I have a symmetric matrix like shown in the image attached below.
I've made up the notation A.B which represents the value at grid point (A, B). Furthermore, writing A.B.C gives me the minimum grid point value like so: MIN((A,B), (A,C), (B,C)).
As another example A.B.D gives me MIN((A,B), (A,D), (B,D)).
My goal is to find the minimum values for ALL combinations of letters (not repeating) for one row at a time e.g for this example I need to find min values with respect to row A which are given by the calculations:
A.B = 6
A.C = 8
A.D = 4
A.B.C = MIN(6,8,6) = 6
A.B.D = MIN(6, 4, 4) = 4
A.C.D = MIN(8, 4, 2) = 2
A.B.C.D = MIN(6, 8, 4, 6, 4, 2) = 2
I realize that certain calculations can be reused which becomes increasingly important as the matrix size increases, but the problem is finding the most efficient way to implement this reuse.
Can point me in the right direction to finding an efficient algorithm/data structure I can use for this problem?
You'll want to think about the lattice of subsets of the letters, ordered by inclusion. Essentially, you have a value f(S) given for every subset S of size 2 (that is, every off-diagonal element of the matrix - the diagonal elements don't seem to occur in your problem), and the problem is to find, for each subset T of size greater than two, the minimum f(S) over all S of size 2 contained in T. (And then you're interested only in sets T that contain a certain element "A" - but we'll disregard that for the moment.)
First of all, note that if you have n letters, that this amounts to asking Omega(2^n) questions, roughly one for each subset. (Excluding the zero- and one-element subsets and those that don't include "A" saves you n + 1 sets and a factor of two, respectively, which is allowed for big Omega.) So if you want to store all these answers for even moderately large n, you'll need a lot of memory. If n is large in your applications, it might be best to store some collection of pre-computed data and do some computation whenever you need a particular data point; I haven't thought about what would work best, but for example computing data only for a binary tree contained in the lattice would not necessarily help you anything beyond precomputing nothing at all.
With these things out of the way, let's assume you actually want all the answers computed and stored in memory. You'll want to compute these "layer by layer", that is, starting with the three-element subsets (since the two-element subsets are already given by your matrix), then four-element, then five-element, etc. This way, for a given subset S, when we're computing f(S) we will already have computed all f(T) for T strictly contained in S. There are several ways that you can make use of this, but I think the easiest might be to use two such subset S: let t1 and t2 be two different elements of T that you may select however you like; let S be the subset of T that you get when you remove t1 and t2. Write S1 for S plus t1 and write S2 for S plus t2. Now every pair of letters contained in T is either fully contained in S1, or it is fully contained in S2, or it is {t1, t2}. Look up f(S1) and f(S2) in your previously computed values, then look up f({t1, t2}) directly in the matrix, and store f(T) = the minimum of these 3 numbers.
If you never select "A" for t1 or t2, then indeed you can compute everything you're interested in while not computing f for any sets T that don't contain "A". (This is possible because the steps outlined above are only interesting whenever T contains at least three elements.) Good! This leaves just one question - how to store the computed values f(T). What I would do is use a 2^(n-1)-sized array; represent each subset-of-your-alphabet-that-includes-"A" by the (n-1) bit number where the ith bit is 1 whenever the (i+1)th letter is in that set (so 0010110, which has bits 2, 4, and 5 set, represents the subset {"A", "C", "D", "F"} out of the alphabet "A" .. "H" - note I'm counting bits starting at 0 from the right, and letters starting at "A" = 0). This way, you can actually iterate through the sets in numerical order and don't need to think about how to iterate through all k-element subsets of an n-element set. (You do need to include a special case for when the set under consideration has 0 or 1 element, in which case you'll want to do nothing, or 2 elements, in which case you just copy the value from the matrix.)
Well, it looks simple to me, but perhaps I misunderstand the problem. I would do it like this:
let P be a pattern string in your notation X1.X2. ... .Xn, where Xi is a column in your matrix
first compute the array CS = [ (X1, X2), (X1, X3), ... (X1, Xn) ], which contains all combinations of X1 with every other element in the pattern; CS has n-1 elements, and you can easily build it in O(n)
now you must compute min (CS), i.e. finding the minimum value of the matrix elements corresponding to the combinations in CS; again you can easily find the minimum value in O(n)
done.
Note: since your matrix is symmetric, given P you just need to compute CS by combining the first element of P with all other elements: (X1, Xi) is equal to (Xi, X1)
If your matrix is very large, and you want to do some optimization, you may consider prefixes of P: let me explain with an example
when you have solved the problem for P = X1.X2.X3, store the result in an associative map, where X1.X2.X3 is the key
later on, when you solve a problem P' = X1.X2.X3.X7.X9.X10.X11 you search for the longest prefix of P' in your map: you can do this by starting with P' and removing one component (Xi) at a time from the end until you find a match in your map or you end up with an empty string
if you find a prefix of P' in you map then you already know the solution for that problem, so you just have to find the solution for the problem resulting from combining the first element of the prefix with the suffix, and then compare the two results: in our example the prefix is X1.X2.X3, and so you just have to solve the problem for
X1.X7.X9.X10.X11, and then compare the two values and choose the min (don't forget to update your map with the new pattern P')
if you don't find any prefix, then you must solve the entire problem for P' (and again don't forget to update the map with the result, so that you can reuse it in the future)
This technique is essentially a form of memoization.
Related
My data has large number of sets (few millions). Each of those set size is between few members to several tens of thousands integers. Many of those sets are subsets of larger sets (there are many of those super-sets). I'm trying to assign each subset to it's largest superset.
Please can anyone recommend algorithm for this type of task?
There are many algorithms for generating all possible sub-sets of a set, but this type of approach is time-prohibitive given my data size (e.g. this paper or SO question).
Example of my data-set:
A {1, 2, 3}
B {1, 3}
C {2, 4}
D {2, 4, 9}
E {3, 5}
F {1, 2, 3, 7}
Expected answer: B and A are subset of F (it's not important B is also subset of A); C is a subset of D; E remains unassigned.
Here's an idea that might work:
Build a table that maps number to a sorted list of sets, sorted first by size with largest first, and then, by size, arbitrarily but with some canonical order. (Say, alphabetically by set name.) So in your example, you'd have a table that maps 1 to [F, A, B], 2 to [F, A, D, C], 3 to [F, A, B, E] and so on. This can be implemented to take O(n log n) time where n is the total size of the input.
For each set in the input:
fetch the lists associated with each entry in that set. So for A, you'd get the lists associated with 1, 2, and 3. The total number of selects you'll issue in the runtime of the whole algorithm is O(n), so runtime so far is O(n log n + n) which is still O(n log n).
Now walk down each list simultaneously. If a set is the first entry in all three lists, then it's the largest set that contains the input set. Output that association and continue with the next input list. If not, then discard the smallest item among all the items in the input lists and try again. Implementing this last bit is tricky, but you can store the heads of all lists in a heap and get (IIRC) something like O(n log k) overall runtime where k is the maximum size of any individual set, so you can bound that at O(n log n) in the worst case.
So if I got everything straight, the runtime of the algorithm is overall O(n log n), which seems like probably as good as you're going to get for this problem.
Here is a python implementation of the algorithm:
from collections import defaultdict, deque
import heapq
def LargestSupersets(setlists):
'''Computes, for each item in the input, the largest superset in the same input.
setlists: A list of lists, each of which represents a set of items. Items must be hashable.
'''
# First, build a table that maps each element in any input setlist to a list of records
# of the form (-size of setlist, index of setlist), one for each setlist that contains
# the corresponding element
element_to_entries = defaultdict(list)
for idx, setlist in enumerate(setlists):
entry = (-len(setlist), idx) # cheesy way to make an entry that sorts properly -- largest first
for element in setlist:
element_to_entries[element].append(entry)
# Within each entry, sort so that larger items come first, with ties broken arbitrarily by
# the set's index
for entries in element_to_entries.values():
entries.sort()
# Now build up the output by going over each setlist and walking over the entries list for
# each element in the setlist. Since the entries list for each element is sorted largest to
# smallest, the first entry we find that is in every entry set we pulled will be the largest
# element of the input that contains each item in this setlist. We are guaranteed to eventually
# find such an element because, at the very least, the item we're iterating on itself is in
# each entries list.
output = []
for idx, setlist in enumerate(setlists):
num_elements = len(setlist)
buckets = [element_to_entries[element] for element in setlist]
# We implement the search for an item that appears in every list by maintaining a heap and
# a queue. We have the invariants that:
# 1. The queue contains the n smallest items across all the buckets, in order
# 2. The heap contains the smallest item from each bucket that has not already passed through
# the queue.
smallest_entries_heap = []
smallest_entries_deque = deque([], num_elements)
for bucket_idx, bucket in enumerate(buckets):
smallest_entries_heap.append((bucket[0], bucket_idx, 0))
heapq.heapify(smallest_entries_heap)
while (len(smallest_entries_deque) < num_elements or
smallest_entries_deque[0] != smallest_entries_deque[num_elements - 1]):
# First extract the next smallest entry in the queue ...
(smallest_entry, bucket_idx, element_within_bucket_idx) = heapq.heappop(smallest_entries_heap)
smallest_entries_deque.append(smallest_entry)
# ... then add the next-smallest item from the bucket that we just removed an element from
if element_within_bucket_idx + 1 < len(buckets[bucket_idx]):
new_element = buckets[bucket_idx][element_within_bucket_idx + 1]
heapq.heappush(smallest_entries_heap, (new_element, bucket_idx, element_within_bucket_idx + 1))
output.append((idx, smallest_entries_deque[0][1]))
return output
Note: don't trust my writeup too much here. I just thought of this algorithm right now, I haven't proved it correct or anything.
So you have millions of sets, with thousands of elements each. Just representing that dataset takes billions of integers. In your comparisons you'll quickly get to trillions of operations without even breaking a sweat.
Therefore I'll assume that you need a solution which will distribute across a lot of machines. Which means that I'll think in terms of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapReduce. A series of them.
Read the sets in, mapping them to k:v pairs of i: s where i is an element of the set s.
Receive a key of an integers, along with a list of sets. Map them off to pairs (s1, s2): i where s1 <= s2 are both sets that included to i. Do not omit to map each set to be paired with itself!
For each pair (s1, s2) count the size k of the intersection, and send off pairs s1: k, s2: k. (Only send the second if s1 and s2 are different.
For each set s receive the set of supersets. If it is maximal, send off s: s. Otherwise send off t: s for every t that is a strict superset of s.
For each set s, receive the set of subsets, with s in the list only if it is maximal. If s is maximal, send off t: s for every t that is a subset of s.
For each set we receive the set of maximal sets that it is a subset of. (There may be many.)
There are a lot of steps for this, but at its heart it requires repeated comparisons between pairs of sets with a common element for each common element. Potentially that is O(n * n * m) where n is the number of sets and m is the number of distinct elements that are in many sets.
Here is a simple suggestion for an algorithm that might give better results based on your numbers (n = 10^6 to 10^7 sets with m = 2 to 10^5 members, a lot of super/subsets). Of course it depends a lot on your data. Generally speaking complexity is much worse than for the other proposed algorithms. Maybe you could only process the sets with less than X, e.g. 1000 members that way and for the rest use the other proposed methods.
Sort the sets by their size.
Remove the first (smallest) set and start comparing it against the others from behind (largest set first).
Stop as soon as you found a superset and create a relation. Just remove if no superset was found.
Repeat 2. and 3. for all but the last set.
If you're using Excel, you could structure it as follows:
1) Create a cartesian plot as a two-way table that has all your data sets as titles on both the side and the top
2) In a seperate tab, create a row for each data set in the first column, along with a second column that will count the number of entries (ex: F has 4) and then just stack FIND(",") and MID formulas across the sheet to split out all the entries within each data set. Use the counter in the second column to do COUNTIF(">0"). Each variable you find can be your starting point in a subsequent FIND until it runs out of variables and just returns a blank.
3) Go back to your cartesian plot, and bring over the separate entries you just generated for your column titles (ex: F is 1,2,3,7). Use an AND statement to then check that each entry in your left hand column is in your top row data set using an OFFSET to your seperate area and utilizing your counter as the width for the OFFSET
This question already has answers here:
How to check whether two lists are circularly identical in Python
(18 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I'm looking for an efficient way to compare lists of numbers to see if they match at any rotation (comparing 2 circular lists).
When the lists don't have duplicates, picking smallest/largest value and rotating both lists before comparisons works.
But when there may be many duplicate large values, this isn't so simple.
For example, lists [9, 2, 0, 0, 9] and [0, 0, 9, 9, 2] are matches,where [9, 0, 2, 0, 9] won't (since the order is different).
Heres an example of an in-efficient function which works.
def min_list_rotation(ls):
return min((ls[i:] + ls[:i] for i in range(len(ls))))
# example use
ls_a = [9, 2, 0, 0, 9]
ls_b = [0, 0, 9, 9, 2]
print(min_list_rotation(ls_a) == min_list_rotation(ls_b))
This can be improved on for efficiency...
check sorted lists match before running exhaustive tests.
only test rotations that start with the minimum value(skipping matching values after that)effectively finding the minimum value with the furthest & smallest number after it (continually - in the case there are multiple matching next-biggest values).
compare rotations without creating the new lists each time..
However its still not a very efficient method since it relies on checking many possibilities.
Is there a more efficient way to perform this comparison?
Related question:
Compare rotated lists in python
If you are looking for duplicates in a large number of lists, you could rotate each list to its lexicographically minimal string representation, then sort the list of lists or use a hash table to find duplicates. This canonicalisation step means that you don't need to compare every list with every other list. There are clever O(n) algorithms for finding the minimal rotation described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicographically_minimal_string_rotation.
You almost have it.
You can do some kind of "normalization" or "canonicalisation" of a list independently of the others, then you only need to compare item by item (or if you want, put them in a map, in a set to eliminate duplicates, ..."
1 take the minimum item, which is not preceded by itself (in a circular way)
In you example 92009, you should take the first 0 (not the second one)
2 If you have always the same item (say 00000), you just keep that: 00000
3 If you have the same item several times, take the next item, which is minimal, and keep going until you find one unique path with minimums.
Example: 90148301562 => you have 0148.. and 0156.. => you take 0148
4 If you can not separate the different paths (= if you have equality at infinite), you have a repeating pattern: then, no matters: you take any of them.
Example: 014376501437650143765 : you have the same pattern 0143765...
It is like AAA, where A = 0143765
5 When you have your list in this form, it is easy to compare two of them.
How to do that efficiently:
Iterate on your list to get the minimums Mx (not preceded by itself). If you find several, keep all of them.
Then, iterate from each minimum Mx, take the next item, and keep the minimums. If you do an entire cycle, you have a repeating pattern.
Except the case of repeating pattern, this must be the minimal way.
Hope it helps.
I would do this in expected O(N) time using a polynomial hash function to compute the hash of list A, and every cyclic shift of list B. Where a shift of list B has the same hash as list A, I'd compare the actual elements to see if they are equal.
The reason this is fast is that with polynomial hash functions (which are extremely common!), you can calculate the hash of each cyclic shift from the previous one in constant time, so you can calculate hashes for all of the cyclic shifts in O(N) time.
It works like this:
Let's say B has N elements, then the the hash of B using prime P is:
Hb=0;
for (i=0; i<N ; i++)
{
Hb = Hb*P + B[i];
}
This is an optimized way to evaluate a polynomial in P, and is equivalent to:
Hb=0;
for (i=0; i<N ; i++)
{
Hb += B[i] * P^(N-1-i); //^ is exponentiation, not XOR
}
Notice how every B[i] is multiplied by P^(N-1-i). If we shift B to the left by 1, then every every B[i] will be multiplied by an extra P, except the first one. Since multiplication distributes over addition, we can multiply all the components at once just by multiplying the whole hash, and then fix up the factor for the first element.
The hash of the left shift of B is just
Hb1 = Hb*P + B[0]*(1-(P^N))
The second left shift:
Hb2 = Hb1*P + B[1]*(1-(P^N))
and so on...
During my current preparation for interview, I encountered a question for which I am having some difficulty to get optimal solution,
We are given an array A and an integer Sum, we need to find all distinct sub sequences of A whose sum equals Sum.
For eg. A={1,2,3,5,6} Sum=6 then answer should be
{1,2,3}
{1,5}
{6}
Presently I can think of two ways of doing this,
Use Recursion ( which I suppose should be last thing to consider for an interview question)
Use Integer Partitioning to partition Sum and check whether the elements of partition are present in A
Please guide my thoughts.
I agree with Jason. This solution comes to mind:
(complexity is O(sum*|A|) if you represent the map as an array)
Call the input set A and the target sum sum
Have a map of elements B, with each element being x:y, where x (the map key) is the sum and y (the map value) is the number of ways to get to it.
Starting of, add 0:1 to the map - there is 1 way to get to 0 (obviously by using no elements)
For each element a in A, consider each element x:y in B.
If x+a > sum, don't do anything.
If an element with the key x+a already exists in B, say that element is x+a:z, modify it to x+a:y+z.
If an element with the key doesn't exist, simply add x+a:y to the set.
Look up the element with key sum, thus sum:x - x is our desired value.
If B is sorted (or an array), you can simply skip the rest of the elements in B during the "don't do anything" step.
Tracing it back:
The above just gives the count, this will modify it to give the actual subsequences.
At each element in B, instead of the sum, store all the source elements and the elements used to get there (so have a list of pairs at each element in B).
For 0:1 there is no source elements.
For x+a:y, the source element is x and the element to get there is a.
During the above process, if an element with the key already exists, enqueue the pair x/a to the element x+a (enqueue is an O(1) operation).
If an element with the key doesn't exist, simply create a list with one pair x/a at the element x+a.
To reconstruct, simply start at sum and recursively trace your way back.
We have to be careful of duplicate sequences (do we?) and sequences with duplicate elements here.
Example - not tracing it back:
A={1,2,3,5,6}
sum = 6
B = 0:1
Consider 1
Add 0+1
B = 0:1, 1:1
Consider 2
Add 0+2:1, 1+2:1
B = 0:1, 1:1, 2:1, 3:1
Consider 3
Add 0+3:1 (already exists -> add 1 to it), 1+3:1, 2+1:1, 3+1:1
B = 0:1, 1:1, 2:1, 3:2, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1
Consider 5
B = 0:1, 1:1, 2:1, 3:2, 4:1, 5:2, 6:2
Generated sums thrown away = 7:1, 8:2, 9:1, 10:1, 11:1
Consider 6
B = 0:1, 1:1, 2:1, 3:2, 4:1, 5:2, 6:3
Generated sums thrown away = 7:1, 8:1, 9:2, 10:1, 11:2, 12:2
Then, from 6:3, we know we have 3 ways to get to 6.
Example - tracing it back:
A={1,2,3,5,6}
sum = 6
B = 0:{}
Consider 1
B = 0:{}, 1:{0/1}
Consider 2
B = 0:{}, 1:{0/1}, 2:{0/2}, 3:{1/2}
Consider 3
B = 0:{}, 1:{0/1}, 2:{0/2}, 3:{1/2,0/3}, 4:{1/3}, 5:{2/3}, 6:{3/3}
Consider 5
B = 0:{}, 1:{0/1}, 2:{0/2}, 3:{1/2,0/3}, 4:{1/3}, 5:{2/3,0/5}, 6:{3/3,1/5}
Generated sums thrown away = 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Consider 6
B = 0:{}, 1:{0/1}, 2:{0/2}, 3:{1/2,0/3}, 4:{1/3}, 5:{2/3,0/5}, 6:{3/3,1/5,0/6}
Generated sums thrown away = 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Then, tracing back from 6: (not in {} means an actual element, in {} means a map entry)
{6}
{3}+3
{1}+2+3
{0}+1+2+3
1+2+3
Output {1,2,3}
{0}+3+3
3+3
Invalid - 3 is duplicate
{1}+5
{0}+1+5
1+5
Output {1,5}
{0}+6
6
Output {6}
This is a variant of the subset-sum problem. The subset-sum problem asks if there is a subset that sums to given a value. You are asking for all of the subsets that sum to a given value.
The subset-sum problem is hard (more precisely, it's NP-Complete) which means that your variant is hard too (it's not NP-Complete, because it's not a decision problem, but it is NP-Hard).
The classic approach to the subset-sum problem is either recursion or dynamic programming. It's obvious how to modify the recursive solution to the subset-sum problem to answer your variant. I suggest that you also take a look at the dynamic programming solution to subset-sum and see if you can modify it for your variant (tbc: I do not know if this is actually possible). That would certainly be a very valuable learning exercise whether or not is possible as it would certainly enhance your understanding of dynamic programming either way.
It would surprise me though, if the expected answer to your question is anything but the recursive solution. It's easy to come up with, and an acceptable approach to the problem. Asking for the dynamic programming solution on-the-fly is a bit much to ask.
You did, however, neglect to mention a very naïve approach to this problem: generate all subsets, and for each subset check if it sums to the given value or not. Obviously that's exponential, but it does solve the problem.
I assumed that given array contains distinct numbers.
Let's define function f(i, s) - which means we used some numbers in range [1, i] and the sum of used numbers is s.
Let's store all values in 2 dimensional matrix i.e. in cell (i, j) we will have value for f(i, j). Now if have already calculated values for cells which are located upper or lefter the cell (i, s) we can calculate value for f(i, s) i.e. f(i, s) = f(i - 1, s);(not to take i indexed number) and if(s >= a[i]) f(i, s) += f(i - 1, s - a[i]). And we can use bottom-up approach to fill all the matrix, setting [f(0, 0) = 1; f(0, i) = 0; 1 <= i <= s], [f(i, 0) = 1;1<=i<=n;]. If we calculated all the matrix then we have answer in cell f(n,S); Thus we have total time complexity O(n*s) and memory complexity O(n*s);
We can improve memory complexity if we note that in every iteration we need only information from previous row, it means that we can store matrix of size 2xS not nxS. We reduced memory complexity up to linear to S. This problem is NP complete thus we don't have polynomial algorithm for this and this approach is the best thing.
Let us consider n words, each of length k. Those words consist of letters over an alphabet (whose cardinality is n) with defined order. The task is to derive an O(nk) algorithm to count the number of pairs of words that differ by one position (no matter which one exactly, as long as it's only a single position).
For instance, in the following set of words (n = 5, k = 4):
abcd, abdd, adcb, adcd, aecd
there are 5 such pairs: (abcd, abdd), (abcd, adcd), (abcd, aecd), (adcb, adcd), (adcd, aecd).
So far I've managed to find an algorithm that solves a slightly easier problem: counting the number of pairs of words that differ by one GIVEN position (i-th). In order to do this I swap the letter at the ith position with the last letter within each word, perform a Radix sort (ignoring the last position in each word - formerly the ith position), linearly detect words whose letters at the first 1 to k-1 positions are the same, eventually count the number of occurrences of each letter at the last (originally ith) position within each set of duplicates and calculate the desired pairs (the last part is simple).
However, the algorithm above doesn't seem to be applicable to the main problem (under the O(nk) constraint) - at least not without some modifications. Any idea how to solve this?
Assuming n and k isn't too large so that this will fit into memory:
Have a set with the first letter removed, one with the second letter removed, one with the third letter removed, etc. Technically this has to be a map from strings to counts.
Run through the list, simply add the current element to each of the maps (obviously by removing the applicable letter first) (if it already exists, add the count to totalPairs and increment it by one).
Then totalPairs is the desired value.
EDIT:
Complexity:
This should be O(n.k.logn).
You can use a map that uses hashing (e.g. HashMap in Java), instead of a sorted map for a theoretical complexity of O(nk) (though I've generally found a hash map to be slower than a sorted tree-based map).
Improvement:
A small alteration on this is to have a map of the first 2 letters removed to 2 maps, one with first letter removed and one with second letter removed, and have the same for the 3rd and 4th letters, and so on.
Then put these into maps with 4 letters removed and those into maps with 8 letters removed and so on, up to half the letters removed.
The complexity of this is:
You do 2 lookups into 2 sorted sets containing maximum k elements (for each half).
For each of these you do 2 lookups into 2 sorted sets again (for each quarter).
So the number of lookups is 2 + 4 + 8 + ... + k/2 + k, which I believe is O(k).
I may be wrong here, but, worst case, the number of elements in any given map is n, but this will cause all other maps to only have 1 element, so still O(logn), but for each n (not each n.k).
So I think that's O(n.(logn + k)).
.
EDIT 2:
Example of my maps (without the improvement):
(x-1) means x maps to 1.
Let's say we have abcd, abdd, adcb, adcd, aecd.
The first map would be (bcd-1), (bdd-1), (dcb-1), (dcd-1), (ecd-1).
The second map would be (acd-3), (add-1), (acb-1) (for 4th and 5th, value already existed, so increment).
The third map : (abd-2), (adb-1), (add-1), (aed-1) (2nd already existed).
The fourth map : (abc-1), (abd-1), (adc-2), (aec-1) (4th already existed).
totalPairs = 0
For second map - acd, for the 4th, we add 1, for the 5th we add 2.
totalPairs = 3
For third map - abd, for the 2th, we add 1.
totalPairs = 4
For fourth map - adc, for the 4th, we add 1.
totalPairs = 5.
Partial example of improved maps:
Same input as above.
Map of first 2 letters removed to maps of 1st and 2nd letter removed:
(cd-{ {(bcd-1)}, {(acd-1)} }),
(dd-{ {(bdd-1)}, {(add-1)} }),
(cb-{ {(dcb-1)}, {(acb-1)} }),
(cd-{ {(dcd-1)}, {(acd-1)} }),
(cd-{ {(ecd-1)}, {(acd-1)} })
The above is a map consisting of an element cd mapped to 2 maps, one containing one element (bcd-1) and the other containing (acd-1).
But for the 4th and 5th cd already existed, so, rather than generating the above, it will be added to that map instead, as follows:
(cd-{ {(bcd-1, dcd-1, ecd-1)}, {(acd-3)} }),
(dd-{ {(bdd-1)}, {(add-1)} }),
(cb-{ {(dcb-1)}, {(acb-1)} })
You can put each word into an array.Pop out elements from that array one by one.Then compare the resulting arrays.Finally you add back the popped element to get back the original arrays.
The popped elements from both the arrays must not be same.
Count number of cases where this occurs and finally divide it by 2 to get the exact solution
Think about how you would enumerate the language - you would likely use a recursive algorithm. Recursive algorithms map onto tree structures. If you construct such a tree, each divergence represents a difference of one letter, and each leaf will represent a word in the language.
It's been two months since I submitted the problem here. I have discussed it with my peers in the meantime and would like to share the outcome.
The main idea is similar to the one presented by Dukeling. For each word A and for each ith position within that word we are going to consider a tuple: (prefix, suffix, letter at the ith position), i.e. (A[1..i-1], A[i+1..n], A[i]). If i is either 1 or n, then the applicable substring is considered empty (these are simple boundary cases).
Having these tuples in hand, we should be able to apply the reasoning I provided in my first post to count the number of pairs of different words. All we have to do is sort the tuples by the prefix and suffix values (separately for each i) - then, words with letters equal at all but ith position will be adjacent to each other.
Here though is the technical part I am lacking. So as to make the sorting procedure (RadixSort appears to be the way to go) meet the O(nk) constraint, we might want to assign labels to our prefixes and suffixes (we only need n labels for each i). I am not quite sure how to go about the labelling stuff. (Sure, we might do some hashing instead, but I am pretty confident the former solution is viable).
While this is not an entirely complete solution, I believe it casts some light on the possible way to tackle this problem and that is why I posted it here. If anyone comes up with an idea of how to do the labelling part, I will implement it in this post.
How's the following Python solution?
import string
def one_apart(words, word):
res = set()
for i, _ in enumerate(word):
for c in string.ascii_lowercase:
w = word[:i] + c + word[i+1:]
if w != word and w in words:
res.add(w)
return res
pairs = set()
for w in words:
for other in one_apart(words, w):
pairs.add(frozenset((w, other)))
for pair in pairs:
print(pair)
Output:
frozenset({'abcd', 'adcd'})
frozenset({'aecd', 'adcd'})
frozenset({'adcb', 'adcd'})
frozenset({'abcd', 'aecd'})
frozenset({'abcd', 'abdd'})
I have a collection of objects, each of which has a weight and a value. I want to pick the pair of objects with the highest total value subject to the restriction that their combined weight does not exceed some threshold. Additionally, I am given two arrays, one containing the objects sorted by weight and one containing the objects sorted by value.
I know how to do it in O(n2) but how can I do it in O(n)?
This is a combinatorial optimization problem, and the fact the values are sorted means you can easily try a branch and bound approach.
I think that I have a solution that works in O(n log n) time and O(n) extra space. This isn't quite the O(n) solution you wanted, but it's still better than the naive quadratic solution.
The intuition behind the algorithm is that we want to be able to efficiently determine, for any amount of weight, the maximum value we can get with a single item that uses at most that much weight. If we can do this, we have a simple algorithm for solving the problem: iterate across the array of elements sorted by value. For each element, see how much additional value we could get by pairing a single element with it (using the values we precomputed), then find which of these pairs is maximum. If we can do the preprocessing in O(n log n) time and can answer each of the above queries in O(log n) time, then the total time for the second step will be O(n log n) and we have our answer.
An important observation we need to do the preprocessing step is as follows. Our goal is to build up a structure that can answer the question "which element with weight less than x has maximum value?" Let's think about how we might do this by adding one element at a time. If we have an element (value, weight) and the structure is empty, then we want to say that the maximum value we can get using weight at most "weight" is "value". This means that everything in the range [0, max_weight - weight) should be set to value. Otherwise, suppose that the structure isn't empty when we try adding in (value, weight). In that case, we want to say that any portion of the range [0, weight) whose value is less than value should be replaced by value.
The problem here is that when we do these insertions, there might be, on iteration k, O(k) different subranges that need to be updated, leading to an O(n2) algorithm. However, we can use a very clever trick to avoid this. Suppose that we insert all of the elements into this data structure in descending order of value. In that case, when we add in (value, weight), because we add the elements in descending order of value, each existing value in the data structure must be higher than our value. This means that if the range [0, weight) intersects any range at all, those ranges will automatically be higher than value and so we don't need to update them. If we combine this with the fact that each range we add always spans from zero to some value, the only portion of the new range that could ever be added to the data structure is the range [weight, x), where x is the highest weight stored in the data structure so far.
To summarize, assuming that we visit the (value, weight) pairs in descending order of value, we can update our data structure as follows:
If the structure is empty, record that the range [0, value) has value "value."
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded in the structure is greater than weight, skip this element.
Otherwise, if the highest weight recorded so far is x, record that the range [weight, x) has value "value."
Notice that this means that we are always splitting ranges at the front of the list of ranges we have encountered so far. Because of this, we can think about storing the list of ranges as a simple array, where each array element tracks the upper endpoint of some range and the value assigned to that range. For example, we might track the ranges [0, 3), [3, 9), and [9, 12) as the array
3, 9, 12
If we then needed to split the range [0, 3) into [0, 1) and [1, 3), we could do so by prepending 1 to he list:
1, 3, 9, 12
If we represent this array in reverse (actually storing the ranges from high to low instead of low to high), this step of creating the array runs in O(n) time because at each point we just do O(1) work to decide whether or not to add another element onto the end of the array.
Once we have the ranges stored like this, to determine which of the ranges a particular weight falls into, we can just use a binary search to find the largest element smaller than that weight. For example, to look up 6 in the above array we'd do a binary search to find 3.
Finally, once we have this data structure built up, we can just look at each of the objects one at a time. For each element, we see how much weight is left, use a binary search in the other structure to see what element it should be paired with to maximize the total value, and then find the maximum attainable value.
Let's trace through an example. Given maximum allowable weight 10 and the objects
Weight | Value
------+------
2 | 3
6 | 5
4 | 7
7 | 8
Let's see what the algorithm does. First, we need to build up our auxiliary structure for the ranges. We look at the objects in descending order of value, starting with the object of weight 7 and value 8. This means that if we ever have at least seven units of weight left, we can get 8 value. Our array now looks like this:
Weight: 7
Value: 8
Next, we look at the object of weight 4 and value 7. This means that with four or more units of weight left, we can get value 7:
Weight: 7 4
Value: 8 7
Repeating this for the next item (weight six, value five) does not change the array, since if the object has weight six, if we ever had six or more units of free space left, we would never choose this; we'd always take the seven-value item of weight four. We can tell this since there is already an object in the table whose range includes remaining weight four.
Finally, we look at the last item (value 3, weight 2). This means that if we ever have weight two or more free, we could get 3 units of value. The final array now looks like this:
Weight: 7 4 2
Value: 8 7 3
Finally, we just look at the objects in any order to see what the best option is. When looking at the object of weight 2 and value 3, since the maximum allowed weight is 10, we need tom see how much value we can get with at most 10 - 2 = 8 weight. A binary search over the array tells us that this value is 8, so one option would give us 11 weight. If we look at the object of weight 6 and value 5, a binary search tells us that with five remaining weight the best we can do would be to get 7 units of value, for a total of 12 value. Repeating this on the next two entries doesn't turn up anything new, so the optimum value found has value 12, which is indeed the correct answer.
Hope this helps!
Here is an O(n) time, O(1) space solution.
Let's call an object x better than an object y if and only if (x is no heavier than y) and (x is no less valuable) and (x is lighter or more valuable). Call an object x first-choice if no object is better than x. There exists an optimal solution consisting either of two first-choice objects, or a first-choice object x and an object y such that only x is better than y.
The main tool is to be able to iterate the first-choice objects from lightest to heaviest (= least valuable to most valuable) and from most valuable to least valuable (= heaviest to lightest). The iterator state is an index into the objects by weight (resp. value) and a max value (resp. min weight) so far.
Each of the following steps is O(n).
During a scan, whenever we encounter an object that is not first-choice, we know an object that's better than it. Scan once and consider these pairs of objects.
For each first-choice object from lightest to heaviest, determine the heaviest first-choice object that it can be paired with, and consider the pair. (All lighter objects are less valuable.) Since the latter object becomes lighter over time, each iteration of the loop is amortized O(1). (See also searching in a matrix whose rows and columns are sorted.)
Code for the unbelievers. Not heavily tested.
from collections import namedtuple
from operator import attrgetter
Item = namedtuple('Item', ('weight', 'value'))
sentinel = Item(float('inf'), float('-inf'))
def firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byweight:
if x.value > bestsofar.value:
bestsofar = x
yield (x, bestsofar)
def firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue):
bestsofar = sentinel
for x in byvalue:
if x.weight < bestsofar.weight:
bestsofar = x
yield x
def optimize(items, maxweight):
byweight = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('weight'))
byvalue = sorted(items, key=attrgetter('value'), reverse=True)
maxvalue = float('-inf')
try:
i = firstchoicefrombyvalue(byvalue)
y = i.next()
for x, z in firstchoicefrombyweight(byweight):
if z is not x and x.weight + z.weight <= maxweight:
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + z.value)
while x.weight + y.weight > maxweight:
y = i.next()
if y is x:
break
maxvalue = max(maxvalue, x.value + y.value)
except StopIteration:
pass
return maxvalue
items = [Item(1, 1), Item(2, 2), Item(3, 5), Item(3, 7), Item(5, 8)]
for maxweight in xrange(3, 10):
print maxweight, optimize(items, maxweight)
This is similar to Knapsack problem. I will use naming from it (num - weight, val - value).
The essential part:
Start with a = 0 and b = n-1. Assuming 0 is the index of heaviest object and n-1 is the index of lightest object.
Increase a til objects a and b satisfy the limit.
Compare current solution with best solution.
Decrease b by one.
Go to 2.
Update:
It's the knapsack problem, except there is a limit of 2 items. You basically need to decide how much space you want for the first object and how much for the other. There is n significant ways to split available space, so the complexity is O(n). Picking the most valuable objects to fit in those spaces can be done without additional cost.