Question: There are n balls, they are labeled 0, 1, 2 and the order is chaotic, I want to sort them from small to large. Balls:
1, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 0, 1, 2, ...
We must use the fastest way to solve and cannot use sort() function, I thought many ways like the bubble sort, inset sort, etc. But it is not fast. Is there an algorithm that makes the time complexity is O(logn) or O(n)?
given balls list A[] and length n
void sortBalls(int A[], int n)
{
//code here
}
Given the very limited number of item types (0, 1, and 2), you just count the number of occurrences of each. Then to print the "sorted" array, you repeatedly print each label the number of times it occurred. Running time is O(N)
int balls[N] = {...}; // array of balls: initialized to whatever
int sorted_balls[N]; // sorted array of balls (to be set below)
int counts[3] = {}; // count of each label, zero initialized array.
// enumerate over the input array and count each label's occurance
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
counts[balls[i]]++;
}
// sort the items by just printing each label the number of times it was counted above
int k = 0;
for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++)
{
for (int x = 0; x < counts[j]; x++)
{
cout << j << ", "; // print
sorted_balls[k] = j; // store into the final sorted array
k++;
}
}
If you have a small number of possible values known in advance, and the value is everything you need to know about the ball (they carry no other attributes), "sorting" becomes equivalent to "counting how many of each value there are". So you generate a histogram - an array from 0 to 2, in your case - go through your values and increase the corresponding count. Then you generate an array of n_0 balls with number 0, n_1 balls with number 1 and n_2 with number 2, and voila, they're sorted.
It's trivially obvious that you cannot go below O(n) - at the very least, you have to look at each value once to count it, and for n values, that's n operations right away.
Related
I have a list of 100 random integers. Each random integer has a value from 0 to 99. Duplicates are allowed, so the list could be something like
56, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 6, 99...
I need to find the smallest integer (>= 0) is that is not contained in the list.
My initial solution is this:
vector<int> integerList(100); //list of random integers
...
vector<bool> listedIntegers(101, false);
for (int theInt : integerList)
{
listedIntegers[theInt] = true;
}
int smallestInt;
for (int j = 0; j < 101; j++)
{
if (!listedIntegers[j])
{
smallestInt = j;
break;
}
}
But that requires a secondary array for book-keeping and a second (potentially full) list iteration. I need to perform this task millions of times (the actual application is in a greedy graph coloring algorithm, where I need to find the smallest unused color value with a vertex adjacency list), so I'm wondering if there's a clever way to get the same result without so much overhead?
It's been a year, but ...
One idea that comes to mind is to keep track of the interval(s) of unused values as you iterate the list. To allow efficient lookup, you could keep intervals as tuples in a binary search tree, for example.
So, using your sample data:
56, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 6, 99...
You would initially have the unused interval [0..99], and then, as each input value is processed:
56: [0..55][57..99]
1: [0..0][2..55][57..99]
1: no change
1: no change
1: no change
0: [2..55][57..99]
2: [3..55][57..99]
6: [3..5][7..55][57..99]
99: [3..5][7..55][57..98]
Result (lowest value in lowest remaining interval): 3
I believe there is no faster way to do it. What you can do in your case is to reuse vector<bool>, you need to have just one such vector per thread.
Though the better approach might be to reconsider the whole algorithm to eliminate this step at all. Maybe you can update least unused color on every step of the algorithm?
Since you have to scan the whole list no matter what, the algorithm you have is already pretty good. The only improvement I can suggest without measuring (that will surely speed things up) is to get rid of your vector<bool>, and replace it with a stack-allocated array of 4 32-bit integers or 2 64-bit integers.
Then you won't have to pay the cost of allocating an array on the heap every time, and you can get the first unused number (the position of the first 0 bit) much faster. To find the word that contains the first 0 bit, you only need to find the first one that isn't the maximum value, and there are bit twiddling hacks you can use to get the first 0 bit in that word very quickly.
You program is already very efficient, in O(n). Only marginal gain can be found.
One possibility is to divide the number of possible values in blocks of size block, and to register
not in an array of bool but in an array of int, in this case memorizing the value modulo block.
In practice, we replace a loop of size N by a loop of size N/block plus a loop of size block.
Theoretically, we could select block = sqrt(N) = 12 in order to minimize the quantity N/block + block.
In the program hereafter, block of size 8 are selected, assuming that dividing integers by 8 and calculating values modulo 8 should be fast.
However, it is clear that a gain, if any, can be obtained only for a minimum value rather large!
constexpr int N = 100;
int find_min1 (const std::vector<int> &IntegerList) {
constexpr int Size = 13; //N / block
constexpr int block = 8;
constexpr int Vmax = 255; // 2^block - 1
int listedBlocks[Size] = {0};
for (int theInt : IntegerList) {
listedBlocks[theInt / block] |= 1 << (theInt % block);
}
for (int j = 0; j < Size; j++) {
if (listedBlocks[j] == Vmax) continue;
int &k = listedBlocks[j];
for (int b = 0; b < block; b++) {
if ((k%2) == 0) return block * j + b;
k /= 2;
}
}
return -1;
}
Potentially you can reduce the last step to O(1) by using some bit manipulation, in your case __int128, set the corresponding bits in loop one and call something like __builtin_clz or use the appropriate bit hack
The best solution I could find for finding smallest integer from a set is https://codereview.stackexchange.com/a/179042/31480
Here are c++ version.
int solution(std::vector<int>& A)
{
for (std::vector<int>::size_type i = 0; i != A.size(); i++)
{
while (0 < A[i] && A[i] - 1 < A.size()
&& A[i] != i + 1
&& A[i] != A[A[i] - 1])
{
int j = A[i] - 1;
auto tmp = A[i];
A[i] = A[j];
A[j] = tmp;
}
}
for (std::vector<int>::size_type i = 0; i != A.size(); i++)
{
if (A[i] != i+1)
{
return i + 1;
}
}
return A.size() + 1;
}
I was trying to solve a question and I got into a few obstacles that I failed to solve, starting off here is the question: Codeforces - 817D
Now I tried to brute force it, using a basic get min and max for each segment of the array I could generate and then keeping track of them I subtract them and add them together to get the final imbalance, this looked good but it gave me a time limit exceeded cause brute forcing n*(n+1)/2 subsegments of the array given n is 10^6 , so I just failed to go around it and after like a couple of hours of not getting any new ideas I decided to see a solution that I could not understand anything in to be honest :/ , here is the solution:
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
#define ll long long
int a[1000000], l[1000000], r[1000000];
int main(void) {
int i, j, n;
scanf("%d",&n);
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) scanf("%d",&a[i]);
ll ans = 0;
for(j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
vector<pair<int,int>> v;
v.push_back({-1,INF});
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {
while (v.back().second <= a[i]) v.pop_back();
l[i] = v.back().first;
v.push_back({i,a[i]});
}
v.clear();
v.push_back({n,INF});
for(i = n-1; i >= 0; i--) {
while (v.back().second < a[i]) v.pop_back();
r[i] = v.back().first;
v.push_back({i,a[i]});
}
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) ans += (ll) a[i] * (i-l[i]) * (r[i]-i);
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) a[i] *= -1;
}
cout << ans;
}
I tried tracing it but I keep wondering why was the vector used , the only idea I got is he wanted to use the vector as a stack since they both act the same(Almost) but then the fact that I don't even know why we needed a stack here and this equation ans += (ll) a[i] * (i-l[i]) * (r[i]-i); is really confusing me because I don't get where did it come from.
Well thats a beast of a calculation. I must confess, that i don't understand it completely either. The problem with the brute force solution is, that you have to calculate values or all over again.
In a slightly modified example, you calculate the following values for an input of 2, 4, 1 (i reordered it by "distance")
[2, *, *] (from index 0 to index 0), imbalance value is 0; i_min = 0, i_max = 0
[*, 4, *] (from index 1 to index 1), imbalance value is 0; i_min = 1, i_max = 1
[*, *, 1] (from index 2 to index 2), imbalance value is 0; i_min = 2, i_max = 2
[2, 4, *] (from index 0 to index 1), imbalance value is 2; i_min = 0, i_max = 1
[*, 4, 1] (from index 1 to index 2), imbalance value is 3; i_min = 2, i_max = 1
[2, 4, 1] (from index 0 to index 2), imbalance value is 3; i_min = 2, i_max = 1
where i_min and i_max are the indices of the element with the minimum and maximum value.
For a better visual understanding, i wrote the complete array, but hid the unused values with *
So in the last case [2, 4, 1], brute-force looks for the minimum value over all values, which is not necessary, because you already calculated the values for a sub-space of the problem, by calculating [2,4] and [4,1]. But comparing only the values is not enough, you also need to keep track of the indices of the minimum and maximum element, because those can be reused in the next step, when calculating [2, 4, 1].
The idead behind this is a concept called dynamic programming, where results from a calculation are stored to be used again. As often, you have to choose between speed and memory consumption.
So to come back to your question, here is what i understood :
the arrays l and r are used to store the indices of the greatest number left or right of the current one
vector v is used to find the last number (and it's index) that is greater than the current one (a[i]). It keeps track of rising number series, e.g. for the input 5,3,4 at first the 5 is stored, then the 3 and when the 4 comes, the 3 is popped but the index of 5 is needed (to be stored in l[2])
then there is this fancy calculation (ans += (ll) a[i] * (i-l[i]) * (r[i]-i)). The stored indices of the maximum (and in the second run the minimum) elements are calculated together with the value a[i] which does not make much sense for me by now, but seems to work (sorry).
at last, all values in the array a are multiplied by -1, which means, the old maximums are now the minimums, and the calculation is done again (2nd run of the outer for-loop over j)
This last step (multiply a by -1) and the outer for-loop over j are not necessary but it's an elegant way to reuse the code.
Hope this helps a bit.
Say I have a set of numbers from [0, ....., 499]. Combinations are currently being generated sequentially using the C++ std::next_permutation. For reference, the size of each tuple I am pulling out is 3, so I am returning sequential results such as [0,1,2], [0,1,3], [0,1,4], ... [497,498,499].
Now, I want to parallelize the code that this is sitting in, so a sequential generation of these combinations will no longer work. Are there any existing algorithms for computing the ith combination of 3 from 500 numbers?
I want to make sure that each thread, regardless of the iterations of the loop it gets, can compute a standalone combination based on the i it is iterating with. So if I want the combination for i=38 in thread 1, I can compute [1,2,5] while simultaneously computing i=0 in thread 2 as [0,1,2].
EDIT Below statement is irrelevant, I mixed myself up
I've looked at algorithms that utilize factorials to narrow down each individual element from left to right, but I can't use these as 500! sure won't fit into memory. Any suggestions?
Here is my shot:
int k = 527; //The kth combination is calculated
int N=500; //Number of Elements you have
int a=0,b=1,c=2; //a,b,c are the numbers you get out
while(k >= (N-a-1)*(N-a-2)/2){
k -= (N-a-1)*(N-a-2)/2;
a++;
}
b= a+1;
while(k >= N-1-b){
k -= N-1-b;
b++;
}
c = b+1+k;
cout << "["<<a<<","<<b<<","<<c<<"]"<<endl; //The result
Got this thinking about how many combinations there are until the next number is increased. However it only works for three elements. I can't guarantee that it is correct. Would be cool if you compare it to your results and give some feedback.
If you are looking for a way to obtain the lexicographic index or rank of a unique combination instead of a permutation, then your problem falls under the binomial coefficient. The binomial coefficient handles problems of choosing unique combinations in groups of K with a total of N items.
I have written a class in C# to handle common functions for working with the binomial coefficient. It performs the following tasks:
Outputs all the K-indexes in a nice format for any N choose K to a file. The K-indexes can be substituted with more descriptive strings or letters.
Converts the K-indexes to the proper lexicographic index or rank of an entry in the sorted binomial coefficient table. This technique is much faster than older published techniques that rely on iteration. It does this by using a mathematical property inherent in Pascal's Triangle and is very efficient compared to iterating over the set.
Converts the index in a sorted binomial coefficient table to the corresponding K-indexes. I believe it is also faster than older iterative solutions.
Uses Mark Dominus method to calculate the binomial coefficient, which is much less likely to overflow and works with larger numbers.
The class is written in .NET C# and provides a way to manage the objects related to the problem (if any) by using a generic list. The constructor of this class takes a bool value called InitTable that when true will create a generic list to hold the objects to be managed. If this value is false, then it will not create the table. The table does not need to be created in order to use the 4 above methods. Accessor methods are provided to access the table.
There is an associated test class which shows how to use the class and its methods. It has been extensively tested with 2 cases and there are no known bugs.
To read about this class and download the code, see Tablizing The Binomial Coeffieicent.
The following tested code will iterate through each unique combinations:
public void Test10Choose5()
{
String S;
int Loop;
int N = 500; // Total number of elements in the set.
int K = 3; // Total number of elements in each group.
// Create the bin coeff object required to get all
// the combos for this N choose K combination.
BinCoeff<int> BC = new BinCoeff<int>(N, K, false);
int NumCombos = BinCoeff<int>.GetBinCoeff(N, K);
// The Kindexes array specifies the indexes for a lexigraphic element.
int[] KIndexes = new int[K];
StringBuilder SB = new StringBuilder();
// Loop thru all the combinations for this N choose K case.
for (int Combo = 0; Combo < NumCombos; Combo++)
{
// Get the k-indexes for this combination.
BC.GetKIndexes(Combo, KIndexes);
// Verify that the Kindexes returned can be used to retrive the
// rank or lexigraphic order of the KIndexes in the table.
int Val = BC.GetIndex(true, KIndexes);
if (Val != Combo)
{
S = "Val of " + Val.ToString() + " != Combo Value of " + Combo.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(S);
}
SB.Remove(0, SB.Length);
for (Loop = 0; Loop < K; Loop++)
{
SB.Append(KIndexes[Loop].ToString());
if (Loop < K - 1)
SB.Append(" ");
}
S = "KIndexes = " + SB.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(S);
}
}
You should be able to port this class over fairly easily to C++. You probably will not have to port over the generic part of the class to accomplish your goals. Your test case of 500 choose 3 yields 20,708,500 unique combinations, which will fit in a 4 byte int. If 500 choose 3 is simply an example case and you need to choose combinations greater than 3, then you will have to use longs or perhaps fixed point int.
You can describe a particular selection of 3 out of 500 objects as a triple (i, j, k), where i is a number from 0 to 499 (the index of the first number), j ranges from 0 to 498 (the index of the second, skipping over whichever number was first), and k ranges from 0 to 497 (index of the last, skipping both previously-selected numbers). Given that, it's actually pretty easy to enumerate all the possible selections: starting with (0,0,0), increment k until it gets to its maximum value, then increment j and reset k to 0 and so on, until j gets to its maximum value, and so on, until j gets to its own maximum value; then increment i and reset both j and k and continue.
If this description sounds familiar, it's because it's exactly the same way that incrementing a base-10 number works, except that the base is much funkier, and in fact the base varies from digit to digit. You can use this insight to implement a very compact version of the idea: for any integer n from 0 to 500*499*498, you can get:
struct {
int i, j, k;
} triple;
triple AsTriple(int n) {
triple result;
result.k = n % 498;
n = n / 498;
result.j = n % 499;
n = n / 499;
result.i = n % 500; // unnecessary, any legal n will already be between 0 and 499
return result;
}
void PrintSelections(triple t) {
int i, j, k;
i = t.i;
j = t.j + (i <= j ? 1 : 0);
k = t.k + (i <= k ? 1 : 0) + (j <= k ? 1 : 0);
std::cout << "[" << i << "," << j << "," << k << "]" << std::endl;
}
void PrintRange(int start, int end) {
for (int i = start; i < end; ++i) {
PrintSelections(AsTriple(i));
}
}
Now to shard, you can just take the numbers from 0 to 500*499*498, divide them into subranges in any way you'd like, and have each shard compute the permutation for each value in its subrange.
This trick is very handy for any problem in which you need to enumerate subsets.
Given an array of natural numbers and an another natural T, how to find the contiguous subarray with sum less than or equal to T but the number of element in this subarray is maximized?
For example, if the given array is:
{3, 1, 2, 1, 1} and T = 5. Then the maximum contigous subarray is {1, 2, 1, 1} because it will contain 5 elements and the sum is equal to 5.
Another example: {10,1,1,1,1,3,6,7} with T = 8. Then the maximum contigous subarray is ${1,1,1,1,3}$
I can do it with O(n^2) operation. However I am looking for a linear time solution for this problem. Any ideas?
It ought to be possible to do this with O(n). I've not tested this, but it looks OK:
int start = 0, end = 0;
int beststart = 0, bestend = 0;
int sum = array[0];
while (end + 1 < arraysize) {
if (array[end + 1] + sum <= T)
sum += array[end++];
else
sum -= array[start++];
if ((end - start) > (bestend - beststart)) {
beststart = start;
bestend = end;
}
}
So, basically, it moves a sliding window along the array and records the point at which end - start is the greatest.
It seems to be a capped version of the Maximum subarray problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_subarray_problem
I guess you can find inspirations with existing algorithms.
Write a function which has:
input: array of pairs (unique id and weight) length of N, K =< N
output: K random unique ids (from input array)
Note: being called many times frequency of appearing of some Id in the output should be greater the more weight it has.
Example: id with weight of 5 should appear in the output 5 times more often than id with weight of 1. Also, the amount of memory allocated should be known at compile time, i.e. no additional memory should be allocated.
My question is: how to solve this task?
EDIT
thanks for responses everybody!
currently I can't understand how weight of pair affects frequency of appearance of pair in the output, can you give me more clear, "for dummy" explanation of how it works?
Assuming a good enough random number generator:
Sum the weights (total_weight)
Repeat K times:
Pick a number between 0 and total_weight (selection)
Find the first pair where the sum of all the weights from the beginning of the array to that pair is greater than or equal to selection
Write the first part of the pair to the output
You need enough storage to store the total weight.
Ok so you are given input as follows:
(3, 7)
(1, 2)
(2, 5)
(4, 1)
(5, 2)
And you want to pick a random number so that the weight of each id is reflected in the picking, i.e. pick a random number from the following list:
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 5
Initially, I created a temporary array but this can be done in memory as well, you can calculate the size of the list by summing all the weights up = X, in this example = 17
Pick a random number between [0, X-1], and calculate which which id should be returned by looping through the list, doing a cumulative addition on the weights. Say I have a random number 8
(3, 7) total = 7 which is < 8
(1, 2) total = 9 which is >= 8 **boom** 1 is your id!
Now since you need K random unique ids you can create a hashtable from initial array passed to you to work with. Once you find an id, remove it from the hash and proceed with algorithm. Edit Note that you create the hashmap initially only once! You algorithm will work on this instead of looking through the array. I did not put in in the top to keep the answer clear
As long as your random calculation is not using any extra memory secretly, you will need to store K random pickings, which are <= N and a copy of the original array so max space requirements at runtime are O(2*N)
Asymptotic runtime is :
O(n) : create copy of original array into hastable +
(
O(n) : calculate sum of weights +
O(1) : calculate random between range +
O(n) : cumulative totals
) * K random pickings
= O(n*k) overall
This is a good question :)
This solution works with non-integer weights and uses constant space (ie: space complexity = O(1)). It does, however modify the input array, but the only difference in the end is that the elements will be in a different order.
Add the weight of each input to the weight of the following input, starting from the bottom working your way up. Now each weight is actually the sum of that input's weight and all of the previous weights.
sum_weights = the sum of all of the weights, and n = N.
K times:
Choose a random number r in the range [0,sum_weights)
binary search the first n elements for the first slot where the (now summed) weight is greater than or equal to r, i.
Add input[i].id to output.
Subtract input[i-1].weight from input[i].weight (unless i == 0). Now subtract input[i].weight from to following (> i) input weights and also sum_weight.
Move input[i] to position [n-1] (sliding the intervening elements down one slot). This is the expensive part, as it's O(N) and we do it K times. You can skip this step on the last iteration.
subtract 1 from n
Fix back all of the weights from n-1 down to 1 by subtracting the preceding input's weight
Time complexity is O(K*N). The expensive part (of the time complexity) is shuffling the chosen elements. I suspect there's a clever way to avoid that, but haven't thought of anything yet.
Update
It's unclear what the question means by "output: K random unique Ids". The solution above assumes that this meant that the output ids are supposed to be unique/distinct, but if that's not the case then the problem is even simpler:
Add the weight of each input to the weight of the following input, starting from the bottom working your way up. Now each weight is actually the sum of that input's weight and all of the previous weights.
sum_weights = the sum of all of the weights, and n = N.
K times:
Choose a random number r in the range [0,sum_weights)
binary search the first n elements for the first slot where the (now summed) weight is greater than or equal to r, i.
Add input[i].id to output.
Fix back all of the weights from n-1 down to 1 by subtracting the preceding input's weight
Time complexity is O(K*log(N)).
My short answer: in no way.
Just because the problem definition is incorrect. As Axn brilliantly noticed:
There is a little bit of contradiction going on in the requirement. It states that K <= N. But as K approaches N, the frequency requirement will be contradicted by the Uniqueness requirement. Worst case, if K=N, all elements will be returned (i.e appear with same frequency), irrespective of their weight.
Anyway, when K is pretty small relative to N, calculated frequencies will be pretty close to theoretical values.
The task may be splitted on two subtasks:
Generate random numbers with a given distribution (specified by weights)
Generate unique random numbers
Generate random numbers with a given distribution
Calculate sum of weights (sumOfWeights)
Generate random number from the range [1; sumOfWeights]
Find an array element where the sum of weights from the beginning of the array is greater than or equal to the generated random number
Code
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <ctime>
// 0 - id, 1 - weight
typedef unsigned Pair[2];
unsigned Random(Pair* i_set, unsigned* i_indexes, unsigned i_size)
{
unsigned sumOfWeights = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < i_size; ++i)
{
const unsigned index = i_indexes[i];
sumOfWeights += i_set[index][2];
}
const unsigned random = rand() % sumOfWeights + 1;
sumOfWeights = 0;
unsigned i = 0;
for (; i < i_size; ++i)
{
const unsigned index = i_indexes[i];
sumOfWeights += i_set[index][3];
if (sumOfWeights >= random)
{
break;
}
}
return i;
}
Generate unique random numbers
Well known Durstenfeld-Fisher-Yates algorithm may be used for generation unique random numbers. See this great explanation.
It requires N bytes of space, so if N value is defined at compiled time, we are able to allocate necessary space at compile time.
Now, we have to combine these two algorithms. We just need to use our own Random() function instead of standard rand() in unique numbers generation algorithm.
Code
template<unsigned N, unsigned K>
void Generate(Pair (&i_set)[N], unsigned (&o_res)[K])
{
unsigned deck[N];
for (unsigned i = 0; i < N; ++i)
{
deck[i] = i;
}
unsigned max = N - 1;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < K; ++i)
{
const unsigned index = Random(i_set, deck, max + 1);
std::swap(deck[max], deck[index]);
o_res[i] = i_set[deck[max]][0];
--max;
}
}
Usage
int main()
{
srand((unsigned)time(0));
const unsigned c_N = 5; // N
const unsigned c_K = 2; // K
Pair input[c_N] = {{0, 5}, {1, 3}, {2, 2}, {3, 5}, {4, 4}}; // input array
unsigned result[c_K] = {};
const unsigned c_total = 1000000; // number of iterations
unsigned counts[c_N] = {0}; // frequency counters
for (unsigned i = 0; i < c_total; ++i)
{
Generate<c_N, c_K>(input, result);
for (unsigned j = 0; j < c_K; ++j)
{
++counts[result[j]];
}
}
unsigned sumOfWeights = 0;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < c_N; ++i)
{
sumOfWeights += input[i][1];
}
for (unsigned i = 0; i < c_N; ++i)
{
std::cout << (double)counts[i]/c_K/c_total // empirical frequency
<< " | "
<< (double)input[i][1]/sumOfWeights // expected frequency
<< std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
Output
N = 5, K = 2
Frequencies
Empiricical | Expected
0.253813 | 0.263158
0.16584 | 0.157895
0.113878 | 0.105263
0.253582 | 0.263158
0.212888 | 0.210526
Corner case when weights are actually ignored
N = 5, K = 5
Frequencies
Empiricical | Expected
0.2 | 0.263158
0.2 | 0.157895
0.2 | 0.105263
0.2 | 0.263158
0.2 | 0.210526
I do assume that the ids in the output must be unique. This makes this problem a specific instance of random sampling problems.
The first approach that I can think of solves this in O(N^2) time, using O(N) memory (The input array itself plus constant memory).
I Assume that the weights are possitive.
Let A be the array of pairs.
1) Set N to be A.length
2) calculate the sum of all weights W.
3) Loop K times
3.1) r = rand(0,W)
3.2) loop on A and find the first index i such that A[1].w + ...+ A[i].w <= r < A[1].w + ... + A[i+1].w
3.3) add A[i].id to output
3.4) A[i] = A[N-1] (or swap if the array contents should be preserved)
3.5) N = N - 1
3.6) W = W - A[i].w