We have a list of intervals of the form [ai, bi]. For each interval, we want to count the number of other intervals that are nested within it.
For example, if we had two intervals, A = [1,4] and B = [2,3]. Then the count for B would be 0 as there are no nested intervals for B; and the count for A would be 1 as B fits within A.
My question is, does there exist a sub- O(n2) algorithm for this problem where n is the number of intervals?
EDIT: Here are the conditions the intervals meet. The end points of the intervals are floating point numbers. The lower limit for the ai's/bi's is 0 and the upper limit is whatever max float is. Also, there is the condition that ai < bi, so no intervals of length 0.
Yes, it is possible.
We will borrow the typical computational geometry "scan line" trick.
First, let's answer an easier (but closely related) question. Instead of reporting how many other intervals each interval contains, let's report how many intervals each is contained in. So for your example with only two intervals, interval I0 = [1,4] has value zero because it is contained in zero intervals, while I1 = [2,3] has value one because it is contained in one interval.
You will see in a minute (a) why this question is easier and (b) how it leads to the answer for the original question.
To solve this easier question: Take all starting and ending points -- all of the ai and bi -- and put them into a master list. Call each element of this list an "event". So an event would be something like "interval I37 started" or "interval I23 ended".
Sort this list of events and process it in order.
As you process the list of events, maintain a set S of "active intervals". An interval is "active" if we have encountered its start event but not its ending event; that is, if we are within that interval.
Now, whenever we see an ending event bj, we are ready to compute how many intervals contain Ij (= [aj, bj]). All we need to do is examine the set S of active intervals and determine how many of them started before aj. That is our answer for how many intervals contain interval Ij.
To do this efficiently, keep S itself sorted by starting point; e.g., by using a self-balancing binary tree.
Sorting the list of events is O(2n log 2n) = O(n log n). Adding or removing an element from a self-balancing binary tree is O(log n). Asking "how many elements of the self-balancing binary tree are less than x?" is also O(log n). Therefore this entire algorithm is O(n log n).
So, that solves the easy question. Call that the "easy algorithm". Now for what you actually asked.
Think of the number line as extending to infinity and wrapping around to -infinity, and define an interval with bi < ai to start at ai, stretch to infinity, wrap to minus infinity, and end at bi.
For any interval Ij = [aj, bj], define Complement(Ij) as the interval [bj, aj]. (For example, the interval [2, 3] starts at 2 and ends at 3; so Complement([2,3]) = [3,2] starts at 3, stretches to infinity, wraps to -infinity, and ends at 2.)
Observe that interval I contains interval J if and only if Complement(J) contains Complement(I). (Prove this.)
So, we can answer your original question simply by running the "easy algorithm" on the set of complements of all of the intervals. That is, start your scan at -infinity with the set S of "active intervals" containing all intervals (because all complements contain infinity/-infinity). Keep S sorted by end point (i.e. start point of complement).
Sort all start points and end points and process them in order. When you encounter a starting point for interval Ij (= [aj, bj]), you are actually hitting the end point of its complement... So remove Ij from S, query S to see how many of its endpoints (i.e. complement start points) come before bj, and report that as the answer for Ij. If you later encounter the end point of Ij, you are encountering the start point of its complement, so you need to add it back into the set S of active intervals.
This final algorithm is O(n log n) for the same reasons the "easy algorithm" was.
[Update]
One clarification, one correction, one comment...
Clarification: Of course, the "self-balancing binary tree" has to be augmented such that each sub-tree knows how many elements it contains. Otherwise, you cannot answer "how many elements are less than x?" This augmentation is straightforward to maintain, but it is not something that every implementation provides; e.g. the C++ std::set does not, to my knowledge.
Correction: You do not want to add any elements back in to the set S of active intervals; in fact, doing so can result in the wrong answer. For example, if the intervals are just [1,2] and [3,4], you would hit 1 (and remove [1,2] from the set), then 2 (and add it back in again), then 3... And since 2<4, you would conclude that [3,4] contains [1,2]. Which is wrong.
Conceptually, you already processed all of the "start events" for the complement intervals; that is why S begins will all intervals inside of it. So all you need to worry about are the ending points; you do not want to add any elements to S, ever.
Put another way, instead of having the intervals wrap around, you can think of [bi,ai] (where bi > ai) as meaning [bi - infinity, ai] with no wrap-around. The logic still works, but the processing is more clear: First you process all of the "whatever - infinity" terms (i.e. the end points), then you process the others (i.e. the start points).
With this correction, I am pretty sure my solution actually works. This formulation also extends -- I think -- to the case where you have both normal and "backward" intervals together in one input.
Comment: This problem is tricky because if you have to enumerate the set of all intervals contained within every interval, the output itself can be O(n^2). So any working approach has to somehow count the intervals without even being able to identify them :-).
Here is a O(N*LOG(N)):
let Ii = Interval i = (ai, bi)
let L = list of intervals I
sort L by ai
divide L in half into L1a and L2a.
sort L1a and L2a by bi to get L1b and L2b
merge sort L1b and L2b keeping track of the count of nestings (e.g. because all intervals in L1b start before intervals in L2b, when we find an endpoint in L1b that is higher than an endpoint in l2b, we know everything between them is nested inside - think about it)..
Now you have updated the counts on how often an interval in L2 is nested inside an interval in L1.
after merging L1 and L2, we repeat the process (recursion) by dividing L1 into L11a and l12a, also dividing L2 into L21a and L21a..
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.
I have two sequences of intervals.
The first is fixed and non-overlapping, so something like:
[1..10], [12..15], [23..56], [72..89], ...
The second is not fixed, so it's just an ordered list of interval lengths:
[7, 2, 5, 26, ...]
The task at hand is to:
Place every interval from the second list at a given starting point, so that the second list becomes a list of fixed, non-overlapping intervals much like the first, while preserving its order
Find the alignment that minimizes the amount of integers that are in some interval from one of the lists but not in any interval from the other list
Very simple example:
[25..26], [58..68], [74..76], [78..86]
[10, 12]
The optimal solution is to place the interval of length 10 at [58..68] and the interval of length 12 at [74..86] which results in only the numbers 25, 26, and 77 being in one list but not the other.
The only thing I've come up with that seems mildly helpful is that if I lay down the intervals in order, I know how many 'penalties' the interval I've already created, so I have an upper bound for the score, which means I have an admissible heuristic and I can do A* search instead of looking at the entire tree. However, the total range of numbers spans from 0 to about 34M, so I'd like something better.
Any help would be hot!
OK, here's a half-thought-out answer. It should work in polynomial time, but I haven't bothered checking what the index is. It may well be possible to get a better index than the answer as outlined here. The details are left as an exercise to the reader :-) I hope it's not too unclear.
I'll define the score of a solution as the number of integers which appear in both lists of intervals. Let f(i,m) be the highest score it's possible to get using just the first i interval lengths, subject to the condition that none of your intervals goes above m. The function f, for fixed i, is essentially a (non-strictly) increasing function from the integers to a bounded subset of the integers. Therefore:
all values of f(i,m), for m > 0, are equal, with finitely many exceptions;
all values of f(i,m), for m < 0, are equal, with finitely many exceptions.
This means it's possible to represent all values of f(i,m) using a finite data structure (still considering a fixed value of i).
Now let F(i) be the value of this data structure representing all values of f(i,m). I claim that, given F(i), it is possible to calculate F(i+1). To do this, we only need to answer the following question for all x: If I place the new interval at x, how good is the best solution I can get? But we know what this is - it's just f(i,x) + the score we've got from this interval.
So if n is the number of intervals in the second list, the score of the best solution will be F(n).
To actually find the solution, you could work backwards from this.
You know what's the best score you can get. Say it's s_0. Then put the last interval as far left as possible, subject to the condition that it allows you to score s_0. That is, find the smallest m such that f(n,m) = s_0; and place the interval such that it only just stays inside the bound at m.
Then, let s_1 be the score you need to get from all the other intervals in order to get a total of s_0. Place the next-last interval as far left as possible, subject to the condition that you can still score s_1. That is, find the smallest m such that f(n,m) = s_1; and place the interval such that it only just stays inside the bound at m.
And so on...
Say [a,b] represents the interval on the real line from a to b, a < b, inclusive (ie, [a,b] = set of all x such that a<=x<=b). Also, say [a,b] and [c,d] are 'overlapping' if they share any x such that x is in both [a,b] and [c,d].
Given a list of intervals, ([x1,y1],[x2,y2],...), what is the most efficient way to find all such intervals that overlap with [x,y]?
Obviously, I can try each and get it in O(n). But I was wondering if I could sort the list of intervals in some clever way, I could find /one/ overlapping item in O(log N) via a binary search, and then 'look around' from that position in the list to find all overlapping intervals. However, how do I sort intervals such that such a strategy would work?
Note that there may be overlaps between elements in the list items itself, which is what makes this hard.
I've tried it by sorting intervals by their left end, right end, middle, but none seem to lead to an exhaustive search.
Help?
For completeness' sake, I'd like to add that there is a well-known data structure for just this sort of problem, known (surprise, surprise) as an interval tree. It's basically an augmented balanced tree (red-black, AVL, your pick) that stores intervals sorted by their left (low) endpoint. The augmentation is that each node stores the largest right (high) endpoint in its subtree. This tree allows you to find all overlapping intervals in O(log n) time.
It's described in CLRS 14.3.
[a, b] overlaps with [x, y] iff b > x and a < y. Sorting intervals by their first elements gives you intervals matching the first condition in log time. Sorting intervals by their last elements gives you intervals matching the second condition in log time. Take the intersections of the resulting sets.
A 'quadtree' is a data structure often used to improve the efficiency of collision detection in 2 dimensions.
I think you could come up with a similar 1-d structure. This would require some pre-computation but should result in O(log N) performance.
Basically you start with a root 'node' that covers all possible intervals, and when adding a node to the tree, you decide if it falls on the left or the right of the midpoint. If it crosses the mid point, you break it into two intervals (but record the original parent) and recursively proceed from there. You can set a limit on the depth of the tree, which can save memory and improve performance, but comes at the expense of complicating things a little (you need to store a list of intervals in your nodes).
Then when checking an interval, you basically find all leaf nodes that it would be inserted into were it inserted, check the partial intervals within those nodes for intersection, and then report the interval that is recorded against them as the 'original' parent.
Just a quick thought 'off the cuff' so to speak.
Could you organize them into 2 lists, one for start of intervals and the other for end of intervals.
This way, you can compare y to the items in the start of interval list (say by binary search) to cut down the candidates based on that.
You can then compare x to the items in the end of interval list.
EDIT
Case: Once Off
If you are comparing only single interval to the list of intervals in a once-off situation, I don't believe sorting will help you out since ideal sorting is O(n).
By doing a linear search through all x's to trim out any impossible intervals then doing another linear search through the remaining y's you can reduce your total work. While this is still O(n), without this you would be doing 2n comparisons, whereas on average, you would only do (3n-1)/2 comparisons this way.
I believe this is the best you can do for an unsorted list.
Case: Pre-sorting doesn't count
In the case where you will be repeatedly comparing single intervals to this list of intervals and your pre-sort your list, you can achieve better results. The process above still applies, but by doing a binary search on the first list then the second you can get O(m log n) as opposed to O(mn), where m is the number of single intervals being compared. Note, still still gives you the advantage of reducing total comparisons. [2m log n compared to m(3(log n) - 1)/2]
You could sort by both left end and right end at the same time and use both lists to eliminate none overlapping values. If the list is sorted by the left end then none of the intervals to the right of the right end of the test range can overlap. If the list is sorted by the right end then none of the intervals to the left of the left end of the test range can overlap.
For example if the intervals are
[1,4], [3,6], [4,5], [2,8], [5,7], [1,2], [2,2.5]
and you're finding overlap with [3,4] then sorting by left end and marking position of the right end of the test (with the right end as just greater than its value so that 4 is included in the range)
[1,4], [1,2], [2,2.5], [2,8], [3,6], [4,5], *, [5,7]
you know [5,7] can't overlap, then sorting by right end and marking position of the left end of the test
[1,2], [2,2.5], *, [1,4], [4,5], [3,6], [5,7], [2,8]
you know [1,2] and [2,2.5] can't overlap
Not sure how efficient this would be since you're having to do two sorts and searches.
As you can see in other answers, most algorithms come together with a special data structure. For example, for unsorted list of intervals as input O(n) is best that you'll get. (And usually it's easier to think in terms of data structure that dictates the algorithm).
In this case, your question is not complete:
Are you given the whole list or it is you who actually creates it?
Do you have to perform just one such lookup or many of them?
Do you have any estimations for operations it should support and their frequencies?
For example, if you have to perform just one such lookup, then it's not worthy to sort the list before. If many, then the more expensive sorting or generation of an "1D quadtree" would be amortized.
However, it would be difficult to solve it, because a simple quadtree (as I understand it) is able just to detect the collistion, but it's not able to create the list of all the segments that are overlapping with your input.
One simple implementation would be an ordered (by coordonate) list where you insert all the segment ends with flag start/end and with segment number. In this way, by parsing it (still O(n), but I doubt you can make it faster if you also need the list of all the segments that overlaps), and keeping the track of all opened segments that were not closed at "check points".
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.