Given an array/list of integers, output the duplicates.
Also, what I am really looking for: what solutions have best time performance? Best space performance? Is it possible to have both best time and best space performance? Just curious. Thank you!
For example: given the list [4,1,7,9,4,5,2,7,6,5,3,6,7], the answer would be [4,7,6,5] (the order of the output does not matter).
I wrote up my solution in python.
Here's one solution I wrote using a hash and binary search.
def binarySearch(array, number):
start = 0
end = len(array)
mid = (end + start) // 2
while (end > start):
mid = start + (end - start) // 2
if array[mid] == number:
return (mid, True)
elif number > array[mid]:
if start == mid:
return (mid + 1, False)
start = mid
else:
end = mid
return (mid, False)
def findDuplicatesWithHash(array):
duplicatesHash = {}
duplicates = []
for number in array:
try:
index,found = binarySearch(duplicates, number)
if duplicatesHash[number] == 0 and not found:
duplicates.insert(index, number)
except KeyError as error:
duplicatesHash[number] = 0
duplicatesSorted = sorted(duplicates, key=lambda tup: tup)
return duplicatesSorted
There are multiple solutions to finding duplicates. Given this question is completely generic, one can assume that given a list of n values, the number of duplicates lie in the range [0, n/2].
What are the possible methods you can think of?
Hash Table approach:
Store values while traversing the list if value already doesn't exist in the hash table. If the value, exists, you have a duplicate.
Algorithm FindDuplicates(list)
hash_table <- HashTable()
duplicates <- List()
for value in list:
if value in hash_table:
duplicates.add(value)
else:
hash_table.add(value, true)
Time: O(n) to traverse through all values
Space: O(n) to save all possible values in the hash table.
Sort Array
Sort the array and traverse neighbour values.
Algorithm FindDuplicates(list)
list.sort()
duplicates <- Set()
for i <- [1, len(list)-1]:
if list[i] = list[i-1]:
duplicates.add(list[i])
Time: O(n.logn) + O(n) = O(n.logn) to sort and traverse all values
Space: O(1) as no extra space created to produce duplicates
Check for every value
For every value check if the value exists in the array.
Algorithm Search(i, list):
for j <- [0, len(list)-1] - [i]:
if list[j] = list[i]:
return true
return false
Algorithm FindDuplicates(list)
duplicates <- Set()
for i <- [1, len(list)-1]:
if Search(i, list):
duplicates.add(list[i])
Time: O(n^2) number of comparisons are n*n(-1)
Space: O(1) as no extra space created to produce duplicates
Note: space for the duplicates array cannot be included in the space complexity equations as that is the result we want.
Can you think of some more?
One way to get the duplicate:
l = [4,1,7,9,4,5,2,7,6,5,3,6]
import collections
print([item for item, count in collections.Counter(l).items() if count > 1])
Finding duplicates is very similar to sorting. That is, each element needs to be directly or indirectly compared to all other elements to find if there are duplicates. One could modify quicksort to output elements that have an adjacent matching element with O(n) spacial complexity and O(n*log(n)) average time complexity.
Related
Could anyone explain exactly what's happening under the hood to make the recursive approach in the following problem much faster and efficient in terms of time complexity?
The problem: Write a program that would take an array of integers as input and return the largest three numbers sorted in an array, without sorting the original (input) array.
For example:
Input: [22, 5, 3, 1, 8, 2]
Output: [5, 8, 22]
Even though we can simply sort the original array and return the last three elements, that would take at least O(nlog(n)) time as the fastest sorting algorithm would do just that. So the challenge is to perform better and complete the task in O(n) time.
So I was able to come up with a recursive solution:
def findThreeLargestNumbers(array, largest=[]):
if len(largest) == 3:
return largest
max = array[0]
for i in array:
if i > max:
max = i
array.remove(max)
largest.insert(0, max)
return findThreeLargestNumbers(array, largest)
In which I kept finding the largest number, removing it from the original array, appending it to my empty array, and recursively calling the function again until there are three elements in my array.
However, when I looked at the suggested iterative method, I composed this code:
def findThreeLargestNumbers(array):
sortedLargest = [None, None, None]
for num in array:
check(num, sortedLargest)
return sortedLargest
def check(num, sortedLargest):
for i in reversed(range(len(sortedLargest))):
if sortedLargest[i] is None:
sortedLargest[i] = num
return
if num > sortedLargest[i]:
shift(sortedLargest, i, num)
return
def shift(array, idx, element):
if idx == 0:
array[0] = element
return array
array[0] = array[1]
array[idx-1] = array[idx]
array[idx] = element
return array
Both codes passed successfully all the tests and I was convinced that the iterative approach is faster (even though not as clean..). However, I imported the time module and put the codes to the test by providing an array of one million random integers and calculating how long each solution would take to return back the sorted array of the largest three numbers.
The recursive approach was way much faster (about 9 times faster) than the iterative approach!
Why is that? Even though the recursive approach is traversing the huge array three times and, on top of that, every time it removes an element (which takes O(n) time as all other 999 elements would need to be shifted in the memory), whereas the iterative approach is traversing the input array only once and yes making some operations at every iteration but with a very negligible array of size 3 that wouldn't even take time at all!
I really want to be able to judge and pick the most efficient algorithm for any given problem so any explanation would tremendously help.
Advice for optimization.
Avoid function calls. Avoid creating temporary garbage. Avoid extra comparisons. Have logic that looks at elements as little as possible. Walk through how your code works by hand and look at how many steps it takes.
Your recursive code makes only 3 function calls, and as pointed out elsewhere does an average of 1.5 comparisons per call. (1 while looking for the min, 0.5 while figuring out where to remove the element.)
Your iterative code makes lots of comparisons per element, calls excess functions, and makes calls to things like sorted that create/destroy junk.
Now compare with this iterative solution:
def find_largest(array, limit=3):
if len(array) <= limit:
# Special logic not needed.
return sorted(array)
else:
# Initialize the answer to values that will be replaced.
min_val = min(array[0:limit])
answer = [min_val for _ in range(limit)]
# Now scan for smallest.
for i in array:
if answer[0] < i:
# Sift elements down until we find the right spot.
j = 1
while j < limit and answer[j] < i:
answer[j-1] = answer[j]
j = j+1
# Now insert.
answer[j-1] = i
return answer
There are no function calls. It is possible that you can make up to 6 comparisons per element (verify that answer[0] < i, verify that (j=1) < 3, verify that answer[1] < i, verify that (j=2) < 3, verify that answer[2] < i, then find that (j=3) < 3 is not true). You will hit that worst case if array is sorted. But most of the time you only do the first comparison then move to the next element. No muss, no fuss.
How does it benchmark?
Note that if you wanted the smallest 100 elements, then you'd find it worthwhile to use a smarter data structure such as a heap to avoid the bubble sort.
I am not really confortable with python, but I have a different approach to the problem for what it's worth.
As far as I saw, all solutions posted are O(NM) where N is the length of the array and M the length of the largest elements array.
Because of your specific situation whereN >> M you could say it's O(N), but the longest the inputs the more it will be O(NM)
I agree with #zvone that it seems you have more steps in the iterative solution, which sounds like an valid explanation to your different computing speeds.
Back to my proposal, implements binary search O(N*logM) with recursion:
import math
def binarySearch(arr, target, origin = 0):
"""
Recursive binary search
Args:
arr (list): List of numbers to search in
target (int): Number to search with
Returns:
int: index + 1 from inmmediate lower element to target in arr or -1 if already present or lower than the lowest in arr
"""
half = math.floor((len(arr) - 1) / 2);
if target > arr[-1]:
return origin + len(arr)
if len(arr) == 1 or target < arr[0]:
return -1
if arr[half] < target and arr[half+1] > target:
return origin + half + 1
if arr[half] == target or arr[half+1] == target:
return -1
if arr[half] < target:
return binarySearch(arr[half:], target, origin + half)
if arr[half] > target:
return binarySearch(arr[:half + 1], target, origin)
def findLargestNumbers(array, limit = 3, result = []):
"""
Recursive linear search of the largest values in an array
Args:
array (list): Array of numbers to search in
limit (int): Length of array returned. Default: 3
Returns:
list: Array of max values with length as limit
"""
if len(result) == 0:
result = [float('-inf')] * limit
if len(array) < 1:
return result
val = array[-1]
foundIndex = binarySearch(result, val)
if foundIndex != -1:
result.insert(foundIndex, val)
return findLargestNumbers(array[:-1],limit, result[1:])
return findLargestNumbers(array[:-1], limit,result)
It is quite flexible and might be inspiration for a more elaborated answer.
The recursive solution
The recursive function goes through the list 3 times to fins the largest number and removes the largest number from the list 3 times.
for i in array:
if i > max:
...
and
array.remove(max)
So, you have 3×N comparisons, plus 3x removal. I guess the removal is optimized in C, but there is again about 3×(N/2) comparisons to find the item to be removed.
So, a total of approximately 4.5 × N comparisons.
The other solution
The other solution goes through the list only once, but each time it compares to the three elements in sortedLargest:
for i in reversed(range(len(sortedLargest))):
...
and almost each time it sorts the sortedLargest with these three assignments:
array[0] = array[1]
array[idx-1] = array[idx]
array[idx] = element
So, you are N times:
calling check
creating and reversing a range(3)
accessing sortedLargest[i]
comparing num > sortedLargest[i]
calling shift
comparing idx == 0
and about 2×N/3 times doing:
array[0] = array[1]
array[idx-1] = array[idx]
array[idx] = element
and N/3 times array[0] = element
It is difficult to count, but that is much more than 4.5×N comparisons.
I have a function match that takes in a list of numbers and a target number and I want to write a function that finds within the array two numbers that add to that target.
Here is my approach:
>>> def match(values, target=3):
... for i in values:
... for j in values:
... if j != i:
... if i + j == target:
... return print(f'{i} and {j}')
... return print('no matching pair')
Is this solution valiant? Can it be improved?
The best approach would result in O(NlogN) solution.
You sort the list, this will cost you O(NlogN)
Once the list is sorted you get two indices, the former points to the first element, the latter -- to the latest element and you check to see if the sum of the elements matches whatever is your target. If the sum is above the target, you move the upper index down, if the sum is below the target -- you move the lower index up. Finish when the upper index is equal to the lower index. This operation is linear and can be done in O(N) time.
All in all, you have O(NlogN) for the sorting and O(N) for the indexing, bringing the complexity of the whole solution to O(NlogN).
There is room for improvement. Right now, you have a nested loop. Also, you do not return when you use print.
As you iterate over values, you are getting the following:
values = [1, 2, 3]
target = 3
first_value = 1
difference: 3 - 1 = 2
We can see that in order for 1 to add up to 3, a 2 is required. Rather than iterating over the values, we can simply ask 2 in values.
def match(values, target):
values = set(values)
for value in values:
summand = target - value
if summand in values:
break
else:
print('No matching pair')
print(f'{value} and {summand}')
Edit: Converted values to a set since it has handles in quicker than if it were looking it up in a list. If you require the indices of these pairs, such as in the LeetCode problem you should not convert it to a set, since you will lose the order. You should also use enumerate in the for-loop to get the indices.
Edit: summand == value edge case
def match(values, target):
for i, value in enumerate(values):
summand = target - value
if summand in values[i + 1:]:
break
else:
print('No matching pair')
return
print(f'{value} and {summand}')
In my quest on learning algorithm design, i started practicing questions and there is this particular questions that i have trouble with finding an efficient solution.
Given an array A of integers, find the maximum of j - i subjected to
the constraint of A[i] <= A[j]. A : [3 5 4 2] Output : 2 for the pair
(3, 4)
def maxIndex(arr):
max_val = float("-inf")
for i in range(0,len(arr)):
for j in range(i + 1 , len(arr)):
#print(arr[i],arr[j])
if arr[i] <= arr[j]:
diff_i = j - i
if diff_i > max_val:
max_val = diff_i
return max_val
A = [3, 5, 4, 2]
print("Result :",maxIndex(A))
My naive approach above will work but the time complexity is O(n^2) with a space complexity of O(1).
Here both the value and the indexes are important.IF i sort the list out of place and store the indices in a dictionary , i will still have to use a nested for loop to check for j - 1 constraint.
How can i improve the time complexity?
You can create two auxiliary array such that the min array stores at index i the minimum value till the index i, similarly the max array contains the max array value till index i (traversed in reverse)
You can find the answer here https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/given-an-array-arr-find-the-maximum-j-i-such-that-arrj-arri/
As has been mentioned, there is an O(n) solution which is the most efficient. I will add another way of solving it in O(n log n):
We can think of this problem as for each index i, know the furthest index j > i where a[i] <= a[j]. If we had this, we only need to evaluate the difference of the indexes and keep a maximum over it. So, how to calculate this information?
Add all elements to a set, in the form of a pair (element, index) so it first sorts by element, and then by index.
Now iterate the array backwards starting from last element. For every pair in the set where element is lower or equal to current element, we set its furthest index as current index and we remove it from set.
After all is done, evaluate the furthest index j of each i and the answer is the max of those
Note that for each element, we need to search in the set all values that are lower. The search is O(log n), and while we could iterate more, as we remove it later from the set we only end up iterating each element once, so the overall complexity is O(n log n).
A possible solution that I can think from the top of my head for the given problem would be to create a list of pair from the given list which preserves the list indices along with the list value, that is, list of (Ai, i) for all elements in the list.
You can sort this given list of pairs in ascending order and iterate from left-to-right. We maintain a variable which represents the minimum index we have encountered till now in our iteration min_index. Now at every step i, we update our answer as ans = max(ans, indexi - min_index) iff indexi > min_index and also our min_index and also our min_index as min_index = min(indexi, min_index) Since our list is sorted, it's guaranteed that A[i] >= A[min_index]
Since we need to sort the array initially, the overall complexity of the solution is O(nlog(n))
There is approach with O(nlogn) time (while I have feeling that linear algorithm should exist).
Make list min-candidates
Walk through the source list.
If current item is less than current minimum, add its index to min-candidates. So corresponding values are sorted in descending order.
If current item is larger than current minimum, search for the first less item in min-candidates with binary search. Find index difference and compare with the current best result.
This could be solved in O(nlogn) time and O(n) space.
Create a list of tuples of [value, index]
Sort them by value
Initialize min_index to some max value ( list.length + 1 )
Initialize a max value for difference of indices
Initialize a tuple to capture indices that has max difference.
Now go through following steps ( pseudo code ):
min_index = list.length + 1
max = 0
max_tuple = []
for tuple t in list:
min_index = minimum( t.index, min_index )
if ( t.index != min_index )
if ( t.index - min_index >= max )
max = t.index - min_index
max_tuple = [min_index, t.index]
In other words, you keep track of minimum index and because your list is sorted, as you go through the list in increasing value order, you will get a difference between the min index and your current index which you need to maximize.
Given a list x, I want to sort it with selection sort, and then count the number of swaps made within the sort. So I came out with something like this:
count=0
a=0
n=len(x)
while (n-a)>0:
#please recommend a better way to swap.
i = (min(x[a:n]))
x[i], x[a] = x[a], x[i]
a += 1
#the count must still be there
count+=1
print (x)
Could you help me to find a way to manage this better? It doesn't work that well.
The problem is NOT about repeated elements. Your code doesn't work for lists with all elements distinct, either. Try x = [2,6,4,5].
i = (min(x[a:n]))
min() here gets the value of the minimum element in the slice, and then you use it as an index, that doesn't make sense.
You are confusing the value of an element, with its location. You must use the index to identify the location.
seq = [2,1,0,0]
beg = 0
n = len(seq)
while (n - beg) > 0:
jdx = seq[beg:n].index((min(seq[beg:n]))) # use the remaining unsorted right
seq[jdx + beg], seq[beg] = seq[beg], seq[jdx + beg] # swap the minimum with the first unsorted element.
beg += 1
print(seq)
print('-->', seq)
As the sorting progresses, the left of the list [0:beg] is sorted, and the right side [beg:] is being sorted, until completion.
jdx is the location (the index) of the minimum of the remaining of the list (finding the min must happen on the unsorted right part of the list --> [beg:])
Given a number, I have to find out all possible index-pairs in a given array whose sum equals that number. I am currently using the following algo:
def myfunc(array,num):
dic = {}
for x in xrange(len(array)): # if 6 is the current key,
if dic.has_key(num-array[x]): #look at whether num-x is there in dic
for y in dic[num-array[x]]: #if yes, print all key-pair values
print (x,y),
if dic.has_key(array[x]): #check whether the current keyed value exists
dic[array[x]].append(x) #if so, append the index to the list of indexes for that keyed value
else:
dic[array[x]] = [x] #else create a new array
Will this run in O(N) time? If not, then what should be done to make it so? And in any case, will it be possible to make it run in O(N) time without using any auxiliary data structure?
Will this run in O(N) time?
Yes and no. The complexity is actually O(N + M) where M is the output size.
Unfortunately, the output size is in O(N^2) worst case, for example the array [3,3,3,3,3,...,3] and number == 6 - it will result in quadric number of elements needed to be produced.
However - asymptotically speaking - it cannot be done better then this, because it is linear in the input size and output size.
Very, very simple solution that actually does run in O(N) time by using array references. If you want to enumerate all the output pairs, then of course (as amit notes) it must take O(N^2) in the worst case.
from collections import defaultdict
def findpairs(arr, target):
flip = defaultdict(list)
for i, j in enumerate(arr):
flip[j].append(i)
for i, j in enumerate(arr):
if target-j in flip:
yield i, flip[target-j]
Postprocessing to get all of the output values (and filter out (i,i) answers):
def allpairs(arr, target):
for i, js in findpairs(arr, target):
for j in js:
if i < j: yield (i, j)
This might help - Optimal Algorithm needed for finding pairs divisible by a given integer k
(With a slight modification, there we are seeing for all pairs divisible by given number and not necessarily just equal to given number)