I have a list of items; I want to sort them, but I want a small element of randomness so they are not strictly in order, only on average ordered.
How can I do this most efficiently?
I don't mind if the quality of the random is not especially good, e.g. it simply based on the chance ordering of the input, e.g. an early-terminated incomplete sort.
The context is implementing a nearly-greedy search by introducing a very slight element of inexactness; this is in a tight loop and so the speed of sorting and calling random() are to be considered
My current code is to do a std::sort (this being C++) and then do a very short shuffle just in the early part of the array:
for(int i=0; i<3; i++) // I know I have more than 6 elements
std::swap(order[i],order[i+rand()%3]);
Use first two passes of JSort. Build heap twice, but do not perform insertion sort. If element of randomness is not small enough, repeat.
There is an approach that (unlike incomplete JSort) allows finer control over the resulting randomness and has time complexity dependent on randomness (the more random result is needed, the less time complexity). Use heapsort with Soft heap. For detailed description of the soft heap, see pdf 1 or pdf 2.
You could use a standard sort algorithm (is a standard library available?) and pass a predicate that "knows", given two elements, which is less than the other, or if they are equal (returning -1, 0 or 1). In the predicate then introduce a rare (configurable) case where the answer is random, by using a random number:
pseudocode:
if random(1000) == 0 then
return = random(2)-1 <-- -1,0,-1 randomly choosen
Here we have 1/1000 chances to "scamble" two elements, but that number strictly depends on the size of your container to sort.
Another thing to add in the 1000 case, could be to remove the "right" answer because that would not scramble the result!
Edit:
if random(100 * container_size) == 0 then <-- here I consider the container size
{
if element_1 < element_2
return random(1); <-- do not return the "correct" value of -1
else if element_1 > element_2
return random(1)-1; <-- do not return the "correct" value of 1
else
return random(1)==0 ? -1 : 1; <-- do not return 0
}
in my pseudocode:
random(x) = y where 0 <= y <=x
One possibility that requires a bit more space but would guarantee that existing sort algorithms could be used without modification would be to create a copy of the sort value(s) and then modify those in some fashion prior to sorting (and then use the modified value(s) for the sort).
For example, if the data to be sorted is a simple character field Name[N] then add a field (assuming data is in a structure or class) called NameMod[N]. Fill in the NameMod with a copy of Name but add some randomization. Then 3% of the time (or some appropriate amount) change the first character of the name (e.g., change it by +/- one or two characters). And then 10% of the time change the second character +/- a few characters.
Then run it through whatever sort algorithm you prefer. The benefit is that you could easily change those percentages and randomness. And the sort algorithm will still work (e.g., it would not have problems with the compare function returning inconsistent results).
If you are sure that element is at most k far away from where they should be, you can reduce quicksort N log(N) sorting time complexity down to N log(k)....
edit
More specifically, you would create k buckets, each containing N/k elements.
You can do quick sort for each bucket, which takes k * log(k) times, and then sort N/k buckets, which takes N/k log(N/k) time. Multiplying these two, you can do sorting in N log(max(N/k,k))
This can be useful because you can run sorting for each bucket in parallel, reducing total running time.
This works if you are sure that any element in the list is at most k indices away from their correct position after the sorting.
but I do not think you meant any restriction.
Split the list into two equally-sized parts. Sort each part separately, using any usual algorithm. Then merge these parts. Perform some merge iterations as usual, comparing merged elements. For other merge iterations, do not compare the elements, but instead select element from the same part, as in the previous step. It is not necessary to use RNG to decide, how to treat each element. Just ignore sorting order for every N-th element.
Other variant of this approach nearly sorts an array nearly in-place. Split the array into two parts with odd/even indexes. Sort them. (It is even possible to use standard C++ algorithm with appropriately modified iterator, like boost::permutation_iterator). Reserve some limited space at the end of the array. Merge parts, starting from the end. If merged part is going to overwrite one of the non-merged elements, just select this element. Otherwise select element in sorted order. Level of randomness is determined by the amount of reserved space.
Assuming you want the array sorted in ascending order, I would do the following:
for M iterations
pick a random index i
pick a random index k
if (i<k)!=(array[i]<array[k]) then swap(array[i],array[k])
M controls the "sortedness" of the array - as M increases the array becomes more and more sorted. I would say a reasonable value for M is n^2 where n is the length of the array. If it is too slow to pick random elements then you can precompute their indices beforehand. If the method is still too slow then you can always decrease M at the cost of getting a poorer sort.
Take a small random subset of the data and sort it. You can use this as a map to provide an estimate of where every element should appear in the final nearly-sorted list. You can scan through the full list now and move/swap elements that are not in a good position.
This is basically O(n), assuming the small initial sorting of the subset doesn't take a long time. Hopefully you can build the map such that the estimate can be extracted quickly.
Bubblesort to the rescue!
For a unsorted array, you could pick a few random elements and bubble them up or down. (maybe by rotation, which is a bit more efficient) It will be hard to control the amount of (dis)order, even if you pick all N elements, you are not sure that the whole array will be sorted, because elements are moved and you cannot ensure that you touched every element only once.
BTW: this kind of problem tends to occur in game playing engines, where the list with candidate moves is kept more-or-less sorted (because of weighted sampling), and sorting after each iteration is too expensive, and only one or a few elements are expected to move.
Related
Just as the title, and BTW, it's just out of curiosity and it's not a homework question. It might seem to be trivial for people of CS major. The problem is I would like to find the indices of max value in an array. Basically I have two approaches.
scan over and find the maximum, then scan twice to get the vector of indices
scan over and find the maximum, along this scan construct indices array and abandon if a better one is there.
May I now how should I weigh over these two approaches in terms of performance(mainly time complexity I suppose)? It is hard for me because I have even no idea what the worst case should be for the second approach! It's not a hard problem perse. But I just want to know how to approach this problem or how should I google this type of problem to get the answer.
In term of complexity:
scan over and find the maximum,
then scan twice to get the vector of indices
First scan is O(n).
Second scan is O(n) + k insertions (with k, the number of max value)
vector::push_back has amortized complexity of O(1).
so a total O(2 * n + k) which might be simplified to O(n) as k <= n
scan over and find the maximum,
along this scan construct indices array and abandon if a better one is there.
Scan is O(n).
Number of insertions is more complicated to compute.
Number of clear (and number of element cleared) is more complicated to compute too. (clear's complexity would be less or equal to number of element removed)
But both have upper bound to n, so complexity is less or equal than O(3 * n) = O(n) but also greater than equal to O(n) (Scan) so it is O(n) too.
So for both methods, complexity is the same: O(n).
For performance timing, as always, you have to measure.
For your first method, you can set a condition to add the index to the array. Whenever the max changes, you need to clear the array. You don't need to iterate twice.
For the second method, the implementation is easier. You just find max the first go. Then you find the indices that match on the second go.
As stated in a previous answer, complexity is O(n) in both cases, and measures are needed to compare performances.
However, I would like to add two points:
The first one is that the performance comparison may depend on the compiler, how optimisation is performed.
The second point is more critical: performance may depend on the input array.
For example, let us consider the corner case: 1,1,1, .., 1, 2, i.e. a huge number of 1 followed by one 2. With your second approach, you will create a huge temporary array of indices, to provide at the end an array of one element. It is possible at the end to redefine the size of the memory allocated to this array. However, I don't like the idea to create a temporary unnecessary huge vector, independently of the time performance concern. Note that such a array could suffer of several reallocations, which would impact time performance.
This is why in the general case, without any knowledge on the input, I would prefer your first approach, two scans. The situation could be different if you want to implement a function dedicated to a specific type of data.
I have the following problem: I have a set of N elements (N being somewhere between several hundred and several thousand elements, let's say between 500 and 3000 elements). Out of these elements, small percentage will have some property "X", but the elements "gain" and "lose" this property in a semi-random fashion; so if I store them all in an array, and assign 1 to elements with property X, and zero otherwise, this array of N elements will have n 1's and the N-n zeros (n being small in the 20-50 range).
The problem is the following: these elements change very frequently in a semi-random way (meaning that any element can flip from 0 to 1 and vice versa, but the process that controls that is somewhat stable, so the total number "n" fluctuates a bit, but is reasonably stable in the 20-50 range); and I frequently need all the "X" elements of the set (in other words, indices of the array where value of the array is 1), to perform some task on them.
One simple and slow way to achieve this is to simply loop through the array and if index k has value 1, perform the task, but this is kinda slow because well over 95% of all the elements have value 1. The solution would be to put all the 1s into a different structure (with n elements) and then loop through that structure, instead of looping through all N elements. The question is what's the best structure to use?
Elements will flip from 0 to 1 and vice versa randomly (from several different threads), so there's no order there of any sort (time when element flipped from 0 to 1 is has nothing to do with time it will flip back), and when I loop through them (from another thread), I do not need to loop in any particular order (in other words, I just need to get them all, but it's nor relevant in which order).
Any suggestions what would be the optimal structure for this? "std::map" comes to mind, but since the keys of std::map are sorted (and I don't need that feature), the questions is if there is anything faster?
EDIT: To clarify, the array example is just one (slow) way to solve the problem. The essence of the problem is that out of one big set "S" with "N" elements, there is a continuously changing subset "s" of "n" elements (with n much smaller then N), and I need to loop though that set "s". Speed is of essence, both for adding/removing elements to "s", and for looping through them. So while suggestions like having 2 arrays and moving elements between them would be fast from iteration perspective, adding and removing elements to an array would be prohibitively slow. It sounds like some hash-based approach like std::set would work reasonably fast on both iteration and addition/removal fronts, the question is is there something better than that? Reading the documentation on "unordered_map" and "unordered_set" doesn't really clarify how much faster addition/removal of elements is relative to std::map and std::set, nor how much slower the iteration through them would be. Another thing to keep in mind is that I don't need a generic solution that works best in all cases, I need one that works best when N is in the 500-3000 range, and n is in the 20-50 range. Finally, the speed is really of essence; there are plenty slow ways of doing it, so I'm looking for the fastest way.
Since order doesn't appear to be important, you can use a single array and keep the elements with property X at the front. You will also need an index or iterator to the point in the array that is the transition from X set to unset.
To set X, increment the index/iterator and swap that element with the one you want to change.
To unset X, do the opposite: decrement the index/iterator and swap that element with the one you want to change.
Naturally with multiple threads you will need some sort of mutex to protect the array and index.
Edit: to keep a half-open range as iterators are normally used, you should reverse the order of the operations above: swap, then increment/decrement. If you keep an index instead of an iterator then the index does double duty as the count of the number of X.
N=3000 isn't really much. If you use a single bit for each of them, you have a structure smaller than 400 bytes. You can use std::bitset for that. If you use an unordered_set or a set however be mindful that you'll spend many more bytes for each of the n elements in your list: if you just allocate a pointer for each element in a 64bit architecture you'll use at least 8*50 = 400 bytes, much more than the bitset
#geza : perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by two arrays; I assume you meant something like have one std::vector (or something similar) in which I store all elements with property X, and another where I store the rest? In reality, I don't care about others, so I really need one array. Adding an element is obviously simple if I can just add it to the end of the array; now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but finding an element in that array is O(n) operation (since the array is unsorted), and then removing it from the array again requires shifting all the elements by one place, so this in average requires n/2 operations. If I use linked list instead of vector, then deleting an element is faster, but finding it still takes O(n). That's what I meant when I said it would be prohibitively slow; if I misunderstood you, please do clarify.
It sounds like std::unordered_set or std::unordered_map would be fastest in adding/deleting elements, since it's O(1) to find an element, but it's unclear to me how fast can one loop through all the keys; the documentation clearly states that iteration through keys of std::unordered_map is slower then iteration through keys of std::map, but it's not quantified in any way just how slow is "slower", and how fast is "faster".
And finally, to repeat one more time, I'm not interested in general solution, I'm interested in one for small "n". So if for example I have two solutions, one that's k_1*log(n), and second that's k_2*n^2, first one might be faster in principle (and for large n), but if k_1 >> k_2 (let's say for example k_1 = 1000 and k_2=2 and n=20), second one can still be faster for relatively small "n" (1000*log(20) is still larger than 2*20^2). So even if addition/deletion in std::unordered_map might be done in constant time O(1), for small "n" it still matters if that constant time is 1 nanosecond or 1 microsecond or 1 millisecond. So I'm really looking for suggestions that work best for small "n", not for in the asymptotic limit of large "n".
An alternative approach (in my opinion worth only if the number of element is increased at least tenfold) might be keeping a double index:
#include<algorithm>
#include<vector>
class didx {
// v == indexes[i] && v > 0 <==> flagged[v-1] == i
std::vector<ptrdiff_t> indexes;
std::vector<ptrdiff_t> flagged;
public:
didx(size_t size) : indexes(size) {}
// loop through flagged items using iterators
auto begin() { return flagged.begin(); }
auto end() { return flagged.end(); }
void flag(ptrdiff_t index) {
if(!isflagged(index)) {
flagged.push_back(index);
indexes[index] = flagged.size();
}
}
void unflag(ptrdiff_t index) {
if(isflagged(index)) {
// swap last item with item to be removed in "flagged", update indexes accordingly
// in "flagged" we swap last element with element at index to be removed
auto idx = indexes[index]-1;
auto last_element = flagged.back();
std::swap(flagged.back(),flagged[idx]);
std::swap(indexes[index],indexes[last_element]);
// remove the element, which is now last in "flagged"
flagged.pop_back();
indexes[index] = 0;
}
}
bool isflagged(ptrdiff_t index) {
return indexes[index] > 0;
}
};
The problem:
A function f returns elements one at a time in an unknown order. I want to select the least N elements. Function f is called many times (I'm searching through a very complex search space) and I don't have enough memory to store every output element for the future sorting.
The obvious solution:
Keep a vector of N elements in the memory and on each f() search for minimum and maximum and possibly replace something. This would probably work for very small N well. I'm looking for more general solution, though.
My solution so far:
I though about using priority_queue in order to store let's say 2N values and reducing the upper half after each 2N steps.
Pseudocode:
while (search goes on)
for (i=0..2N)
el = f()
pust el to the priority queue
remove N greatest elements from the priority queue
select N least elements from the priority queue
I think this should work, however, I don't find it elegant at all. Maybe there is already some kind of data structure that handles this problem. It would be really nice just to modify the priority_queue in order to throw away the elements that don't fit into the saved range.
Could you recommend me an existing std data structure for C++ or encourage me to implement the solution I suggested above? Or maybe there is some great and elegant trick that I can't think of.
You want to find least n elements on total K elements got from calling a function. Each time you call function f() you get one element and you want to store least n elements among them without storing total k elements got from the function since k is too big.
You can define a heap or priority_queue to store this least n found so far. Just add the returned item from f() to the pq and pop the greatest element if its size became n+1.
Total complexity would be O(K*log(n)) and space needed would be O(n). (If we ignore some extra space required by pq)
Alternate option would be to use an array. Depending on the maximum allowed elements compared to N, there are two options I can think of:
Make the array as big as possible and unsorted, periodically retrieve the smallest elements.
Have an array of size N, sorted with max elements on the end.
Option 1 would have you sort the array with O(n log n) time every time you fill up the array. That would happen for each n - N elements (except the first time), yielding (k - n) / (n - N) sorts, resulting in O((k - n) / (n - N) n log n) time complexity for k total elements, n elements in the array, N elements to be selected. So for n = 2N, you get O(2*(k - 2N) log 2N) time complexity if I'm not mistaken.
Option 2 would have you keep the array (sized N) sorted with maximum elements at the end. Each time you get an element, you can quickly (O(1)) see if it is smaller than the last one. Using binary search, you can find the right spot for the element in O(log N) time. However, you now need to move all the elements after the new element one place right. That takes O(N) time. So you end up with theoretical O(k*N) time complexity. Given that computers like working with homogenous data accesses however (caches and stuff), this might be faster than heap, even if it is array-backed.
If your elements are big, you might be better off having a structure of { coparison_value; actual_element_pointer } even if you are using heap (unless it is list-backed).
I have a function that gets all neighbours of a list of points in a grid out to a certain distance, which involves a lot of duplicates (my neighbour's neighbour == me again).
I've been experimenting with a couple of different solutions, but I have no idea which is the more efficient. Below is some code demonstrating two solutions running side by side, one using std::vector sort-unique-erase, the other using std::copy into a std::unordered_set.
I also tried another solution, which is to pass the vector containing the neighbours so far to the neighbour function, which will use std::find to ensure a neighbour doesn't already exist before adding it.
So three solutions, but I can't quite wrap my head around which is gonna be faster. Any ideas anyone?
Code snippet follows:
// Vector of all neighbours of all modified phi points, which may initially include duplicates.
std::vector<VecDi> aneighs;
// Hash function, mapping points to their norm distance.
auto hasher = [&] (const VecDi& a) {
return std::hash<UINT>()(a.squaredNorm() >> 2);
};
// Unordered set for storing neighbours without duplication.
std::unordered_set<VecDi, UINT (*) (const VecDi& a)> sneighs(phi.dims().squaredNorm() >> 2, hasher);
... compute big long list of points including many duplicates ...
// Insert neighbours into unordered_set to remove duplicates.
std::copy(aneighs.begin(), aneighs.end(), std::inserter(sneighs, sneighs.end()));
// De-dupe neighbours list.
// TODO: is this method faster or slower than unordered_set?
std::sort(aneighs.begin(), aneighs.end(), [&] (const VecDi& a, const VecDi&b) {
const UINT aidx = Grid<VecDi, D>::index(a, phi.dims(), phi.offset());
const UINT bidx = Grid<VecDi, D>::index(b, phi.dims(), phi.offset());
return aidx < bidx;
});
aneighs.erase(std::unique(aneighs.begin(), aneighs.end()), aneighs.end());
A great deal here is likely to depend on the size of the output set (which, in turn, will depend on how distant of neighbors you sample).
If it's small, (no more than a few dozen items or so) your hand-rolled set implementation using std::vector and std::find will probably remain fairly competitive. Its problem is that it's an O(N2) algorithm -- each time you insert an item, you have to search all the existing items, so each insertion is linear on the number of items already in the set. Therefore, as the set grows larger, its time to insert items grows roughly quadratically.
Using std::set you each insertion has to only do approximately log2(N) comparisons instead of N comparison. That reduces the overall complexity from O(N2) to O(N log N). The major shortcoming is that it's (at least normally) implemented as a tree built up of individually allocated nodes. That typically reduces its locality of reference -- i.e., each item you insert will consist of the data itself plus some pointers, and traversing the tree means following pointers around. Since they're allocated individually, chances are pretty good that nodes that are (currently) adjacent in the tree won't be adjacent in memory, so you'll see a fair number of cache misses. Bottom line: while its speed grows fairly slowly as the number of items increases, the constants involved are fairly large -- for a small number of items, it'll start out fairly slow (typically quite a bit slower than your hand-rolled version).
Using a vector/sort/unique combines some of the advantages of each of the preceding. Storing the items in a vector (without extra pointers for each) typically leads to better cache usage -- items at adjacent indexes are also at adjacent memory locations, so when you insert a new item, chances are that the location for the new item will already be in the cache. The major disadvantage is that if you're dealing with a really large set, this could use quite a bit more memory. Where a set eliminates duplicates as you insert each item (i.e., an item will only be inserted if it's different from anything already in the set) this will insert all the items, then at the end delete all the duplicates. Given current memory availability and the number of neighbors I'd guess you're probably visiting, I doubt this is a major disadvantage in practice, but under the wrong circumstances, it could lead to a serious problem -- nearly any use of virtual memory would almost certainly make it a net loss.
Looking at the last from a complexity viewpoint, it's going to O(N log N), sort of like the set. The difference is that with the set it's really more like O(N log M), where N is the total number of neighbors, and M is the number of unique neighbors. With the vector, it's really O(N log N), where N is (again) the total number of neighbors. As such, if the number of duplicates is extremely large, a set could have a significant algorithmic advantage.
It's also possible to implement a set-like structure in purely linear sequences. This retains the set's advantage of only storing unique items, but also the vector's locality of reference advantage. The idea is to keep most of the current set sorted, so you can search it in log(N) complexity. When you insert a new item, however, you just put it in the separate vector (or an unsorted portion of the existing vector). When you do a new insertion you also do a linear search on those unsorted items.
When that unsorted part gets too large (for some definition of "too large") you sort those items and merge them into the main group, then start the same sequence again. If you define "too large" in terms of "log N" (where N is the number of items in the sorted group) you can retain O(N log N) complexity for the data structure as a whole. When I've played with it, I've found that the unsorted portion can be larger than I'd have expected before it starts to cause a problem though.
Unsorted set has a constant time complexity o(1) for insertion (on average), so the operation will be o(n) where n is the number is elements before removal.
sorting a list of element of size n is o(n log n), going over the list to remove duplicates is o(n). o(n log n) + o(n) = o(n log n)
The unsorted set (which is similar to an hash table in performance) is better.
data about unsorted set times:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/unordered_set
I have a 2D array (an image actually) that is size N x N. I need to find the indices of the M largest values in the array ( M << N x N) . Linearized index or the 2D coords are both fine. The array must remain intact (since it's an image). I can make a copy for scratch, but sorting the array will bugger up the indices.
I'm fine with doing a full pass over the array (ie. O(N^2) is fine). Anyone have a good algorithm for doing this as efficiently as possible?
Selection is sorting's austere sister (repeat this ten times in a row). Selection algorithms are less known than sort algorithms, but nonetheless useful.
You can't do better than O(N^2) (in N) here, since nothing indicates that you must not visit each element of the array.
A good approach is to keep a priority queue made of the M largest elements. This makes something O(N x N x log M).
You traverse the array, enqueuing pairs (elements, index) as you go. The queue keeps its elements sorted by first component.
Once the queue has M elements, instead of enqueuing you now:
Query the min element of the queue
If the current element of the array is greater, insert it into the queue and discard the min element of the queue
Else do nothing.
If M is bigger, sorting the array is preferable.
NOTE: #Andy Finkenstadt makes a good point (in the comments to your question) : you definitely should traverse your array in the "direction of data locality": make sure that you read memory contiguously.
Also, this is trivially parallelizable, the only non parallelizable part is when you merge the queues when joining the sub processes.
You could copy the array into a single dimensioned array of tuples (value, original X, original Y ) and build a basic heap out of it in (O(n) time), provided you implement the heap as an array.
You could then retrieve the M largest tuples in O(M lg n) time and reference their original x and y from the tuple.
If you are going to make a copy of the input array in order to do a sort, that's way worse than just walking linearly through the whole thing to pick out numbers.
So the question is how big is your M? If it is small, you can store results (i.e. structs with 2D indexes and values) in a simple array or a vector. That'll minimize heap operations but when you find a larger value than what's in your vector, you'll have to shift things around.
If you expect M to get really large, then you may need a better data structure like a binary tree (std::set) or use sorted std::deque. std::set will reduce number of times elements must be shifted in memory, while if you use std::deque, it'll do some shifting, but it'll reduce number of times you have to go to the heap significantly, which may give you better performance.
Your problem doesn't use the 2 dimensions in any interesting way, it is easier to consiger the equivalent problem in a 2d array.
There are 2 main ways to solve this problem:
Mantain a set of M largest elements, and iterate through the array. (Using a heap allows you to do this efficiently).
This is simple and is probably better in your case (M << N)
Use selection, (the following algorithm is an adaptation of quicksort):
Create an auxiliary array, containing the indexes [1..N].
Choose an arbritary index (and corresponding value), and partition the index array so that indexes corresponding to elements less go to the left, and bigger elements go to the right.
Repeat the process, binary search style until you narrow down the M largest elements.
This is good for cases with large M. If you want to avoid worst case issues (the same quicksort has) then look at more advanced algorithms, (like median of medians selection)
How many times do you search for the largest value from the array?
If you only search 1 time, then just scan through it keeping the M largest ones.
If you do it many times, just insert the values into a sorted list (probably best implemented as a balanced tree).