Related
I read through some of the posts about determining whether a set A is a subset of another set B. But I find it hard to determine what algorithm to use. Here is an outline of the problem:
I have an array of strings A which I receive at the beginning of my program. Not much is known about the structure. Each string in the array can be arbitrarily long and the number of entries is not limited. Though usually it can be assumed that the number of entries in the array won't be overly large (< 100).
Then I iterate through a list of objects of length n.
Each of the n objects will also have an array of strings B, i.e. there will be n B arrays. Once the program runs the Bs will be fixed, i.e. they do not change during runtime.
I want to determine for each object if A is a subset of B.
Now, I thought about hashtables. However, they would, in my opinion only be efficient if the was only one B and a lot of As. Then I could make a hashtable for B and check each string array of each object against my hashtable. But this is not the case because there is only one A but n Bs. What would be an efficient algorithm to do this?
Example:
A: ["A", "G", "T"]
B1: ["C", "G"]
B2: ["K", "A", "U", "T", "G"]
.
.
.
Bn: ["T", "I", "G", "O", "L"]
Here A is a subset of B2 but not of B1, and not of Bn.
An efficient approach is to represent the set A as a trie. This allows to check if a given string belongs to A in time linear in the string length.
Then there is no better way then checking exhaustively for all Bi and all strings in Bi if it belongs to A. The search stops as soon as all strings in A have been matched (flagging a string when it has been found).
The running time will be at worse proportional to the total number of characters in all strings in all B. In practice, a significant fraction of the characters will be skipped, as
the search for a string not in A can terminate early,
the subset test can conclude positively even if there are strings left in Bi,
the subset test can conclude negatively when there are more unmatched strings in A than strings left in Bi.
This approach is certainly worst-case optimal as you read the characters at most once and perform a constant number of operations per character.
As a first approach I would pre-calculate some general properties of sets, which (hopefully) will allow you to filter some of Bs quickly. These may be, for example:
a number of strings – A certainly can't be a subset of B if it contains more elements than B;
a length of the longest string – A certainly is not a subset of B if the longest string in A is longer than the longest string in B;
a sum of strings' lengths.
For easier checking you might require every set to be ordered alphabetically. That will allow checking A against a single B in a (linear) scan through both sets of strings.
For small A and big B sets it might be more efficient to look for a string in B with binary search rather than with a linear scan; that would require pre-sorting of B, too.
As you know A beforehand, you can design a collision-free hash function to hash all elements of A.
Then operate only on the hashes in the search step, not the strings. For each element of B, compute its hash and then use it to look up an element of A. If an element is found, it means that the hashes match; then you'll also need to compare the strings to detect if its a true positive or just an accidental match.
Count the number of matches. When that number is equal to the size of A, stop and return a positive result. If all elements of a B have been processed and the number of matches is less than size of A, return a negative result.
I was asked a question
You are given a list of characters, a score associated with each character and a dictionary of valid words ( say normal English dictionary ). you have to form a word out of the character list such that the score is maximum and the word is valid.
I could think of a solution involving a trie made out of dictionary and backtracking with available characters, but could not formulate properly. Does anyone know the correct approach or come up with one?
First iterate over your letters and count how many times do you have each of the characters in the English alphabet. Store this in a static, say a char array of size 26 where first cell corresponds to a second to b and so on. Name this original array cnt. Now iterate over all words and for each word form a similar array of size 26. For each of the cells in this array check if you have at least as many occurrences in cnt. If that is the case, you can write the word otherwise you can't. If you can write the word you compute its score and maximize the score in a helper variable.
This approach will have linear complexity and this is also the best asymptotic complexity you can possibly have(after all the input you're given is of linear size).
Inspired by Programmer Person's answer (initially I thought that approach was O(n!) so I discarded it). It needs O(nr of words) setup and then O(2^(chars in query)) for each question. This is exponential, but in Scrabble you only have 7 letter tiles at a time; so you need to check only 128 possibilities!
First observation is that the order of characters in query or word doesn't matter, so you want to process your list into a set of bag of chars. A way to do that is to 'sort' the word so "bac", "cab" become "abc".
Now you take your query, and iterate all possible answers. All variants of keep/discard for each letter. It's easier to see in binary form: 1111 to keep all, 1110 to discard the last letter...
Then check if each possibility exists in your dictionary (hash map for simplicity), then return the one with the maximum score.
import nltk
from string import ascii_lowercase
from itertools import product
scores = {c:s for s, c in enumerate(ascii_lowercase)}
sanitize = lambda w: "".join(c for c in w.lower() if c in scores)
anagram = lambda w: "".join(sorted(w))
anagrams = {anagram(sanitize(w)):w for w in nltk.corpus.words.words()}
while True:
query = input("What do you have?")
if not query: break
# make it look like our preprocessed word list
query = anagram(sanitize(query))
results = {}
# all variants for our query
for mask in product((True, False), repeat=len(query)):
# get the variant given the mask
masked = "".join(c for i, c in enumerate(query) if mask[i])
# check if it's valid
if masked in anagrams:
# score it, also getting the word back would be nice
results[sum(scores[c] for c in masked)] = anagrams[masked]
print(*max(results.items()))
Build a lookup trie of just the sorted-anagram of each word of the dictionary. This is a one time cost.
By sorted anagram I mean: if the word is eat you represent it as aet. It the word is tea, you represent it as aet, bubble is represent as bbbelu etc
Since this is scrabble, assuming you have 8 tiles (say you want to use one from the board), you will need to maximum check 2^8 possibilities.
For any subset of the tiles from the set of 8, you sort the tiles, and lookup in the anagram trie.
There are at most 2^8 such subsets, and this could potentially be optimized (in case of repeating tiles) by doing a more clever subset generation.
If this is a more general problem, where 2^{number of tiles} could be much higher than the total number of anagram-words in the dictionary, it might be better to use frequency counts as in Ivaylo's answer, and the lookups potentially can be optimized using multi-dimensional range queries. (In this case 26 dimensions!)
Sorry, this might not help you as-is (I presume you are trying to do some exercise and have constraints), but I hope this will help the future readers who don't have those constraints.
If the number of dictionary entries is relatively small (up to a few million) you can use brute force: For each word, create a 32 bit mask. Preprocess the data: Set one bit if the letter a/b/c/.../z is used. For the six most common English characters etaoin set another bit if the letter is used twice.
Create a similar bitmap for the letters that you have. Then scan the dictionary for words where all bits that are needed for the word are set in the bitmap for the available letters. You have reduced the problem to words where you have all needed characters once, and the six most common characters twice if the are needed twice. You'll still have to check if a word can be formed in case you have a word like "bubble" and the first test only tells you that you have letters b,u,l,e but not necessarily 3 b's.
By also sorting the list of words by point values before doing the check, the first hit is the best one. This has another advantage: You can count the points that you have, and don't bother checking words with more points. For example, bubble has 12 points. If you have only 11 points, then there is no need to check this word at all (have a small table with the indexes of the first word with any given number of points).
To improve anagrams: In the table, only store different bitmasks with equal number of points (so we would have entries for bubble and blue because they have different point values, but not for team and mate). Then store all the possible words, possibly more than one, for each bit mask and check them all. This should reduce the number of bit masks to check.
Here is a brute force approach in python, using an english dictionary containing 58,109 words. This approach is actually quite fast timing at about .3 seconds on each run.
from random import shuffle
from string import ascii_lowercase
import time
def getValue(word):
return sum(map( lambda x: key[x], word))
if __name__ == '__main__':
v = range(26)
shuffle(v)
key = dict(zip(list(ascii_lowercase), v))
with open("/Users/james_gaddis/PycharmProjects/Unpack Sentance/hard/words.txt", 'r') as f:
wordDict = f.read().splitlines()
f.close()
valued = map(lambda x: (getValue(x), x), wordDict)
print max(valued)
Here is the dictionary I used, with one hyphenated entry removed for convenience.
Can we assume that the dictionary is fixed and the score are fixed and that only the letters available will change (as in scrabble) ? Otherwise, I think there is no better than looking up each word of the dictionnary as previously suggested.
So let's assume that we are in this setting. Pick an order < that respects the costs of letters. For instance Q > Z > J > X > K > .. > A >E >I .. > U.
Replace your dictionary D with a dictionary D' made of the anagrams of the words of D with letters ordered by the previous order (so the word buzz is mapped to zzbu, for instance), and also removing duplicates and words of length > 8 if you have at most 8 letters in your game.
Then construct a trie with the words of D' where the children nodes are ordered by the value of their letters (so the first child of the root would be Q, the second Z, .., the last child one U). On each node of the trie, also store the maximal value of a word going through this node.
Given a set of available characters, you can explore the trie in a depth first manner, going from left to right, and keeping in memory the current best value found. Only explore branches whose node's value is larger than you current best value. This way, you will explore only a few branches after the first ones (for instance, if you have a Z in your game, exploring any branch that start with a one point letter as A is discarded, because it will score at most 8x1 which is less than the value of Z). I bet that you will explore only a very few branches each time.
An autogram is a sentence which describes the characters it contains, usually enumerating each letter of the alphabet, but possibly also the punctuation it contains. Here is the example given in the wiki page.
This sentence employs two a’s, two c’s, two d’s, twenty-eight e’s, five f’s, three g’s, eight h’s, eleven i’s, three l’s, two m’s, thirteen n’s, nine o’s, two p’s, five r’s, twenty-five s’s, twenty-three t’s, six v’s, ten w’s, two x’s, five y’s, and one z.
Coming up with one is hard, because you don't know how many letters it contains until you finish the sentence. Which is what prompts me to ask: is it possible to write an algorithm which could create an autogram? For example, a given parameter would be the start of the sentence as an input e.g. "This sentence employs", and assuming that it uses the same format as the above "x a's, ... y z's".
I'm not asking for you to actually write an algorithm, although by all means I'd love to see if you know one to exist or want to try and write one; rather I'm curious as to whether the problem is computable in the first place.
You are asking two different questions.
"is it possible to write an algorithm which could create an autogram?"
There are algorithms to find autograms. As far as I know, they use randomization, which means that such an algorithm might find a solution for a given start text, but if it doesn't find one, then this doesn't mean that there isn't one. This takes us to the second question.
"I'm curious as to whether the problem is computable in the first place."
Computable would mean that there is an algorithm which for a given start text either outputs a solution, or states that there isn't one. The above-mentioned algorithms can't do that, and an exhaustive search is not workable. Therefore I'd say that this problem is not computable. However, this is rather of academic interest. In practice, the randomized algorithms work well enough.
Let's assume for the moment that all counts are less than or equal to some maximum M, with M < 100. As mentioned in the OP's link, this means that we only need to decide counts for the 16 letters that appear in these number words, as counts for the other 10 letters are already determined by the specified prefix text and can't change.
One property that I think is worth exploiting is the fact that, if we take some (possibly incorrect) solution and rearrange the number-words in it, then the total letter counts don't change. IOW, if we ignore the letters spent "naming themselves" (e.g. the c in two c's) then the total letter counts only depend on the multiset of number-words that are actually present in the sentence. What that means is that instead of having to consider all possible ways of assigning one of M number-words to each of the 16 letters, we can enumerate just the (much smaller) set of all multisets of number-words of size 16 or less, having elements taken from the ground set of number-words of size M, and for each multiset, look to see whether we can fit the 16 letters to its elements in a way that uses each multiset element exactly once.
Note that a multiset of numbers can be uniquely represented as a nondecreasing list of numbers, and this makes them easy to enumerate.
What does it mean for a letter to "fit" a multiset? Suppose we have a multiset W of number-words; this determines total letter counts for each of the 16 letters (for each letter, just sum the counts of that letter across all the number-words in W; also add a count of 1 for the letter "S" for each number-word besides "one", to account for the pluralisation). Call these letter counts f["A"] for the frequency of "A", etc. Pretend we have a function etoi() that operates like C's atoi(), but returns the numeric value of a number-word. (This is just conceptual; of course in practice we would always generate the number-word from the integer value (which we would keep around), and never the other way around.) Then a letter x fits a particular number-word w in W if and only if f[x] + 1 = etoi(w), since writing the letter x itself into the sentence will increase its frequency by 1, thereby making the two sides of the equation equal.
This does not yet address the fact that if more than one letter fits a number-word, only one of them can be assigned it. But it turns out that it is easy to determine whether a given multiset W of number-words, represented as a nondecreasing list of integers, simultaneously fits any set of letters:
Calculate the total letter frequencies f[] that W implies.
Sort these frequencies.
Skip past any zero-frequency letters. Suppose there were k of these.
For each remaining letter, check whether its frequency is equal to one less than the numeric value of the number-word in the corresponding position. I.e. check that f[k] + 1 == etoi(W[0]), f[k+1] + 1 == etoi(W[1]), etc.
If and only if all these frequencies agree, we have a winner!
The above approach is naive in that it assumes that we choose words to put in the multiset from a size M ground set. For M > 20 there is a lot of structure in this set that can be exploited, at the cost of slightly complicating the algorithm. In particular, instead of enumerating straight multisets of this ground set of all allowed numbers, it would be much better to enumerate multisets of {"one", "two", ..., "nineteen", "twenty", "thirty", "forty", "fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety"}, and then allow the "fit detection" step to combine the number-words for multiples of 10 with the single-digit number-words.
I want to find intersection of sets containing integer values?
What is the most efficient way to do it if say you have 4-5 lists with 2k-4k integers?
In many languages like for example c++ sets are implemented as balanced binary trees so you can directly evaluate set intersection in O(NlogM) use n as smaller set size by just looking up into the other set in O(logM).
Optimization :-
As you want it for multiple sets you can do the optimization that is used in huffman coding :-
Use a priority queue of sets which selects smallest set first
select two smallest sets first evaluate intersection and add it to queue.
Do this till you get empty intersection set or one set(intersection set) remaining.
Note: Use std::set if using c++
If you have memory to spare:
Create a set that will hold the number of occurences of each value.
For each integer I in each of your set, increment the number of occurences of I
Extract integers with a number of occurences equal to the number of sets
This is theoretically in O(sum of all sets cardinalities + retrieval)
where retrieveal can be either the range of your integers (if you're using a raw array) or the cardinality of the union of your sets (if you're using a hash table to enumerate the values for which an occurence is defined).
If the bounds of your set are known and small, you can implement it with a simple array of integers big enough to hold the max number of sets (typically a 8 bits char for 256 sets).
Otherwise you'll need some kind of hash table, which should still theoretically be in o(n).
I'm looking for an algorithm to solve the following in a reasonable amount of time.
Given a set of sets, find all such sets that are subsets of a given set.
For example, if you have a set of search terms like ["stack overflow", "foo bar", ...], then given a document D, find all search terms whose words all appear in D.
I have found two solutions that are adequate:
Use a list of bit vectors as an index. To query for a given superset, create a bit vector for it, and then iterate over the list performing a bitwise OR for each vector in the list. If the result is equal to the search vector, the search set is a superset of the set represented by the current vector. This algorithm is O(n) where n is the number of sets in the index, and bitwise OR is very fast. Insertion is O(1). Caveat: to support all words in the English language, the bit vectors will need to be several million bits long, and there will need to exist a total order for the words, with no gaps.
Use a prefix tree (trie). Sort the sets before inserting them into the trie. When searching for a given set, sort it first. Iterate over the elements of the search set, activating nodes that match if they are either children of the root node or of a previously activated node. All paths, through activated nodes to a leaf, represent subsets of the search set. The complexity of this algorithm is O(a log a + ab) where a is the size of the search set and b is the number of indexed sets.
What's your solution?
The prefix trie sounds like something I'd try if the sets were sparse compared to the total vocabulary. Don't forget that if the suffix set of two different prefixes is the same, you can share the subgraph representing the suffix set (this can be achieved by hash-consing rather than arbitrary DFA minimization), giving a DAG rather than a tree. Try ordering your words least or most frequent first (I'll bet one or the other is better than some random or alphabetic order).
For a variation on your first strategy, where you represent each set by a very large integer (bit vector), use a sparse ordered set/map of integers (a trie on the sequence of bits which skips runs of consecutive 0s) - http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.37.5452 (implemented in http://www.scala-lang.org/docu/files/api/scala/collection/immutable/IntMap.html).
If your reference set (of sets) is fixed, and you want to find for many of those sets which ones contain others, I'd compute the immediate containment relation (a directed acyclic graph with a path from a->b iff b is contained in a, and without the redundant arcs a->c where a->b and b->c). The branching factor is no more than the number of elements in a set. The vertices reachable from the given set are exactly those that are subsets of it.
First I would construct 2 data structures, S and E.
S is an array of sets (set S has the N subsets).
S[0] = set(element1, element2, ...)
S[1] = set(element1, element2, ...)
...
S[N] = set(element1, element2, ...)
E is a map (element hash for index) of lists. Each list contains S-indices, where the element appears.
// O( S_total_elements ) = O(n) operation
E[element1] = list(S1, S6, ...)
E[element2] = list(S3, S4, S8, ...)
...
Now, 2 new structures, set L and array C.
I store all the elements of D, that exist in E, in the L. (O(n) operation)
C is an array (S-indices) of counters.
// count subset's elements that are in E
foreach e in L:
foreach idx in E[e]:
C[idx] = C[idx] + 1
Finally,
for i in C:
if C[i] == S[i].Count()
// S[i] subset exists in D
Can you build an index for your documents? i.e. a mapping from each word to those documents containing that word. Once you've built that, lookup should be pretty quick and you can just do set intersection to find the documents matching all words.
Here's Wiki on full text search.
EDIT: Ok, I got that backwards.
You could convert your document to a set (if your language has a set datatype), do the same with your searches. Then it becomes a simple matter of testing whether one is a subset of the other.
Behind the scenes, this is effectively the same idea: it would probably involve building a hash table for the document, hashing the queries, and checking each word in the query in turn. This would be O(nm) where n is the number of searches and m the average number of words in a search.