Find whether given sum exists over a path in a BST - algorithm

Question

The question is to find whether a given sum exists over any path in a BST. The question is damn easy if a path means root to leaf, or easy if the path means a portion of a path from root to leaf that may not include the root or the leaf. But it becomes difficult here, because a path may span both left and right child of a node. For example, in the given figure, a sum of 132 exists over the circled path. How can I find the existence of such a path? Using hash to store all possible sums under a node is frowned upon!

Answer 1

You can certainly generate all possible paths, summing incrementally as you go. The fact that the tree is a BST might let you save time by bounding out certain sums, though I'm not sure that will give an asymptotic speed increase. The problem is that a sum formed using the left child of a given node will not necessarily be less than a sum formed using the right child, since the path for the former sum could contain many more nodes. The following algorithm will work for all trees, not just BSTs.
To generate all possible paths, notice that the topmost point of a path is special: it's the only point in a path which is allowed (though not required) to have both children contained in the path. Every path contains a unique topmost point. Therefore the outer layer of recursion should be to visit every tree node, and to generate all paths that have that node as the topmost point.
// Report whether any path whose topmost node is t sums to target.
// Recurses to examine every node under t.
EnumerateTopmost(Tree t, int target) {
// Get a list of sums for paths containing the left child.
// Include a 0 at the start to account for a "zero-length path" that
// does not contain any children. This will be in increasing order.
a = append(0, EnumerateSums(t.left))
// Do the same for paths containing the right child. This needs to
// be sorted in decreasing order.
b = reverse(append(0, EnumerateSums(t.right)))
// "List match" to detect any pair of sums that works.
// This is a linear-time algorithm that takes two sorted lists --
// one increasing, the other decreasing -- and detects whether there is
// any pair of elements (one from the first list, the other from the
// second) that sum to a given value. Starting at the beginning of
// each list, we compute the current sum, and proceed to strike out any
// elements that we know cannot be part of a satisfying pair.
// If the sum of a[i] and b[j] is too small, then we know that a[i]
// cannot be part of any satisfying pair, since all remaining elements
// from b that it could be added to are at least as small as b[j], so we
// can strike it out (which we do by advancing i by 1). Similarly if
// the sum of a[i] and b[j] is too big, then we know that b[j] cannot
// be part of any satisfying pair, since all remaining elements from a
// that b[j] could be added to are at least as big as a[i], so we can
// strike it out (which we do by advancing j by 1). If we get to the
// end of either list without finding the right sum, there can be
// no satisfying pair.
i = 0
j = 0
while (i < length(a) and j < length(b)) {
if (a[i] + b[j] + t.value < target) {
i = i + 1
} else if (a[i] + b[j] + t.value > target) {
j = j + 1
} else {
print "Found! Topmost node=", t
return
}
}
// Recurse to examine the rest of the tree.
EnumerateTopmost(t.left)
EnumerateTopmost(t.right)
}
// Return a list of all sums that contain t and at most one of its children,
// in increasing order.
EnumerateSums(Tree t) {
If (t == NULL) {
// We have been called with the "child" of a leaf node.
return [] // Empty list
} else {
// Include a 0 in one of the child sum lists to stand for
// "just node t" (arbitrarily picking left here).
// Note that even if t is a leaf node, we still call ourselves on
// its "children" here -- in C/C++, a special "NULL" value represents
// these nonexistent children.
a = append(0, EnumerateSums(t.left))
b = EnumerateSums(t.right)
Add t.value to each element in a
Add t.value to each element in b
// "Ordinary" list merge that simply combines two sorted lists
// to produce a new sorted list, in linear time.
c = ListMerge(a, b)
return c
}
}
The above pseudocode only reports the topmost node in the path. The entire path can be reconstructed by having EnumerateSums() return a list of pairs (sum, goesLeft) instead of a plain list of sums, where goesLeft is a boolean that indicates whether the path used to generate that sum initially goes left from the parent node.
The above pseudocode calculates sum lists multiple times for each node: EnumerateSums(t) will be called once for each node above t in the tree, in addition to being called for t itself. It would be possible to make EnumerateSums() memoise the list of sums for each node so that it's not recomputed on subsequent calls, but actually this doesn't improve the asymptotics: only O(n) work is required to produce a list of n sums using the plain recursion, and changing this to O(1) doesn't change the overall time complexity because the entire list of sums produced by any call to EnumerateSums() must in general be read by the caller anyway, and this requires O(n) time. EDIT: As pointed out by Evgeny Kluev, EnumerateSums() actually behaves like a merge sort, being O(nlog n) when the tree is perfectly balanced and O(n^2) when it is a single path. So memoisation will in fact give an asymptotic performance improvement.
It is possible to get rid of the temporary lists of sums by rearranging EnumerateSums() into an iterator-like object that performs the list merge lazily, and can be queried to retrieve the next sum in increasing order. This would entail also creating an EnumerateSumsDown() that does the same thing but retrieves sums in decreasing order, and using this in place of reverse(append(0, EnumerateSums(t.right))). Doing this brings the space complexity of the algorithm down to O(n), where n is the number of nodes in the tree, since each iterator object requires constant space (pointers to left and right child iterator objects, plus a place to record the last sum) and there can be at most one per tree node.

Answer 2

i would in order traverse the left subtree and in reverse order traverse the right subtree at the same time kind of how merge sort works. each time move the iterator that makes the aum closer.like merge sort almost. its order n

Answer 3

Not the fastest, but simple approach would be to use two nested depth-first searches.
Use normal depth-first search to get starting node. Use second, modified version of depth-first search to check sums for all paths, starting from this node.
Second depth-first search is different from normal depth-first search in two details:
It keeps current path sum. It adds value to the sum each time a new node is added to the path and removes value from the sum when some node is removed.
It traverses edges of the path from root to the starting node only in opposite direction (red edges on diagram). All other edges are traversed in proper direction, as usual (black edges on diagram). To traverse edges in opposite direction, it either uses "parent" pointers of the original BST (if there are any), or peeks into the stack of first depth-first search to obtain these "parent" pointers.
Time complexity of each DFS in O(N), so total time complexity is O(N2). Space requirements are O(N) (space for both DFS stacks). If original BST contains "parent" pointers, space requirements are O(1) ("parent" pointers allow traversing the tree in any direction without stacks).
Other approach is based on ideas by j_random_hacker and robert king (maintaining lists of sums, matching them, then merging them together). It processes the tree in bottom-up manner (starting from leafs).
Use DFS to find some leaf node. Then go back and find the last branch node, that is a grand-...-grand-parent of this leaf node. This gives a chain between branch and leaf nodes. Process this chain:
match1(chain)
sum_list = sum(chain)
match1(chain):
i = j = sum = 0
loop:
while (sum += chain[i]) < target:
++i
while (sum -= chain[j]) > target:
++j
if sum == target:
success!
sum(chain):
result = [0]
sum = 0
i = chain.length - 1
loop:
sum += chain[i]
--i
result.append(sum)
return result
Continue DFS and search other leaf chains. When two chains, coming from the same node are found, possibly preceded by another chain (red and green chains on diagram, preceded by blue chain), process these chains:
match2(parent, sum_list1, sum_list2)
sum_list3 = merge1(parent, sum_list1, sum_list2)
if !chain3.empty:
match1(chain3)
match3(sum_list3, chain3)
sum_list4 = merge2(sum_list3, chain3)
match2(parent, sum_list1, sum_list2):
i = 0
j = chain2.length - 1
sum = target - parent.value
loop:
while sum < sum_list1[i] + sum_list2[j]:
++i
while sum > sum_list1[i] + sum_list2[j]:
--j
if sum == sum_list1[i] + sum_list2[j]:
success!
merge1(parent, sum_list1, sum_list2):
result = [0, parent.value]
i = j = 1
loop:
if sum_list1[i] < sum_list2[j]:
result.append(parent.value + sum_list1[i])
++i
else:
result.append(parent.value + sum_list2[j])
++j
return result
match3(sum_list3, chain3):
i = sum = 0
j = sum_list3.length - 1
loop:
sum += chain3[i++]
while sum_list3[j] + sum > target:
--j
if sum_list3[j] + sum == target:
success!
merge2(sum_list3, chain3):
result = [0]
sum = 0
i = chain3.length - 1
loop:
sum += chain3[i--]
result.append(sum)
result.append(sum_list3[1...] + sum)
Do the same wherever any two lists of sums or a chain and a list of sums are descendants of the same node. This process may be continued until a single list of sums, belonging to root node, remains.

Answer 4

Is there any complexity restrictions?
As you stated: "easy if a path means root to leaf, or easy if the path means a portion of a path from root to leaf that may not include the root or the leaf".
You can reduce the problem to this statement by setting the root each time to a different node and doing the search n times.
That would be a straightforward approach, not sure if optimal.
Edit: if the tree is unidirectional, something of this kind might work (pseudocode):
findSum(tree, sum)
if(isLeaf(tree))
return (sum == tree->data)
for (i = 0 to sum)
isfound |= findSum(leftSubStree, i) && findSum(rightSubTree, sum-i)
return isfound;
Probably lots of mistakes here, but hopefully it clarifies the idea.