This question already has answers here:
Gray code increment function
(4 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Let's say i have n integers in an array a, and i want to iterate through all possible subsets of these integers, find the sum, and then do something with it.
What i immedieatelly did, was to create a bit field b, which indicated which numbers were included in the subset, and iterate through its possible values using ++b. Then, to compute the sum in each step, i had to iterate through all bits like this:
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
if (b&1<<i)
sum += a[i];
Then i realized that if i iterated through the possible values of b in a Gray code order, so that each time only a single bit is flipped, i wouldn't have to reconstruct the sum completely, but only needed to add or subtract the single value that is being added or removed from the subset. It should work like this:
int sum = 0;
int whichBitToFlip = 0;
bool isBitSet = false;
for (int k = 0; whichBitToFlip < n; k++) {
sum += (isBitSet ? -1 : 1)*a[whichBitToFlip];
// do something with sum here
whichBitToFlip = ???;
bool isBitSet = ???;
}
But i can't figure out how to directly and efficiently compute whichBitToFlip. The desired values are basically sequence A007814. I know that i can compute the Gray code using the formula (k>>1)^k and xor it with the previous one, but then i need to find the position of the changed bit, which might not be much faster.
So is there any better way to determine these values (index of flipped bit), preferably without a cycle, faster than recomputing the whole sum (of at most 64 values) every time?
To convert a bitmask to a bit index, you can use the ffs function (if you have one), which corresponds to a machine opcode on some machines.
Otherwise, the bit changed in the gray code corresponds to the ruler function:
0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 3, 0, 1...
for which there is a simple recursion. You can simulate the recursion with a stack (it will have maximum depth O(log N), so it's not much space), but probably ffs is a lot faster.
(By the way, even if you were to count bits one at a time from right-to-left, the increment function would be O(1) on average because the total number of trailing 0s in the integers from 1 to 2k is 2k-1.)
So i came up with this:
int sum = 0;
unsigned long grayPos = 0;
int graySign = 1;
for (uint64 k = 2; grayPos < n; k++) {
sum += graySign*a[grayPos];
// Do something with sum
#ifdef _M_X64
grayPos = n;
_BitScanForward64(&grayPos, k);
#else
for (grayPos = 0; !(k&1ull<<grayPos); grayPos++);
#endif
graySign = 2-(k>>grayPos&0x3);
}
It works really well, brought down the execution time (in comparison to always recomputing the whole sum) from 254 to only 7 seconds for n = 32. I also found that counting trailing zeroes with the for cycle is only slightly (~15%) slower than using _BitScanForward64 for the reasons mentioned by rici. So thanks.
Related
I need to implement an algorithm in C++ that, when given three arrays of unequal sizes, produces triplets a,b,c (one element contributed by each array) such that max(a,b,c) - min(a,b,c) is minimized. The algorithm should produce a list of these triplets, in order of size of max(a,b,c)-min(a,b,c). The arrays are sorted.
I've implemented the following algorithm (note that I now use arrays of type double), however it runs excruciatingly slow (even when compiled using GCC with -03 optimization, and other combinations of optimizations). The dataset (and, therefore, each array) has potentially tens of millions of elements. Is there a faster/more efficient method? A significant speed increase is necessary to accomplish the required task in a reasonable time frame.
void findClosest(vector<double> vec1, vector<double> vec2, vector<double> vec3){
//calculate size of each array
int len1 = vec1.size();
int len2 = vec2.size();
int len3 = vec3.size();
int i = 0; int j = 0; int k = 0; int res_i, res_j, res_k;
int diff = INT_MAX;
int iter = 0; int iter_bound = min(min(len1,len2),len3);
while(iter < iter_bound)
while(i < len1 && j < len2 && k < len3){
int minimum = min(min(vec1[i], vec2[j]), vec3[k]);
int maximum = max(max(vec1[i], vec2[j]), vec3[k]);
//if new difference less than previous difference, update difference, store
//resultants
if(fabs(maximum - minimum) < diff){ diff = maximum-minimum; res_i = i; res_j = j; res_k = k;}
//increment minimum value
if(vec1[i] == minimum) ++i;
else if(vec2[j] == minimum) ++j;
else ++k;
}
//"remove" triplet
vec1.erase(vec1.begin() + res_i);
vec2.erase(vec2.begin() + res_j);
vec3.erase(vec3.begin() + res_k);
--len1; --len2; --len3;
++iter_bound;
}
OK, you're going to need to be clever in a few ways to make this run well.
The first thing that you need is a priority queue, which is usually implemented with a heap. With that, the algorithm in pseudocode is:
Make a priority queue for possible triples in order of max - min, then how close median is to their average.
Make a pass through all 3 arrays, putting reasonable triples for every element into the priority queue
While the priority queue is not empty:
Pull a triple out
If all three of the triple are not used:
Add triple to output
Mark the triple used
else:
If you can construct reasonable triplets for unused elements:
Add them to the queue
Now for this operation to succeed, you need to efficiently find elements that are currently unused. Doing that at first is easy, just keep an array of bools where you mark off the indexes of the used values. But once a lot have been taken off, your search gets long.
The trick for that is to have a vector of bools for individual elements, a second for whether both in a pair have been used, a third for where all 4 in a quadruple have been used and so on. When you use an element just mark the individual bool, then go up the hierarchy, marking off the next level if the one you're paired with is marked off, else stopping. This additional data structure of size 2n will require an average of marking 2 bools per element used, but allows you to find the next unused index in either direction in at most O(log(n)) steps.
The resulting algorithm will be O(n log(n)).
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;
}
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.
I have an array of char pointers of length 175,000. Each pointer points to a c-string array of length 100, each character is either 1 or 0. I need to compare the difference between the strings.
char* arr[175000];
So far, I have two for loops where I compare every string with every other string. The comparison functions basically take two c-strings and returns an integer which is the number of differences of the arrays.
This is taking really long on my 4-core machine. Last time I left it to run for 45min and it never finished executing. Please advise of a faster solution or some optimizations.
Example:
000010
000001
have a difference of 2 since the last two bits do not match.
After i calculate the difference i store the value in another array
int holder;
for(int x = 0;x < UsedTableSpace; x++){
int min = 10000000;
for(int y = 0; y < UsedTableSpace; y++){
if(x != y){
//compr calculates difference between two c-string arrays
int tempDiff =compr(similarity[x]->matrix, similarity[y]->matrix);
if(tempDiff < min){
min = tempDiff;
holder = y;
}
}
}
similarity[holder]->inbound++;
}
With more information, we could probably give you better advice, but based on what I understand of the question, here are some ideas:
Since you're using each character to represent a 1 or a 0, you're using several times more memory than you need to use, which creates a big performance impact when it comes to caching and such. Instead, represent your data using numeric values that you can think of in terms of a series of bits.
Once you've implemented #1, you can grab an entire integer or long at a time and do a bitwise XOR operation to end up with a number that has a 1 in every place where the two numbers didn't have the same values. Then you can use some of the tricks mentioned here to count these bits speedily.
Work on "unrolling" your loops somewhat to avoid the number of jumps necessary. For example, the following code:
total = total + array[i];
total = total + array[i + 1];
total = total + array[i + 2];
... will work faster than just looping over total = total + array[i] three times. Jumps are expensive, and interfere with the processor's pipelining. Update: I should mention that your compiler may be doing some of this for you already--you can check the compiled code to see.
Break your overall data set into chunks that will allow you to take full advantage of caching. Think of your problem as a "square" with the i index on one axis and the j axis on the other. If you start with one i and iterate across all 175000 j values, the first j values you visit will be gone from the cache by the time you get to the end of the line. On the other hand, if you take the top left corner and go from j=0 to 256, most of the values on the j axis will still be in a low-level cache as you loop around to compare them with i=0, 1, 2, etc.
Lastly, although this should go without saying, I guess it's worth mentioning: Make sure your compiler is set to optimize!
One simple optimization is to compare the strings only once. If the difference between A and B is 12, the difference between B and A is also 12. Your running time is going to drop almost half.
In code:
int compr(const char* a, const char* b) {
int d = 0, i;
for (i=0; i < 100; ++i)
if (a[i] != b[i]) ++d;
return d;
}
void main_function(...) {
for(int x = 0;x < UsedTableSpace; x++){
int min = 10000000;
for(int y = x + 1; y < UsedTableSpace; y++){
//compr calculates difference between two c-string arrays
int tempDiff = compr(similarity[x]->matrix, similarity[y]->matrix);
if(tempDiff < min){
min = tempDiff;
holder = y;
}
}
similarity[holder]->inbound++;
}
}
Notice the second-th for loop, I've changed the start index.
Some other optimizations is running the run method on separate threads to take advantage of your 4 cores.
What is your goal, i.e. what do you want to do with the Hamming Distances (which is what they are) after you've got them? For example, if you are looking for the closest pair, or most distant pair, you probably can get an O(n ln n) algorithm instead of the O(n^2) methods suggested so far. (At n=175000, n^2 is 15000 times larger than n ln n.)
For example, you could characterize each 100-bit number m by 8 4-bit numbers, being the number of bits set in 8 segments of m, and sort the resulting 32-bit signatures into ascending order. Signatures of the closest pair are likely to be nearby in the sorted list. It is easy to lower-bound the distance between two numbers if their signatures differ, giving an effective branch-and-bound process as less-distant numbers are found.
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