the right, the answer is fixed at max(v, excluded), given that a - low could not decrease.
In order to conduct the binary search on the range, [low, low + m] (see (3)), rather than merge and label all the arrays at the outset, we can keep them separate and compare the closest candidates to mid out of each array we are currently permitted to choose a from. (The trees have the mixed results, keyed by subset.) (The flow of this part is not completely clear to me.)
Worst case with this method, given that n = C is constant seems to be
O(C * array_length * 2^C * C * log(array_length) * log(C * array_length))
C * array_length is the iteration on low
Each low can be paired with 2^C inclusions
C * log(array_length) is the separated binary-search
And log(C * array_length) is the tree lookup
Simplifying:
= O(array_length * log^2(array_length))
although in practice, there could be many dead-end branches that exit early where a full selection wouldn't be possible.
In case, it wasn't clear, the iteration is on a fixed lowest element in the selection. In other words, we want the best f(low, excluded) for all different lows (and excludeds). For bottom-up, we would iterate from the highest value down so our results for a get stored as we iterate.
Say I have a list of n integral intervals [a,b] each representing set S = {a, a+1, ...b}. An overlap is defined as |S_1 \cap S_2|. Example: [3,6] and [5,9] overlap on [5,6] so the length of that is 2. The task is to find two intervals with the longest overlap in Little-O(n^2) using just recursion and not dynamic programming.
Naive approach is obviously brute force, which does not hold with time complexity condition. I was also unsuccessful trying sweep line algo and/or Longest common subsequence algorithm.
I just cannot find a way of dividing it into subproblems. Any ideas would be appreciated.
Also found this, which in my opinion does not work at all:
Finding “maximum” overlapping interval pair in O(nlog(n))
Here is an approach that takes N log(N) time.
Breakdown every interval [a,b] [c,d] into an array of pair like this:
pair<a,-1>
pair<b,a>
pair<c,-1>
pair<d,c>
sort these pairs in increasing order. Since interval starts are marked as -1, in case of ties interval they should come ahead of interval ends.
for i = 0 to end of the pair array
if current pair represents interval start
put it in a multiset
else
remove the interval start corresponding to this interval end from the multiset.
if the multiset is not empty
update the maxOverlap with (current_interval_end - max(minimum_value_in_multiset,start_value_of_current_interval)+1)
This approach should update the maxOverlap to the highest possible value.
Keep info about the two largest overlapping intervals max1 and max2 (empty in the beginning).
Sort the input list [x1, y1] .. [xn, yn] = I1..In by the value x, discarding the shorter of two intervals if equality is encountered. While throwing intervals out, keep max1 and max2 updated.
For each interval, add an attribute max in linear time, showing the largest y value of all preceding intervals (in sorted list):
rollmax = −∞
for j = 1..n do
Ij.max = rollmax
rollmax = max(rollmax, Ij.y)
On sorted, filtered, and expanded input list perform the following query. It uses an ever expanding sublist of intervals smaller then currently searched for interval Ii as input into recursive function SearchOverlap.
for i = 2..n do
SearchOverlap(Ii, 1, i − 1)
return {max1, max2}
Function SearchOverlap uses divide and conquer approach to traverse the sorted list Il, .. Ir. It imagines such list as a complete binary tree, with interval Ic as its local root. The test Ic.max < I.max is used to always decide to traverse the binary tree (go left/right) in direction of interval with largest overlap with I. Note, that I is the queried for interval, which is compared to log(n) other intervals. Also note, that the largest possible overlapping interval might be passed in such traversal, hence the check for largest overlap in the beginning of function SearchOverlap.
SearchOverlap(I , l, r)
c = ceil(Avg(l, r)) // Central element of queried list
if Overlap(max1, max2) < Overlap(I , Ic) then
max1 = I
max2 = Ic
if l ≥ r then
return
if Ic.max < I.max then
SearchOverlap(I , c + 1, r)
else
SearchOverlap(I , l, c − 1)
return
Largest overlapping intervals (if not empty) are returned at the end. Total complexity is O(n log(n)).
As I am not very proficient in various optimization/tree algorithms, I am seeking help.
Problem Description:
Assume, a large sequence of sorted nodes is given with each node representing an integer value L. L is always getting bigger with each node and no nodes have the same L.
The goal now is to find the best combination of nodes, where the difference between the L-values of subsequent nodes is closest to a given integer value M(L) that changes over L.
Example:
So, in the beginning I would have L = 50 and M = 100. The next nodes have L = 70,140,159,240,310.
First, the value of 159 seems to be closest to L+M = 150, so it is chosen as the right value.
However, in the next step, M=100 is still given and we notice that L+M = 259, which is far away from 240.
If we now go back and choose the node with L=140 instead, which then is followed by 240, the overall match between the M values and the L-differences is stronger. The algorithm should be able to find back to the optimal path, even if a mistake was made along the way.
Some additional information:
1) the start node is not necessarily part of the best combination/path, but if required, one could first develop an algorithm, which chooses the best starter candidate.
2) the optimal combination of nodes is following the sorted sequence and not "jumping back" -> so 1,3,5,7 is possible but not 1,3,5,2,7.
3) in the end, the differences between the L values of chosen nodes should in the mean squared sense be closest to the M values
Every help is much appreciated!
If I understand your question correctly, you could use Dijktras algorithm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/20025-dijkstra-s-minimum-cost-path-algorithm
For that you have to know your neighbours of every node and create an Adjacency Matrix. With the implementation of Dijktras algorithm which I posted above you can specify edge weights. You could specify your edge weight in a manner that it is L of the node accessed + M. So for every node combination you have your L of new node + M. In that way the algorithm should find the optimum path between your nodes.
To get all edge combinations you can use Matlabs graph functions:
http://se.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/graph.html
If I understand your problem correctly you need an undirected graph.
You can access all edges with the command
G.Edges after you have created the graph.
I know its not the perfect answer but I hope it helps!
P.S. Just watch out, Djikstras algorithm can only handle positive edge weights.
Suppose we are given a number M and a list of n numbers, L[1], ..., L[n], and we want to find a subsequence of at least q of the latter numbers that minimises the sum of squared errors (SSE) with respect to M, where the SSE of a list of k positions x[1], ..., x[k] with respect to M is given by
SSE(M, x[1], ..., x[k]) = sum((L[x[i]]-L[x[i-1]]-M)^2) over all 2 <= i <= k,
with the SSE of a list of 0 or 1 positions defined to be 0.
(I'm introducing the parameter q and associated constraint on the subsequence length here because without it, there always exists a subsequence of length exactly 2 that achieves the minimum possible SSE -- and I'm guessing that such a short sequence isn't helpful to you.)
This problem can be solved in O(qn^2) time and O(qn) space using dynamic programming.
Define f(i, j) to be the minimum sum of squared errors achievable under the following constraints:
The number at position i is selected, and is the rightmost selected position. (Here, i = 0 implies that no positions are selected.)
We require that at least j (instead of q) of these first i numbers are selected.
Also define g(i, j) to be the minimum of f(k, j) over all 0 <= k <= i. Thus g(n, q) will be the minimum sum of squared errors achievable on the entire original problem. For efficient (O(1)) calculation of g(i, j), note that
g(i>0, j>0) = min(g(i-1, j), f(i, j))
g(0, 0) = 0
g(0, j>0) = infinity
To calculate f(i, j), note that if i > 0 then any solution must be formed by appending the ith position to some solution Y that selects at least j-1 positions and whose rightmost selected position is to the left of i -- i.e. whose rightmost selected position is k, for some k < i. The total SSE of this solution to the (i, j) subproblem will be whatever the SSE of Y was, plus a fixed term of (L[x[i]]-L[x[k]]-M)^2 -- so to minimise this total SSE, it suffices to minimise the SSE of Y. But we can compute that minimum: it is g(k, j-1).
Since this holds for any 0 <= k < i, it suffices to try all such values of k, and take the one that gives the lowest total SSE:
f(i>=j, j>=2) = min of (g(k, j-1) + (L[x[i]]-L[x[k]]-M)^2) over all 0 <= k < i
f(i>=j, j<2) = 0 # If we only need 0 or 1 position, SSE is 0
f(i, j>i) = infinity # Can't choose > i positions if the rightmost chosen position is i
With the above recurrences and base cases, we can compute g(n, q), the minimum possible sum of squared errors for the entire problem. By memoising values of f(i, j) and g(i, j), the time to compute all needed values of f(i, j) is O(qn^2), since there are at most (n+1)*(q+1) possible distinct combinations of input parameters (i, j), and computing a particular value of f(i, j) requires at most (n+1) iterations of the loop that chooses values of k, each iteration of which takes O(1) time outside of recursive subcalls. Storing solution values of f(i, j) requires at most (n+1)*(q+1), or O(qn), space, and likewise for g(i, j). As established above, g(i, j) can be computed in O(1) time when all needed values of f(x, y) have been computed, so g(n, q) can be computed in the same time complexity.
To actually reconstruct a solution corresponding to this minimum SSE, you can trace back through the computed values of f(i, j) in reverse order, each time looking for a value of k that achieves a minimum value in the recurrence (there may in general be many such values of k), setting i to this value of k, and continuing on until i=0. This is a standard dynamic programming technique.
I now answer my own post with my current implementation, in order to structure my post and load images. Unfortunately, the code does not do what it should do. Imagine L,M and q given like in the images below. With the calcf and calcg functions I calculated the F and G matrices where F(i+1,j+1) is the calculated and stored f(i,j) and G(i+1,j+1) from g(i,j). The SSE of the optimal combination should be G(N+1,q+1), but the result is wrong. If anyone found the mistake, that would be much appreciated.
G and F Matrix of given problem in the workspace. G and F are created by calculating g(N,q) via calcg(L,N,q,M).
calcf and calcg functions
I have an interview question that I can't seem to figure out. Given an array of size N, find the subset of size k such that the elements in the subset are the furthest apart from each other. In other words, maximize the minimum pairwise distance between the elements.
Example:
Array = [1,2,6,10]
k = 3
answer = [1,6,10]
The bruteforce way requires finding all subsets of size k which is exponential in runtime.
One idea I had was to take values evenly spaced from the array. What I mean by this is
Take the 1st and last element
find the difference between them (in this case 10-1) and divide that by k ((10-1)/3=3)
move 2 pointers inward from both ends, picking out elements that are +/- 3 from your previous pick. So in this case, you start from 1 and 10 and find the closest elements to 4 and 7. That would be 6.
This is based on the intuition that the elements should be as evenly spread as possible. I have no idea how to prove it works/doesn't work. If anyone knows how or has a better algorithm please do share. Thanks!
This can be solved in polynomial time using DP.
The first step is, as you mentioned, sort the list A. Let X[i,j] be the solution for selecting j elements from first i elements A.
Now, X[i+1, j+1] = max( min( X[k,j], A[i+1]-A[k] ) ) over k<=i.
I will leave initialization step and memorization of subset step for you to work on.
In your example (1,2,6,10) it works the following way:
1 2 6 10
1 - - - -
2 - 1 5 9
3 - - 1 4
4 - - - 1
The basic idea is right, I think. You should start by sorting the array, then take the first and the last elements, then determine the rest.
I cannot think of a polynomial algorithm to solve this, so I would suggest one of the two options.
One is to use a search algorithm, branch-and-bound style, since you have a nice heuristic at hand: the upper bound for any solution is the minimum size of the gap between the elements picked so far, so the first guess (evenly spaced cells, as you suggested) can give you a good baseline, which will help prune most of the branches right away. This will work fine for smaller values of k, although the worst case performance is O(N^k).
The other option is to start with the same baseline, calculate the minimum pairwise distance for it and then try to improve it. Say you have a subset with minimum distance of 10, now try to get one with 11. This can be easily done by a greedy algorithm -- pick the first item in the sorted sequence such that the distance between it and the previous item is bigger-or-equal to the distance you want. If you succeed, try increasing further, if you fail -- there is no such subset.
The latter solution can be faster when the array is large and k is relatively large as well, but the elements in the array are relatively small. If they are bound by some value M, this algorithm will take O(N*M) time, or, with a small improvement, O(N*log(M)), where N is the size of the array.
As Evgeny Kluev suggests in his answer, there is also a good upper bound on the maximum pairwise distance, which can be used in either one of these algorithms. So the complexity of the latter is actually O(N*log(M/k)).
You can do this in O(n*(log n) + n*log(M)), where M is max(A) - min(A).
The idea is to use binary search to find the maximum separation possible.
First, sort the array. Then, we just need a helper function that takes in a distance d, and greedily builds the longest subarray possible with consecutive elements separated by at least d. We can do this in O(n) time.
If the generated array has length at least k, then the maximum separation possible is >=d. Otherwise, it's strictly less than d. This means we can use binary search to find the maximum value. With some cleverness, you can shrink the 'low' and 'high' bounds of the binary search, but it's already so fast that sorting would become the bottleneck.
Python code:
def maximize_distance(nums: List[int], k: int) -> List[int]:
"""Given an array of numbers and size k, uses binary search
to find a subset of size k with maximum min-pairwise-distance"""
assert len(nums) >= k
if k == 1:
return [nums[0]]
nums.sort()
def longest_separated_array(desired_distance: int) -> List[int]:
"""Given a distance, returns a subarray of nums
of length k with pairwise differences at least that distance (if
one exists)."""
answer = [nums[0]]
for x in nums[1:]:
if x - answer[-1] >= desired_distance:
answer.append(x)
if len(answer) == k:
break
return answer
low, high = 0, (nums[-1] - nums[0])
while low < high:
mid = (low + high + 1) // 2
if len(longest_separated_array(mid)) == k:
low = mid
else:
high = mid - 1
return longest_separated_array(low)
I suppose your set is ordered. If not, my answer will be changed slightly.
Let's suppose you have an array X = (X1, X2, ..., Xn)
Energy(Xi) = min(|X(i-1) - Xi|, |X(i+1) - Xi|), 1 < i <n
j <- 1
while j < n - k do
X.Exclude(min(Energy(Xi)), 1 < i < n)
j <- j + 1
n <- n - 1
end while
$length = length($array);
sort($array); //sorts the list in ascending order
$differences = ($array << 1) - $array; //gets the difference between each value and the next largest value
sort($differences); //sorts the list in ascending order
$max = ($array[$length-1]-$array[0])/$M; //this is the theoretical max of how large the result can be
$result = array();
for ($i = 0; i < $length-1; $i++){
$count += $differences[i];
if ($length-$i == $M - 1 || $count >= $max){ //if there are either no more coins that can be taken or we have gone above or equal to the theoretical max, add a point
$result.push_back($count);
$count = 0;
$M--;
}
}
return min($result)
For the non-code people: sort the list, find the differences between each 2 sequential elements, sort that list (in ascending order), then loop through it summing up sequential values until you either pass the theoretical max or there arent enough elements remaining; then add that value to a new array and continue until you hit the end of the array. then return the minimum of the newly created array.
This is just a quick draft though. At a quick glance any operation here can be done in linear time (radix sort for the sorts).
For example, with 1, 4, 7, 100, and 200 and M=3, we get:
$differences = 3, 3, 93, 100
$max = (200-1)/3 ~ 67
then we loop:
$count = 3, 3+3=6, 6+93=99 > 67 so we push 99
$count = 100 > 67 so we push 100
min(99,100) = 99
It is a simple exercise to convert this to the set solution that I leave to the reader (P.S. after all the times reading that in a book, I've always wanted to say it :P)
The sum-subset problem states:
Given a set of integers, is there a non-empty subset whose sum is zero?
This problem is NP-complete in general. I'm curious if the complexity of this slight variant is known:
Given a set of integers, is there a subset of size k whose sum is zero?
For example, if k = 1, you can do a binary search to find the answer in O(log n). If k = 2, then you can get it down to O(n log n) (e.g. see Find a pair of elements from an array whose sum equals a given number). If k = 3, then you can do O(n^2) (e.g. see Finding three elements in an array whose sum is closest to a given number).
Is there a known bound that can be placed on this problem as a function of k?
As motivation, I was thinking about this question How do you partition an array into 2 parts such that the two parts have equal average? and trying to determine if it is actually NP-complete. The answer lies in whether or not there is a formula as described above.
Barring a general solution, I'd be very interested in knowing an optimal bound for k=4.
For k=4, space complexity O(n), time complexity O(n2 * log(n))
Sort the array. Starting from 2 smallest and 2 largest elements, calculate all lesser sums of 2 elements (a[i] + a[j]) in the non-decreasing order and all greater sums of 2 elements (a[k] + a[l]) in the non-increasing order. Increase lesser sum if total sum is less than zero, decrease greater one if total sum is greater than zero, stop when total sum is zero (success) or a[i] + a[j] > a[k] + a[l] (failure).
The trick is to iterate through all the indexes i and j in such a way, that (a[i] + a[j]) will never decrease. And for k and l, (a[k] + a[l]) should never increase. A priority queue helps to do this:
Put key=(a[i] + a[j]), value=(i = 0, j = 1) to priority queue.
Pop (sum, i, j) from priority queue.
Use sum in the above algorithm.
Put (a[i+1] + a[j]), i+1, j and (a[i] + a[j+1]), i, j+1 to priority queue only if these elements were not already used. To keep track of used elements, maintain an array of maximal used 'j' for each 'i'. It is enough to use only values for 'j', that are greater, than 'i'.
Continue from step 2.
For k>4
If space complexity is limited to O(n), I cannot find anything better, than use brute force for k-4 values and the above algorithm for the remaining 4 values. Time complexity O(n(k-2) * log(n)).
For very large k integer linear programming may give some improvement.
Update
If n is very large (on the same order as maximum integer value), it is possible to implement O(1) priority queue, improving complexities to O(n2) and O(n(k-2)).
If n >= k * INT_MAX, different algorithm with O(n) space complexity is possible. Precalculate a bitset for all possible sums of k/2 values. And use it to check sums of other k/2 values. Time complexity is O(n(ceil(k/2))).
The problem of determining whether 0 in W + X + Y + Z = {w + x + y + z | w in W, x in X, y in Y, z in Z} is basically the same except for not having annoying degenerate cases (i.e., the problems are inter-reducible with minimal resources).
This problem (and thus the original for k = 4) has an O(n^2 log n)-time, O(n)-space algorithm. The O(n log n)-time algorithm for k = 2 (to determine whether 0 in A + B) accesses A in sorted order and B in reverse sorted order. Thus all we need is an O(n)-space iterator for A = W + X, which can be reused symmetrically for B = Y + Z. Let W = {w1, ..., wn} in sorted order. For all x in X, insert a key-value item (w1 + x, (1, x)) into a priority queue. Repeatedly remove the min element (wi + x, (i, x)) and insert (wi+1 + x, (i+1, x)).
Question that is very similar:
Is this variant of the subset sum problem easier to solve?
It's still NP-complete.
If it were not, the subset-sum would also be in P, as it could be represented as F(1) | F(2) | ... F(n) where F is your function. This would have O(O(F(1)) + O(F(2)) + O(F(n))) which would still be polynomial, which is incorrect as we know it's NP-complete.
Note that if you have certain bounds on the inputs you can achieve polynomial time.
Also note that the brute-force runtime can be calculated with binomial coefficients.
The solution for k=4 in O(n^2log(n))
Step 1: Calculate the pairwise sum and sort the list. There are n(n-1)/2 sums. So the complexity is O(n^2log(n)). Keep the identities of the individuals which make the sum.
Step 2: For each element in the above list search for the complement and make sure they don't share "the individuals). There are n^2 searches, each with complexity O(log(n))
EDIT: The space complexity of the original algorithm is O(n^2). The space complexity can be reduced to O(1) by simulating a virtual 2D matrix (O(n), if you consider space to store sorted version of the array).
First about 2D matrix: sort the numbers and create a matrix X using pairwise sums. Now the matrix is ins such a way that all the rows and columns are sorted. To search for a value in this matrix, search the numbers on the diagonal. If the number is in between X[i,i] and X[i+1,i+1], you can basically halve the search space by to matrices X[i:N, 0:i] and X[0:i, i:N]. The resulting search algorithm is O(log^2n) (I AM NOT VERY SURE. CAN SOMEBODY CHECK IT?).
Now, instead of using a real matrix, use a virtual matrix where X[i,j] are calculated as needed instead of pre-computing them.
Resulting time complexity: O( (nlogn)^2 ).
PS: In the following link, it says the complexity of 2D sorted matrix search is O(n) complexity. If that is true (i.e. O(log^2n) is incorrect), then the finally complexity is O(n^3).
To build on awesomo's answer... if we can assume that numbers are sorted, we can do better than O(n^k) for given k; simply take all O(n^(k-1)) subsets of size (k-1), then do a binary search in what remains for a number that, when added to the first (k-1), gives the target. This is O(n^(k-1) log n). This means the complexity is certainly less than that.
In fact, if we know that the complexity is O(n^2) for k=3, we can do even better for k > 3: choose all (k-3)-subsets, of which there are O(n^(k-3)), and then solve the problem in O(n^2) on the remaining elements. This is O(n^(k-1)) for k >= 3.
However, maybe you can do even better? I'll think about this one.
EDIT: I was initially going to add a lot proposing a different take on this problem, but I've decided to post an abridged version. I encourage other posters to see whether they believe this idea has any merit. The analysis is tough, but it might just be crazy enough to work.
We can use the fact that we have a fixed k, and that sums of odd and even numbers behave in certain ways, to define a recursive algorithm to solve this problem.
First, modify the problem so that you have both even and odd numbers in the list (this can be accomplished by dividing by two if all are even, or by subtracting 1 from numbers and k from the target sum if all are odd, and repeating as necessary).
Next, use the fact that even target sums can be reached only by using an even number of odd numbers, and odd target sums can be reached using only an odd number of odd numbers. Generate appropriate subsets of the odd numbers, and call the algorithm recursively using the even numbers, the sum minus the sum of the subset of odd numbers being examined, and k minus the size of the subset of odd numbers. When k = 1, do binary search. If ever k > n (not sure this can happen), return false.
If you have very few odd numbers, this could allow you to very quickly pick up terms that must be part of a winning subset, or discard ones that cannot. You can transform problems with lots of even numbers to equivalent problems with lots of odd numbers by using the subtraction trick. The worst case must therefore be when the numbers of even and odd numbers are very similar... and that's where I am right now. A uselessly loose upper bound on this is many orders of magnitudes worse than brute-force, but I feel like this is probably at least as good as brute-force. Thoughts are welcome!
EDIT2: An example of the above, for illustration.
{1, 2, 2, 6, 7, 7, 20}, k = 3, sum = 20.
Subset {}:
{2, 2, 6, 20}, k = 3, sum = 20
= {1, 1, 3, 10}, k = 3, sum = 10
Subset {}:
{10}, k = 3, sum = 10
Failure
Subset {1, 1}:
{10}, k = 1, sum = 8
Failure
Subset {1, 3}:
{10}, k = 1, sum = 6
Failure
Subset {1, 7}:
{2, 2, 6, 20}, k = 1, sum = 12
Failure
Subset {7, 7}:
{2, 2, 6, 20}, k = 1, sum = 6
Success
The time complexity is trivially O(n^k) (number of k-sized subsets from n elements).
Since k is a given constant, a (possibly quite high-order) polynomial upper bounds the complexity as a function of n.