I am solving a leetcode problem, the code works fine when I ran it, but when I submitted the code I got a Time Limit Exceeded error. I double checked the code but didnt find any infinite loop. Can anyone please take a look for me.
Below is the leetcode problem description:
We have an array A of integers, and an array queries of queries.
For the i-th query val = queries[i][0], index = queries[i][1], we add val to A[index]. Then, the answer to the i-th query is the sum of the even values of A.
(Here, the given index = queries[i][1] is a 0-based index, and each query permanently modifies the array A.)
Return the answer to all queries. Your answer array should have answer[i] as the answer to the i-th query.
Example 1:
Input: A = [1,2,3,4], queries = [[1,0],[-3,1],[-4,0],[2,3]]
Output: [8,6,2,4]
Explanation:
At the beginning, the array is [1,2,3,4].
After adding 1 to A[0], the array is [2,2,3,4], and the sum of even values is 2 + 2 + 4 = 8.
After adding -3 to A[1], the array is [2,-1,3,4], and the sum of even values is 2 + 4 = 6.
After adding -4 to A[0], the array is [-2,-1,3,4], and the sum of even values is -2 + 4 = 2.
After adding 2 to A[3], the array is [-2,-1,3,6], and the sum of even values is -2 + 6 = 4.
class Solution {
public:
vector<int> sumEvenAfterQueries(vector<int>& A, vector<vector<int>>& queries) {
vector<int> B;
for(int i = 0; i < queries.size(); i++)
{
int index = queries[i][1];
A[index] = A[index] + queries[i][0];
int sum = 0;
for(int j = 0; j < A.size(); j++)
{
if(A[j]%2 == 0)
{
sum = sum + A[j];
}
}
B.push_back(sum);
}
return B;
}
};
You are likely exceeding the time limit because your algorithm is naive. By recomputing the sum for every query, your program has a time complexity of O(M * N), where M is the size of the array, and N is the number of queries.
It's almost a guarantee that the test set will be designed to fail (by exceeding time limit) on a naive implementation.
There is absolutely no need to recompute the sum every time. You only need to compute it once.
After that, every time you have a query, you just need to update the current sum using only what changed. Use your program's knowledge of the previous and new values (i.e. part of the sum or not) when updating.
By doing this, your program's time complexity becomes O(M + N).
Related
It is leetcode 462.
I have one algorithm but it failed some tests while passing others.
I tried to think through but not sure what is the corner case that i overlooked.
We have one array of N elements. One move is defined as increasing OR decreasing one single element of the array by 1. We are trying to find the minimum number of moves to make all elements equal.
My idea is:
1. find the average
2. find the element closest to the average
3. sum together the difference between each element and the element closest to the average.
What am i missing? Please provide one counter example.
class Solution {
public:
int minMoves2(vector<int>& nums) {
int sum=0;
for(int i=0;i<nums.size();i++){
sum += nums[i];
}
double avg = (double) sum / nums.size();
int min = nums[0];
int index =0 ;
for(int i=0;i<nums.size();i++){
if(abs(nums[i]-avg) <= abs(min - avg)){
min = nums[i];
index = i;
}
}
sum=0;
for(int i=0;i<nums.size();i++){
sum += abs(min - nums[i]);
}
return sum;
}
};
Suppose the array is [1, 1, 10, 20, 100]. The average is a bit over 20. So your solution would involving 19 + 19 + 10 + 0 + 80 moves = 128. What if we target 10 instead? Then we have 9 + 9 + 0 + 10 + 90 moves = 118. So this is a counter example.
Suppose you decide to target changing all array elements to some value T. The question is, what's the right value for T? Given some value of T, we could ask if increasing or decreasing T by 1 will improve or worsen our outcome. If we decrease T by 1, then all values greater than T need an extra move, and all those below need one move less. That means that if T is above the median, there are more values below it than above, and so we benefit from decreasing T. We can make the opposite argument if T is less than the median. From this we can conclude that the correct value of T is actually the median itself, which my example demonstreates (strictly speaking, when you have an even sized array, T can be anywhere between the two middle elements).
I have written this code which has an execution time of 3.664 sec but the time limit is 3 seconds.
The question is this-
N teams participate in a league cricket tournament on Mars, where each
pair of distinct teams plays each other exactly once. Thus, there are a total
of (N × (N1))/2 matches. An expert has assigned a strength to each team,
a positive integer. Strangely, the Martian crowds love onesided matches
and the advertising revenue earned from a match is the absolute value of
the difference between the strengths of the two matches. Given the
strengths of the N teams, find the total advertising revenue earned from all
the matches.
Input format
Line 1 : A single integer, N.
Line 2 : N space separated integers, the strengths of the N teams.
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
int n;
cin>>n;
int stren[200000];
for(int a=0;a<n;a++)
cin>>stren[a];
long long rev=0;
for(int b=0;b<n;b++)
{
int pos=b;
for(int c=pos;c<n;c++)
{
if(stren[pos]>stren[c])
rev+=(long long)(stren[pos]-stren[c]);
else
rev+=(long long)(stren[c]-stren[pos]);
}
}
cout<<rev;
}
Can you please give me a solution??
Rewrite your loop as:
sort(stren);
for(int b=0;b<n;b++)
{
rev += (2 * b - n + 1) * static_cast<long long>(stren[b]);
}
Live code here
Why does it workYour loops make all pairs of 2 numbers and add the difference to rev. So in a sorted array, bth item is subtracted (n-1-b) times and added b times. Hence the number 2 * b - n + 1
There can be 1 micro optimization that possibly is not needed:
sort(stren);
for(int b = 0, m = 1 - n; b < n; b++, m += 2)
{
rev += m * static_cast<long long>(stren[b]);
}
In place of the if statement, use
rev += std::abs(stren[pos]-stren[c]);
abs returns the positive difference between two integers. This will be much quicker than an if test and ensuing branching. The (long long) cast is also unnecessary although the compiler will probably optimise that out.
There are other optimisations you could make, but this one should do it. If your abs function is poorly implemented on your system, you could always make use of this fast version for computing the absolute value of i:
(i + (i >> 31)) ^ (i >> 31) for a 32 bit int.
This has no branching at all and would beat even an inline ternary! (But you should use int32_t as your data type; if you have 64 bit int then you'll need to adjust my formula.) But we are in the realms of micro-optimisation here.
for(int b = 0; b < n; b++)
{
for(int c = b; c < n; c++)
{
rev += abs(stren[b]-stren[c]);
}
}
This should give you a speed increase, might be enough.
An interesting approach might be to collapse down the strengths from an array - if that distribution is pretty small.
So:
std::unordered_map<int, int> strengths;
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
int next;
cin >> next;
++strengths[next];
}
This way, we can reduce the number of things we have to sum:
long long rev = 0;
for (auto a = strengths.begin(); a != strengths.end(); ++a) {
for (auto b = std::next(a), b != strengths.end(); ++b) {
rev += abs(a->first - b->first) * (a->second * b->second);
// ^^^^ stren diff ^^^^^^^^ ^^ number of occurences ^^
}
}
cout << rev;
If the strengths tend to be repeated a lot, this could save a lot of cycles.
What exactly we are doing in this problem is: For all combinations of pairs of elements, we are adding up the absolute values of the differences between the elements of the pair. i.e. Consider the sample input
3 10 3 5
Ans (Take only absolute values) = (3-10) + (3-3) + (3-5) + (10-3) + (10-5) + (3-5) = 7 + 0 + 2 + 7 + 5 + 2 = 23
Notice that I have fixed 3, iterated through the remaining elements, found the differences and added them to Ans, then fixed 10, iterated through the remaining elements and so on till the last element
Unfortunately, N(N-1)/2 iterations are required for the above procedure, which wouldn't be ok for the time limit.
Could we better it?
Let's sort the array and repeat this procedure. After sorting, the sample input is now 3 3 5 10
Let's start by fixing the greatest element, 10 and iterating through the array like how we did before (of course, the time complexity is the same)
Ans = (10-3) + (10-3) + (10-5) + (5-3) + (5-3) + (3-3) = 7 + 7 + 5 + 2 + 2 = 23
We could rearrange the above as
Ans = (10)(3)-(3+3+5) + 5(2) - (3+3) + 3(1) - (3)
Notice a pattern? Let's generalize it.
Suppose we have an array of strengths arr[N] of size N indexed from 0
Ans = (arr[N-1])(N-1) - (arr[0] + arr[1] + ... + arr[N-2]) + (arr[N-2])(N-2) - (arr[0] + arr[1] + arr[N-3]) + (arr[N-3])(N-3) - (arr[0] + arr[1] + arr[N-4]) + ... and so on
Right. So let's put this new idea to work. We'll introduce a 'sum' variable. Some basic DP to the rescue.
For i=0 to N-1
sum = sum + arr[i]
Ans = Ans + (arr[i+1]*(i+1)-sum)
That's it, you just have to sort the array and iterate only once through it. Excluding the sorting part, it's down to N iterations from N(N-1)/2, I suppose that's called O(N) time EDIT: That is O(N log N) time overall
Hope it helped!
This is my problem.
Given an array of integers and another integer k, find the sum of differences of each element of the array and k.
For example if the array is 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and k is 3
Sum of difference
= abs(2 - 3) + abs(4-3) + abs(6 - 3) + abs(8 - 3) + abs(10 - 3)
= 1 + 1 + 3 + 5 + 7
= 17
The array remains the same throughout and can contain up to 100000 elements and there will be 100000 different values of k to be tested. k may or may not be an element of the array. This has to be done within 1s or about 100M operations. How do I achieve this?
You can run multiple queries for sums of absolute differences in O(log N) if you add a preprocessing step which costs O(N * log N).
Sort the array, then for each item in the array store the sum of all numbers that are smaller than or equal to the corresponding item. This can be done in O(N * log N) Now you have a pair of arrays that look like this:
2 4 6 8 10 // <<== Original data
2 6 12 20 30 // <<== Partial sums
In addition, store the total T of all numbers in the array.
Now you can get sums of absolute differences by running a binary search on the original array, and using the sums from the partial sums array to compute the answer: subtract the sum of all numbers to the left of the target k from the count of numbers to the left of the target times k, then subtract the count times k from the sum to the right of the number, and add the two numbers together. The partial sum of the numbers to the right of the number can be computed by subtracting the partial sum on the left from the total T.
For k=3 binary search gets you to position 1.
Partial sum on the left is 2
Count of items on the left is 1
Partial sum on the right is (30-2)=28
Count of items on the right is 4
You compute (1*3-2) + (28-4*3) = 1 + 16 = 17
First sort the array and then compute an array that stores the sum of the prefixes of the resulting sorted array. Let's denote this array p, you can compute p in linear time so that p[i] = a[0] + a[1] + ... a[i]. Now having this array you can answer with constant complexity the question what is the sum of elements a[x] + a[x+1] + .... +a[y](i.e. with indices x to y). To do that you simply compute p[y] - p[x-1](Take special care when x is 1).
Now to answer a query of the type what is the sum of absolute differences with k, we will split the problem in two parts - what is the sum of the numbers greater than k and the numbers smaller than k. In order to compute these, perform a binary search to find the position of k in the sorted a(denote that idx), and compute the sum of the values in a before idx(denote that s) and after idx(denote that S). Now the sum of absolute differences with k is idx * k - s + S - (a.length - idx)* k. This of course is pseudo code and what I mean by a.length is the number of elements in a.
After performing a linearithmic precomputation, you will be able to answer a query with O(log(n)). Please note this approach only makes sense if you plan to perform multiple queries. If you are only going to perform a single query, you can not possibly go faster than O(n).
Just implementing dasblinkenlight's solution in "contest C++":
It does exactly as he says. Reads the values, sorts them, stores the accumulated sum in V[i].second, but here V[i] is the acumulated sum until i-1 (to simplify the algorithm). It also stores a sentinel in V[n] for cases when the query is greater than max(V).
Then, for each query, binary search for the value. In this case V[a].second is the sum of values lesser than query, V[n].second-V[a].second is the sum of values greater than it.
#include<iostream>
#include<algorithm>
#define pii pair<int, int>
using namespace std;
pii V[100001];
int main() {
int n;
while(cin >> n) {
for(int i=0; i<n; i++)
cin >> V[i].first;
sort(V, V+n);
V[0].second = 0;
for(int i=1; i<=n; i++)
V[i].second = V[i-1].first + V[i-1].second;
int k; cin >> k;
for(int i=0; i<k; i++) {
int query; cin >> query;
pii* res = upper_bound(V, V+n, pii(query, 0));
int a = res-V, b=n-(res-V);
int left = query*a-V[a].second;
int right = V[n].second-V[a].second-query*b;
cout << left+right << endl;
}
}
}
It assumes a file with a format like this:
5
10 2 8 4 6
2
3 5
Then, for each query, it answers like this:
17
13
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.
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