May I ask whether would it be possible? the general approach would be somehow like find n-th value on two sorted array, to ignore the insignificants and try to focus on the rest by adjusting the value of n in recursion
The 2 sorted arrays problem would yield a computation time O(log(|A|)+log(|B|), while the question is similar, I would like to ask if there exist algorithm for m sorted arrays for time O(log(|A1|)+log(|A2|)+...+log(|Am|)),
or some similar variation that is near the time I mentioned above (due to the variable m, we might need some other sorting algorithm for the pivots from those arrays),
or if such algorithm doesn't exist, why?
I just can't find this algorithm from googling
There is a simple randomized algorithm:
Select a pivot randomly from any of the m arrays. Let's call it x
For every array, do a binary search for x to find out how many values < x are in the array. Say we have ri values < x in array i. We know that x has rank r = sum(i = 1 to m, ri) in the union of all arrays.
If n <= r, we restrict each array i to the indices 0...(ri - 1) and recurse. If n > r, we restrict each array to the indices ri...|Ai | - 1
repeat
The expected recursion depth is O(log(N)) with N being the total number of elements, with a proof similar to that of Quickselect, so the expected running time is something like O(m * log2(N)).
The paper "Generalized Selection and Ranking" by Frederickson and Johnson proposes selection and ranking algorithms for different scenarios, for example an O(m + c * log(k/c)) algorithm to select the k-th element from m equally sized sorted sequences, with c = min{m, k}.
Related
Given two arrays A and B each of size N how to find the Kth largest element among the set X = {i x j | i ∈ A and j ∈ B}?
I came up with O(N^2 log(n)) solution by forming the set X, sorting it and then finding element at Kth position from last. Is there a better solution which has lower complexity?
Given a candidate number, you can check in time O(N) using two pointers in the sorted representations of A and B what rank it has in the set {i x j | i ∈ A and j ∈ B}. Hence one possible solution is to use binary search on the value of i x j, with a runtime of O(N * (log N + log U)) where U is the size of the universe from which A and B are drawn.
There is a low-hanging fruit here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickselect
(pay attention to the last section - it's possible to have worst case performance O(n) as well)
You just create array with all products and then select k-th element using the algorithm mentioned above. In total it will be O(n^2).
But I suspect there should be something better here...
Given two sorted array A and B length N. Each elements may contain natural number less than M. Determine all possible distances for all combinations elements A and B. In this case, if A[i] - B[j] < 0, then the distance is M + (A[i] - B[j]).
Example :
A = {0,2,3}
B = {1,2}
M = 5
Distances = {0,1,2,3,4}
Note: I know O(N^2) solution, but I need faster solution than O(N^2) and O(N x M).
Edit: Array A, B, and Distances contain distinct elements.
You can get a O(MlogM) complexity solution in the following way.
Prepare an array Ax of length M with Ax[i] = 1 if i belongs to A (and 0 otherwise)
Prepare an array Bx of length M with Bx[M-1-i] = 1 if i belongs to B (and 0 otherwise)
Use the Fast Fourier Transform to convolve these 2 sequences together
Inspect the output array, non-zero values correspond to possible distances
Note that the FFT is normally done with floating point numbers, so in step 4 you probably want to test if the output is greater than 0.5 to avoid potential rounding noise issues.
I possible done with optimized N*N.
If convert A to 0 and 1 array where 1 on positions which present in A (in range [0..M].
After convert this array into bitmasks, size of A array will be decreased into 64 times.
This will allow insert results by blocks of size 64.
Complexity still will be N*N but working time will be greatly decreased. As limitation mentioned by author 50000 for A and B sizes and M.
Expected operations count will be N*N/64 ~= 4*10^7. It will passed in 1 sec.
You can use bitvectors to accomplish this. Bitvector operations on large bitvectors is linear in the size of the bitvector, but is fast, easy to implement, and may work well given your 50k size limit.
Initialize two bitvectors of length M. Call these vectA and vectAnswer. Set the bits of vectA that correspond to the elements in A. Leave vectAnswer with all zeroes.
Define a method to rotate a bitvector by k elements (rotate down). I'll call this rotate(vect,k).
Then, for every element b of B, vectAnswer = vectAnswer | rotate(vectA,b).
I have a question in algorithm design about arrays, which should be implement in C language.
Suppose that we have an array which has n elements. For simplicity n is power of '2' like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 , etc. I want to separate this to 2 parts with (n/2) elements. Condition of separating is lowest absolute difference between sum of all elements in two arrays for example if I have this array (9,2,5,3,6,1,4,7) it will be separate to these arrays (9,5,1,3) and (6,7,4,2) . summation of first array's elements is 18 and the summation of second array's elements is 19 and the difference is 1 and these two arrays are the answer but two arrays like (9,5,4,2) and (7,6,3,1) isn't the answer because the difference of element summation is 4 and we have found 1 . so 4 isn't the minimum difference. How to solve this?
Thank you.
This is the Partition Problem, which is unfortunately NP-Hard.
However, since your numbers are integers, if they are relatively low, there is a pseudo polynomial O(W*n^2) solution using Dynamic Programming (where W is sum of all elements).
The idea is to create the DP matrix of size (W/2+1)*(n+1)*(n/2+1), based on the following recursive formula:
D(0,i,0) = true
D(0,i,k) = false k != 0
D(x,i,k) = false x < 0
D(x,0,k) = false x > 0
D(x,i,0) = false x > 0
D(x,i,k) = D(x,i-1,k) OR D(x-arr[i], i-1,k-1)
The above gives a 3d matrix, where each entry D(x,i,k) says if there is a subset containing exactly k elements, that sums to x, and uses the first i elements as candidates.
Once you have this matrix, you just need to find the highest x (that is smaller than SUM/2) such that D(x,n,n/2) = true
Later, you can get the relevant subset by going back on the table and "retracing" your choices at each step. This thread deals with how it is done on a very similar problem.
For small sets, there is also the alternative of a naive brute force solution, which basically splits the array to all possible halves ((2n)!/(n!*n!) of those), and picks the best one out of them.
I want to sort a list of entries and then select a subset (page) of that sorted list. For example; I have 10.000 items and want to have items 101 until 200.
A naive approach would be to first sort all 10.000 items and then select the page; it would mean that items 1 - 100 and 201 - 10.000 are all unnecessarily fully sorted.
Is there an existing algorithm that will only fully sort the items in the page and stops further sorting of an entry once it is clear it is not in the page? source code in C would be great, but descriptions would also be ok
Suppose you want items p through q out of n. While sorting would cost O(n·log n) time, the operation you mention can be done in O(n) time (so long as q-p « n) as follows: Apply an O(n)-time method to find the pᵗʰ and qᵗʰ values. Then select only items with values from p to q, in time O(n+k) if k=q-p, or about O(n) time, and sort those items in time O(k·log k), which is about O(1), for net time O(n) if k is O(1).
Suppose the page you want starts with the nth "smallest" element (or largest or whatever ordinal scale you prefer). Then you need to divide your partial sorting algorithm into two steps:
Find the nth element
Sort elements {n, n+1, ..., n+s} (where s is the page size)
Quicksort is a sorting algorithm that can be conveniently modified to suit your needs. Basically, it works as follows:
Given: a list L of ordinally related elements.
If L contains exactly one element, return L.
Choose a pivot element p from L at random.
Divide L into two sets: A and B such that A contains all the elements from L which are smaller than p and B contains all the elements from L which are larger.
Apply the algorithm recursively to A and B to obtain the sorted sublists A' and B'.
Return the list A || p || B, where || denotes appending lists or elements.
What you want to do in step #1, is run Quicksort until you've found the nth element. So step #1 will look like this:
Given: a list L of ordinally related elements, a page offset n and a page size s.
Choose a pivot element p from L at random.
Divide L into A and B.
If the size of A, #A = n-1, then return p || B.
If #A < n-1, then apply the algorithm recursively for L' = B and n' = n - #A
If #A > n-1, then apply the algorithm recursively for L' = A and n' = n
This algorithm returns an unsorted list of elements starting with the nth element. Next, run Quicksort on this list but keep ignoring B unless #A < s. At the end, you should have a list of s sorted elements which are larger than n elements from the original list but not larger than n+1 elements from the original list.
The term you want to research is partial sorting. There is likely to be an implementation of it in C or any sufficiently popular language.
Description
Given an Array of size (n*k+b) where n elements occur k times and one element occurs b times, in other words there are n+1 distinct Elements. Given that 0 < b < k find the element occurring b times.
My Attempted solutions
Obvious solution will be using hashing but it will not work if the numbers are very large. Complexity is O(n)
Using map to store the frequencies of each element and then traversing map to find the element occurring b times.As Map's are implemented as height balanced trees Complexity will be O(nlogn).
Both of my solution were accepted but the interviewer wanted a linear solution without using hashing and hint he gave was make the height of tree constant in tree in which you are storing frequencies, but I am not able to figure out the correct solution yet.
I want to know how to solve this problem in linear time without hashing?
EDIT:
Sample:
Input: n=2 b=2 k=3
Aarray: 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1
Output: 1
I assume:
The elements of the array are comparable.
We know the values of n and k beforehand.
A solution O(n*k+b) is good enough.
Let the number occuring only b times be S. We are trying to find the S in an array of n*k+b size.
Recursive Step: Find the median element of the current array slice as in Quick Sort in lineer time. Let the median element be M.
After the recursive step you have an array where all elements smaller than M occur on the left of the first occurence of M. All M elements are next to each other and all element larger than M are on the right of all occurences of M.
Look at the index of the leftmost M and calculate whether S<M or S>=M. Recurse either on the left slice or the right slice.
So you are doing a quick sort but delving only one part of the divisions at any time. You will recurse O(logN) times but each time with 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, .. sizes of the original array, so the total time will still be O(n).
Clarification: Let's say n=20 and k = 10. Then, there are 21 distinct elements in the array, 20 of which occur 10 times and the last occur let's say 7 times. I find the medium element, let's say it is 1111. If the S<1111 than the index of the leftmost occurence of 1111 will be less than 11*10. If S>=1111 then the index will be equal to 11*10.
Full example: n = 4. k = 3. Array = {1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,5}
After the first recursive step I find the median element is 3 and the array is something like: {1,2,1,2,1,2,3,3,3,5,4,5,5,4} There are 6 elements on the left of 3. 6 is a multiple of k=3. So each element must be occuring 3 times there. So S>=3. Recurse on the right side. And so on.
An idea using cyclic groups.
To guess i-th bit of answer, follow this procedure:
Count how many numbers in array has i-th bit set, store as cnt
If cnt % k is non-zero, then i-th bit of answer is set. Otherwise it is clear.
To guess whole number, repeat the above for every bit.
This solution is technically O((n*k+b)*log max N), where max N is maximal value in the table, but because number of bits is usually constant, this solution is linear in array size.
No hashing, memory usage is O(log k * log max N).
Example implementation:
from random import randint, shuffle
def generate_test_data(n, k, b):
k_rep = [randint(0, 1000) for i in xrange(n)]
b_rep = [randint(0, 1000)]
numbers = k_rep*k + b_rep*b
shuffle(numbers)
print "k_rep: ", k_rep
print "b_rep: ", b_rep
return numbers
def solve(data, k):
cnts = [0]*10
for number in data:
bits = [number >> b & 1 for b in xrange(10)]
cnts = [cnts[i] + bits[i] for i in xrange(10)]
return reduce(lambda a,b:2*a+(b%k>0), reversed(cnts), 0)
print "Answer: ", solve(generate_test_data(10, 15, 13), 3)
In order to have a constant height B-tree containing n distinct elements, with height h constant, you need z=n^(1/h) children per nodes: h=log_z(n), thus h=log(n)/log(z), thus log(z)=log(n)/h, thus z=e^(log(n)/h), thus z=n^(1/h).
Example, with n=1000000, h=10, z=3.98, that is z=4.
The time to reach a node in that case is O(h.log(z)). Assuming h and z to be "constant" (since N=n.k, then log(z)=log(n^(1/h))=log(N/k^(1/h))=ct by properly choosing h based on k, you can then say that O(h.log(z))=O(1)... This is a bit far-fetched, but maybe that was the kind of thing the interviewer wanted to hear?
UPDATE: this one use hashing, so it's not a good answer :(
in python this would be linear time (set will remove the duplicates):
result = (sum(set(arr))*k - sum(arr)) / (k - b)
If 'k' is even and 'b' is odd, then XOR will do. :)