I am trying to extract all subsets from a list of elements which add up to a certain value.
Example -
List = [1,3,4,5,6]
Sum - 9
Output Expected = [[3,6],[5,4]]
Have tried different approaches and getting the expected output but on a huge list of elements it is taking a significant amount of time.
Can this be optimized using Dynamic Programming or any other technique.
Approach-1
def subset(array, num):
result = []
def find(arr, num, path=()):
if not arr:
return
if arr[0] == num:
result.append(path + (arr[0],))
else:
find(arr[1:], num - arr[0], path + (arr[0],))
find(arr[1:], num, path)
find(array, num)
return result
numbers = [2, 2, 1, 12, 15, 2, 3]
x = 7
subset(numbers,x)
Approach-2
def isSubsetSum(arr, subset, N, subsetSize, subsetSum, index , sum):
global flag
if (subsetSum == sum):
flag = 1
for i in range(0, subsetSize):
print(subset[i], end = " ")
print("")
else:
for i in range(index, N):
subset[subsetSize] = arr[i]
isSubsetSum(arr, subset, N, subsetSize + 1,
subsetSum + arr[i], i + 1, sum)
If you want to output all subsets you can't do better than a sluggish O(2^n) complexity, because in the worst case that will be the size of your output and time complexity is lower-bounded by output size (this is a known NP-Complete problem). But, if rather than returning a list of all subsets, you just want to return a boolean value indicating whether achieving the target sum is possible, or just one subset summing to target (if it exists), you can use dynamic programming for a pseudo-polynomial O(nK) time solution, where n is the number of elements and K is the target integer.
The DP approach involves filling in an (n+1) x (K+1) table, with the sub-problems corresponding to the entries of the table being:
DP[i][k] = subset(A[i:], k) for 0 <= i <= n, 0 <= k <= K
That is, subset(A[i:], k) asks, 'Can I sum to (little) k using the suffix of A starting at index i?' Once you fill in the whole table, the answer to the overall problem, subset(A[0:], K) will be at DP[0][K]
The base cases are for i=n: they indicate that you can't sum to anything except for 0 if you're working with the empty suffix of your array
subset(A[n:], k>0) = False, subset(A[n:], k=0) = True
The recursive cases to fill in the table are:
subset(A[i:], k) = subset(A[i+1:, k) OR (A[i] <= k AND subset(A[i+i:], k-A[i]))
This simply relates the idea that you can use the current array suffix to sum to k either by skipping over the first element of that suffix and using the answer you already had in the previous row (when that first element wasn't in your array suffix), or by using A[i] in your sum and checking if you could make the reduced sum k-A[i] in the previous row. Of course, you can only use the new element if it doesn't itself exceed your target sum.
ex: subset(A[i:] = [3,4,1,6], k = 8)
would check: could I already sum to 8 with the previous suffix (A[i+1:] = [4,1,6])? No. Or, could I use the 3 which is now available to me to sum to 8? That is, could I sum to k = 8 - 3 = 5 with [4,1,6]? Yes. Because at least one of the conditions was true, I set DP[i][8] = True
Because all the base cases are for i=n, and the recurrence relation for subset(A[i:], k) relies on the answers to the smaller sub-problems subset(A[i+i:],...), you start at the bottom of the table, where i = n, fill out every k value from 0 to K for each row, and work your way up to row i = 0, ensuring you have the answers to the smaller sub-problems when you need them.
def subsetSum(A: list[int], K: int) -> bool:
N = len(A)
DP = [[None] * (K+1) for x in range(N+1)]
DP[N] = [True if x == 0 else False for x in range(K+1)]
for i in range(N-1, -1, -1):
Ai = A[i]
DP[i] = [DP[i+1][k] or (Ai <=k and DP[i+1][k-Ai]) for k in range(0, K+1)]
# print result
print(f"A = {A}, K = {K}")
print('Ai,k:', *range(0,K+1), sep='\t')
for (i, row) in enumerate(DP): print(A[i] if i < N else None, *row, sep='\t')
print(f"DP[0][K] = {DP[0][K]}")
return DP[0][K]
subsetSum([1,4,3,5,6], 9)
If you want to return an actual possible subset alongside the bool indicating whether or not it's possible to make one, then for every True flag in your DP you should also store the k index for the previous row that got you there (it will either be the current k index or k-A[i], depending on which table lookup returned True, which will indicate whether or not A[i] was used). Then you walk backwards from DP[0][K] after the table is filled to get a subset. This makes the code messier but it's definitely do-able. You can't get all subsets this way though (at least not without increasing your time complexity again) because the DP table compresses information.
Here is the optimized solution to the problem with a complexity of O(n^2).
def get_subsets(data: list, target: int):
# initialize final result which is a list of all subsets summing up to target
subsets = []
# records the difference between the target value and a group of numbers
differences = {}
for number in data:
prospects = []
# iterate through every record in differences
for diff in differences:
# the number complements a record in differences, i.e. a desired subset is found
if number - diff == 0:
new_subset = [number] + differences[diff]
new_subset.sort()
if new_subset not in subsets:
subsets.append(new_subset)
# the number fell short to reach the target; add to prospect instead
elif number - diff < 0:
prospects.append((number, diff))
# update the differences record
for prospect in prospects:
new_diff = target - sum(differences[prospect[1]]) - prospect[0]
differences[new_diff] = differences[prospect[1]] + [prospect[0]]
differences[target - number] = [number]
return subsets
Related
I found this geeksforgeeks article explaining how to approach the "partitioning array into 2 subsets" problem. As the problem I am working on is a 3-partition problem, I would like to extend the logic of the code used in this article to the 3-partition problem. However, I am unsure how the 2-D array is used to determine whether the array can be partitioned into 2 subsets.
This is the description of the problem from the page:
Partition problem is to determine whether a given set can be partitioned into two subsets such that the sum of elements in both subsets is the same.
Here is the link to the page: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/partition-problem-dp-18/
Here is the code implemented on the post:
def findPartition(arr, n):
sum = 0
i, j = 0, 0
# calculate sum of all elements
for i in range(n):
sum += arr[i]
if sum % 2 != 0:
return false
part = [[True for i in range(n + 1)]
for j in range(sum // 2 + 1)]
# initialize top row as true
for i in range(0, n + 1):
part[0][i] = True
# initialize leftmost column,
# except part[0][0], as 0
for i in range(1, sum // 2 + 1):
part[i][0] = False
# fill the partition table in
# bottom up manner
for i in range(1, sum // 2 + 1):
for j in range(1, n + 1):
part[i][j] = part[i][j - 1]
if i >= arr[j - 1]:
part[i][j] = (part[i][j] or
part[i - arr[j - 1]][j - 1])
return part[sum // 2][n]
I understand that the 2 for loops traverse the table row by row, column by column and the default value for the current cell is the value of the cell to the left of it (meaning, the number is assumed not to be added to the subset).
for i in range(1, sum // 3 + 1):
for j in range(1, n + 1):
part[i][j] = part[i][j - 1]
The if condition ensures that the current number does not exceed the target value of sum // 2
if i >= arr[j - 1]:
This leads me to my question: Using this code, at the bottom rightmost cell (whose value we return to the main function) wouldn't the code just check if sum // k can be obtained for the at least 1 subset? How can we assume that sum // k can be achieved for all subsets based on this? This is because we are unsure about which numbers from the array have been used and if any numbers across the subarrays overlap.
part[i][j] = (part[i][j] or part[i - arr[j - 1]][j - 1])
I have also found a similar solution for the 3-partition problem posted by rishabh1005 on github (link: https://github.com/rishabh1005/Algorithmic-Toolbox/blob/master/week6_dynamic_programming2/2_partitioning_souvenirs/partition3.py). However, he implements a counter to check if the value of each cell is equal to the target value of sum // k. The counter is incremented each time a cell is equal to sum // k.
if count<3: return 0
else: return 1
However, I am similar unsure about the final if conditions he used. Why can the array be partitioned into 3 subsets if the counter value is > 3?
Thanks everyone for your help.
I'm tryin to design a function that, given an array A of N integers, returns the smallest positive integer (greater than 0) that does not occur in A.
This code works fine yet has a high order of complexity, is there another solution that reduces the order of complexity?
Note: The 10000000 number is the range of integers in array A, I tried the sort function but does it reduces the complexity?
def solution(A):
for i in range(10000000):
if(A.count(i)) <= 0:
return(i)
The following is O(n logn):
a = [2, 1, 10, 3, 2, 15]
a.sort()
if a[0] > 1:
print(1)
else:
for i in range(1, len(a)):
if a[i] > a[i - 1] + 1:
print(a[i - 1] + 1)
break
If you don't like the special handling of 1, you could just append zero to the array and have the same logic handle both cases:
a = sorted(a + [0])
for i in range(1, len(a)):
if a[i] > a[i - 1] + 1:
print(a[i - 1] + 1)
break
Caveats (both trivial to fix and both left as an exercise for the reader):
Neither version handles empty input.
The code assumes there no negative numbers in the input.
O(n) time and O(n) space:
def solution(A):
count = [0] * len(A)
for x in A:
if 0 < x <= len(A):
count[x-1] = 1 # count[0] is to count 1
for i in range(len(count)):
if count[i] == 0:
return i+1
return len(A)+1 # only if A = [1, 2, ..., len(A)]
This should be O(n). Utilizes a temporary set to speed things along.
a = [2, 1, 10, 3, 2, 15]
#use a set of only the positive numbers for lookup
temp_set = set()
for i in a:
if i > 0:
temp_set.add(i)
#iterate from 1 upto length of set +1 (to ensure edge case is handled)
for i in range(1, len(temp_set) + 2):
if i not in temp_set:
print(i)
break
My proposal is a recursive function inspired by quicksort.
Each step divides the input sequence into two sublists (lt = less than pivot; ge = greater or equal than pivot) and decides, which of the sublists is to be processed in the next step. Note that there is no sorting.
The idea is that a set of integers such that lo <= n < hi contains "gaps" only if it has less than (hi - lo) elements.
The input sequence must not contain dups. A set can be passed directly.
# all cseq items > 0 assumed, no duplicates!
def find(cseq, cmin=1):
# cmin = possible minimum not ruled out yet
size = len(cseq)
if size <= 1:
return cmin+1 if cmin in cseq else cmin
lt = []
ge = []
pivot = cmin + size // 2
for n in cseq:
(lt if n < pivot else ge).append(n)
return find(lt, cmin) if cmin + len(lt) < pivot else find(ge, pivot)
test = set(range(1,100))
print(find(test)) # 100
test.remove(42)
print(find(test)) # 42
test.remove(1)
print(find(test)) # 1
Inspired by various solutions and comments above, about 20%-50% faster in my (simplistic) tests than the fastest of them (though I'm sure it could be made faster), and handling all the corner cases mentioned (non-positive numbers, duplicates, and empty list):
import numpy
def firstNotPresent(l):
positive = numpy.fromiter(set(l), dtype=int) # deduplicate
positive = positive[positive > 0] # only keep positive numbers
positive.sort()
top = positive.size + 1
if top == 1: # empty list
return 1
sequence = numpy.arange(1, top)
try:
return numpy.where(sequence < positive)[0][0]
except IndexError: # no numbers are missing, top is next
return top
The idea is: if you enumerate the positive, deduplicated, sorted list starting from one, the first time the index is less than the list value, the index value is missing from the list, and hence is the lowest positive number missing from the list.
This and the other solutions I tested against (those from adrtam, Paritosh Singh, and VPfB) all appear to be roughly O(n), as expected. (It is, I think, fairly obvious that this is a lower bound, since every element in the list must be examined to find the answer.) Edit: looking at this again, of course the big-O for this approach is at least O(n log(n)), because of the sort. It's just that the sort is so fast comparitively speaking that it looked linear overall.
First of all, sorry about the naive question. But I couldn't find help elsewhere
I'm trying to create an Optimal Search Tree using Dynamic Programing in Python that receives two lists (a set of keys and a set of frequencies) and returns two answers:
1 - The smallest path cost.
2 - The generated tree for that smallest cost.
I basically need to create a tree organized by the most accessed items on top (most accessed item it's the root), and return the smallest path cost from that tree, by using the Dynamic Programming solution.
I've the following implemented code using Python:
def optimalSearchTree(keys, freq, n):
#Create an auxiliary 2D matrix to store results of subproblems
cost = [[0 for x in xrange(n)] for y in xrange(n)]
#For a single key, cost is equal to frequency of the key
#for i in xrange (0,n):
# cost[i][i] = freq[i]
# Now we need to consider chains of length 2, 3, ... .
# L is chain length.
for L in xrange (2,n):
for i in xrange(0,n-L+1):
j = i+L-1
cost[i][j] = sys.maxint
for r in xrange (i,j):
if (r > i):
c = cost[i][r-1] + sum(freq, i, j)
elif (r < j):
c = cost[r+1][j] + sum(freq, i, j)
elif (c < cost[i][j]):
cost[i][j] = c
return cost[0][n-1]
def sum(freq, i, j):
s = 0
k = i
for k in xrange (k,j):
s += freq[k]
return s
keys = [10,12,20]
freq = [34,8,50]
n=sys.getsizeof(keys)/sys.getsizeof(keys[0])
print(optimalSearchTree(keys, freq, n))
I'm trying to output the answer 1. The smallest cost for that tree should be 142 (the value stored on the Matrix Position [0][n-1], according to the Dynamic Programming solution). But unfortunately it's returning 0. I couldn't find any issues in that code. What's going wrong?
You have several very questionable statements in your code, definitely inspired by C/Java programming practices. For instance,
keys = [10,12,20]
freq = [34,8,50]
n=sys.getsizeof(keys)/sys.getsizeof(keys[0])
I think you think you calculate the number of items in the list. However, n is not 3:
sys.getsizeof(keys)/sys.getsizeof(keys[0])
3.142857142857143
What you need is this:
n = len(keys)
One more find: elif (r < j) is always True, because r is in the range between i (inclusive) and j (exclusive). The elif (c < cost[i][j]) condition is never checked. The matrix c is never updated in the loop - that's why you always end up with a 0.
Another suggestion: do not overwrite the built-in function sum(). Your namesake function calculates the sum of all items in a slice of a list:
sum(freq[i:j])
import sys
def optimalSearchTree(keys, freq):
#Create an auxiliary 2D matrix to store results of subproblems
n = len(keys)
cost = [[0 for x in range(n)] for y in range(n)]
storeRoot = [[0 for i in range(n)] for i in range(n)]
#For a single key, cost is equal to frequency of the key
for i in range (0,n):
cost[i][i] = freq[i]
# Now we need to consider chains of length 2, 3, ... .
# L is chain length.
for L in range (2,n+1):
for i in range(0,n-L+1):
j = i + L - 1
cost[i][j] = sys.maxsize
for r in range (i,j+1):
c = (cost[i][r-1] if r > i else 0)
c += (cost[r+1][j] if r < j else 0)
c += sum(freq[i:j+1])
if (c < cost[i][j]):
cost[i][j] = c
storeRoot[i][j] = r
return cost[0][n-1], storeRoot
if __name__ == "__main__" :
keys = [10,12,20]
freq = [34,8,50]
print(optimalSearchTree(keys, freq))
So I'm working on some practice problems and having trouble reducing the complexity. I am given an array of distinct integers a[] and a threshold value T. I need to find the number of triplets i,j,k such that a[i] < a[j] < a[k] and a[i] + a[j] + a[k] <= T. I've gotten this down from O(n^3) to O(n^2 log n) with the following python script. I'm wondering if I can optimize this any further.
import sys
import bisect
first_line = sys.stdin.readline().strip().split(' ')
num_numbers = int(first_line[0])
threshold = int(first_line[1])
count = 0
if num_numbers < 3:
print count
else:
numbers = sys.stdin.readline().strip().split(' ')
numbers = map(int, numbers)
numbers.sort()
for i in xrange(num_numbers - 2):
for j in xrange(i+1, num_numbers - 1):
k_1 = threshold - (numbers[i] + numbers[j])
if k_1 < numbers[j]:
break
else:
cross_thresh = bisect.bisect(numbers,k_1) - (j+1)
if cross_thresh > 0:
count += cross_thresh
print count
In the above example, the first input line simply provides the number of numbers and the threshold. The next line is the full list. If the list is less than 3, there is no triplets that can exist, so we return 0. If not, we read in the full list of integers, sort them, and then process them as follows: we iterate over every element of i and j (such that i < j) and we compute the highest value of k that would not break i + j + k <= T. We then find the index (s) of the first element in the list that violates this condition and take all the elements between j and s and add them to the count. For 30,000 elements in a list, this takes about 7 minutes to run. Is there any way to make it faster?
You are performing binary search for each (i,j) pair to find the corresponding value for k. Hence O(n^2 log(n)).
I can suggest an algorithm that will have the worst case time complexity of O(n^2).
Assume the list is sorted from left to right and elements are numbered from 1 to n. Then the pseudo code is:
for i = 1 to n - 2:
j = i + 1
find maximal k with binary search
while j < k:
j = j + 1
find maximal k with linear search to the left, starting from last k position
The reason this has the worst case time complexity of O(n^2) and not O(n^3) is because the position k is monotonically decreasing. Thus even with linear scanning, you are not spending O(n) for each (i,j) pair. Rather, you are spending a total of O(n) time to scan for k for each distinct i value.
O(n^2) version implemented in Python (based on wookie919's answer):
def triplets(N, T):
N = sorted(N)
result = 0
for i in xrange(len(N)-2):
k = len(N)-1
for j in xrange(i+1, len(N)-1):
while k>=0 and N[i]+N[j]+N[k]>T:
k-=1
result += max(k, j)-j
return result
import random
sample = random.sample(xrange(1000000), 30000)
print triplets(sample, 500000)
I tried to program Interiewstreet's Insertion sort challenge Link for the challenge
in Python and here is my code shown below.
The program runs fine for a limit(which I'm not sure of) of input elements, but returns a false output for inputs of larger sizes. Can anyone guide me what am I doing wrong?
# This program tries to identify number of times swapping is done to sort the input array
"""
=>Get input values and print them
=>Get number of test cases and get inputs for those test cases
=>Complete Insertion sort routine
=>Add a variable to count the swapping's
"""
def sort_swap_times(nums):
""" This function takes a list of elements and then returns the number of times
swapping was necessary to complete the sorting
"""
times_swapped = 0L
# perform the insertion sort routine
for j in range(1, len(nums)):
key = nums[j]
i = j - 1
while i >= 0 and nums[i] > key:
# perform swap and update the tracker
nums[i + 1] = nums[i]
times_swapped += 1
i = i - 1
# place the key value in the position identified
nums[i + 1] = key
return times_swapped
# get the upper limit.
limit = int(raw_input())
swap_count = []
# get the length and elements.
for i in range(limit):
length = int(raw_input())
elements_str = raw_input() # returns a list of strings
# convert the given elements from str to int
elements_int = map(int, elements_str.split())
# pass integer elements list to perform the sorting
# get the number of times swapping was needed and append the return value to swap_count list
swap_count.append(sort_swap_times(elements_int))
# print the swap counts for each input array
for x in swap_count:
print x
Your algorithm is correct, but this is a naive approach to the problem and will give you a Time Limit Exceed signal on large test cases (i.e., len(nums) > 10000). Let's analyze the run-time complexity of your algorithm.
for j in range(1, len(nums)):
key = nums[j]
i = j - 1
while i >= 0 and nums[i] > key:
# perform swap and update the tracker
nums[i + 1] = nums[i]
times_swapped += 1
i = i - 1
# place the key value in the position identified
nums[i + 1] = key
The number of steps required in the above snippet is proportional to 1 + 2 + .. + len(nums)-1, or len(nums)*(len(nums)-1)/2 steps, which is O(len(nums)^2).
Hint:
Use the fact that all values will be within [1,10^6]. What you are really doing here is finding the number of inversions in the list, i.e. find all pairs of i < j s.t. nums[i] > nums[j]. Think of a data structure that allows you to find the number of swaps needed for each insert operation in logarithmic time complexity. Of course, there are other approaches.
Spoiler:
Binary Indexed Trees