My question is: given a list L of length n, and an integer i such that 0 <= i < n!, how can you write a function perm(L, n) to produce the ith permutation of L in O(n) time? What I mean by ith permutation is just the ith permutation in some implementation defined ordering that must have the properties:
For any i and any 2 lists A and B, perm(A, i) and perm(B, i) must both map the jth element of A and B to an element in the same position for both A and B.
For any inputs (A, i), (A, j) perm(A, i)==perm(A, j) if and only if i==j.
NOTE: this is not homework. In fact, I solved this 2 years ago, but I've completely forgotten how, and it's killing me. Also, here is a broken attempt I made at a solution:
def perm(s, i):
n = len(s)
perm = [0]*n
itCount = 0
for elem in s:
perm[i%n + itCount] = elem
i = i / n
n -= 1
itCount+=1
return perm
ALSO NOTE: the O(n) requirement is very important. Otherwise you could just generate the n! sized list of all permutations and just return its ith element.
def perm(sequence, index):
sequence = list(sequence)
result = []
for x in xrange(len(sequence)):
idx = index % len(sequence)
index /= len(sequence)
result.append( sequence[idx] )
# constant time non-order preserving removal
sequence[idx] = sequence[-1]
del sequence[-1]
return result
Based on the algorithm for shuffling, but we take the least significant part of the number each time to decide which element to take instead of a random number. Alternatively consider it like the problem of converting to some arbitrary base except that the base name shrinks for each additional digit.
Could you use factoradics? You can find an illustration via this MSDN article.
Update: I wrote an extension of the MSDN algorithm that finds i'th permutation of n things taken r at a time, even if n != r.
A computational minimalistic approach (written in C-style pseudocode):
function perm(list,i){
for(a=list.length;a;a--){
list.switch(a-1,i mod a);
i=i/a;
}
return list;
}
Note that implementations relying on removing elements from the original list tend to run in O(n^2) time, at best O(n*log(n)) given a special tree style list implementation designed for quickly inserting and removing list elements.
The above code rather than shrinking the original list and keeping it in order just moves an element from the end to the vacant location, still makes a perfect 1:1 mapping between index and permutation, just a slightly more scrambled one, but in pure O(n) time.
So, I think I finally solved it. Before I read any answers, I'll post my own here.
def perm(L, i):
n = len(L)
if (n == 1):
return L
else:
split = i%n
return [L[split]] + perm(L[:split] + L[split+1:], i/n)
There are n! permutations. The first character can be chosen from L in n ways. Each of those choices leave (n-1)! permutations among them. So this idea is enough for establishing an order. In general, you will figure out what part you are in, pick the appropriate element and then recurse / loop on the smaller L.
The argument that this works correctly is by induction on the length of the sequence. (sketch) For a length of 1, it is trivial. For a length of n, you use the above observation to split the problem into n parts, each with a question on an L' with length (n-1). By induction, all the L's are constructed correctly (and in linear time). Then it is clear we can use the IH to construct a solution for length n.
Related
I'm looking for an algorithm to generate or iterate through all permutations of a list of objects such that:
They are generated by fewest to least positional changes from the original. So first all the permutations with a single pair of elements swapped, then all the permutations with only two pairs of elements swapped, etc.
The list generated is complete, so for n objects in a list there should be n! total, unique permutations.
Ideally (but not necessarily) there should be a way of specifying (and generating) a particular permutation without having to generate the full list first and then reference the index.
The speed of the algorithm is not particularly important.
I've looked through all the permutation algorithms that I can find, and none so far have met criteria 1 and 2, let alone 3.
I have an idea how I could write this algorithm myself using recursion, and filtering for duplicates to only get unique permutations. However, if there is any existing algorithm I'd much rather use something proven.
This code answers your requirement #3, which is to compute permutation at index N directly.
This code relies on the following principle:
The first permutation is the identity; then the next (n choose 2) permutations just swap two elements; then the next (n choose 3)(subfactorial(3)) permutations derange 3 elements; then the next (n choose 4)(subfactorial(4)) permutations derange 4 elements; etc. To find the Nth permutation, first figure out how many elements it deranges by finding the largest K such that sum[k = 0 ^ K] (n choose k) subfactorial(k) ⩽ N.
This number K is found by function number_of_derangements_for_permutation_at_index in the code.
Then, the relevant subset of indices which must be deranged is computed efficiently using more_itertools.nth_combination.
However, I didn't have a function nth_derangement to find the relevant derangement of the deranged subset of indices. Hence the last step of the algorithm, which computes this derangement, could be optimised if there exists an efficient function to find the nth derangement of a sequence efficiently.
As a result, this last step takes time proportional to idx_r, where idx_r is the index of the derangement, a number between 0 and factorial(k), where k is the number of elements which are deranged by the returned permutation.
from sympy import subfactorial
from math import comb
from itertools import count, accumulate, pairwise, permutations
from more_itertools import nth_combination, nth
def number_of_derangements_for_permutation_at_index(n, idx):
#n = len(seq)
for k, (low_acc, high_acc) in enumerate(pairwise(accumulate((comb(n,k) * subfactorial(k) for k in count(2)), initial=1)), start=2):
if low_acc <= idx < high_acc:
return k, low_acc
def is_derangement(seq, perm):
return all(i != j for i,j in zip(seq, perm))
def lift_permutation(seq, deranged, permutation):
result = list(seq)
for i,j in zip(deranged, permutation):
result[i] = seq[j]
return result
# THIS FUNCTION NOT EFFICIENT
def nth_derangement(seq, idx):
return nth((p for p in permutations(seq) if is_derangement(seq, p)),
idx)
def nth_permutation(seq, idx):
if idx == 0:
return list(seq)
n = len(seq)
k, acc = number_of_derangements_for_permutation_at_index(n, idx)
idx_q, idx_r = divmod(idx - acc, subfactorial(k))
deranged = nth_combination(range(n), k, idx_q)
derangement = nth_derangement(deranged, idx_r) # TODO: FIND EFFICIENT VERSION
return lift_permutation(seq, deranged, derangement)
Testing for correctness on small data:
print( [''.join(nth_permutation('abcd', i)) for i in range(24)] )
# ['abcd',
# 'bacd', 'cbad', 'dbca', 'acbd', 'adcb', 'abdc',
# 'bcad', 'cabd', 'bdca', 'dacb', 'cbda', 'dbac', 'acdb', 'adbc',
# 'badc', 'bcda', 'bdac', 'cadb', 'cdab', 'cdba', 'dabc', 'dcab', 'dcba']
Testing for speed on medium data:
from math import factorial
seq = 'abcdefghij'
n = len(seq) # 10
N = factorial(n) // 2 # 1814400
perm = ''.join(nth_permutation(seq, N))
print(perm)
# fcjdibaehg
Imagine a graph with n! nodes labeled with every permutation of n elements. If we add edges to this graph such that nodes which can be obtained by swapping one pair of elements are connected, an answer to your problem is obtained by doing a breadth-first search from whatever node you like.
You can actually generate the graph or just let it be implied and just deduce at each stage what nodes should be adjacent (and of course, keep track of ones you've already visited, to avoid revisiting them).
I concede this probably doesn't help with point 3, but maybe is a viable strategy for getting points 1 and 2 answered.
To solve 1 & 2, you could first generate all possible permutations, keeping track of how many swaps occurred during generation for each list. Then sort them by number of swaps. Which I think is O(n! + nlgn) = O(n!)
I'm stuck for hours on the following homework question for data-structures class:
You are given a static set S (i.e., S never changes) of n integers from {1, . . . , u}.
Describe a data structure of size O(n log u) that can answer the following queries in O(1) time:
Empty(i, j) - returns TRUE if and only if there is no element in S that is between i and j (where i and j are integers in {1, . . . , u}).
At first I thought of using a y-fast-trie.
Using y-fast-trie we can achieve O(n) space and O(loglogu) query (by finding the successor of i and check if it's bigger than j).
But O(loglogu) is not O(1)...
Then I thought maybe we can sort the array and create a second array of size n+1 of the ranges that are not in the array and then in the query we would check if [i, j] is a sub-range of one of the ranges but I didn't thought of any way to do it that uses O(nlogu) space and can answer the query in O(1).
I have no idea how to solve this and I feel like I'm not even close to the solution, any help would be nice.
We can create a x-fast-trie of S (takes O(nlogu) space) and save in each node the maximum and minimum value of a leaf in it's sub tree. Now we can use that to answer the Empty query in O(1). Like this:
Empty(i, j)
We first calculate xor(i,j) now the number of leading zeros in that number will be the number of leading bits i and j share in common let's mark this number as k. Now we'll take the first k bits of i (or j because they're equal) and check in the x-fast-trie hash table if there's a node that equels to those bits. If there isn't we'll return TRUE because any number between i and j would also have the same k leading bits and since there isn't any number with those leading bits there isn't any number between i and j. If there is let's mark that node as X.
if X->right->minimum > j and X->left->maximum < i we return TRUE and otherwise we return FALSE, because if this is false then there is a number between i and j and if it's true then all the numbers that are smaller than j are also smaller than i and all the numbers that are bigger than i are also bigger than j.
Sorry for bad English
You haven't clarify either the numbers given will be sorted or not. If not, sort them, while will take O(nlogn).
Find upper bound of i, say x. Find lower bound of j, say y.
Now just check 4 numbers. Numbers at index x, x+1, y-1 and y. If any of the numbers of the given array is between i and j return true. Otherwise return false.
If the given Set/Array is not sorted, then in this approach additional O(nlogn) is required to sort it. Memory requires O(n). For each query, it's O(1).
Consider a data structure consisting of
an array A[1,...,u] of size u such that A[i]=1 if i is present in S, and A[i]=0 otherwise. This array can be constructed from set S in O(n).
an array B[1,...,u] of size u which stores cumulative sum of A i.e. B[i] = A[1]+...+A[i]. This array can be constructed in O(u) from A using the relation B[i] = B[i-1] + A[i] for all i>1.
a function empty(i,j) which returns the desired Boolean query. If i==1, then define count = B[j], otherwise take count = B[j]-B[i-1]. Note that count gives the number of distinct elements in S lying in range [i,j]. Once we have count, simply return count==0. Clearly, each query takes O(1).
Edit: As pointed out in comments, the size of this data structure is O(u), which doesn't matches the constraints. But I hope it gives others an approximate target to shoot at.
It isn't a solution, but impossible to write it in a comment. There is an idea of how to solve the more specific task that possibly will help to solve the generic task from the question.
The specific task is the same except the following point, u = 1024. Also, it isn't a final solution, it is a rough sketch (for the specific task).
Data structure creation:
Create a bitmask for U = { 1, ..., u } - M = 0000.....100001, where Mᵥ = 1 when Uᵥ ∊ S, otherwice = 0.
Save bitmask M as 'unsigned intgers 32' array = G (32 items). Each item of G contains 32 items from M.
Combine integer H = bitmask where Hᵣ = 0 when Gᵣ = 0, otherwice = 1
Convert G to G that is HashMap r to Gᵣ. G is G but contains records for Gᵣ != 0 only.
Images in the following pseudocode use 8 bits except 32, just for simplicity.
Empty(i, j) {
I = i / 32
J = j / 32
if I != J {
if P == 0: return true
if P(I) == 0: return true
if P(J) == 0: return true
} else {
if P(J=I) == 0: return true
}
return false
}
Im working on a textbook Algorithms (Dasgupta, C. H. Papadimitriou, and U. V. Vazirani) where Im trying to solve the Textbook problem 2.23.
However, Im not sure whether my solution is correct. Appreciate any insites!
Given some constraints:
n = 2^k,k ∈ N
Runtime = O(n log n)
Use at most O(1) additional memory.
I would like to write pseudocode for a function which returns the majority element in a array B = [b_1,...,b_n] of length n with b_i ∈ B, where only tests for equality and inequality (b_i = b_j) can be used.
An element x is called majority element if it occurs more than n/2 times:
MajorityElement(A,x) := |{i | i ∈ {1,...,n},b_i = x}| > n/2
Given the subarray B_l,_r = [a_l , . . . , a_r ] I thought to use a divide-and-conquer algorithm:
function GetMajorityElement(B, l, r, x):
if x = 1: -- so here I check if array has only one element
return B[1]
else l < r: --- here I check if left element < right element
midelement<–(l+r-1)/2
B_lefthalf <– B[ :midelement]
B_rightthalf <– B[midelement:]
MEL = GetMajorityElement(B_lefthalf) - recursively repeat
MER = GetMajorityElement(B_rightthalf)
if MEL is a majority element of B:
return MEL
if MER is a majority element of B:
return MER
return ‘no majority’
I assume the algorithm runs: T (n) = 2T(n/2) + O(n) = O(n log n).
Appreciate any insites/hints and corrections. Thx!
To find the majority element, we use a basic algorithm called the Moore's voting algorithm.
The algorithm is:
Initialize index and count of majority element
maj_index = 0, count = 1
Loop for i = 1 to size – 1 ........
(a) If a[maj_index] == a[i]
count++
(b) Else
count--;
(c) If count == 0
maj_index = i;
count = 1
return a[maj_index]
I think the described algorithm won't work. The decision: "is a majority element of B:" is not clear and might be quite complicated. You will need at least the counts of both majority candidates in both halfs. A minority in the first half can be the majority in both halfs together with the other majority.
Proposed solution:
Divide and conquer can be used for sorting. Later counting and keeping the most frequent element until at least half the sorted set is looked on will allow to find the majority. But you will need O(n) additional space, if you are not allowed to change the order of the elements in the original array.
Additionally you have to be aware that the recursion might cost additional space.
There are N characters in a string of types A and B in the array (same amount of each type). What is the minimal number of swaps to make sure that no two adjacent chars are same if we can only swap two adjacent characters ?
For example, input is:
AAAABBBB
The minimal number of swaps is 6 to make the array ABABABAB. But how would you solve it for any kind of input ? I can only think of O(N^2) solution. Maybe some kind of sort ?
If we need just to count swaps, then we can do it with O(N).
Let's assume for simplicity that array X of N elements should become ABAB... .
GetCount()
swaps = 0, i = -1, j = -1
for(k = 0; k < N; k++)
if(k % 2 == 0)
i = FindIndexOf(A, max(k, i))
X[k] <-> X[i]
swaps += i - k
else
j = FindIndexOf(B, max(k, j))
X[k] <-> X[j]
swaps += j - k
return swaps
FindIndexOf(element, index)
while(index < N)
if(X[index] == element) return index
index++
return -1; // should never happen if count of As == count of Bs
Basically, we run from left to right, and if a misplaced element is found, it gets exchanged with the correct element (e.g. abBbbbA** --> abAbbbB**) in O(1). At the same time swaps are counted as if the sequence of adjacent elements would be swapped instead. Variables i and j are used to cache indices of next A and B respectively, to make sure that all calls together of FindIndexOf are done in O(N).
If we need to sort by swaps then we cannot do better than O(N^2).
The rough idea is the following. Let's consider your sample: AAAABBBB. One of Bs needs O(N) swaps to get to the A B ... position, another B needs O(N) to get to A B A B ... position, etc. So we get O(N^2) at the end.
Observe that if any solution would swap two instances of the same letter, then we can find a better solution by dropping that swap, which necessarily has no effect. An optimal solution therefore only swaps differing letters.
Let's view the string of letters as an array of indices of one kind of letter (arbitrarily chosen, say A) into the string. So AAAABBBB would be represented as [0, 1, 2, 3] while ABABABAB would be [0, 2, 4, 6].
We know two instances of the same letter will never swap in an optimal solution. This lets us always safely identify the first (left-most) instance of A with the first element of our index array, the second instance with the second element, etc. It also tells us our array is always in sorted order at each step of an optimal solution.
Since each step of an optimal solution swaps differing letters, we know our index array evolves at each step only by incrementing or decrementing a single element at a time.
An initial string of length n = 2k will have an array representation A of length k. An optimal solution will transform this array to either
ODDS = [1, 3, 5, ... 2k]
or
EVENS = [0, 2, 4, ... 2k - 1]
Since we know in an optimal solution instances of a letter do not pass each other, we can conclude an optimal solution must spend min(abs(ODDS[0] - A[0]), abs(EVENS[0] - A[0])) swaps to put the first instance in correct position.
By realizing the EVENS or ODDS choice is made only once (not once per letter instance), and summing across the array, we can count the minimum number of needed swaps as
define count_swaps(length, initial, goal)
total = 0
for i from 0 to length - 1
total += abs(goal[i] - initial[i])
end
return total
end
define count_minimum_needed_swaps(k, A)
return min(count_swaps(k, A, EVENS), count_swaps(k, A, ODDS))
end
Notice the number of loop iterations implied by count_minimum_needed_swaps is 2 * k = n; it runs in O(n) time.
By noting which term is smaller in count_minimum_needed_swaps, we can also tell which of the two goal states is optimal.
Since you know N, you can simply write a loop that generates the values with no swaps needed.
#define N 4
char array[N + N];
for (size_t z = 0; z < N + N; z++)
{
array[z] = 'B' - ((z & 1) == 0);
}
return 0; // The number of swaps
#Nemo and #AlexD are right. The algorithm is order n^2. #Nemo misunderstood that we are looking for a reordering where two adjacent characters are not the same, so we can not use that if A is after B they are out of order.
Lets see the minimum number of swaps.
We dont care if our first character is A or B, because we can apply the same algorithm but using A instead of B and viceversa everywhere. So lets assume that the length of the word WORD_N is 2N, with N As and N Bs, starting with an A. (I am using length 2N to simplify the calculations).
What we will do is try to move the next B right to this A, without taking care of the positions of the other characters, because then we will have reduce the problem to reorder a new word WORD_{N-1}. Lets also assume that the next B is not just after A if the word has more that 2 characters, because then the first step is done and we reduce the problem to the next set of characters, WORD_{N-1}.
The next B should be as far as possible to be in the worst case, so it is after half of the word, so we need $N-1$ swaps to put this B after the A (maybe less than that). Then our word can be reduced to WORD_N = [A B WORD_{N-1}].
We se that we have to perform this algorithm as most N-1 times, because the last word (WORD_1) will be already ordered. Performing the algorithm N-1 times we have to make
N_swaps = (N-1)*N/2.
where N is half of the lenght of the initial word.
Lets see why we can apply the same algorithm for WORD_{N-1} also assuming that the first word is A. In this case it matters than the first word should be the same as in the already ordered pair. We can be sure that the first character in WORD_{N-1} is A because it was the character just next to the first character in our initial word, ant if it was B the first work can perform only a swap between these two words and or none and we will already have WORD_{N-1} starting with the same character than WORD_{N}, while the first two characters of WORD_{N} are different at the cost of almost 1 swap.
I think this answer is similar to the answer by phs, just in Haskell. The idea is that the resultant-indices for A's (or B's) are known so all we need to do is calculate how far each starting index has to move and sum the total.
Haskell code:
Prelude Data.List> let is = elemIndices 'B' "AAAABBBB"
in minimum
$ map (sum . zipWith ((abs .) . (-)) is) [[1,3..],[0,2..]]
6 --output
Given two sorted arrays of numbers, we want to find the pair with the kth largest possible sum. (A pair is one element from the first array and one element from the second array). For example, with arrays
[2, 3, 5, 8, 13]
[4, 8, 12, 16]
The pairs with largest sums are
13 + 16 = 29
13 + 12 = 25
8 + 16 = 24
13 + 8 = 21
8 + 12 = 20
So the pair with the 4th largest sum is (13, 8). How to find the pair with the kth largest possible sum?
Also, what is the fastest algorithm? The arrays are already sorted and sizes M and N.
I am already aware of the O(Klogk) solution , using Max-Heap given here .
It also is one of the favorite Google interview question , and they demand a O(k) solution .
I've also read somewhere that there exists a O(k) solution, which i am unable to figure out .
Can someone explain the correct solution with a pseudocode .
P.S.
Please DON'T post this link as answer/comment.It DOESN'T contain the answer.
I start with a simple but not quite linear-time algorithm. We choose some value between array1[0]+array2[0] and array1[N-1]+array2[N-1]. Then we determine how many pair sums are greater than this value and how many of them are less. This may be done by iterating the arrays with two pointers: pointer to the first array incremented when sum is too large and pointer to the second array decremented when sum is too small. Repeating this procedure for different values and using binary search (or one-sided binary search) we could find Kth largest sum in O(N log R) time, where N is size of the largest array and R is number of possible values between array1[N-1]+array2[N-1] and array1[0]+array2[0]. This algorithm has linear time complexity only when the array elements are integers bounded by small constant.
Previous algorithm may be improved if we stop binary search as soon as number of pair sums in binary search range decreases from O(N2) to O(N). Then we fill auxiliary array with these pair sums (this may be done with slightly modified two-pointers algorithm). And then we use quickselect algorithm to find Kth largest sum in this auxiliary array. All this does not improve worst-case complexity because we still need O(log R) binary search steps. What if we keep the quickselect part of this algorithm but (to get proper value range) we use something better than binary search?
We could estimate value range with the following trick: get every second element from each array and try to find the pair sum with rank k/4 for these half-arrays (using the same algorithm recursively). Obviously this should give some approximation for needed value range. And in fact slightly improved variant of this trick gives range containing only O(N) elements. This is proven in following paper: "Selection in X + Y and matrices with sorted rows and columns" by A. Mirzaian and E. Arjomandi. This paper contains detailed explanation of the algorithm, proof, complexity analysis, and pseudo-code for all parts of the algorithm except Quickselect. If linear worst-case complexity is required, Quickselect may be augmented with Median of medians algorithm.
This algorithm has complexity O(N). If one of the arrays is shorter than other array (M < N) we could assume that this shorter array is extended to size N with some very small elements so that all calculations in the algorithm use size of the largest array. We don't actually need to extract pairs with these "added" elements and feed them to quickselect, which makes algorithm a little bit faster but does not improve asymptotic complexity.
If k < N we could ignore all the array elements with index greater than k. In this case complexity is equal to O(k). If N < k < N(N-1) we just have better complexity than requested in OP. If k > N(N-1), we'd better solve the opposite problem: k'th smallest sum.
I uploaded simple C++11 implementation to ideone. Code is not optimized and not thoroughly tested. I tried to make it as close as possible to pseudo-code in linked paper. This implementation uses std::nth_element, which allows linear complexity only on average (not worst-case).
A completely different approach to find K'th sum in linear time is based on priority queue (PQ). One variation is to insert largest pair to PQ, then repeatedly remove top of PQ and instead insert up to two pairs (one with decremented index in one array, other with decremented index in other array). And take some measures to prevent inserting duplicate pairs. Other variation is to insert all possible pairs containing largest element of first array, then repeatedly remove top of PQ and instead insert pair with decremented index in first array and same index in second array. In this case there is no need to bother about duplicates.
OP mentions O(K log K) solution where PQ is implemented as max-heap. But in some cases (when array elements are evenly distributed integers with limited range and linear complexity is needed only on average, not worst-case) we could use O(1) time priority queue, for example, as described in this paper: "A Complexity O(1) Priority Queue for Event Driven Molecular Dynamics Simulations" by Gerald Paul. This allows O(K) expected time complexity.
Advantage of this approach is a possibility to provide first K elements in sorted order. Disadvantages are limited choice of array element type, more complex and slower algorithm, worse asymptotic complexity: O(K) > O(N).
EDIT: This does not work. I leave the answer, since apparently I am not the only one who could have this kind of idea; see the discussion below.
A counter-example is x = (2, 3, 6), y = (1, 4, 5) and k=3, where the algorithm gives 7 (3+4) instead of 8 (3+5).
Let x and y be the two arrays, sorted in decreasing order; we want to construct the K-th largest sum.
The variables are: i the index in the first array (element x[i]), j the index in the second array (element y[j]), and k the "order" of the sum (k in 1..K), in the sense that S(k)=x[i]+y[j] will be the k-th greater sum satisfying your conditions (this is the loop invariant).
Start from (i, j) equal to (0, 0): clearly, S(1) = x[0]+y[0].
for k from 1 to K-1, do:
if x[i+1]+ y[j] > x[i] + y[j+1], then i := i+1 (and j does not change) ; else j:=j+1
To see that it works, consider you have S(k) = x[i] + y[j]. Then, S(k+1) is the greatest sum which is lower (or equal) to S(k), and such as at least one element (i or j) changes. It is not difficult to see that exactly one of i or j should change.
If i changes, the greater sum you can construct which is lower than S(k) is by setting i=i+1, because x is decreasing and all the x[i'] + y[j] with i' < i are greater than S(k). The same holds for j, showing that S(k+1) is either x[i+1] + y[j] or x[i] + y[j+1].
Therefore, at the end of the loop you found the K-th greater sum.
tl;dr: If you look ahead and look behind at each iteration, you can start with the end (which is highest) and work back in O(K) time.
Although the insight underlying this approach is, I believe, sound, the code below is not quite correct at present (see comments).
Let's see: first of all, the arrays are sorted. So, if the arrays are a and b with lengths M and N, and as you have arranged them, the largest items are in slots M and N respectively, the largest pair will always be a[M]+b[N].
Now, what's the second largest pair? It's going to have perhaps one of {a[M],b[N]} (it can't have both, because that's just the largest pair again), and at least one of {a[M-1],b[N-1]}. BUT, we also know that if we choose a[M-1]+b[N-1], we can make one of the operands larger by choosing the higher number from the same list, so it will have exactly one number from the last column, and one from the penultimate column.
Consider the following two arrays: a = [1, 2, 53]; b = [66, 67, 68]. Our highest pair is 53+68. If we lose the smaller of those two, our pair is 68+2; if we lose the larger, it's 53+67. So, we have to look ahead to decide what our next pair will be. The simplest lookahead strategy is simply to calculate the sum of both possible pairs. That will always cost two additions, and two comparisons for each transition (three because we need to deal with the case where the sums are equal);let's call that cost Q).
At first, I was tempted to repeat that K-1 times. BUT there's a hitch: the next largest pair might actually be the other pair we can validly make from {{a[M],b[N]}, {a[M-1],b[N-1]}. So, we also need to look behind.
So, let's code (python, should be 2/3 compatible):
def kth(a,b,k):
M = len(a)
N = len(b)
if k > M*N:
raise ValueError("There are only %s possible pairs; you asked for the %sth largest, which is impossible" % M*N,k)
(ia,ib) = M-1,N-1 #0 based arrays
# we need this for lookback
nottakenindices = (0,0) # could be any value
nottakensum = float('-inf')
for i in range(k-1):
optionone = a[ia]+b[ib-1]
optiontwo = a[ia-1]+b[ib]
biggest = max((optionone,optiontwo))
#first deal with look behind
if nottakensum > biggest:
if optionone == biggest:
newnottakenindices = (ia,ib-1)
else: newnottakenindices = (ia-1,ib)
ia,ib = nottakenindices
nottakensum = biggest
nottakenindices = newnottakenindices
#deal with case where indices hit 0
elif ia <= 0 and ib <= 0:
ia = ib = 0
elif ia <= 0:
ib-=1
ia = 0
nottakensum = float('-inf')
elif ib <= 0:
ia-=1
ib = 0
nottakensum = float('-inf')
#lookahead cases
elif optionone > optiontwo:
#then choose the first option as our next pair
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optiontwo,(ia-1,ib)
ib-=1
elif optionone < optiontwo: # choose the second
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optionone,(ia,ib-1)
ia-=1
#next two cases apply if options are equal
elif a[ia] > b[ib]:# drop the smallest
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optiontwo,(ia-1,ib)
ib-=1
else: # might be equal or not - we can choose arbitrarily if equal
nottakensum,nottakenindices = optionone,(ia,ib-1)
ia-=1
#+2 - one for zero-based, one for skipping the 1st largest
data = (i+2,a[ia],b[ib],a[ia]+b[ib],ia,ib)
narrative = "%sth largest pair is %s+%s=%s, with indices (%s,%s)" % data
print (narrative) #this will work in both versions of python
if ia <= 0 and ib <= 0:
raise ValueError("Both arrays exhausted before Kth (%sth) pair reached"%data[0])
return data, narrative
For those without python, here's an ideone: http://ideone.com/tfm2MA
At worst, we have 5 comparisons in each iteration, and K-1 iterations, which means that this is an O(K) algorithm.
Now, it might be possible to exploit information about differences between values to optimise this a little bit, but this accomplishes the goal.
Here's a reference implementation (not O(K), but will always work, unless there's a corner case with cases where pairs have equal sums):
import itertools
def refkth(a,b,k):
(rightia,righta),(rightib,rightb) = sorted(itertools.product(enumerate(a),enumerate(b)), key=lamba((ia,ea),(ib,eb):ea+eb)[k-1]
data = k,righta,rightb,righta+rightb,rightia,rightib
narrative = "%sth largest pair is %s+%s=%s, with indices (%s,%s)" % data
print (narrative) #this will work in both versions of python
return data, narrative
This calculates the cartesian product of the two arrays (i.e. all possible pairs), sorts them by sum, and takes the kth element. The enumerate function decorates each item with its index.
The max-heap algorithm in the other question is simple, fast and correct. Don't knock it. It's really well explained too. https://stackoverflow.com/a/5212618/284795
Might be there isn't any O(k) algorithm. That's okay, O(k log k) is almost as fast.
If the last two solutions were at (a1, b1), (a2, b2), then it seems to me there are only four candidate solutions (a1-1, b1) (a1, b1-1) (a2-1, b2) (a2, b2-1). This intuition could be wrong. Surely there are at most four candidates for each coordinate, and the next highest is among the 16 pairs (a in {a1,a2,a1-1,a2-1}, b in {b1,b2,b1-1,b2-1}). That's O(k).
(No it's not, still not sure whether that's possible.)
[2, 3, 5, 8, 13]
[4, 8, 12, 16]
Merge the 2 arrays and note down the indexes in the sorted array. Here is the index array looks like (starting from 1 not 0)
[1, 2, 4, 6, 8]
[3, 5, 7, 9]
Now start from end and make tuples. sum the elements in the tuple and pick the kth largest sum.
public static List<List<Integer>> optimization(int[] nums1, int[] nums2, int k) {
// 2 * O(n log(n))
Arrays.sort(nums1);
Arrays.sort(nums2);
List<List<Integer>> results = new ArrayList<>(k);
int endIndex = 0;
// Find the number whose square is the first one bigger than k
for (int i = 1; i <= k; i++) {
if (i * i >= k) {
endIndex = i;
break;
}
}
// The following Iteration provides at most endIndex^2 elements, and both arrays are in ascending order,
// so k smallest pairs must can be found in this iteration. To flatten the nested loop, refer
// 'https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7457879/algorithm-to-optimize-nested-loops'
for (int i = 0; i < endIndex * endIndex; i++) {
int m = i / endIndex;
int n = i % endIndex;
List<Integer> item = new ArrayList<>(2);
item.add(nums1[m]);
item.add(nums2[n]);
results.add(item);
}
results.sort(Comparator.comparing(pair->pair.get(0) + pair.get(1)));
return results.stream().limit(k).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
Key to eliminate O(n^2):
Avoid cartesian product(or 'cross join' like operation) of both arrays, which means flattening the nested loop.
Downsize iteration over the 2 arrays.
So:
Sort both arrays (Arrays.sort offers O(n log(n)) performance according to Java doc)
Limit the iteration range to the size which is just big enough to support k smallest pairs searching.