Related
So I was asked a weird inversion of the K best candidates problem. The normal problem is as follows.
Given a list of 'votes' which are tuples of timestamps and candidates like below:
(111111, Clinton)
(111111, Bush)
...
Return the top K candidates with the most votes.
Its a typical problem and the solution is to use a hashmap of candidates->votes within the timestamp bound also build a min heap of size K where basically the top of the heap is the candidate that is vulnerable to being ejected from the K best candidates.
In the end you return the heap.
But I was asked in the end: Given a list of K candidates, return the timestamp that matches these as the K best candidates. I'm not sure if I'm recalling the question 100% correctly because it would have to either be the first occurrence of these K candidates as the best or I would have been given their vote tally.
If I understand everything, votes is a list of vote tuples that are made up of candidates that are being voted for and the timestamp of the vote taking place. currTime is the timestamp of all of the votes during that timestamp of before it. topCandidates are the candidates with the highest vote at currTime.
Your first question gives you votes and currTime, you are expected to return topCandidates. Your second question gives you votes and topCandidates, and you are expected to return currTime.
Focusing on the second question, I would make a map where the keys are a timestamp and the values are all of the votes taking place at that moment. Also I would create another map where the key is the candidate and the value is the number of votes they have so far. I would traverse the first map in the ascending timestamp order of the first map, get all of the votes that were cast at the timestamp and increment the second map's values by their candidate (key). Before going through the next timestamp, I would create a list of the most voted for candidates with the data in the second map. If that list matches topCandidates, then the last timestamp you traversed through is currTime.
To code this in python:
from collections import Counter, defaultdict
def findCurrTime(votes, topCandidates):
if not (votes and topCandidates):
return -1
votesAtTime = defaultdict(list)
candidatePoll = Counter()
k = len(topCandidates)
for time, candidate in votes: # votes = [(time0, candidate0), ...]
votesAtTime[time].append(candidate)
for ts in votesAtTime:
candidatePoll += Counter(voteAtTime[ts])
if list(map(lambda pair: pair[0],candidatePoll.most_common(k))) == topCandidates:
return ts
# if topCandidates cannot be created from these votes:
return -1
There are some assumptions that I've made (that you hopefully asked your interviewer about). I assumed that the order of topCandidates mattered which Counter.most_common handled, although it won't handle candidates with number of votes.
The time complexity is O(t * n * log(k)) with t being the number of timestamps, n being the number of votes and k being the size of topCandidates. This is because Counter.most_common looks to be O(n*log(k)) and it can run t times. There are definitely more efficient answers though.
Imagine you have a full calendar year in front of you. On some days you take the train, potentially even a few times in a single day and each trip could be to a different location (I.E. The amount you pay for the ticket can be different for each trip).
So you would have data that looked like this:
Date: 2018-01-01, Amount: $5
Date: 2018-01-01, Amount: $6
Date: 2018-01-04, Amount: $2
Date: 2018-01-06, Amount: $4
...
Now you have to group this data into buckets. A bucket can span up to 31 consecutive days (no gaps) and cannot overlap another bucket.
If a bucket has less than 32 train trips it will be blue. If it has 32 or more train trips in it, it will be red. The buckets will also get a value based on the sum of the ticket cost.
After you group all the trips the blue buckets get thrown out. And the value of all the red buckets gets summed up, we will call this the prize.
The goal, is to get the highest value for the prize.
This is the problem I have. I cant think of a good algorithm to do this. If anyone knows a good way to approach this I would like to hear it. Or if you know of anywhere else that can help with designing algorithms like this.
This can be solved by dynamic programming.
First, sort the records by date, and consider them in that order.
Let day (1), day (2), ..., day (n) be the days where the tickets were bought.
Let cost (1), cost (2), ..., cost (n) be the respective ticket costs.
Let fun (k) be the best prize if we consider only the first k records.
Our dynamic programming solution will calculate fun (0), fun (1), fun (2), ..., fun (n-1), fun (n), using the previous values to calculate the next one.
Base:
fun (0) = 0.
Transition:
What is the optimal solution, fun (k), if we consider only the first k records?
There are two possibilities: either the k-th record is dropped, then the solution is the same as fun (k-1), or the k-th record is the last record of a bucket.
Let us then consider all possible buckets ending with the k-th record in a loop, as explained below.
Look at records k, k-1, k-2, ..., down to the very first record.
Let the current index be i.
If the records from i to k span more than 31 consecutive days, break from the loop.
Otherwise, if the number of records, k-i+1, is at least 32, we can solve the subproblem fun (i-1) and then add the records from i to k, getting a prize of cost (i) + cost (i+1) + ... + cost (k).
The value fun (k) is the maximum of these possibilities, along with the possibility to drop the k-th record.
Answer: it is just fun (n), the case where we considered all the records.
In pseudocode:
fun[0] = 0
for k = 1, 2, ..., n:
fun[k] = fun[k-1]
cost_i_to_k = 0
for i = k, k-1, ..., 1:
if day[k] - day[i] > 31:
break
cost_i_to_k += cost[i]
if k-i+1 >= 32:
fun[k] = max (fun[k], fun[i-1] + cost_i_to_k)
return fun[n]
It is not clear whether we are allowed to split records on a single day into different buckets.
If the answer is no, we will have to enforce it by not considering buckets starting or ending between records in a single day.
Technically, it can be done by a couple of if statements.
Another way is to consider days instead of records: instead of tickets which have day and cost, we will work with days.
Each day will have cost, the total cost of tickets on that day, and quantity, the number of tickets.
Edit: as per comment, we indeed can not split any single day.
Then, after some preprocessing to get days records instead of tickets records, we can go as follows, in pseudocode:
fun[0] = 0
for k = 1, 2, ..., n:
fun[k] = fun[k-1]
cost_i_to_k = 0
quantity_i_to_k = 0
for i = k, k-1, ..., 1:
if k-i+1 > 31:
break
cost_i_to_k += cost[i]
quantity_i_to_k += quantity[i]
if quantity_i_to_k >= 32:
fun[k] = max (fun[k], fun[i-1] + cost_i_to_k)
return fun[n]
Here, i and k are numbers of days.
Note that we consider all possible days in the range: if there are no tickets for a particular day, we just use zeroes as its cost and quantity values.
Edit2:
The above allows us to calculate the maximum total prize, but what about the actual configuration of buckets which gets us there?
The general method will be backtracking: at position k, we will want to know how we got fun (k), and transition to either k-1 if the optimal way was to skip k-th record, or from k to i-1 for such i that the equation fun[k] = fun[i-1] + cost_i_to_k holds.
We proceed until i goes down to zero.
One of the two usual implementation approaches is to store par (k), a "parent", along with fun (k), which encodes how exactly we got the maximum.
Say, if par (k) = -1, the optimal solution skips k-th record.
Otherwise, we store the optimal index i in par (k), so that the optimal solution takes a bucket of records i to k inclusive.
The other approach is to store nothing extra.
Rather, we run a slight modification code which calculates fun (k).
But instead of assigning things to fun (k), we compare the right part of the assignment to the final value fun (k) we already got.
As soon as they are equal, we found the right transition.
In pseudocode, using the second approach, and days instead of individual records:
k = n
while k > 0:
k = prev (k)
function prev (k):
if fun[k] == fun[k-1]:
return k-1
cost_i_to_k = 0
quantity_i_to_k = 0
for i = k, k-1, ..., 1:
if k-i+1 > 31:
break
cost_i_to_k += cost[i]
quantity_i_to_k += quantity[i]
if quantity_i_to_k >= 32:
if fun[k] == fun[i-1] + cost_i_to_k:
writeln ("bucket from $ to $: cost $, quantity $",
i, k, cost_i_to_k, quantity_i_to_k)
return i-1
assert (false, "can't happen")
Simplify the challenge, but not too much, to make an overlookable example, which can be solved by hand.
That helps a lot in finding the right questions.
For example take only 10 days, and buckets of maximum length of 3:
For building buckets and colorizing them, we need only the ticket count, here 0, 1, 2, 3.
On Average, we need more than one bucket per day, for example 2-0-2 is 4 tickets in 3 days. Or 1-1-3, 1-3, 1-3-1, 3-1-2, 1-2.
But We can only choose 2 red buckets: 2-0-2 and (1-1-3 or 1-3-3 or 3-1-2) since 1-2 in the end is only 3 tickets, but we need at least 4 (one more ticket than max day span per bucket).
But while 3-1-2 is obviously more tickets than 1-1-3 tickets, the value of less tickets might be higher.
The blue colored area is the less interesting one, because it doesn't feed itself, by ticket count.
I was recently doing a project euler problem (namely #31) which was basically finding out how many ways we can sum to 200 using elements of the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200}.
The idea that I used was this: the number of ways to sum to N is equal to
(the number of ways to sum N-k) * (number of ways to sum k), summed over all possible values of k.
I realized that this approach is WRONG, namely due to the fact that it creates several several duplicate counts. I have tried to adjust the formula to avoid duplicates, but to no avail. I am seeking the wisdom of stack overflowers regarding:
whether my recursive approach is concerned with the correct subproblem to solve
If there exists one, what would be an effective way to eliminate duplicates
how should we approach recursive problems such that we are concerned with the correct subproblem? what are some indicators that we've chosen a correct (or incorrect) subproblem?
When trying to avoid duplicate permutations, a straightforward strategy that works in most cases is to only create rising or falling sequences.
In your example, if you pick a value and then recurse with the whole set, you will get duplicate sequences like 50,50,100 and 50,100,50 and 100,50,50. However, if you recurse with the rule that the next value should be equal to or smaller than the currently selected value, out of those three you will only get the sequence 100,50,50.
So an algorithm that counts only unique combinations would be e.g.:
function uniqueCombinations(set, target, previous) {
for all values in set not greater than previous {
if value equals target {
increment count
}
if value is smaller than target {
uniqueCombinations(set, target - value, value)
}
}
}
uniqueCombinations([1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200], 200, 200)
Alternatively, you can create a copy of the set before every recursion, and remove the elements from it that you don't want repeated.
The rising/falling sequence method also works with iterations. Let's say you want to find all unique combinations of three letters. This algorithm will print results like a,c,e, but not a,e,c or e,a,c:
for letter1 is 'a' to 'x' {
for letter2 is first letter after letter1 to 'y' {
for letter3 is first letter after letter2 to 'z' {
print [letter1,letter2,letter3]
}
}
}
m69 gives a nice strategy that often works, but I think it's worthwhile to better understand why it works. When trying to count items (of any kind), the general principle is:
Think of a rule that classifies any given item into exactly one of several non-overlapping categories. That is, come up with a list of concrete categories A, B, ..., Z that will make the following sentence true: An item is either in category A, or in category B, or ..., or in category Z.
Once you have done this, you can safely count the number of items in each category and add these counts together, comfortable in the knowledge that (a) any item that is counted in one category is not counted again in any other category, and (b) any item that you want to count is in some category (i.e., none are missed).
How could we form categories for your specific problem here? One way to do it is to notice that every item (i.e., every multiset of coin values that sums to the desired total N) either contains the 50-coin exactly zero times, or it contains it exactly once, or it contains it exactly twice, or ..., or it contains it exactly RoundDown(N / 50) times. These categories don't overlap: if a solution uses exactly 5 50-coins, it pretty clearly can't also use exactly 7 50-coins, for example. Also, every solution is clearly in some category (notice that we include a category for the case in which no 50-coins are used). So if we had a way to count, for any given k, the number of solutions that use coins from the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200} to produce a sum of N and use exactly k 50-coins, then we could sum over all k from 0 to N/50 and get an accurate count.
How to do this efficiently? This is where the recursion comes in. The number of solutions that use coins from the set {1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200} to produce a sum of N and use exactly k 50-coins is equal to the number of solutions that sum to N-50k and do not use any 50-coins, i.e. use coins only from the set {1,2,5,10,20,100,200}. This of course works for any particular coin denomination that we could have chosen, so these subproblems have the same shape as the original problem: we can solve each one by simply choosing another coin arbitrarily (e.g. the 10-coin), forming a new set of categories based on this new coin, counting the number of items in each category and summing them up. The subproblems become smaller until we reach some simple base case that we process directly (e.g. no allowed coins left: then there is 1 item if N=0, and 0 items otherwise).
I started with the 50-coin (instead of, say, the largest or the smallest coin) to emphasise that the particular choice used to form the set of non-overlapping categories doesn't matter for the correctness of the algorithm. But in practice, passing explicit representations of sets of coins around is unnecessarily expensive. Since we don't actually care about the particular sequence of coins to use for forming categories, we're free to choose a more efficient representation. Here (and in many problems), it's convenient to represent the set of allowed coins implicitly as simply a single integer, maxCoin, which we interpret to mean that the first maxCoin coins in the original ordered list of coins are the allowed ones. This limits the possible sets we can represent, but here that's OK: If we always choose the last allowed coin to form categories on, we can communicate the new, more-restricted "set" of allowed coins to subproblems very succinctly by simply passing the argument maxCoin-1 to it. This is the essence of m69's answer.
There's some good guidance here. Another way to think about this is as a dynamic program. For this, we must pose the problem as a simple decision among options that leaves us with a smaller version of the same problem. It boils out to a certain kind of recursive expression.
Put the coin values c0, c1, ... c_(n-1) in any order you like. Then define W(i,v) as the number of ways you can make change for value v using coins ci, c_(i+1), ... c_(n-1). The answer we want is W(0,200). All that's left is to define W:
W(i,v) = sum_[k = 0..floor(200/ci)] W(i+1, v-ci*k)
In words: the number of ways we can make change with coins ci onward is to sum up all the ways we can make change after a decision to use some feasible number k of coins ci, removing that much value from the problem.
Of course we need base cases for the recursion. This happens when i=n-1: the last coin value. At this point there's a way to make change if and only if the value we need is an exact multiple of c_(n-1).
W(n-1,v) = 1 if v % c_(n-1) == 0 and 0 otherwise.
We generally don't want to implement this as a simple recursive function. The same argument values occur repeatedly, which leads to an exponential (in n and v) amount of wasted computation. There are simple ways to avoid this. Tabular evaluation and memoization are two.
Another point is that it is more efficient to have the values in descending order. By taking big chunks of value early, the total number of recursive evaluations is minimized. Additionally, since c_(n-1) is now 1, the base case is just W(n-1)=1. Now it becomes fairly obvious that we can add a second base case as an optimization: W(n-2,v) = floor(v/c_(n-2)). That's how many times the for loop will sum W(n-1,1) = 1!
But this is gilding a lilly. The problem is so small that exponential behavior doesn't signify. Here is a little implementation to show that order really doesn't matter:
#include <stdio.h>
#define n 8
int cv[][n] = {
{200,100,50,20,10,5,2,1},
{1,2,5,10,20,50,100,200},
{1,10,100,2,20,200,5,50},
};
int *c;
int w(int i, int v) {
if (i == n - 1) return v % c[n - 1] == 0;
int sum = 0;
for (int k = 0; k <= v / c[i]; ++k)
sum += w(i + 1, v - c[i] * k);
return sum;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
unsigned p;
if (argc != 2 || sscanf(argv[1], "%d", &p) != 1 || p > 2) p = 0;
c = cv[p];
printf("Ways(%u) = %d\n", p, w(0, 200));
return 0;
}
Drumroll, please...
$ ./foo 0
Ways(0) = 73682
$ ./foo 1
Ways(1) = 73682
$ ./foo 2
Ways(2) = 73682
I am having issues with understanding dynamic programming solutions to various problems, specifically the coin change problem:
"Given a value N, if we want to make change for N cents, and we have infinite supply of each of S = { S1, S2, .. , Sm} valued coins, how many ways can we make the change? The order of coins doesn’t matter.
For example, for N = 4 and S = {1,2,3}, there are four solutions: {1,1,1,1},{1,1,2},{2,2},{1,3}. So output should be 4. For N = 10 and S = {2, 5, 3, 6}, there are five solutions: {2,2,2,2,2}, {2,2,3,3}, {2,2,6}, {2,3,5} and {5,5}. So the output should be 5."
There is another variation of this problem where the solution is the minimum number of coins to satisfy the amount.
These problems appear very similar, but the solutions are very different.
Number of possible ways to make change: the optimal substructure for this is DP(m,n) = DP(m-1, n) + DP(m, n-Sm) where DP is the number of solutions for all coins up to the mth coin and amount=n.
Minimum amount of coins: the optimal substructure for this is
DP[i] = Min{ DP[i-d1], DP[i-d2],...DP[i-dn] } + 1 where i is the total amount and d1..dn represent each coin denomination.
Why is it that the first one required a 2-D array and the second a 1-D array? Why is the optimal substructure for the number of ways to make change not "DP[i] = DP[i-d1]+DP[i-d2]+...DP[i-dn]" where DP[i] is the number of ways i amount can be obtained by the coins. It sounds logical to me, but it produces an incorrect answer. Why is that second dimension for the coins needed in this problem, but not needed in the minimum amount problem?
LINKS TO PROBLEMS:
http://comproguide.blogspot.com/2013/12/minimum-coin-change-problem.html
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/dynamic-programming-set-7-coin-change/
Thanks in advance. Every website I go to only explains how the solution works, not why other solutions do not work.
Lets first talk about the number of ways, DP(m,n) = DP(m-1, n) + DP(m, n-Sm). This in indeed correct because either you can use the mth denomination or you can avoid it. Now you say why don't we write it as DP[i] = DP[i-d1]+DP[i-d2]+...DP[i-dn]. Well this will lead to over counting , lets take an example where n=4 m=2 and S={1,3}. Now according to your solution dp[4]=dp[1]+dp[3]. ( Assuming 1 to be a base case dp[1]=1 ) .Now dp[3]=dp[2]+dp[0]. ( Again dp[0]=1 by base case ). Again applying the same dp[2]=dp[1]=1. Thus in total you get answer as 3 when its supposed to be just 2 ( (1,3) and (1,1,1,1) ). Its so because
your second method treats (1,3) and (3,1) as two different solution.Your second method can be applied to case where order matters, which is also a standard problem.
Now to your second question you say that minimum number of denominations can
be found out by DP[i] = Min{ DP[i-d1], DP[i-d2],...DP[i-dn] } + 1. Well this is correct as in finding minimum denominations, order or no order does not matter. Why this is linear / 1-D DP , well although the DP array is 1-D each state depends on at most m states unlike your first solution where array is 2-D but each state depends on at most 2 states. So in both case run time which is ( number of states * number of states each state depends on ) is the same which is O(nm). So both are correct, just your second solution saves memory. So either you can find it by 1-D array method or by 2-D by using the recurrence
dp(n,m)=min(dp(m-1,n),1+dp(m,n-Sm)). (Just use min in your first recurrence)
Hope I cleared the doubts , do post if still something is unclear.
This is a very good explanation of the coin change problem using Dynamic Programming.
The code is as follows:
public static int change(int amount, int[] coins){
int[] combinations = new int[amount + 1];
combinations[0] = 1;
for(int coin : coins){
for(int i = 1; i < combinations.length; i++){
if(i >= coin){
combinations[i] += combinations[i - coin];
//printAmount(combinations);
}
}
//System.out.println();
}
return combinations[amount];
}
I have a stream of events flowing through my servers. It is not feasible for me to store all of them, but I would like to periodically be able to process some of them in aggregate. So, I want to keep a subset of the stream that is a random sampling of everything I've seen, but is capped to a max size.
So, for each new item, I need an algorithm to decide if I should add it to the stored set, or if I should discard it. If I add it, and I'm already at my limit, I need an algorithm to evict one of the old items.
Obviously, this is easy as long as I'm below my limit (just save everything). But how can I maintain a good random sampling without being biased towards old items or new items once I'm past that limit?
Thanks,
This is a common interview question.
One easy way to do it is to save the nth element with probability k/n (or 1, whichever is lesser). If you need to remove an element to save the new sample, evict a random element.
This gives you a uniformly random subset of the n elements. If you don't know n, you can estimate it and get an approximately uniform subset.
This is called random sampling. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservoir_sampling
array R[k]; // result
integer i, j;
// fill the reservoir array
for each i in 1 to k do
R[i] := S[i]
done;
// replace elements with gradually decreasing probability
for each i in k+1 to length(S) do
j := random(1, i); // important: inclusive range
if j <= k then
R[j] := S[i]
fi
done
A decent explanation/proof: http://propersubset.com/2010/04/choosing-random-elements.html
While this paper isn't precisely what you're looking for, it may be a good starting point in your search.
store samples in a first in first out (FIFO) queue.
set a sampling rate of so many events between samples, or randomize this a bit - depending on your patterns of events.
save every nth event, or whenever your rate tells you to, then stick it in to the end of the queue.
pop one off the top if the size is too big.
This is assuming you dont know the total number of events that will be received and that you don't need a minimum number of elements in the subset.
arr = arr[MAX_SIZE] //Create a new array that will store the events. Assuming first index 1.
counter = 1 //Initialize a counter.
while(receiving event){
random = //Generate a random number between 1 and counter
if( counter == random ){
if( counter <= MAX_SIZE ){
arr[counter] = event
}
else{
tmpRandom = //Generate a random number between 1 and MAX_SIZE
arr[tmpRandom] = event
}
}
counter =+ 1
}
Assign a probability of recording each event and store the event in an indexable data structure. When the size of the structure gets to the threshold, remove a random element and add new elements. In Ruby, you could do this:
#storage = []
prob = 0.002
while ( message = getnextMessage) do
#storage.delete((rand() * #storage.length).floor) if #storage.length > MAX_LEN
#storage << message if (rand() < prob)
end
This addresses your max size AND your non-bias toward when the event occurred. You could also choose which element gets deleted by partitioning your stored elements into buckets and then removing an element from any bucket that has more than one element. The bucket method allows you to keep one from each hour, for example.
You should also know that sampling theory is Big Math. If you need more than a layman's idea about this you should consult a qualified mathematician in your area.