Related
I have an Array A(size <= 10^5) of numbers(<= 10^8), and I need to answer some queries(50000), for L, R, how many subsets for elements in the range [L, R], the XOR of the subset is a number that has 0 or 1 bit set(power of 2). Also, point modifications in the array are being done in between the queries, so can't really do some offline processing or use techniques like square root decomposition etc.
I have an approach where I use DP to calculate for a given range, something on the lines of this:
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/count-number-of-subsets-having-a-particular-xor-value/
But this is clearly too slow. This feels like a classical segment tree problem, but can't seem to find as to what data points to store at each node, so that I can use the left child and right child to compute the answer for the given range.
Yeah, that DP won't be fast enough.
What will be fast enough is applying some linear algebra over GF(2), the Galois field with two elements. Each number can be interpreted as a bit-vector; adding/subtracting vectors is XOR; scalar multiplication isn't really relevant.
The data you need for each segment is (1) how many numbers are there in the segment (2) a basis for the subspace of numbers generated by numbers in the segment, which will consist of at most 27 numbers because all numbers are less than 2^27. The basis for a one-element segment is just that number if it's nonzero, else the empty set. To find the span of the union of two bases, use Gaussian elimination and discard the zero vectors.
Given the length of an interval and a basis for it, you can count the number of good subsets using the rank-nullity theorem. Basically, for each target number, use your Gaussian elimination routine to test whether the target number belongs to the subspace. If so, there are 2^(length of interval minus size of basis) subsets. If not, the answer is zero.
Grid Illumination: Given an NxN grid with an array of lamp coordinates. Each lamp provides illumination to every square on their x axis, every square on their y axis, and every square that lies in their diagonal (think of a Queen in chess). Given an array of query coordinates, determine whether that point is illuminated or not. The catch is when checking a query all lamps adjacent to, or on, that query get turned off. The ranges for the variables/arrays were about: 10^3 < N < 10^9, 10^3 < lamps < 10^9, 10^3 < queries < 10^9
It seems like I can get one but not both. I tried to get this down to logarithmic time but I can't seem to find a solution. I can reduce the space complexity but it's not that fast, exponential in fact. Where should I focus on instead, speed or space? Also, if you have any input as to how you would solve this problem please do comment.
Is it better for a car to go fast or go a long way on a little fuel? It depends on circumstances.
Here's a proposal.
First, note you can number all the diagonals that the inputs like on by using the first point as the "origin" for both nw-se and ne-sw. The diagonals through this point are both numbered zero. The nw-se diagonals increase per-pixel in e.g the northeast direction, and decreasing (negative) to the southwest. Similarly ne-sw are numbered increasing in the e.g. the northwest direction and decreasing (negative) to the southeast.
Given the origin, it's easy to write constant time functions that go from (x,y) coordinates to the respective diagonal numbers.
Now each set of lamp coordinates is naturally associated with 4 numbers: (x, y, nw-se diag #, sw-ne dag #). You don't need to store these explicitly. Rather you want 4 maps xMap, yMap, nwSeMap, and swNeMap such that, for example, xMap[x] produces the list of all lamp coordinates with x-coordinate x, nwSeMap[nwSeDiagonalNumber(x, y)] produces the list of all lamps on that diagonal and similarly for the other maps.
Given a query point, look up it's corresponding 4 lists. From these it's easy to deal with adjacent squares. If any list is longer than 3, removing adjacent squares can't make it empty, so the query point is lit. If it's only 3 or fewer, it's a constant time operation to see if they're adjacent.
This solution requires the input points to be represented in 4 lists. Since they need to be represented in one list, you can argue that this algorithm requires only a constant factor of space with respect to the input. (I.e. the same sort of cost as mergesort.)
Run time is expected constant per query point for 4 hash table lookups.
Without much trouble, this algorithm can be split so it can be map-reduced if the number of lampposts is huge.
But it may be sufficient and easiest to run it on one big machine. With a billion lamposts and careful data structure choices, it wouldn't be hard to implement with 24 bytes per lampost in an unboxed structures language like C. So a ~32Gb RAM machine ought to work just fine. Building the maps with multiple threads requires some synchronization, but that's done only once. The queries can be read-only: no synchronization required. A nice 10 core machine ought to do a billion queries in well less than a minute.
There is very easy Answer which works
Create Grid of NxN
Now for each Lamp increment the count of all the cells which suppose to be illuminated by the Lamp.
For each query check if cell on that query has value > 0;
For each adjacent cell find out all illuminated cells and reduce the count by 1
This worked fine but failed for size limit when trying for 10000 X 10000 grid
Assume, that I am tracking the usage of slots in a Fenwick tree. As an example, lets consider tracking 32 slots, leading to a Fenwick tree layout as shown in the image below, where the numbers in the grid indicate the index in the underlying array with counts manipulated by the Fenwick tree where the value in each cell is the sum of "used" items in that segment (i.e. array cell 23 stores the amount of used slots in the range [16-23]). The items at the lowest level (i.e. cells 0, 2, 4, ...) can only have the value of "1" (used slot) or "0" (free slot).
What I am looking for is an efficient algorithm to find the first range of a given number of contiguous free slots.
To illustrate, suppose I have the Fenwick tree shown in the image below in which a total of 9 slots are used (note that the light gray numbers are just added for clarity, not actually stored in the tree's array cells).
Now I would like to find e.g. the first contiguous range of 10 free slots, which should find this range:
I can't seem to find an efficient way of doing this, and it is giving me a bit of a headache. Note, that as the required amount of storage space is critical for my purposes, I do not wish to extend the design to be a segment tree.
Any thoughts and suggestions on an O(log N) type of solution would be very welcome.
EDIT
Time for an update after bounty period has expired. Thanks for all comments, questions, suggestions and answers. They have made me think things over again, taught me a lot and pointed out to me (once again; one day I may learn this lesson) that I should focus more on the issue I want to solve when asking questions.
Since #Erik P was the only one that provided a reasonable answer to the question that included the requested code/pseudo code, he will receive the bounty.
He also pointed out correctly that O(log N) search using this structure is not going to be possible. Kudos to #DanBjorge for providing a proof that made me think about worst case performance.
The comment and answer of #EvgenyKluev made me realize I should have formulated my question differently. In fact I was already doing in large part what he suggested (see https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7594508 - which shows where I got stuck before posting this question), and asked this question hoping there would be an efficient way to search contiguous ranges, thereby preventing changing this design to a segment tree (which would require an additional 1024 bytes). It appears however that such a change might be the smart thing to do.
For anyone interested, a binary encoded Fenwick tree matching the example used in this question (32 slot fenwick tree encoded in 64 bits) can be found here: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7594245.
I think the easiest way to implement all the desired functionality with O(log N) time complexity and at the same time minimize memory requirements is using a bit vector to store all 0/1 (free/used) values. Bit vector can substitute 6 lowest levels of both Fenwick tree and segment tree (if implemented as 64-bit integers). So height of these trees may be reduced by 6 and space requirements for each of these trees would be 64 (or 32) times less than usual.
Segment tree may be implemented as implicit binary tree sitting in an array (just like a well-known max-heap implementation). Root node at index 1, each left descendant of node at index i is placed at 2*i, each right descendant - at 2*i+1. This means twice as much space is needed comparing to Fenwick tree, but since tree height is cut by 6 levels, that's not a big problem.
Each segment tree node should store a single value - length of the longest contiguous sequence of "free" slots starting at a point covered by this node (or zero if no such starting point is there). This makes search for the first range of a given number of contiguous zeros very simple: start from the root, then choose left descendant if it contains value greater or equal than required, otherwise choose right descendant. After coming to some leaf node, check corresponding word of bit vector (for a run of zeros in the middle of the word).
Update operations are more complicated. When changing a value to "used", check appropriate word of bit vector, if it is empty, ascend segment tree to find nonzero value for some left descendant, then descend the tree to get to rightmost leaf with this value, then determine how newly added slot splits "free" interval into two halves, then update all parent nodes for both added slot and starting node of the interval being split, also set a bit in the bit vector. Changing a value to "free" may be implemented similarly.
If obtaining the number of nonzero items in some range is also needed, implement Fenwick tree over the same bit vector (but separate from the segment tree). There is nothing special in Fenwick tree implementation except that adding together 6 lowest nodes is substituted by "population count" operation for some word of the bit vector. For an example of using Fenwick tree together with bit vector see first solution for Magic Board on CodeChef.
All necessary operations for bit vector may be implemented pretty efficiently using various bitwise tricks. For some of them (leading/trailing zero count and population count) you could use either compiler intrinsics or assembler instructions (depending on target architecture).
If bit vector is implemented with 64-bit words and tree nodes - with 32-bit words, both trees occupy 150% space in addition to bit vector. This may be significantly reduced if each leaf node corresponds not to a single bit vector word, but to a small range (4 or 8 words). For 8 words additional space needed for trees would be only 20% of bit vector size. This makes implementation slightly more complicated. If properly optimized, performance should be approximately the same as in variant for one word per leaf node. For very large data set performance is likely to be better (because bit vector computations are more cache-friendly than walking the trees).
As mcdowella suggests in their answer, let K2 = K/2, rounding up, and let M be the smallest power of 2 that is >= K2. A promising approach would be to search for contiguous blocks of K2 zeroes fully contained in one size-M block, and once we've found those, check neighbouring size-M blocks to see if they contain sufficient adjacent zeroes. For the initial scan, if the number of 0s in a block is < K2, clearly we can skip it, and if the number of 0s is >= K2 and the size of the block is >= 2*M, we can look at both sub-blocks.
This suggests the following code. Below, A[0 .. N-1] is the Fenwick tree array; N is assumed to be a power of 2. I'm assuming that you're counting empty slots, rather than nonempty ones; if you prefer to count empty slots, it's easy enough to transform from the one to the other.
initialize q as a stack data structure of triples of integers
push (N-1, N, A[n-1]) onto q
# An entry (i, j, z) represents the block [i-j+1 .. i] of length j, which
# contains z zeroes; we start with one block representing the whole array.
# We maintain the invariant that i always has at least as many trailing ones
# in its binary representation as j has trailing zeroes. (**)
initialize r as an empty list of pairs of integers
while q is not empty:
pop an entry (i,j,z) off q
if z < K2:
next
if FW(i) >= K:
first_half := i - j/2
# change this if you want to count nonempty slots:
first_half_zeroes := A[first_half]
# Because of invariant (**) above, first_half always has exactly
# the right number of trailing 1 bits in its binary representation
# that A[first_half] counts elements of the interval
# [i-j+1 .. first_half].
push (i, j/2, z - first_half_zeroes) onto q
push (first_half, j/2, first_half_zeroes) onto q
else:
process_block(i, j, z)
This lets us process all size-M blocks with at least K/2 zeroes in order. You could even randomize the order in which you push the first and second half onto q in order to get the blocks in a random order, which might be nice to combat the situation where the first half of your array fills up much more quickly than the latter half.
Now we need to discuss how to process a single block. If z = j, then the block is entirely filled with 0s and we can look both left and right to add zeroes. Otherwise, we need to find out if it starts with >= K/2 contiguous zeroes, and if so with how many exactly, and then check if the previous block ends with a suitable number of zeroes. Similarly, we check if the block ends with >= K/2 contiguous zeroes, and if so with how many exactly, and then check if the next block starts with a suitable number of zeroes. So we will need a procedure to find the number of zeroes a block starts or ends with, possibly with a shortcut if it's at least a or at most b. To be precise: let ends_with_zeroes(i, j, min, max) be a procedure that returns the number of zeroes that the block from [i-j+1 .. j] ends with, with a shortcut to return max if the result will be more than max and min if the result will be less than min. Similarly for starts_with_zeroes(i, j, min, max).
def process_block(i, j, z):
if j == z:
if i > j:
a := ends_with_zeroes(i-j, j, 0, K-z)
else:
a := 0
if i < N-1:
b := starts_with_zeroes(i+j, j, K-z-a-1, K-z-a)
else:
b := 0
if b >= K-z-a:
print "Found: starting at ", i - j - a + 1
return
# If the block doesn't start or end with K2 zeroes but overlaps with a
# correct solution anyway, we don't need to find it here -- we'll find it
# starting from the adjacent block.
a := starts_with_zeroes(i, j, K2-1, j)
if i > j and a >= K2:
b := ends_with_zeroes(i-j, j, K-a-1, K-a)
if b >= K-a:
print "Found: starting at ", i - j - a + 1
# Since z < 2*K2, and j != z, we know this block doesn't end with K2
# zeroes, so we can safely return.
return
a := ends_with_zeroes(i, j, K2-1, j)
if i < N-1 and a >= K2:
b := starts_with_zeroes(i+j, K-a-1, K-a)
if b >= K-a:
print "Found: starting at ", i - a + 1
Note that in the second case where we find a solution, it may be possible to move the starting point left a bit further. You could check for that separately if you need the very first position that it could start.
Now all that's left is to implement starts_with_zeroes and ends_with_zeroes. In order to check that the block starts with at least min zeroes, we can test that it starts with 2^h zeroes (where 2^h <= min) by checking the appropriate Fenwick entry; then similarly check if it starts with 2^H zeroes where 2^H >= max to short cut the other way (except if max = j, it is trickier to find the right count from the Fenwick tree); then find the precise number.
def starts_with_zeroes(i, j, min, max):
start := i-j
h2 := 1
while h2 * 2 <= min:
h2 := h2 * 2
if A[start + h2] < h2:
return min
# Now h2 = 2^h in the text.
# If you insist, you can do the above operation faster with bit twiddling
# to get the 2log of min (in which case, for more info google it).
while h2 < max and A[start + 2*h2] == 2*h2:
h2 := 2*h2
if h2 == j:
# Walk up the Fenwick tree to determine the exact number of zeroes
# in interval [start+1 .. i]. (Not implemented, but easy.) Let this
# number be z.
if z < j:
h2 := h2 / 2
if h2 >= max:
return max
# Now we know that [start+1 .. start+h2] is all zeroes, but somewhere in
# [start+h2+1 .. start+2*h2] there is a one.
# Maintain invariant: the interval [start+1 .. start+h2] is all zeroes,
# and there is a one in [start+h2+1 .. start+h2+step].
step := h2;
while step > 1:
step := step / 2
if A[start + h2 + step] == step:
h2 := h2 + step
return h2
As you see, starts_with_zeroes is pretty bottom-up. For ends_with_zeroes, I think you'd want to do a more top-down approach, since examining the second half of something in a Fenwick tree is a little trickier. You should be able to do a similar type of binary search-style iteration.
This algorithm is definitely not O(log(N)), and I have a hunch that this is unavoidable. The Fenwick tree simply doesn't give information that is that good for your question. However, I think this algorithm will perform fairly well in practice if suitable intervals are fairly common.
One quick check, when searching for a range of K contiguous slots, is to find the largest power of two less than or equal to K/2. Any K continuous zero slots must contain at least one Fenwick-aligned range of slots of size <= K/2 that is entirely filled with zeros. You could search the Fenwick tree from the top for such chunks of aligned zeros and then look for the first one that can be extended to produce a range of K contiguous zeros.
In your example the lowest level contains 0s or 1s and the upper level contains sums of descendants. Finding stretches of 0s would be easier if the lowest level contained 0s where you are currently writing 1s and a count of the number of contiguous zeros to the left where you are currently writing zeros, and the upper levels contained the maximum value of any descendant. Updating would mean more work, especially if you had long strings of zeros being created and destroyed, but you could find the leftmost string of zeros of length at least K with a single search to the left branching left where the max value was at least K. Actually here a lot of the update work is done creating and destroying runs of 1,2,3,4... on the lowest level. Perhaps if you left the lowest level as originally defined and did a case by case analysis of the effects of modifications you could have the upper levels displaying the longest stretch of zeros starting at any descendant of a given node - for quick search - and get reasonable update cost.
#Erik covered a reasonable sounding algorithm. However, note that this problem has a lower complexity bound of Ω(N/K) in the worst-case.
Proof:
Consider a reduced version of the problem where:
N and K are both powers of 2
N > 2K >= 4
Suppose your input array is made up of (N/2K) chunks of size 2K. One chunk is of the form K 0s followed by K 1s, every other chunk is the string "10" repeated K times. There are (N/2K) such arrays, each with exactly one solution to the problem (the beginning of the one "special" chunk).
Let n = log2(N), k = log2(K). Let us also define the root node of the tree as being at level 0 and the leaf nodes as being at level n of the tree.
Note that, due to our array being made up of aligned chunks of size 2K, level n-k of the tree is simply going to be made up of the number of 1s in each chunk. However, each of our chunks has the same number of 1s in it. This means that every node at level n-k will be identical, which in turn means that every node at level <= n-k will also be identical.
What this means is that the tree contains no information that can disambiguate the "special" chunk until you start analyzing level n-k+1 and lower. But since all but 2 of the (N/K) nodes at that level are identical, this means that in the worst case you'll have to examine O(N/K) nodes in order to disambiguate the solution from the rest of the nodes.
Lets say I have a large set of data .
Then I can divide it into two find mean of those two and calculate the mean of the last 2 values I get.
a) Is this the mean of the original big quantity ?
b) Can I do this sort of method for calculating standard deviation ??
a) only if the sets you divide into are always the same size, meaning that the original set size must be a power of 2.
For example, the mean of {6} is 6, and the mean of {3,6} is 4.5, but the mean of {3,6,6} is not 5.25, it's 5.
Certainly you could recursively divide into parts to calculate the sum, though, and divide by the total size at the end. Not sure if that does you any good.
b) no
For example, the s.d of {2} is 0, and the s.d. of {1} is 0, but the s.d of {1,2} is not 0.
Once you've calculated the mean of the whole set, you can recursively divide to calculate the sum square deviation from the mean, and as with the mean calculation, divide by the total size and take square root at the end. [Edit: in fact all you need to calculate s.d is the sumsquare, the sum, and the count. Forgot about that. So you don't have to calculate the mean first]
It is incorrect, but if you can express the mean and standard deviation of a set from the means, standard deviations, and size of the sets which that set is divided into.
Specifically, if m_x, s_x and n_x are the means, standard deviations, and sizes of x, and X is partitioned into many x's, then
n_X = sum_x(n_x)
m_X = sum_x(n_x m_x)/n_X
s_X^2 = (sum_x(n_x(s_x^2 + m_x^2)) - m_X)/n_X
assuming the standard deviation is of the form sum(x - mean(x))/n; if it is the sample unbiased estimator, just adjust the weights accordingly.
Sure you can. No need for equal sets, power of two. Pseudo code:
N1,mean1,s1;
N2,mean2,s2;
N12,mean12,s12;
N12 = N1+N2;
mean12 = ((mean1*N1) + (mean2*N2)) / N12;
s12 = sqrt( (s1*s1*N1 + s2*s2*N2) / N12 + N1*N2/(N12*N12)*(s1-s2)*(s1-s2) );
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation#Combining_standard_deviations
On (a) - it's only precisely correct if you precisely divided the set into two. If there were an odd number of items, for instance, there is a slight weighting toward the smaller "half". The larger the set, the less significant the problem. However, the problem recurs for the smaller sets as you subdivide. You get very large error when dividing a set of three items into a single item and a pair - each item in the pair is only half as significant to the final result as the single item.
I don't see the gain, though. You still do as many additions. You even end up doing more divisions. More importantly, you access memory in a non-sequential order, leading to poor cache performance.
The usual approach for a mean and standard deviation is to first calculate the sum of all items, and the sum of the squares - both in the same loop. Old calculators used to handle this with running totals, also keeping count of the number of items as they went. At the end, those three values (n, sum-of-x and sum-of-x-squared) are all you need - the rest is just substitution into the standard formulae for the mean and standard deviation.
EDIT
If you're dead set on using recursion for this, look up "tail recursion". Mathematically, tail recursion and iteration are equivalent - different representations of the same thing. In implementation terms tail recursion might cause a stack overflow where iteration would work, but (1) some languages guarantee this will not happen (e.g. Scheme, Haskell), and (2) many compilers will handle this as an optimisation anyway (e.g. GCC for C or C++).
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.