The problem statement is given an array and a given sum "T", find all the pairs of indices of the elements in the array which add up to T. Additional requirements/constraints:
Indexing starts from 0
The indices must be displayed with lower index first (Ex: 24, 30 instead of 30, 24)
The indices must be displayed in ascending order (Ex: if we find (1,3), (0,2) and (5,8) the output must be (0,2) (1,3) (5,8)
There can be duplicate elements in the array, which also have to be considered
Here's my code in C++, I used the hash-table approach using unordered_set:
void Twosum(vector <int> res, int T){
int temp; int ti = -1;
unordered_set<int> s;
vector <int> res2 = res; //Just a copy of the input vector
vector <tuple<int, int>> indices; //Result to be output
for (int i = 0; i < (int)res.size(); i++){
temp = T - res[i];
if (s.find(temp) != s.end()){
while(ti < (int)res.size()){ //While loop for finding all the instances of temp in the array,
//not part of the original hash-table algorithm, something I added
ti = find(res2.begin(), res2.end(), temp) - res2.begin();
//Here find() takes O(n) time which is an issue
res2[ti] = lim; //To remove that instance of temp so that new instances
//can be found in the while loop, here lim = 10^9
if(i <= ti) indices.push_back(make_tuple(i, ti));
else indices.push_back(make_tuple(ti, i));
}
}
s.insert(res[i]);
}
if(ti == -1)
{cout<<"-1 -1"; //if no indices were found
return;}
sort(indices.begin(), indices.end()); //sorting since unordered_set stores elements randomly
for(int i=0; i<(int)indices.size(); i++)
cout<<get<0>(indices[i])<<" "<<get<1>(indices[i])<<endl;
}
This has multiple issues:
firstly that while loop doesn't work as intended, instead it shows SIGABRT error (free(): invalid pointer). The ti index is also somehow going beyond the vector bounds, even though I have that check in the while loop.
Secondly the find() function works in O(n) time, which increases the overall complexity to O(n^2), which is causing my program to timeout during execution. However that function is required since we have to output indices.
Lastly this unordered-set implementation doesn't seem to work when there are many duplicate elements in the array (since sets only take unique elements), which is one of the main constraints of the problem. This makes me think we need some sort of hash function or hashmap to deal with the duplicates? I'm not sure...
All the different algorithms I've found for this on the internet have dealt with just printing the elements and not the indices, hence I've had no luck with this problem.
If any of you know an optimal algorithm for this while also satisfying the constraints and running under O(n) time, your help would be highly appreciated. Thank you in advance.
Here is a pseudo-code answering your question, using hash tables (or maps) and set. I let you translate this to cpp using adapted data structures (in this case, classic hashmaps and sets will do the job well).
Notations: we will denote A the array, n its length, and T the "sum".
// first we build a map element -> {set of indices corresponding to this element}
Let M be an empty map; // or hash map, or hash table, or dictionary
for i from 0 to n-1 do {
Let e = A[i];
if e is not a key of M then {
M[e] = new_set()
}
M[e].add(i)
}
// Now we iterate over the elements
for each key e of M do {
if T-e is a key of M then {
display_combinations(M[e], M[T-e]);
}
}
// The helper function display_combinations
function display_combinations(set1, set2) {
for each element e1 of set1 do {
for element e2 of set2 do {
if e1 < e2 then {
display "(e1, e2)";
} else if e1 > e2 then {
display "(e2, e1)";
}
}
}
}
As said in the comments, the complexity in the worst case of this algorithm is in O(n²). A way to see that we cannot go below this complexity is that the size of the output may be in O(n²), in the case where all elements of the array have the value T/2.
Edit: this pseudo code does not output the pairs in the order. Just store them in an array of pairs, and sort this array before displaying it. Same, I did not treat the case where a pair (i, i) may satisfy the requirement. You may have to consider it (just change e1 > e2 by e1 >= e2 in the last loop)
I think this is a fairly common question but I didn't find any answer for this using hashing in C++.
I have two arrays, both of the same lengths, which contain some elements, for example:
A={5,3,5,4,2}
B={3,4,1,2,1}
Here, the uncommon elements are: {5,5,1,1}
I have tried this approach- iterating a while loop on both the arrays after sorting:
while(i<n && j<n) {
if(a[i]<b[j])
uncommon[k++]=a[i++];
else if (a[i] > b[j])
uncommon[k++]=b[j++];
else {
i++;
j++;
}
}
while(i<n && a[i]!=b[j-1])
uncommon[k++]=a[i++];
while(j < n && b[j]!=a[i-1])
uncommon[k++]=b[j++];
and I am getting the correct answer with this. However, I want a better approach in terms of time complexity since sorting both arrays every time might be computationally expensive.
I tried to do hashing but couldn't figure it out entirely.
To insert elements from arr1[]:
set<int> uncommon;
for (int i=0;i<n1;i++)
uncommon.insert(arr1[i]);
To compare arr2[] elements:
for (int i = 0; i < n2; i++)
if (uncommon.find(arr2[i]) != uncommon.end())
Now, what I am unable to do is to send only those elements to the uncommon array[] which are uncommon to both of them.
Thank you!
First of all, std::set does not have anything to do with hashing. Sets and maps are ordered containers. Implementations may differ, but most likely it is a binary search tree. Whatever you do, you wont get faster that nlogn with them - the same complexity as sorting.
If you're fine with nlogn and sorting, I'd strongly advice just using set_symmetric_difference algorithm https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/set_symmetric_difference , it requires two sorted containers.
But if you insist on an implementation relying on hashing, you should use std::unordered_set or std::unordered_map. This way you can be faster than nlogn. You can get your answer in nm time, where n = a.size() and m = b.size(). You should create two unordered_set`s: hashed_a, hashed_b and in two loops check what elements from hashed_a are not in hashed_b, and what elements in hashed_b are not in hashed_a. Here a pseudocode:
create hashed_a and hashed_b
create set_result // for the result
for (a_v : hashed_a)
if (a_v not in hashed_b)
set_result.insert(a_v)
for (b_v : hashed_b)
if (b_v not in hashed_a)
set_result.insert(b_v)
return set_result // it holds the symmetric diference, which you need
UPDATE: as noted in the comments, my answer doesn't count for duplicates. The easiest way to modify it for duplicates would be to use unordered_map<int, int> with the keys for elements in the set and values for number of encounters.
First, you need to find a way to distinguish between the same values contained in the same array (for ex. 5 and 5 in the first array, and 1 and 1 in the second array). This is the key to reducing the overall complexity, otherwise you can't do better than O(nlogn). A good possible algorithm for this task is to create a wrapper object to hold your actual values, and put in your arrays pointers to those wrapper objects with actual data, so your pointer addresses will serve as a unique identifier for objects. This wrapping will cost you just O(n1+n2) operations, but also an additional O(n1+n2) space.
Now your problem is that you have in both arrays only elements unique to each of those arrays, and you want to find the uncommon elements. This means the (Union of both array elements) - (Intersection of both array elements). Therefore, all you need to do is to push all the elements of the first array into a hash-map (complexity O(n1)), and then start pushing all the elements of the second array into the same hash-map (complexity O(n2)), by detecting the collisions (equality of an element from first array with an element from the second array). This comparison step will require O(n2) comparisons in the worst case. So for the maximum performance optimization you could have checked the size of the arrays before starting pushing the elements into the hash-map, and swap the arrays so that the first push will take place with the longest array. Your overall algorithm complexity would be O(n1+n2) pushes (hashings) and O(n2) comparisons.
The implementation is the most boring stuff, so I let it to you ;)
A solution without sorting (and without hashing but you seem to care more about complexity then the hashing itself) is to notice the following : an uncommon element e is an element that is in exactly one multiset.
This means that the multiset of all uncommon elements is the union between 2 multisets:
S1 = The element in A that are not in B
S2 = The element in B that are not in A
Using the std::set_difference, you get:
#include <set>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
int main() {
std::multiset<int> ms1{5,3,5,4,2};
std::multiset<int> ms2{3,4,1,2,1};
std::vector<int> v;
std::set_difference( ms1.begin(), ms1.end(), ms2.begin(), ms2.end(), std::back_inserter(v));
std::set_difference( ms2.begin(), ms2.end(), ms1.begin(), ms1.end(), std::back_inserter(v));
for(int e : v)
std::cout << e << ' ';
return 0;
}
Output:
5 5 1 1
The complexity of this code is 4.(N1+N2 -1) where N1 and N2 are the size of the multisets.
Links:
set_difference: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/set_difference
compiler explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/o3KGbf
The Question can Be solved in O(nlogn) time-complexity.
ALGORITHM
Sort both array with merge sort in O(nlogn) complexity. You can also use sort-function. For example sort(array1.begin(),array1.end()).
Now use two pointer method to remove all common elements on both arrays.
Program of above Method
int i = 0, j = 0;
while (i < array1.size() && j < array2.size()) {
// If not common, print smaller
if (array1[i] < array2[j]) {
cout << array1[i] << " ";
i++;
}
else if (array2[j] < array1[i]) {
cout << array2[j] << " ";
j++;
}
// Skip common element
else {
i++;
j++;
}
}
Complexity of above program is O(array1.size() + array2.size()). In worst case say O(2n)
The above program gives the uncommon elements as output. If you want to store them , just create a vector and push them into vector.
Original Problem LINK
Input: A positive integer K and a big text. The text can actually be viewed as word sequence. So we don't have to worry about how to break down it into word sequence.
Output: The most frequent K words in the text.
My thinking is like this.
use a Hash table to record all words' frequency while traverse the whole word sequence. In this phase, the key is "word" and the value is "word-frequency". This takes O(n) time.
sort the (word, word-frequency) pair; and the key is "word-frequency". This takes O(n*lg(n)) time with normal sorting algorithm.
After sorting, we just take the first K words. This takes O(K) time.
To summarize, the total time is O(n+nlg(n)+K)， Since K is surely smaller than N, so it is actually O(nlg(n)).
We can improve this. Actually, we just want top K words. Other words' frequency is not concern for us. So, we can use "partial Heap sorting". For step 2) and 3), we don't just do sorting. Instead, we change it to be
2') build a heap of (word, word-frequency) pair with "word-frequency" as key. It takes O(n) time to build a heap;
3') extract top K words from the heap. Each extraction is O(lg(n)). So, total time is O(k*lg(n)).
To summarize, this solution cost time O(n+k*lg(n)).
This is just my thought. I haven't find out way to improve step 1).
I Hope some Information Retrieval experts can shed more light on this question.
This can be done in O(n) time
Solution 1:
Steps:
Count words and hash it, which will end up in the structure like this
var hash = {
"I" : 13,
"like" : 3,
"meow" : 3,
"geek" : 3,
"burger" : 2,
"cat" : 1,
"foo" : 100,
...
...
Traverse through the hash and find the most frequently used word (in this case "foo" 100), then create the array of that size
Then we can traverse the hash again and use the number of occurrences of words as array index, if there is nothing in the index, create an array else append it in the array. Then we end up with an array like:
0 1 2 3 100
[[ ],[cat],[burger],[like, meow, geek],[]...[foo]]
Then just traverse the array from the end, and collect the k words.
Solution 2:
Steps:
Same as above
Use min heap and keep the size of min heap to k, and for each word in the hash we compare the occurrences of words with the min, 1) if it's greater than the min value, remove the min (if the size of the min heap is equal to k) and insert the number in the min heap. 2) rest simple conditions.
After traversing through the array, we just convert the min heap to array and return the array.
You're not going to get generally better runtime than the solution you've described. You have to do at least O(n) work to evaluate all the words, and then O(k) extra work to find the top k terms.
If your problem set is really big, you can use a distributed solution such as map/reduce. Have n map workers count frequencies on 1/nth of the text each, and for each word, send it to one of m reducer workers calculated based on the hash of the word. The reducers then sum the counts. Merge sort over the reducers' outputs will give you the most popular words in order of popularity.
A small variation on your solution yields an O(n) algorithm if we don't care about ranking the top K, and a O(n+k*lg(k)) solution if we do. I believe both of these bounds are optimal within a constant factor.
The optimization here comes again after we run through the list, inserting into the hash table. We can use the median of medians algorithm to select the Kth largest element in the list. This algorithm is provably O(n).
After selecting the Kth smallest element, we partition the list around that element just as in quicksort. This is obviously also O(n). Anything on the "left" side of the pivot is in our group of K elements, so we're done (we can simply throw away everything else as we go along).
So this strategy is:
Go through each word and insert it into a hash table: O(n)
Select the Kth smallest element: O(n)
Partition around that element: O(n)
If you want to rank the K elements, simply sort them with any efficient comparison sort in O(k * lg(k)) time, yielding a total run time of O(n+k * lg(k)).
The O(n) time bound is optimal within a constant factor because we must examine each word at least once.
The O(n + k * lg(k)) time bound is also optimal because there is no comparison-based way to sort k elements in less than k * lg(k) time.
If your "big word list" is big enough, you can simply sample and get estimates. Otherwise, I like hash aggregation.
Edit:
By sample I mean choose some subset of pages and calculate the most frequent word in those pages. Provided you select the pages in a reasonable way and select a statistically significant sample, your estimates of the most frequent words should be reasonable.
This approach is really only reasonable if you have so much data that processing it all is just kind of silly. If you only have a few megs, you should be able to tear through the data and calculate an exact answer without breaking a sweat rather than bothering to calculate an estimate.
You can cut down the time further by partitioning using the first letter of words, then partitioning the largest multi-word set using the next character until you have k single-word sets. You would use a sortof 256-way tree with lists of partial/complete words at the leafs. You would need to be very careful to not cause string copies everywhere.
This algorithm is O(m), where m is the number of characters. It avoids that dependence on k, which is very nice for large k [by the way your posted running time is wrong, it should be O(n*lg(k)), and I'm not sure what that is in terms of m].
If you run both algorithms side by side you will get what I'm pretty sure is an asymptotically optimal O(min(m, n*lg(k))) algorithm, but mine should be faster on average because it doesn't involve hashing or sorting.
You have a bug in your description: Counting takes O(n) time, but sorting takes O(m*lg(m)), where m is the number of unique words. This is usually much smaller than the total number of words, so probably should just optimize how the hash is built.
Your problem is same as this-
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/find-the-k-most-frequent-words-from-a-file/
Use Trie and min heap to efficieinty solve it.
If what you're after is the list of k most frequent words in your text for any practical k and for any natural langage, then the complexity of your algorithm is not relevant.
Just sample, say, a few million words from your text, process that with any algorithm in a matter of seconds, and the most frequent counts will be very accurate.
As a side note, the complexity of the dummy algorithm (1. count all 2. sort the counts 3. take the best) is O(n+m*log(m)), where m is the number of different words in your text. log(m) is much smaller than (n/m), so it remains O(n).
Practically, the long step is counting.
Utilize memory efficient data structure to store the words
Use MaxHeap, to find the top K frequent words.
Here is the code
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Comparator;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.PriorityQueue;
import com.nadeem.app.dsa.adt.Trie;
import com.nadeem.app.dsa.adt.Trie.TrieEntry;
import com.nadeem.app.dsa.adt.impl.TrieImpl;
public class TopKFrequentItems {
private int maxSize;
private Trie trie = new TrieImpl();
private PriorityQueue<TrieEntry> maxHeap;
public TopKFrequentItems(int k) {
this.maxSize = k;
this.maxHeap = new PriorityQueue<TrieEntry>(k, maxHeapComparator());
}
private Comparator<TrieEntry> maxHeapComparator() {
return new Comparator<TrieEntry>() {
#Override
public int compare(TrieEntry o1, TrieEntry o2) {
return o1.frequency - o2.frequency;
}
};
}
public void add(String word) {
this.trie.insert(word);
}
public List<TopK> getItems() {
for (TrieEntry trieEntry : this.trie.getAll()) {
if (this.maxHeap.size() < this.maxSize) {
this.maxHeap.add(trieEntry);
} else if (this.maxHeap.peek().frequency < trieEntry.frequency) {
this.maxHeap.remove();
this.maxHeap.add(trieEntry);
}
}
List<TopK> result = new ArrayList<TopK>();
for (TrieEntry entry : this.maxHeap) {
result.add(new TopK(entry));
}
return result;
}
public static class TopK {
public String item;
public int frequency;
public TopK(String item, int frequency) {
this.item = item;
this.frequency = frequency;
}
public TopK(TrieEntry entry) {
this(entry.word, entry.frequency);
}
#Override
public String toString() {
return String.format("TopK [item=%s, frequency=%s]", item, frequency);
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + frequency;
result = prime * result + ((item == null) ? 0 : item.hashCode());
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj)
return true;
if (obj == null)
return false;
if (getClass() != obj.getClass())
return false;
TopK other = (TopK) obj;
if (frequency != other.frequency)
return false;
if (item == null) {
if (other.item != null)
return false;
} else if (!item.equals(other.item))
return false;
return true;
}
}
}
Here is the unit tests
#Test
public void test() {
TopKFrequentItems stream = new TopKFrequentItems(2);
stream.add("hell");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hero");
stream.add("hero");
stream.add("hero");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("hello");
stream.add("home");
stream.add("go");
stream.add("go");
assertThat(stream.getItems()).hasSize(2).contains(new TopK("hero", 3), new TopK("hello", 8));
}
For more details refer this test case
use a Hash table to record all words' frequency while traverse the whole word sequence. In this phase, the key is "word" and the value is "word-frequency". This takes O(n) time.This is same as every one explained above
While insertion itself in hashmap , keep the Treeset(specific to java, there are implementations in every language) of size 10(k=10) to keep the top 10 frequent words. Till size is less than 10, keep adding it. If size equal to 10, if inserted element is greater than minimum element i.e. first element. If yes remove it and insert new element
To restrict the size of treeset see this link
Suppose we have a word sequence "ad" "ad" "boy" "big" "bad" "com" "come" "cold". And K=2.
as you mentioned "partitioning using the first letter of words", we got
("ad", "ad") ("boy", "big", "bad") ("com" "come" "cold")
"then partitioning the largest multi-word set using the next character until you have k single-word sets."
it will partition ("boy", "big", "bad") ("com" "come" "cold"), the first partition ("ad", "ad") is missed, while "ad" is actually the most frequent word.
Perhaps I misunderstand your point. Can you please detail your process about partition?
I believe this problem can be solved by an O(n) algorithm. We could make the sorting on the fly. In other words, the sorting in that case is a sub-problem of the traditional sorting problem since only one counter gets incremented by one every time we access the hash table. Initially, the list is sorted since all counters are zero. As we keep incrementing counters in the hash table, we bookkeep another array of hash values ordered by frequency as follows. Every time we increment a counter, we check its index in the ranked array and check if its count exceeds its predecessor in the list. If so, we swap these two elements. As such we obtain a solution that is at most O(n) where n is the number of words in the original text.
I was struggling with this as well and get inspired by #aly. Instead of sorting afterwards, we can just maintain a presorted list of words (List<Set<String>>) and the word will be in the set at position X where X is the current count of the word. In generally, here's how it works:
for each word, store it as part of map of it's occurrence: Map<String, Integer>.
then, based on the count, remove it from the previous count set, and add it into the new count set.
The drawback of this is the list maybe big - can be optimized by using a TreeMap<Integer, Set<String>> - but this will add some overhead. Ultimately we can use a mix of HashMap or our own data structure.
The code
public class WordFrequencyCounter {
private static final int WORD_SEPARATOR_MAX = 32; // UNICODE 0000-001F: control chars
Map<String, MutableCounter> counters = new HashMap<String, MutableCounter>();
List<Set<String>> reverseCounters = new ArrayList<Set<String>>();
private static class MutableCounter {
int i = 1;
}
public List<String> countMostFrequentWords(String text, int max) {
int lastPosition = 0;
int length = text.length();
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
char c = text.charAt(i);
if (c <= WORD_SEPARATOR_MAX) {
if (i != lastPosition) {
String word = text.substring(lastPosition, i);
MutableCounter counter = counters.get(word);
if (counter == null) {
counter = new MutableCounter();
counters.put(word, counter);
} else {
Set<String> strings = reverseCounters.get(counter.i);
strings.remove(word);
counter.i ++;
}
addToReverseLookup(counter.i, word);
}
lastPosition = i + 1;
}
}
List<String> ret = new ArrayList<String>();
int count = 0;
for (int i = reverseCounters.size() - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
Set<String> strings = reverseCounters.get(i);
for (String s : strings) {
ret.add(s);
System.out.print(s + ":" + i);
count++;
if (count == max) break;
}
if (count == max) break;
}
return ret;
}
private void addToReverseLookup(int count, String word) {
while (count >= reverseCounters.size()) {
reverseCounters.add(new HashSet<String>());
}
Set<String> strings = reverseCounters.get(count);
strings.add(word);
}
}
I just find out the other solution for this problem. But I am not sure it is right.
Solution:
Use a Hash table to record all words' frequency T(n) = O(n)
Choose first k elements of hash table, and restore them in one buffer (whose space = k). T(n) = O(k)
Each time, firstly we need find the current min element of the buffer, and just compare the min element of the buffer with the (n - k) elements of hash table one by one. If the element of hash table is greater than this min element of buffer, then drop the current buffer's min, and add the element of the hash table. So each time we find the min one in the buffer need T(n) = O(k), and traverse the whole hash table need T(n) = O(n - k). So the whole time complexity for this process is T(n) = O((n-k) * k).
After traverse the whole hash table, the result is in this buffer.
The whole time complexity: T(n) = O(n) + O(k) + O(kn - k^2) = O(kn + n - k^2 + k). Since, k is really smaller than n in general. So for this solution, the time complexity is T(n) = O(kn). That is linear time, when k is really small. Is it right? I am really not sure.
Try to think of special data structure to approach this kind of problems. In this case special kind of tree like trie to store strings in specific way, very efficient. Or second way to build your own solution like counting words. I guess this TB of data would be in English then we do have around 600,000 words in general so it'll be possible to store only those words and counting which strings would be repeated + this solution will need regex to eliminate some special characters. First solution will be faster, I'm pretty sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trie
This is an interesting idea to search and I could find this paper related to Top-K https://icmi.cs.ucsb.edu/research/tech_reports/reports/2005-23.pdf
Also there is an implementation of it here.
Simplest code to get the occurrence of most frequently used word.
function strOccurence(str){
var arr = str.split(" ");
var length = arr.length,temp = {},max;
while(length--){
if(temp[arr[length]] == undefined && arr[length].trim().length > 0)
{
temp[arr[length]] = 1;
}
else if(arr[length].trim().length > 0)
{
temp[arr[length]] = temp[arr[length]] + 1;
}
}
console.log(temp);
var max = [];
for(i in temp)
{
max[temp[i]] = i;
}
console.log(max[max.length])
//if you want second highest
console.log(max[max.length - 2])
}
In these situations, I recommend to use Java built-in features. Since, they are already well tested and stable. In this problem, I find the repetitions of the words by using HashMap data structure. Then, I push the results to an array of objects. I sort the object by Arrays.sort() and print the top k words and their repetitions.
import java.io.*;
import java.lang.reflect.Array;
import java.util.*;
public class TopKWordsTextFile {
static class SortObject implements Comparable<SortObject>{
private String key;
private int value;
public SortObject(String key, int value) {
super();
this.key = key;
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public int compareTo(SortObject o) {
//descending order
return o.value - this.value;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
HashMap<String,Integer> hm = new HashMap<>();
int k = 1;
try {
BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(new FileInputStream("words.in")));
String line;
while ((line = br.readLine()) != null) {
// process the line.
//System.out.println(line);
String[] tokens = line.split(" ");
for(int i=0; i<tokens.length; i++){
if(hm.containsKey(tokens[i])){
//If the key already exists
Integer prev = hm.get(tokens[i]);
hm.put(tokens[i],prev+1);
}else{
//If the key doesn't exist
hm.put(tokens[i],1);
}
}
}
//Close the input
br.close();
//Print all words with their repetitions. You can use 3 for printing top 3 words.
k = hm.size();
// Get a set of the entries
Set set = hm.entrySet();
// Get an iterator
Iterator i = set.iterator();
int index = 0;
// Display elements
SortObject[] objects = new SortObject[hm.size()];
while(i.hasNext()) {
Map.Entry e = (Map.Entry)i.next();
//System.out.print("Key: "+e.getKey() + ": ");
//System.out.println(" Value: "+e.getValue());
String tempS = (String) e.getKey();
int tempI = (int) e.getValue();
objects[index] = new SortObject(tempS,tempI);
index++;
}
System.out.println();
//Sort the array
Arrays.sort(objects);
//Print top k
for(int j=0; j<k; j++){
System.out.println(objects[j].key+":"+objects[j].value);
}
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
For more information, please visit https://github.com/m-vahidalizadeh/foundations/blob/master/src/algorithms/TopKWordsTextFile.java. I hope it helps.
**
C++11 Implementation of the above thought
**
class Solution {
public:
vector<int> topKFrequent(vector<int>& nums, int k) {
unordered_map<int,int> map;
for(int num : nums){
map[num]++;
}
vector<int> res;
// we use the priority queue, like the max-heap , we will keep (size-k) smallest elements in the queue
// pair<first, second>: first is frequency, second is number
priority_queue<pair<int,int>> pq;
for(auto it = map.begin(); it != map.end(); it++){
pq.push(make_pair(it->second, it->first));
// onece the size bigger than size-k, we will pop the value, which is the top k frequent element value
if(pq.size() > (int)map.size() - k){
res.push_back(pq.top().second);
pq.pop();
}
}
return res;
}
};
Create a function that checks whether an array has two opposite elements or not for less than n^2 complexity. Let's work with numbers.
Obviously the easiest way would be:
bool opposite(int* arr, int n) // n - array length
{
for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
for(int j = 0; j < n; ++j)
{
if(arr[i] == - arr[j])
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
I would like to ask if any of you guys can think of an algorithm that has a complexity less than n^2.
My first idea was the following:
1) sort array ( algorithm with worst case complexity: n.log(n) )
2) create two new arrays, filled with negative and positive numbers from the original array
( so far we've got -> n.log(n) + n + n = n.log(n))
3) ... compare somehow the two new arrays to determine if they have opposite numbers
I'm not pretty sure my ideas are correct, but I'm opened to suggestions.
An important alternative solution is as follows. Sort the array. Create two pointers, one initially pointing to the front (smallest), one initially pointing to the back (largest). If the sum of the two pointed-to elements is zero, you're done. If it is larger than zero, then decrement the back pointer. If it is smaller than zero, then increment the front pointer. Continue until the two pointers meet.
This solution is often the one people are looking for; often they'll explicitly rule out hash tables and trees by saying you only have O(1) extra space.
I would use an std::unordered_set and check to see if the opposite of the number already exist in the set. if not insert it into the set and check the next element.
std::vector<int> foo = {-10,12,13,14,10,-20,5,6,7,20,30,1,2,3,4,9,-30};
std::unordered_set<int> res;
for (auto e : foo)
{
if(res.count(-e) > 0)
std::cout << -e << " already exist\n";
else
res.insert(e);
}
Output:
opposite of 10 alrready exist
opposite of 20 alrready exist
opposite of -30 alrready exist
Live Example
Let's see that you can simply add all of elements to the unordered_set and when you are adding x check if you are in this set -x. The complexity of this solution is O(n). (as #Hurkyl said, thanks)
UPDATE: Second idea is: Sort the elements and then for all of the elements check (using binary search algorithm) if the opposite element exists.
You can do this in O(n log n) with a Red Black tree.
t := empty tree
for each e in A[1..n]
if (-e) is in t:
return true
insert e into t
return false
In C++, you wouldn't implement a Red Black tree for this purpose however. You'd use std::set, because it guarantees O(log n) search and insertion.
std::set<int> s;
for (auto e : A) {
if (s.count(-e) > 0) {
return true;
}
s.insert(e);
}
return false;
As Hurkyl mentioned, you could do better by just using std::unordered_set, which is a hashtable. This gives you O(1) search and insertion in the average case, but O(n) for both operations in the worst case. The total complexity of the solution in the average case would be O(n).
How to shuffle stl list of pointers in C++ ?
I have stl vector of pointers on class Player and I shuffle like
std::random_shuffle(players.begin(), players.end());
Is there already algorithm for shuffle list without requiring Random Access or I need to convert list to vector => shuffle => back to list ? Is there more elegant solution ?
The random shuffle algorithm swaps a specific element with a randomly chosen one. It would be very inefficient to repeatedly traverse the list to get the elements (namely it would be an O(n^2) operation).
That's why it would be better (faster) to copy your list to an array once, do a random shuffle and possibly restore the list. That would be 3*n traversals, which is still O(n).
std::random_shuffle needs a random Iterator. Vector supports this whereas a List does not. How about std::deque, its like a sort of Vector and sort of List.
Your problem was interesting. So, I tried writing something and finally came up with this.
//---------- sample List initialization ------
list<string> lst;
lst.push_back("A");
lst.push_back("B");
....
lst.push_back("Y");
lst.push_back("Z");
#define LIST_SIZE 26
//--------------------------------------------
//------------- Shuffle Algorithm ------------
unordered_multimap<int,string> mymap;
int HashKeys[LIST_SIZE];
srand((int)time(NULL) * (int)clock());
for(int i = 0; i<LIST_SIZE; i++) // loop 'n' times
{
HashKeys[i] = rand(); // O(c) operation
}
for(int i = 0;lst.size() > 0; i++) // loop 'n' times
{
// O(n) operation ( varies from O(c) to O(n) according to the situations )
mymap.insert(std::make_pair<int,string>(HashKeys[rand() % LIST_SIZE],lst.front()));
lst.pop_front(); // O(c) operation
}
unordered_multimap<int,string>::iterator it;
for(int i = 0; i < LIST_SIZE ;i++) // loop 'n' times
{
while(mymap.count(HashKeys[i]) > 0) // unpredictable
{
it = mymap.find(HashKeys[i]); // O(c) for single O(n) for multi
// ...USAGE...
cout << it->second << endl;
lst.push_back(it->second);
//............
mymap.erase(it); // O(c) operation
}
}
//-------------------------------------------------
Time Complexity is O(n^2) if there are multiple values for same key in the hash map.
Otherwise the time complexity is O(n).
so everything depends on the function (rand() % LIST_SIZE)