Suppose you have several arrays of integers. What is a good way to find pairs of integers, not both from the same list, such that the difference between the first and second integer is 1?
Naturally I could write a naive algorithm that just looks through each other list until it finds such a number or hits one bigger. Is there a more elegant solution?
I only mention the condition that the difference be 1 because I'm guessing there might be some use to that knowledge to speed up the computation. I imagine that if the condition for a 'hit' were something else, the algorithm would work just the same.
Some background: I'm engaged in a bit of research mathematics and I seek to find examples of a certain construction. Any help would be much appreciated.
I'd start by sorting each array. Preferably with an algorithm that runs in O( n log(n) ) time.
When you've got a bunch of sorted arrays, you can set a pointer to the start of each array, check for any +/- 1 differences in the values of the pointers, and increment the value of the smallest-valued pointer, repeating until you've reached the max length of all but one of the arrays.
To further optimize, you could keep the pointers-values in a sorted linked list, and build the check function into an insertion sort. For each increment, you could remove the previous value from the list, and step through the list checking for +/- 1 comparison until you get to a term that is larger than a possible match. That way, if you're searching a bazillion arrays, you needn't check all bazillion pointer-values - you only need to check until you find a value that is too big, and ignore all larger values.
If you've got any more information about the arrays (such as the range of the terms or number of arrays), I can see how you could take advantage of that to make much faster algorithms for this through clever uses of array properties.
This sounds like a good candidate for the classic merge sort where the final stage is not a unification but comparison.
And the magnitude of the difference wouldn't affect this, but thanks for adding the information.
Even though you state the second list is in an array, if you could put it in a hashmap of some sort then you could make it faster than just the naive approach.
Basically,
Loop through the first array.
Look to see if there exists an object in the hashmap that is one larger than the current array value.
That way you can build up pairs of numbers that meet your requirements.
I don't know if it would be as flexible as you would like though.
Basically, you may want to consider other data structures, to help you find a better solution.
You have o(n log n) from the sorting.
You can also the the search in o(log n) for each element, if you have some dynamic queryset. You can sort the arrays and then for each element in the first array binary search his upper_bound and lower_bound in the second array and check the difference.
Related
So, I work in industrial automation, and normally program with ladder logic. So its rather odd compared to what I would consider normal programing. Anyway I needed to sort a list of numbers from smallest to biggest. I was looking through sorting algorithms trying to find one I could easily implement using ladder logic. I was having a hard time, but after some thinking I came up with something that wasn't even on the Wikipedia list of sorting algorithms. Well, It might be but I can't find it. I know this isn't very efficient sorting algorithm, but it does work. I want to know the name of it if it has one.
The basic version of this is, imagine an array of numbers. Take the first number in the list and compare it to all other numbers in the list, count the number of times that it is bigger than any of the other numbers. This accumulated value is the index number for where it goes in the output array. To place it in the array, check if there is already something written to that spot, if there is add one to the index and check again until there isn't anything in its spot. When the empty spot is found write it to the output array. Once you have done that to every number in the list you will have an output array with the same size as the input, but with it sorted smallest to biggest. I should note that this is assuming the language uses zero based indexing.
If this wasn't clear enough, I'm happy to elaborate further if needed.
I would say it's a worse version of counting sort:
It operates by counting the number of objects that possess distinct key values, and applying prefix sum on those counts to determine the positions of each key value in the output sequence
So it basically does the same thing you're doing: put each element in its final position by using counts. Counting sort uses an array to store the needed counts, you iterate the array to find them at each step for the current element.
I don't think there's a name for your exact algorithm.
Bit of a random question for you. If you have a method that has to check every single individual place inside an array, would it be okay to say that this method has notation of O(n)?
The reason i'm not sure if my answer is correct is due to the fact that as far as i'm aware O(n) relates to the number of items held in the array, while my assumption is based on the actual size of the array?
If your algorithm has to look at every item in the array, that algorithm is O(n). If doesn't really matter if the array is full or not, since you can be flexible in how you define n. It can be either the size of the array or the number of non-null elements in the array. If your algorithm has to look in empty array slots to see if they're empty or not, use the size. (If that's a real performance issue, probably a different data structure is called for.)
For a really contrived example, if it takes one hour to process each non-null array element, but one nanosecond to check for null, then you should define n to be the number of elements that actually exist, because that's what's going to dictate how the algorithm scales.
I need a data structure that stores tuples and would allow me to do a query like: given tuple (x,y,z) of integers, find the next one (an upped bound for it). By that I mean considering the natural ordering (a,b,c)<=(d,e,f) <=> a<=d and b<=e and c<=f. I have tried MSD radix sort, which splits items into buckets and sorts them (and does this recursively for all positions in the tuples). Does anybody have any other suggestion? Ideally I would like the abouve query to happen within O(log n) where n is the number of tuples.
Two options.
Use binary search on a sorted array. If you build the keys ( assuming 32bit int)' with (a<<64)|(b<<32)|c and hold them in a simple array, packed one beside the other, you can use binary search to locate the value you are searching for ( if using C, there is even a library function to do this), and the next one is simply one position along. Worst case Performance is O(logN), and if you can do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation_search then you might even approach O(log log N)
Problem with binary keys is might be tricky to add new values, might need gyrations if you will exceed available memory. But it is fast, only a few random memory accesses on average.
Alternatively, you could build a hash table by generating a key with a|b|c in some form, and then have the hash data pointing to a structure that contains the next value, whatever that might be. Possibly a little harder to create in the first place as when generating the table you need to know the next value already.
Problems with hash approach are it will likely use more memory than binary search method, performance is great if you don't get hash collisions, but then starts to drop off, although there a variations around this algorithm to help in some cases. Hash approach is possibly much easier to insert new values.
I also see you had a similar question along these lines, so I guess the guts of what I am saying is combine A,b,c to produce a single long key, and use that with binary search, hash or even b-tree. If the length of the key is your problem (what language), could you treat it as a string?
If this answer is completely off base, let me know and I will see if I can delete this answer, so you questions remains unanswered rather than a useless answer.
I'm writing a program for a competition and I need to be faster than all the other competitors. For this I need a little algorithm help; ideally I'd be using the fastest algorithm.
For this problem I am given 2 things. The first is a list of tuples, each of which contains exactly two elements (strings), each of which represents an item. The second is an integer, which indicates how many unique items there are in total. For example:
# of items = 3
[("ball","chair"),("ball","box"),("box","chair"),("chair","box")]
The same tuples can be repeated/ they are not necessarily unique.) My program is supposed to figure out the maximum number of tuples that can "agree" when the items are sorted into two groups. This means that if all the items are broken into two ideal groups, group 1 and group 2, what are the maximum number of tuples that can have their first item in group 1 and their second item in group 2.
For example, the answer to my earlier example would be 2, with "ball" in group 1 and "chair" and "box" in group 2, satisfying the first two tuples. I do not necessarily need know what items go in which group, I just need to know what the maximum number of satisfied tuples could be.
At the moment I'm trying a recursive approach, but its running on (n^2), far too inefficient in my opinion. Does anyone have a method that could produce a faster algorithm?
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!
Speed up approaches for your task:
1. Use integers
Convert the strings to integers (store the strings in an array and use the position for the tupples.
String[] words = {"ball", "chair", "box"};
In tuppls ball now has number 0 (pos 0 in array) , chair 1, box 2.
comparing ints is faster than Strings.
2. Avoid recursion
Recursion is slow, due the recursion overhead.
For example look at binarys search algorithm in a recursive implementatiion, then look how java implements binSearch() (with a while loop and iteration)
Recursion is helpfull if problems are so complex that a non recursive implementation is to complex for a human brain.
An iterataion is faster, but not in the case when you mimick recursive calls by implementing your own stack.
However you can start implementing using a recursiove algorithm, once it works and it is a suited algo, then try to convert to a non recursive implementation
3. if possible avoid objects
if you want the fastest, the now it becomes ugly!
A tuppel array can either be stored in as array of class Point(x,y) or probably faster,
as array of int:
Example:
(1,2), (2,3), (3,4) can be stored as array: (1,2,2,3,3,4)
This needs much less memory because an object needs at least 12 bytes (in java).
Less memory becomes faster, when the array are really big, then your structure will hopefully fits in the processor cache, while the objects array does not.
4. Programming language
In C it will be faster than in Java.
Maximum cut is a special case of your problem, so I doubt you have a quadratic algorithm for it. (Maximum cut is NP-complete and it corresponds to the case where every tuple (A,B) also appears in reverse as (B,A) the same number of times.)
The best strategy for you to try here is "branch and bound." It's a variant of the straightforward recursive search you've probably already coded up. You keep track of the value of the best solution you've found so far. In each recursive call, you check whether it's even possible to beat the best known solution with the choices you've fixed so far.
One thing that may help (or may hurt) is to "probe": for each as-yet-unfixed item, see if putting that item on one of the two sides leads only to suboptimal solutions; if so, you know that item needs to be on the other side.
Another useful trick is to recurse on items that appear frequently both as the first element and as the second element of your tuples.
You should pay particular attention to the "bound" step --- finding an upper bound on the best possible solution given the choices you've fixed.
I'm working on a large project, I won't bother to summarize it here, but this section of the project is to take a very large document of text (minimum of around 50,000 words (not unique)), and output each unique word in order of most used to least used (probably top three will be "a" "an" and "the").
My question is of course, what would be the best sorting algorithm to use? I was reading of counting sort, and I like it, but my concern is that the range of values will be too large compared to the number of unique words.
Any suggestions?
First, you will need a map of word -> count.
50,000 words is not much - it will easily fit in memory, so there's nothing to worry. In C++ you can use the standard STL std::map.
Then, once you have the map, you can copy all the map keys to a vector.
Then, sort this vector using a custom comparison operator: instead of comparing the words, compare the counts from the map. (Don't worry about the specific sorting algorithm - your array is not that large, so any standard library sort will work for you.)
I'd start with a quicksort and go from there.
Check out the wiki page on sorting algorithms, though, to learn the differences.
You should try an MSD radix sort. It will sort your entries in lexicographical order. Here is a google code project you might be interested in.
Have a look at the link. A Pictorial representation on how different algorithm works. This will give you an hint!
Sorting Algorithms
You can get better performance than quicksort with this particular problem assuming that if two words occur the same number of times, then it doesn't matter in which order you output them.
First step: Create a hash map with the words as key values and frequency as the associated values. You will fill this hash map in as you parse the file. While you are doing this, make sure to keep track of the highest frequency encountered. This step is O(n) complexity.
Second step: Create a list with the number of entries equal to the highest frequency from the first step. The index of each slot in this list will hold a list of the words with the frequency count equal to the index. So words that occur 3 times in the document will go in list[3] for example. Iterate through the hash map and insert the words into the appropriate spots in the list. This step is O(n) complexity.
Third step: Iterate through the list in reverse and output all the words. This step is O(n) complexity.
Overall this algorithm will accomplish your task in O(n) time rather than O(nlogn) required by quicksort.
In almost every case I've ever tested, Quicksort worked the best for me. However, I did have two cases where Combsort was the best. Could have been that combsort was better in those cases because the code was so small, or due to some quirk in how ordered the data was.
Any time sorting shows up in my profile, I try the major sorts. I've never had anything that topped both Quicksort and Combsort.
I think you want to do something as explained in the below post:
http://karephul.blogspot.com/2008/12/groovy-closures.html
Languages which support closure make the solution much easy, like LINQ as Eric mentioned.
For large sets you can use what is known as the "sort based indexing" in information retrieval, but for 50,000 words you can use the following:
read the entire file into a buffer.
parse the buffer and build a token vector with
struct token { char *term, int termlen; }
term is a pointer to the word in the buffer.
sort the table by term (lexicographical order).
set entrynum = 0, iterate through the term vector,
when term is new, store it in a vector :
struct { char *term; int frequency; } at index entrynum, set frequency to 1 and increment the entry number, otherwise increment frequency.
sort the vector by frequency in descending order.
You can also try implementing digital trees also known as Trie. Here is the link