I've been trying to find the optimal solution to the following (interesting?) problem that came up at work: Eventually I settled for a good enough solution but I'd like to know if there's a better one.
Let a1...an be an array of strings.
Let s1...sk be an unordered list of strings, all of them also members of the array.
The task is to find the minimum set of index ranges eleements of s cover in a.
So for example if a = [ "x", "y", "a", "f", "c" ] and s = { "c","y","f" }, the answer would be (1;1), (3;4), assuming that the array is indexed from zero.
a is typically fairly large (hundreds of thousands of elements), while s is relatively small, typically length(s) < log(length(a)).
So the question is: can you find a time-efficient algorithm for this problem? (Space efficiency is not a concern within reasonable limits.)
Just a quick but important update: I need to perform this operation with different s values but the same a a lot. So precomputing stuff based on a is allowed, indeed it is the only way.
Build a hash table H(a) to map from element to index: ax->x in O(n) time and space. Then look up each sy in H(a) (in O(1) time on average for a total of O(k) for s) and keep track of the ranges. For that you can use an array of pair(min_index, max_index) sorted by min_index and do a binary search to either locate the range or where you should insert the new 1 element range.
So overall, the solution above would take O( n + k + k * log( nb_ranges ) ) time and O( n + nb_ranges ) space.
This is what you want, written in python:
def flattened(indexes):
s, rest = indexes[0], indexes[1:]
result = (s, s)
for e in rest:
if e == result[1] + 1:
result = (result[0], e)
else:
yield result
result = (e, e)
yield result
a = ["x", "y", "a", "f", "c"]
s = ["c", "y", "f"]
# Create lookup table of ai to index in a
src_indexes = dict((key, i) for i, key in enumerate(a))
# Create sorted list of all indexes into a
raw_dst_indexes = sorted(src_indexes[key] for key in s)
# Convert sorted list of indexes into an array of ranges
dst_indexes = [r for r in flattened(raw_dst_indexes)]
print dst_indexes
I think you can throw the elements of S into a set or hashtable, anything with near O(1) to check for membership. Then just do a linear scan on A, with a flag to determine if you are currently covering elements in S, and the start position of that cover. Should be O(n + k).
Related
I don't need the code for this. I was wondering if someone could show how to find 4 integers in an array of size n that could equal a value x in time complexity n^2logn. I tried looking for videos but found them hard to follow. From my understanding you create a helper array of all the possible pairs? Sort them and then find a sum of x from the smaller arrays?
Eg. Array = { 1,3,4,5,6,9,4}
Can someone very explain in steps how to check for a sum of say 8. Just need help visualizing this process.
# your input array 'df' and the sought sum 'x'
df = [1,3,4,5,6,9,4]
x = 12
def findSumOfFour(df, x):
# create the dictionary of all pairs key (as sum of a pair) value (pair of indices of 'df')
myDict = { (df[i]+df[j]):[i,j] for i in range(0,len(df)) for j in range(i,len(df)) if not i == j}
# verify if 'x' - a key 'k' is again a key in the dictionary 'myDict',
# if so we only need to verify that the indices differ
for k in myDict.keys():
if x-k in myDict.keys() and not set(myDict[k]) & set(myDict[x-k]):
return [df[myDict[k][0]],df[myDict[k][1]],df[myDict[x-k][0]],df[myDict[x-k][1]]]
return []
solution = findSumOfFour(df,x)
print(solution)
Note, this approach follows the description of גלעד-ברקן (comments) explained with more detail and on your example.
Note 2, the runtime is in O(n^2 log n) since the insert and lookup operations in a map/dictionary in general is O(log n).
I'm working with arrays of integer, all of the same size l.
I have a static set of them and I need to build a function to efficiently look them up.
The tricky part is that the elements in the array I need to search might be off by 1.
Given the arrays {A_1, A_2, ..., A_n}, and an array S, I need a function search such that:
search(S)=x iff ∀i: A_x[i] ∈ {S[i]-1, S[i], S[i]+1}.
A possible solution is treating each vector as a point in an l-dimensional space and looking for the closest point, but it'd cost something like O(l*n) in space and O(l*log(n)) in time.
Would there be a solution with a better space complexity (and/or time, of course)?
My arrays are pretty different from each other, and good heuristics might be enough.
Consider a search array S with the values:
S = [s1, s2, s3, ... , sl]
and the average value:
s̅ = (s1 + s2 + s3 + ... + sl) / l
and two matching arrays, one where every value is one greater than the corresponding value in S, and one where very value is one smaller:
A1 = [s1+1, s2+1, s3+1, ... , sl+1]
A2 = [s1−1, s2−1, s3−1, ... , sl−1]
These two arrays would have the average values:
a̅1 = (s1 + 1 + s2 + 1 + s3 + 1 + ... + sl + 1) / l = s̅ + 1
a̅2 = (s1 − 1 + s2 − 1 + s3 − 1 + ... + sl − 1) / l = s̅ − 1
So every matching array, whose values are at most 1 away from the corresponding values in the search array, has an average value that is at most 1 away from the average value of the search array.
If you calculate and store the average value of each array, and then sort the arrays based on their average value (or use an extra data structure that enables you to find all arrays with a certain average value), you can quickly identify which arrays have an average value within 1 of the search array's average value. Depending on the data, this could drastically reduce the number of arrays you have to check for similarity.
After having pre-processed the arrays and stores their average values, performing a search would mean iterating over the search array to calculate the average value, looking up which arrays have a similar average value, and then iterating over those arrays to check every value.
If you expect many arrays to have a similar average value, you could use several averages to detect arrays that are locally very different but similar on average. You could e.g. calculate these four averages:
the first half of the array
the second half of the array
the odd-numbered elements
the even-numbered elements
Analysis of the actual data should give you more information about how to divide the array and combine different averages to be most effective.
If the total sum of an array cannot exceed the integer size, you could store the total sum of each array, and check whether it is within l of the total sum of the search array, instead of using averages. This would avoid having to use floats and divisions.
(You could expand this idea by also storing other properties which are easily calculated and don't take up much space to store, such as the highest and lowest value, the biggest jump, ... They could help create a fingerprint of each array that is near-unique, depending on the data.)
If the number of dimensions is not very small, then probably the best solution will be to build a decision tree that recursively partitions the set along different dimensions.
Each node, including the root, would be a hash table from the possible values for some dimension to either:
The list of points that match that value within tolerance, if it's small enough; or
Those same points in a similar tree partitioning on the remaining dimensions.
Since each level completely eliminates one dimension, the depth of the tree is at most L, and search takes O(L) time.
The order in which the dimensions are chosen along each path is important, of course -- the wrong choice could explode the size of the data structure, with each point appearing many times.
Since your points are "pretty different", though, it should be possible to build a tree with minimal duplication. I would try the ID3 algorithm to choose the dimensions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ID3_algorithm. That basically means you greedily choose the dimension that maximizes the overall reduction in set size, using an entropy metric.
I would personally create something like a Trie for the lookup. I said "something like" because we have up to 3 values per index that might match. So we aren't creating a decision tree, but a DAG. Where sometimes we have choices.
That is straightforward and will run (with backtracking) in maximum time O(k*l).
But here is the trick. Whenever we see a choice of matching states that we can go into next, we can create a merged state which tries all of them. We can create a few or a lot of these merged states. Each one will defer a choice by 1 step. And if we're careful to keep track of which merged states we've created, we can reuse the same one over and over again.
In theory we can be generating partial matches for somewhat arbitrary subsets of our arrays. Which can grow exponentially in the number of arrays. In practice are likely to only wind up with a few of these merged states. But still we can guarantee a tradeoff - more states up front runs faster later. So we optimize until we are done or have hit the limit of how much data we want to have.
Here is some proof of concept code for this in Python. It will likely build the matcher in time O(n*l) and match in time O(l). However it is only guaranteed to build the matcher in time O(n^2 * l^2) and match in time O(n * l).
import pprint
class Matcher:
def __init__ (self, arrays, optimize_limit=None):
# These are the partial states we could be in during a match.
self.states = [{}]
# By state, this is what we would be trying to match.
self.state_for = ['start']
# By combination we could try to match for, which state it is.
self.comb_state = {'start': 0}
for i in range(len(arrays)):
arr = arrays[i]
# Set up "matched the end".
state_index = len(self.states)
this_state = {'matched': [i]}
self.comb_state[(i, len(arr))] = state_index
self.states.append(this_state)
self.state_for.append((i, len(arr)))
for j in reversed(range(len(arr))):
this_for = (i, j)
prev_state = {}
if 0 == j:
prev_state = self.states[0]
matching_values = set((arr[k] for k in range(max(j-1, 0), min(j+2, len(arr)))))
for v in matching_values:
if v in prev_state:
prev_state[v].append(state_index)
else:
prev_state[v] = [state_index]
if 0 < j:
state_index = len(self.states)
self.states.append(prev_state)
self.state_for.append(this_for)
self.comb_state[this_for] = state_index
# Theoretically optimization can take space
# O(2**len(arrays) * len(arrays[0]))
# We will optimize until we are done or hit a more reasonable limit.
if optimize_limit is None:
# Normally
optimize_limit = len(self.states)**2
# First we find all of the choices at the root.
# This will be an array of arrays with format:
# [state, key, values]
todo = []
for k, v in self.states[0].iteritems():
if 1 < len(v):
todo.append([self.states[0], k, tuple(v)])
while len(todo) and len(self.states) < optimize_limit:
this_state, this_key, this_match = todo.pop(0)
if this_key == 'matched':
pass # We do not need to optimize this!
elif this_match in self.comb_state:
this_state[this_key] = self.comb_state[this_match]
else:
# Construct a new state that is all of these.
new_state = {}
for state_ind in this_match:
for k, v in self.states[state_ind].iteritems():
if k in new_state:
new_state[k] = new_state[k] + v
else:
new_state[k] = v
i = len(self.states)
self.states.append(new_state)
self.comb_state[this_match] = i
self.state_for.append(this_match)
this_state[this_key] = [i]
for k, v in new_state.iteritems():
if 1 < len(v):
todo.append([new_state, k, tuple(v)])
#pp = pprint.PrettyPrinter()
#pp.pprint(self.states)
#pp.pprint(self.comb_state)
#pp.pprint(self.state_for)
def match (self, list1, ind=0, state=0):
this_state = self.states[state]
if 'matched' in this_state:
return this_state['matched']
elif list1[ind] in this_state:
answer = []
for next_state in this_state[list1[ind]]:
answer = answer + self.match(list1, ind+1, next_state)
return answer;
else:
return []
foo = Matcher([[1, 2, 3], [2, 3, 4]])
print(foo.match([2, 2, 3]))
Please note that I deliberately set up a situation where there are 2 matches. It reports both of them. :-)
I came up with a further approach derived off Matt Timmermans's answer: building a simple decision tree that might have certain some arrays in multiple branches. It works even if the error in the array I'm searching is larger than 1.
The idea is the following: given the set of arrays As...
Pick an index and a pivot.
I fixed the pivot to a constant value that works well with my data, and tried all indices to find the best one. Trying multiple pivots might work better, but I didn't need to.
Partition As into two possibly-intersecting subsets, one for the arrays (whose index-th element is) smaller than the pivot, one for the larger arrays. Arrays very close to the pivot are added to both sets:
function partition( As, pivot, index ):
return {
As.filter( A => A[index] <= pivot + 1 ),
As.filter( A => A[index] >= pivot - 1 ),
}
Apply both previous steps to each subset recursively, stopping when a subset only contains a single element.
Here an example of a possible tree generated with this algorithm (note that A2 appears both on the left and right child of the root node):
{A1, A2, A3, A4}
pivot:15
index:73
/ \
/ \
{A1, A2} {A2, A3, A4}
pivot:7 pivot:33
index:54 index:0
/ \ / \
/ \ / \
A1 A2 {A2, A3} A4
pivot:5
index:48
/ \
/ \
A2 A3
The search function then uses this as a normal decision tree: it starts from the root node and recurses either to the left or the right child depending on whether its value at index currentNode.index is greater or less than currentNode.pivot. It proceeds recursively until it reaches a leaf.
Once the decision tree is built, the time complexity is in the worst case O(n), but in practice it's probably closer to O(log(n)) if we choose good indices and pivots (and if the dataset is diverse enough) and find a fairly balanced tree.
The space complexity can be really bad in the worst case (O(2^n)), but it's closer to O(n) with balanced trees.
I have a bag of strings that I want to map to another bag, such that duplicates are post-pended with the multiplicity of that member when discovered, while preserving ordering. For example, given:
["a", "b", "a", "c", "b", "a"]
I want:
["a", "b", "a #1", "c", "b #1", "a #2"]
(As this is a partially-ordered bag, ["a", "a #1", "a #2", "b", "b #1", "c"] is not a valid result.)
An obvious solution builds the multiplicity set (for the example above, {a:3, b:2, c:1}) and is O(n) in time and O(n) in space:
function mark(names) {
var seen = {};
for (var i = 0; i < names.length; i++) {
var name = names[i];
if (name in seen) {
names[i] = name + ' #' + seen[name];
seen[name]++;
} else {
seen[name] = 1;
}
}
return names;
};
My question: is there a non-obvious solution that has better overall complexity? Or said differently, what other ways are there to implement this algorithm that better handle the worst case when the bag is actually a set (of very large size)?
Are there other approaches if the poset requirement is removed?
Which complexity are you trying to lower? There isn't going to be a way to make time less than O(n) because you're at minimum going to spit out a list that's n long which means you're doing at least n operations. You also can't get lower than O(n) total space either, because your output is going to be n long.
The working space for the "seen" would be O(m) where m is the number of unique entries into the array if you used a hashmap or something simliar. As m<=n necessarily you still can't get lower than O(n).
If you are looking for space saving and the input comes in sorted you could do it with O(1) working space just counting up until you see a new character and resetting your counter. Again it doesn't get you lower than O(n) including your output list, but that's impossible.
If I have a size N array of objects, and I have an array of unique numbers in the range 1...N, is there any algorithm to rearrange the object array in-place in the order specified by the list of numbers, and yet do this in O(N) time?
Context: I am doing a quick-sort-ish algorithm on objects that are fairly large in size, so it would be faster to do the swaps on indices than on the objects themselves, and only move the objects in one final pass. I'd just like to know if I could do this last pass without allocating memory for a separate array.
Edit: I am not asking how to do a sort in O(N) time, but rather how to do the post-sort rearranging in O(N) time with O(1) space. Sorry for not making this clear.
I think this should do:
static <T> void arrange(T[] data, int[] p) {
boolean[] done = new boolean[p.length];
for (int i = 0; i < p.length; i++) {
if (!done[i]) {
T t = data[i];
for (int j = i;;) {
done[j] = true;
if (p[j] != i) {
data[j] = data[p[j]];
j = p[j];
} else {
data[j] = t;
break;
}
}
}
}
}
Note: This is Java. If you do this in a language without garbage collection, be sure to delete done.
If you care about space, you can use a BitSet for done. I assume you can afford an additional bit per element because you seem willing to work with a permutation array, which is several times that size.
This algorithm copies instances of T n + k times, where k is the number of cycles in the permutation. You can reduce this to the optimal number of copies by skipping those i where p[i] = i.
The approach is to follow the "permutation cycles" of the permutation, rather than indexing the array left-to-right. But since you do have to begin somewhere, everytime a new permutation cycle is needed, the search for unpermuted elements is left-to-right:
// Pseudo-code
N : integer, N > 0 // N is the number of elements
swaps : integer [0..N]
data[N] : array of object
permute[N] : array of integer [-1..N] denoting permutation (used element is -1)
next_scan_start : integer;
next_scan_start = 0;
while (swaps < N )
{
// Search for the next index that is not-yet-permtued.
for (idx_cycle_search = next_scan_start;
idx_cycle_search < N;
++ idx_cycle_search)
if (permute[idx_cycle_search] >= 0)
break;
next_scan_start = idx_cycle_search + 1;
// This is a provable invariant. In short, number of non-negative
// elements in permute[] equals (N - swaps)
assert( idx_cycle_search < N );
// Completely permute one permutation cycle, 'following the
// permutation cycle's trail' This is O(N)
while (permute[idx_cycle_search] >= 0)
{
swap( data[idx_cycle_search], data[permute[idx_cycle_search] )
swaps ++;
old_idx = idx_cycle_search;
idx_cycle_search = permute[idx_cycle_search];
permute[old_idx] = -1;
// Also '= -idx_cycle_search -1' could be used rather than '-1'
// and would allow reversal of these changes to permute[] array
}
}
Do you mean that you have an array of objects O[1..N] and then you have an array P[1..N] that contains a permutation of numbers 1..N and in the end you want to get an array O1 of objects such that O1[k] = O[P[k]] for all k=1..N ?
As an example, if your objects are letters A,B,C...,Y,Z and your array P is [26,25,24,..,2,1] is your desired output Z,Y,...C,B,A ?
If yes, I believe you can do it in linear time using only O(1) additional memory. Reversing elements of an array is a special case of this scenario. In general, I think you would need to consider decomposition of your permutation P into cycles and then use it to move around the elements of your original array O[].
If that's what you are looking for, I can elaborate more.
EDIT: Others already presented excellent solutions while I was sleeping, so no need to repeat it here. ^_^
EDIT: My O(1) additional space is indeed not entirely correct. I was thinking only about "data" elements, but in fact you also need to store one bit per permutation element, so if we are precise, we need O(log n) extra bits for that. But most of the time using a sign bit (as suggested by J.F. Sebastian) is fine, so in practice we may not need anything more than we already have.
If you didn't mind allocating memory for an extra hash of indexes, you could keep a mapping of original location to current location to get a time complexity of near O(n). Here's an example in Ruby, since it's readable and pseudocode-ish. (This could be shorter or more idiomatically Ruby-ish, but I've written it out for clarity.)
#!/usr/bin/ruby
objects = ['d', 'e', 'a', 'c', 'b']
order = [2, 4, 3, 0, 1]
cur_locations = {}
order.each_with_index do |orig_location, ordinality|
# Find the current location of the item.
cur_location = orig_location
while not cur_locations[cur_location].nil? do
cur_location = cur_locations[cur_location]
end
# Swap the items and keep track of whatever we swapped forward.
objects[ordinality], objects[cur_location] = objects[cur_location], objects[ordinality]
cur_locations[ordinality] = orig_location
end
puts objects.join(' ')
That obviously does involve some extra memory for the hash, but since it's just for indexes and not your "fairly large" objects, hopefully that's acceptable. Since hash lookups are O(1), even though there is a slight bump to the complexity due to the case where an item has been swapped forward more than once and you have to rewrite cur_location multiple times, the algorithm as a whole should be reasonably close to O(n).
If you wanted you could build a full hash of original to current positions ahead of time, or keep a reverse hash of current to original, and modify the algorithm a bit to get it down to strictly O(n). It'd be a little more complicated and take a little more space, so this is the version I wrote out, but the modifications shouldn't be difficult.
EDIT: Actually, I'm fairly certain the time complexity is just O(n), since each ordinality can have at most one hop associated, and thus the maximum number of lookups is limited to n.
#!/usr/bin/env python
def rearrange(objects, permutation):
"""Rearrange `objects` inplace according to `permutation`.
``result = [objects[p] for p in permutation]``
"""
seen = [False] * len(permutation)
for i, already_seen in enumerate(seen):
if not already_seen: # start permutation cycle
first_obj, j = objects[i], i
while True:
seen[j] = True
p = permutation[j]
if p == i: # end permutation cycle
objects[j] = first_obj # [old] p -> j
break
objects[j], j = objects[p], p # p -> j
The algorithm (as I've noticed after I wrote it) is the same as the one from #meriton's answer in Java.
Here's a test function for the code:
def test():
import itertools
N = 9
for perm in itertools.permutations(range(N)):
L = range(N)
LL = L[:]
rearrange(L, perm)
assert L == [LL[i] for i in perm] == list(perm), (L, list(perm), LL)
# test whether assertions are enabled
try:
assert 0
except AssertionError:
pass
else:
raise RuntimeError("assertions must be enabled for the test")
if __name__ == "__main__":
test()
There's a histogram sort, though the running time is given as a bit higher than O(N) (N log log n).
I can do it given O(N) scratch space -- copy to new array and copy back.
EDIT: I am aware of the existance of an algorithm that will proceed through. The idea is to perform the swaps on the array of integers 1..N while at the same time mirroring the swaps on your array of large objects. I just cannot find the algorithm right now.
The problem is one of applying a permutation in place with minimal O(1) extra storage: "in-situ permutation".
It is solvable, but an algorithm is not obvious beforehand.
It is described briefly as an exercise in Knuth, and for work I had to decipher it and figure out how it worked. Look at 5.2 #13.
For some more modern work on this problem, with pseudocode:
http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/imperia/md/content/fakultaetfuermathematikundinformatik/forschung/berichte/bericht_273.pdf
I ended up writing a different algorithm for this, which first generates a list of swaps to apply an order and then runs through the swaps to apply it. The advantage is that if you're applying the ordering to multiple lists, you can reuse the swap list, since the swap algorithm is extremely simple.
void make_swaps(vector<int> order, vector<pair<int,int>> &swaps)
{
// order[0] is the index in the old list of the new list's first value.
// Invert the mapping: inverse[0] is the index in the new list of the
// old list's first value.
vector<int> inverse(order.size());
for(int i = 0; i < order.size(); ++i)
inverse[order[i]] = i;
swaps.resize(0);
for(int idx1 = 0; idx1 < order.size(); ++idx1)
{
// Swap list[idx] with list[order[idx]], and record this swap.
int idx2 = order[idx1];
if(idx1 == idx2)
continue;
swaps.push_back(make_pair(idx1, idx2));
// list[idx1] is now in the correct place, but whoever wanted the value we moved out
// of idx2 now needs to look in its new position.
int idx1_dep = inverse[idx1];
order[idx1_dep] = idx2;
inverse[idx2] = idx1_dep;
}
}
template<typename T>
void run_swaps(T data, const vector<pair<int,int>> &swaps)
{
for(const auto &s: swaps)
{
int src = s.first;
int dst = s.second;
swap(data[src], data[dst]);
}
}
void test()
{
vector<int> order = { 2, 3, 1, 4, 0 };
vector<pair<int,int>> swaps;
make_swaps(order, swaps);
vector<string> data = { "a", "b", "c", "d", "e" };
run_swaps(data, swaps);
}
I have a string s and I want to search for the substring of length X that occurs most often in s. Overlapping substrings are allowed.
For example, if s="aoaoa" and X=3, the algorithm should find "aoa" (which appears 2 times in s).
Does an algorithm exist that does this in O(n) time?
You can do this using a rolling hash in O(n) time (assuming good hash distribution). A simple rolling hash would be the xor of the characters in the string, you can compute it incrementally from the previous substring hash using just 2 xors. (See the Wikipedia entry for better rolling hashes than xor.) Compute the hash of your n-x+1 substrings using the rolling hash in O(n) time. If there were no collisions, the answer is clear - if collisions happen, you'll need to do more work. My brain hurts trying to figure out if that can all be resolved in O(n) time.
Update:
Here's a randomized O(n) algorithm. You can find the top hash in O(n) time by scanning the hashtable (keeping it simple, assume no ties). Find one X-length string with that hash (keep a record in the hashtable, or just redo the rolling hash). Then use an O(n) string searching algorithm to find all occurrences of that string in s. If you find the same number of occurrences as you recorded in the hashtable, you're done.
If not, that means you have a hash collision. Pick a new random hash function and try again. If your hash function has log(n)+1 bits and is pairwise independent [Prob(h(s) == h(t)) < 1/2^{n+1} if s != t], then the probability that the most frequent x-length substring in s hash a collision with the <=n other length x substrings of s is at most 1/2. So if there is a collision, pick a new random hash function and retry, you will need only a constant number of tries before you succeed.
Now we only need a randomized pairwise independent rolling hash algorithm.
Update2:
Actually, you need 2log(n) bits of hash to avoid all (n choose 2) collisions because any collision may hide the right answer. Still doable, and it looks like hashing by general polynomial division should do the trick.
I don't see an easy way to do this in strictly O(n) time, unless X is fixed and can be considered a constant. If X is a parameter to the algorithm, then most simple ways of doing this will actually be O(n*X), as you will need to do comparison operations, string copies, hashes, etc., on a substring of length X at every iteration.
(I'm imagining, for a minute, that s is a multi-gigabyte string, and that X is some number over a million, and not seeing any simple ways of doing string comparison, or hashing substrings of length X, that are O(1), and not dependent on the size of X)
It might be possible to avoid string copies during scanning, by leaving everything in place, and to avoid re-hashing the entire substring -- perhaps by using an incremental hash algorithm where you can add a byte at a time, and remove the oldest byte -- but I don't know of any such algorithms that wouldn't result in huge numbers of collisions that would need to be filtered out with an expensive post-processing step.
Update
Keith Randall points out that this kind of hash is known as a rolling hash. It still remains, though, that you would have to store the starting string position for each match in your hash table, and then verify after scanning the string that all of your matches were true. You would need to sort the hashtable, which could contain n-X entries, based on the number of matches found for each hash key, and verify each result -- probably not doable in O(n).
It should be O(n*m) where m is the average length of a string in the list. For very small values of m then the algorithm will approach O(n)
Build a hashtable of counts for each string length
Iterate over your collection of strings, updating the hashtable accordingly, storing the current most prevelant number as an integer variable separate from the hashtable
done.
Naive solution in Python
from collections import defaultdict
from operator import itemgetter
def naive(s, X):
freq = defaultdict(int)
for i in range(len(s) - X + 1):
freq[s[i:i+X]] += 1
return max(freq.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1))
print naive("aoaoa", 3)
# -> ('aoa', 2)
In plain English
Create mapping: substring of length X -> how many times it occurs in the s string
for i in range(len(s) - X + 1):
freq[s[i:i+X]] += 1
Find a pair in the mapping with the largest second item (frequency)
max(freq.iteritems(), key=itemgetter(1))
Here is a version I did in C. Hope that it helps.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
int main(void)
{
char *string = NULL, *maxstring = NULL, *tmpstr = NULL, *tmpstr2 = NULL;
unsigned int n = 0, i = 0, j = 0, matchcount = 0, maxcount = 0;
string = "aoaoa";
n = 3;
for (i = 0; i <= (strlen(string) - n); i++) {
tmpstr = (char *)malloc(n + 1);
strncpy(tmpstr, string + i, n);
*(tmpstr + (n + 1)) = '\0';
for (j = 0; j <= (strlen(string) - n); j++) {
tmpstr2 = (char *)malloc(n + 1);
strncpy(tmpstr2, string + j, n);
*(tmpstr2 + (n + 1)) = '\0';
if (!strcmp(tmpstr, tmpstr2))
matchcount++;
}
if (matchcount > maxcount) {
maxstring = tmpstr;
maxcount = matchcount;
}
matchcount = 0;
}
printf("max string: \"%s\", count: %d\n", maxstring, maxcount);
free(tmpstr);
free(tmpstr2);
return 0;
}
You can build a tree of sub-strings. The idea is to organise your sub-strings like a telephone book. You then look up the sub-string and increase its count by one.
In your example above, the tree will have sections (nodes) starting with the letters: 'a' and 'o'. 'a' appears three times and 'o' appears twice. So those nodes will have a count of 3 and 2 respectively.
Next, under the 'a' node a sub-node of 'o' will appear corresponding to the sub-string 'ao'. This appears twice. Under the 'o' node 'a' also appears twice.
We carry on in this fashion until we reach the end of the string.
A representation of the tree for 'abac' might be (nodes on the same level are separated by a comma, sub-nodes are in brackets, counts appear after the colon).
a:2(b:1(a:1(c:1())),c:1()),b:1(a:1(c:1())),c:1()
If the tree is drawn out it will be a lot more obvious! What this all says for example is that the string 'aba' appears once, or the string 'a' appears twice etc. But, storage is greatly reduced and more importantly retrieval is greatly speeded up (compare this to keeping a list of sub-strings).
To find out which sub-string is most repeated, do a depth first search of the tree, every time a leaf node is reached, note the count, and keep a track of the highest one.
The running time is probably something like O(log(n)) not sure, but certainly better than O(n^2).
Python-3 Solution:
from collections import Counter
list = []
list.append([string[i: j] for i in range(len(string)) for j in range(i + 1, len(string) + 1) if len(string[i:j]) == K]) # Where K is length
# now find the most common value in this list
# you can do this natively, but I prefer using collections
most_frequent = Counter(list).most_common(1)[0][0]
print(most_freqent)
Here is the native way to get the most common (for those that are interested):
most_occurences = 0
current_most = ""
for i in list:
frequency = list.count(i)
if frequency > most_occurences:
most_occurences = frequency
current_most = list[i]
print(f"{current_most}, Occurences: {most_occurences}")
[Extract K length substrings (geeks for geeks)][1]
[1]: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/python-extract-k-length-substrings/
LZW algorithm does this
This is exactly what Lempel-Ziv-Welch (LZW used in GIF image format) compression algorithm does. It finds prevalent repeated bytes and changes them for something short.
LZW on Wikipedia
There's no way to do this in O(n).
Feel free to downvote me if you can prove me wrong on this one, but I've got nothing.