Given a string, find two identical subsequences with consecutive indexes C++ - c++

Question

I need to construct an algorithm (not necessarily effective) that given a string finds and prints two identical subsequences (by print I mean color for example). What more, the union of the sets of indexes of these two subsequences has to be a set of consecutive natural numbers (a full segment of integers).
In mathematics, the thing what I am looking for is called "tight twins", if it helps anything. (E.g., see the paper (PDF) here.)
Let me give a few examples:
1) consider string 231213231
It has two subsequences I am looking for in the form of "123". To see it better look at this image:
The first subsequence is marked with underlines and the second with overlines. As you can see they have all the properties I need.
2) consider string 12341234
3) consider string 12132344.
Now it gets more complicated:
4) consider string: 13412342
It is also not that easy:
I think that these examples explain well enough what I meant.
I've been thinking a long time about an algorithm that could do that but without success.
For coloring, I wanted to use this piece of code:
using namespace std;
HANDLE hConsole;
hConsole = GetStdHandle(STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE);
SetConsoleTextAttribute(hConsole, k);
where k is color.
Any help, even hints, would be highly appreciated.

Answer 1

Here's a simple recursion that tests for tight twins. When there's a duplicate, it splits the decision tree in case the duplicate is still part of the first twin. You'd have to run it on each substring of even length. Other optimizations for longer substrings could include hashing tests for char counts, as well as matching the non-duplicate portions of the candidate twins (characters that only appear twice in the whole substring).
Explanation of the function:
First, a hash is created with each character as key and the indexes it appears in as values. Then we traverse the hash: if a character count is odd, the function returns false; and indexes of characters with a count greater than 2 are added to a list of duplicates - characters half of which belong in one twin but we don't know which.
The basic rule of the recursion is to only increase i when a match for it is found later in the string, while maintaining a record of chosen matches (js) that i must skip without looking for a match. It works because if we find n/2 matches, in order, by the time j reaches the end, that's basically just another way of saying the string is composed of tight twins.
JavaScript code:
function isTightTwins(s){
var n = s.length,
char_idxs = {};
for (var i=0; i<n; i++){
if (char_idxs[s[i]] == undefined){
char_idxs[s[i]] = [i];
} else {
char_idxs[s[i]].push(i);
}
}
var duplicates = new Set();
for (var i in char_idxs){
// character with odd count
if (char_idxs[i].length & 1){
return false;
}
if (char_idxs[i].length > 2){
for (let j of char_idxs[i]){
duplicates.add(j);
}
}
}
function f(i,j,js){
// base case positive
if (js.size == n/2 && j == n){
return true;
}
// base case negative
if (j > n || (n - j < n/2 - js.size)){
return false;
}
// i is not less than j
if (i >= j) {
return f(i,j + 1,js);
}
// this i is in the list of js
if (js.has(i)){
return f(i + 1,j,js);
// yet to find twin, no match
} else if (s[i] != s[j]){
return f(i,j + 1,js);
} else {
// maybe it's a twin and maybe it's a duplicate
if (duplicates.has(j)) {
var _js = new Set(js);
_js.add(j);
return f(i,j + 1,js) | f(i + 1,j + 1,_js);
// it's a twin
} else {
js.add(j);
return f(i + 1,j + 1,js);
}
}
}
return f(0,1,new Set());
}
console.log(isTightTwins("1213213515")); // true
console.log(isTightTwins("11222332")); // false

Answer 2

WARNING: Commenter גלעד ברקן points out that this algorithm gives the wrong answer of 6 (higher than should be possible!) for the string 1213213515. My implementation gets the same wrong answer, so there seems to be a serious problem with this algorithm. I'll try to figure out what the problem is, but in the meantime DO NOT TRUST THIS ALGORITHM!
I've thought of a solution that will take O(n^3) time and O(n^2) space, which should be usable on strings of up to length 1000 or so. It's based on a tweak to the usual notion of longest common subsequences (LCS). For simplicity I'll describe how to find a minimal-length substring with the "tight twin" property that starts at position 1 in the input string, which I assume has length 2n; just run this algorithm 2n times, each time starting at the next position in the input string.
"Self-avoiding" common subsequences
If the length-2n input string S has the "tight twin" (TT) property, then it has a common subsequence with itself (or equivalently, two copies of S have a common subsequence) that:
is of length n, and
obeys the additional constraint that no character position in the first copy of S is ever matched with the same character position in the second copy.
In fact we can safely tighten the latter constraint to no character position in the first copy of S is ever matched to an equal or lower character position in the second copy, due to the fact that we will be looking for TT substrings in increasing order of length, and (as the bottom section shows) in any minimal-length TT substring, it's always possible to assign characters to the two subsequences A and B so that for any matched pair (i, j) of positions in the substring with i < j, the character at position i is assigned to A. Let's call such a common subsequence a self-avoiding common subsequence (SACS).
The key thing that makes efficient computation possible is that no SACS of a length-2n string can have more than n characters (since clearly you can't cram more than 2 sets of n characters into a length-2n string), so if such a length-n SACS exists then it must be of maximum possible length. So to determine whether S is TT or not, it suffices to look for a maximum-length SACS between S and itself, and check whether this in fact has length n.
Computation by dynamic programming
Let's define f(i, j) to be the length of the longest self-avoiding common subsequence of the length-i prefix of S with the length-j prefix of S. To actually compute f(i, j), we can use a small modification of the usual LCS dynamic programming formula:
f(0, _) = 0
f(_, 0) = 0
f(i>0, j>0) = max(f(i-1, j), f(i, j-1), m(i, j))
m(i, j) = (if S[i] == S[j] && i < j then 1 else 0) + f(i-1, j-1)
As you can see, the only difference is the additional condition && i < j. As with the usual LCS DP, computing it takes O(n^2) time, since the 2 arguments each range between 0 and n, and the computation required outside of recursive steps is O(1). (Actually we need only compute the "upper triangle" of this DP matrix, since every cell (i, j) below the diagonal will be dominated by the corresponding cell (j, i) above it -- though that doesn't alter the asymptotic complexity.)
To determine whether the length-2j prefix of the string is TT, we need the maximum value of f(i, 2j) over all 0 <= i <= 2n -- that is, the largest value in column 2j of the DP matrix. This maximum can be computed in O(1) time per DP cell by recording the maximum value seen so far and updating as necessary as each DP cell in the column is calculated. Proceeding in increasing order of j from j=1 to j=2n lets us fill out the DP matrix one column at a time, always treating shorter prefixes of S before longer ones, so that when processing column 2j we can safely assume that no shorter prefix is TT (since if there had been, we would have found it earlier and already terminated).

Answer 3

Let the string length be N.
There are two approaches.
Approach 1. This approach is always exponential-time.
For each possible subsequence of length 1..N/2, list all occurences of this subsequence. For each occurence, list positions of all characters.
For example, for 123123 it should be:
(1, ((1), (4)))
(2, ((2), (5)))
(3, ((3), (6)))
(12, ((1,2), (4,5)))
(13, ((1,3), (4,6)))
(23, ((2,3), (5,6)))
(123, ((1,2,3),(4,5,6)))
(231, ((2,3,4)))
(312, ((3,4,5)))
The latter two are not necessary, as their appear only once.
One way to do it is to start with subsequences of length 1 (i.e. characters), then proceed to subsequences of length 2, etc. At each step, drop all subsequences which appear only once, as you don't need them.
Another way to do it is to check all 2**N binary strings of length N. Whenever a binary string has not more than N/2 "1" digits, add it to the table. At the end drop all subsequences which appear only once.
Now you have a list of subsequences which appear more than 1 time. For each subsequence, check all the pairs, and check whether such a pair forms a tight twin.
Approach 2. Seek for tight twins more directly. For each N*(N-1)/2 substrings, check whether the substring is even length, and each character appears in it even number of times, and then, being its length L, check whether it contains two tight twins of the length L/2. There are 2**L ways to divide it, the simplest you can do is to check all of them. There are more interesting ways to seek for t.t., though.

Answer 4

I would like to approach this as a dynamic programming/pattern matching problem. We deal with characters one at a time, left to right, and we maintain a herd of Non-Deterministic Finite Automata / NDFA, which correspond to partial matches. We start off with a single null match, and with each character we extend each NDFA in every possible way, with each NDFA possibly giving rise to many children, and then de-duplicate the result - so we need to minimise the state held in the NDFA to put a bound on the size of the herd.
I think a NDFA needs to remember the following:
1) That it skipped a stretch of k characters before the match region.
2) A suffix which is a p-character string, representing characters not yet matched which will need to be matched by overlines.
I think that you can always assume that the p-character string needs to be matched with overlines because you can always swap overlines and underlines in an answer if you swap throughout the answer.
When you see a new character you can extend NDFAs in the following ways:
a) An NDFA with nothing except skips can add a skip.
b) An NDFA can always add the new character to its suffix, which may be null
c) An NDFA with a p character string whose first character matches the new character can turn into an NDFA with a p-1 character string which consists of the last p-1 characters of the old suffix. If the string is now of zero length then you have found a match, and you can work out what it was if you keep links back from each NDFA to its parent.
I thought I could use a neater encoding which would guarantee only a polynomial herd size, but I couldn't make that work, and I can't prove polynomial behaviour here, but I notice that some cases of degenerate behaviour are handled reasonably, because they lead to multiple ways to get to the same suffix.