I was recently reading an article on string hashing. We can hash a string by converting a string into a polynomial.
H(s1s2s3 ...sn) = (s1 + s2*p + s3*(p^2) + ··· + sn*(p^n−1)) mod M.
What are the constraints on p and M so that the probability of collision decreases?
A good requirement for a hash function on strings is that it should be difficult to find a
pair of different strings, preferably of the same length n, that have equal fingerprints. This
excludes the choice of M < n. Indeed, in this case at some point the powers of p corresponding
to respective symbols of the string start to repeat.
Similarly, if gcd(M, p) > 1 then powers of p modulo M may repeat for
exponents smaller than n. The safest choice is to set p as one of
the generators of the group U(ZM) – the group of all integers
relatively prime to M under multiplication modulo M.
I am not able to understand the above constraints. How selecting M < n and gcd(M,p) > 1 increases collision? Can somebody explain these two with some examples? I just need a basic understanding of these.
In addition, if anyone can focus on upper and lower bounds of M, it will be more than enough.
The above facts has been taken from the following article string hashing mit.
The "correct" answers to these questions involve some amount of number theory, but it can often be instructive to look at some extreme cases to see why the constraints might be useful.
For example, let's look at why we want M ≥ n. As an extreme case, let's pick M = 2 and n = 4. Then look at the numbers p0 mod 2, p1 mod 2, p2 mod 2, and p3 mod 2. Because there are four numbers here and only two possible remainders, by the pigeonhole principle we know that at least two of these numbers must be equal. Let's assume, for simplicity, that p0 and p1 are the same. This means that the hash function will return the same hash code for any two strings whose first two characters have been swapped, since those characters are multiplied by the same amount, which isn't a desirable property of a hash function. More generally, the reason why we want M ≥ n is so that the values p0, p1, ..., pn-1 at least have the possibility of being distinct. If M < n, there will just be too many powers of p for them to all be unique.
Now, let's think about why we want gcd(M, p) = 1. As an extreme case, suppose we pick p such that gcd(M, p) = M (that is, we pick p = M). Then
s0p0 + s1p1 + s2p2 + ... + sn-1pn-1 (mod M)
= s0M0 + s1M1 + s2M2 + ... + sn-1Mn-1 (mod M)
= s0
Oops, that's no good - that makes our hash code exactly equal to the first character of the string. This means that if p isn't coprime with M (that is, if gcd(M, p) ≠ 1), you run the risk of certain characters being "modded out" of the hash code, increasing the collision probability.
How selecting M < n and gcd(M,p) > 1 increases collision?
In your hash function formula, M might reasonably be used to restrict the hash result to a specific bit-width: e.g. M=216 for a 16-bit hash, M=232 for a 32-bit hash, M=2^64 for a 64-bit hash. Usually, a mod/% operation is not actually needed in an implementation, as using the desired size of unsigned integer for the hash calculation inherently performs that function.
I don't recommend it, but sometimes you do see people describing hash functions that are so exclusively coupled to the size of a specific hash table that they mod the results directly to the table size.
The text you quote from says:
A good requirement for a hash function on strings is that it should be difficult to find a pair of different strings, preferably of the same length n, that have equal fingerprints. This excludes the choice of M < n.
This seems a little silly in three separate regards. Firstly, it implies that hashing a long passage of text requires a massively long hash value, when practically it's the number of distinct passages of text you need to hash that's best considered when selecting M.
More specifically, if you have V distinct values to hash with a good general purpose hash function, you'll get dramatically less collisions of the hash values if your hash function produces at least V2 distinct hash values. For example, if you are hashing 1000 values (~210), you want M to be at least 1 million (i.e. at least 2*10 = 20-bit hash values, which is fine to round up to 32-bit but ideally don't settle for 16-bit). Read up on the Birthday Problem for related insights.
Secondly, given n is the number of characters, the number of potential values (i.e. distinct inputs) is the number of distinct values any specific character can take, raised to the power n. The former is likely somewhere from 26 to 256 values, depending on whether the hash supports only letters, or say alphanumeric input, or standard- vs. extended-ASCII and control characters etc., or even more for Unicode. The way "excludes the choice of M < n" implies any relevant linear relationship between M and n is bogus; if anything, it's as M drops below the number of distinct potential input values that it increasingly promotes collisions, but again it's the actual number of distinct inputs that tends to matter much, much more.
Thirdly, "preferably of the same length n" - why's that important? As far as I can see, it's not.
I've nothing to add to templatetypedef's discussion on gcd.
Related
I was asked the following question during a job interview and was stumped by it.
Part of the problem I had is making up my mind about what problem I was solving. At first I didn't think the question was internally consistent but then I realized it is asking you to solve two different things - the first task is to figure out whether one string contains a multiple of another string. But the second task is to find a smaller unit of division within both strings.
It's a bit more clear to me now with the pressure of the interview room behind me but I'm still not sure what the ideal algorithm would be here. Any suggestions?
Given two strings s & t, determine if s is divisible by t.
For example: "abab" is divisible by "ab"
But "ababab" is not divisible by "abab".
If it isn't divisible, return -1.
If it is, return the length of the smallest common divisor:
So, for "abababab" and "abab", return 2 as s is divisible
by t and the smallest common divisor is "ab" with length 2.
Oddly, you're asked to return -1 unless s is divisible by t (which is easy to check), and then you're only left with cases where t divides s.
If t divides s, then the smallest common divisor is just the smallest divisor of t.
The simplest way to find the smallest divisor of t is to check all the factors of its length to see if the prefix of that length divides t.
You can do it in linear time by building the Knuth-Morris-Pratt search table for t: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%E2%80%93Morris%E2%80%93Pratt_algorithm
This will tell you all the suffixes of t that are also prefixes of t. If the length of the remainder divides the length of t, then the remainder divides t.
let n is the length of the string s and m is the length of string t, then first we find the gcd(greatest common divisor) of n & m(the largest length that divides both n & m), now we find the all the divisors of gcd in O(square root of gcd) then, we start checking each of them in increasing order whether the starting substring of s or t of length l(divisors of gcd) exist n/l && (m/l) times(using kmp algorithm or robin karp hashing method or rolling hash), if yes, then we break and return length l otherwise we keep checking it until we run out of the divisors and return -1 if nothing is found.
Finding the Lexicographically minimal string rotation is a well known problem, for which a linear time algorithm was proposed by Jean Pierre Duval in 1983. This blog post is probably the only publicly available resource that talks about the algorithm in detail. However, Duval's algorithms is based on the idea of pairwise comparisons ("duels"), and the blog conveniently uses an even-length string as an example.
How does the algorithm work for odd-length strings, where the last character wouldn't have a competing one to duel with?
One character can get a "bye", where it wins without participating in a "duel". The correctness of the algorithm does not rely on the specific duels that you perform; given any two distinct indices i and j, you can always conclusively rule out that one of them is the start-index of the lexicographically-minimal rotation (unless both are start-indices of identical lexicographically-minimal rotations, in which case it doesn't matter which one you reject). The reason to perform the duels in a specific order is performance: to get asymptotically linear time by ensuring that half the duels only need to compare one character, half of the rest only need to compare two characters, and so on, until the last duel only needs to compare half the length of the string. But a single odd character here and there doesn't change the asymptotic complexity, it just makes the math (and implementation) a little bit more complicated. A string of length 2n+1 still requires fewer "duels" than one of length 2n+1.
OP here: I accepted ruakh's answer as it pertains to my question, but I wanted to provide my own explanation for others that might stumble across this post trying to understand Duval's algorithm.
Problem:
Lexicographically least circular substring is the problem of finding
the rotation of a string possessing the lowest lexicographical order
of all such rotations. For example, the lexicographically minimal
rotation of "bbaaccaadd" would be "aaccaaddbb".
Solution:
A O(n) time algorithm was proposed by Jean Pierre Duval (1983).
Given two indices i and j, Duval's algorithm compares string segments of length j - i starting at i and j (called a "duel"). If index + j - i is greater than the length of the string, the segment is formed by wrapping around.
For example, consider s = "baabbaba", i = 5 and j = 7. Since j - i = 2, the first segment starting at i = 5 is "ab". The second segment starting at j = 7 is constructed by wrapping around, and is also "ab".
If the strings are lexicographically equal, like in the above example, we choose the one starting at i as the winner, which is i = 5.
The above process repeated until we have a single winner. If the input string is of odd length, the last character wins without a comparison in the first iteration.
Time complexity:
The first iteration compares n strings each of length 1 (n/2 comparisons), the second iteration may compare n/2 strings of length 2 (n/2 comparisons), and so on, until the i-th iteration compares 2 strings of length n/2 (n/2 comparisons). Since the number of winners is halved each time, the height of the recursion tree is log(n), thus giving us a O(n log(n)) algorithm. For small n, this is approximately O(n).
Space complexity is O(n) too, since in the first iteration, we have to store n/2 winners, second iteration n/4 winners, and so on. (Wikipedia claims this algorithm uses constant space, I don't understand how).
Here's a Scala implementation; feel free to convert to your favorite programming language.
def lexicographicallyMinRotation(s: String): String = {
#tailrec
def duel(winners: Seq[Int]): String = {
if (winners.size == 1) s"${s.slice(winners.head, s.length)}${s.take(winners.head)}"
else {
val newWinners: Seq[Int] = winners
.sliding(2, 2)
.map {
case Seq(x, y) =>
val range = y - x
Seq(x, y)
.map { i =>
val segment = if (s.isDefinedAt(i + range - 1)) s.slice(i, i + range)
else s"${s.slice(i, s.length)}${s.take(s.length - i)}"
(i, segment)
}
.reduce((a, b) => if (a._2 <= b._2) a else b)
._1
case xs => xs.head
}
.toSeq
duel(newWinners)
}
}
duel(s.indices)
}
In some programming competitions where the numbers are larger than any available integer data type, we often use strings instead.
Question 1:
Given these large numbers, how to calculate e and f in the below expression?
(a/b) + (c/d) = e/f
note: GCD(e,f) = 1, i.e. they must be in minimised form. For example {e,f} = {1,2} rather than {2,4}.
Also, all a,b,c,d are large numbers known to us.
Question 2:
Can someone also suggest a way to find GCD of two big numbers (bigger than any available integer type)?
I would suggest using full bytes or words rather than strings.
It is relatively easy to think in base 256 instead of base 10 and a lot more efficient for the processor to not do multiplication and division by 10 all the time. Ideally, choose a word size that is half the processor's natural word size, as that makes carry easy to implement. Of course thinking in base 64K or 4G is slightly more complex, but even better than base 256.
The only downside is generating the initial big numbers from the ascii input, which you get for free in base 10. Using a larger word size you can make this more efficient by processing a number of digits initially into a single word (eg 9 digits at a time into 4G), then performing a long multiply of that single word into the correct offset in your large integer format.
A compromise might be to run your engine in base 1 billion: This will still be 9 or 81 times more efficient than using base 10!
The simplest way to solve this equation is to multiply a/b * d/d and c/d * b/b so they both have the common denominator b*d.
I think you will then need to prime factorise your big numbers e and f to find any common factors. Remember to search again for the same factor squared.
Of course, that means you have to write a prime generating sieve. You only need to generate factors up to the square root, or half the digits of the min value of e and f.
You could prime factorise b and d to get a lower initial denominator, but you will need to do it again anyway after the addition.
I think that the way to solve this is to separate the problem:
Process the input numbers as an array of characters (ie. std::string)
Make a class where each object can store an std::list (or similar) that represents one of the large numbers, and can do the needed arithmetic with your data
You can then solve your problems normally, without having to worry about your large inputs causing overflow.
Here's a webpage that explains how you can have such an arithmetic class (with sample code in C++ showing addition).
Once you have such an arithmetic class, you no longer need to worry about how to store the data or any overflow.
I get the impression that you already know how to find the GCD when you don't have overflow issues, but just in case, here's an explanation of finding the GCD (with C++ sample code).
As for the specific math problem:
// given formula: a/b + c/d = e/f
// = ( ( a*d + b*c ) / ( b*d ) )
// Define some variables here to save on copying
// (I assume that your class that holds the
// large numbers is called "ARITHMETIC")
ARITHMETIC numerator = a*d + b*c;
ARITHMETIC denominator = b*d;
ARITHMETIC gcd = GCD( numerator , denominator );
// because we know that GCD(e,f) is 1, this implies:
ARITHMETIC e = numerator / gcd;
ARITHMETIC f = denominator / gcd;
I was looking through a programming question, when the following question suddenly seemed related.
How do you convert a string to another string using as few swaps as follows. The strings are guaranteed to be interconvertible (they have the same set of characters, this is given), but the characters can be repeated. I saw web results on the same question, without the characters being repeated though.
Any two characters in the string can be swapped.
For instance : "aabbccdd" can be converted to "ddbbccaa" in two swaps, and "abcc" can be converted to "accb" in one swap.
Thanks!
This is an expanded and corrected version of Subhasis's answer.
Formally, the problem is, given a n-letter alphabet V and two m-letter words, x and y, for which there exists a permutation p such that p(x) = y, determine the least number of swaps (permutations that fix all but two elements) whose composition q satisfies q(x) = y. Assuming that n-letter words are maps from the set {1, ..., m} to V and that p and q are permutations on {1, ..., m}, the action p(x) is defined as the composition p followed by x.
The least number of swaps whose composition is p can be expressed in terms of the cycle decomposition of p. When j1, ..., jk are pairwise distinct in {1, ..., m}, the cycle (j1 ... jk) is a permutation that maps ji to ji + 1 for i in {1, ..., k - 1}, maps jk to j1, and maps every other element to itself. The permutation p is the composition of every distinct cycle (j p(j) p(p(j)) ... j'), where j is arbitrary and p(j') = j. The order of composition does not matter, since each element appears in exactly one of the composed cycles. A k-element cycle (j1 ... jk) can be written as the product (j1 jk) (j1 jk - 1) ... (j1 j2) of k - 1 cycles. In general, every permutation can be written as a composition of m swaps minus the number of cycles comprising its cycle decomposition. A straightforward induction proof shows that this is optimal.
Now we get to the heart of Subhasis's answer. Instances of the asker's problem correspond one-to-one with Eulerian (for every vertex, in-degree equals out-degree) digraphs G with vertices V and m arcs labeled 1, ..., m. For j in {1, ..., n}, the arc labeled j goes from y(j) to x(j). The problem in terms of G is to determine how many parts a partition of the arcs of G into directed cycles can have. (Since G is Eulerian, such a partition always exists.) This is because the permutations q such that q(x) = y are in one-to-one correspondence with the partitions, as follows. For each cycle (j1 ... jk) of q, there is a part whose directed cycle is comprised of the arcs labeled j1, ..., jk.
The problem with Subhasis's NP-hardness reduction is that arc-disjoint cycle packing on Eulerian digraphs is a special case of arc-disjoint cycle packing on general digraphs, so an NP-hardness result for the latter has no direct implications for the complexity status of the former. In very recent work (see the citation below), however, it has been shown that, indeed, even the Eulerian special case is NP-hard. Thus, by the correspondence above, the asker's problem is as well.
As Subhasis hints, this problem can be solved in polynomial time when n, the size of the alphabet, is fixed (fixed-parameter tractable). Since there are O(n!) distinguishable cycles when the arcs are unlabeled, we can use dynamic programming on a state space of size O(mn), the number of distinguishable subgraphs. In practice, that might be sufficient for (let's say) a binary alphabet, but if I were to try to try to solve this problem exactly on instances with large alphabets, then I likely would try branch and bound, obtaining bounds by using linear programming with column generation to pack cycles fractionally.
#article{DBLP:journals/corr/GutinJSW14,
author = {Gregory Gutin and
Mark Jones and
Bin Sheng and
Magnus Wahlstr{\"o}m},
title = {Parameterized Directed \$k\$-Chinese Postman Problem and \$k\$
Arc-Disjoint Cycles Problem on Euler Digraphs},
journal = {CoRR},
volume = {abs/1402.2137},
year = {2014},
ee = {http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2137},
bibsource = {DBLP, http://dblp.uni-trier.de}
}
You can construct the "difference" strings S and S', i.e. a string which contains the characters at the differing positions of the two strings, e.g. for acbacb and abcabc it will be cbcb and bcbc. Let us say this contains n characters.
You can now construct a "permutation graph" G which will have n nodes and an edge from i to j if S[i] == S'[j]. In the case of all unique characters, it is easy to see that the required number of swaps will be (n - number of cycles in G), which can be found out in O(n) time.
However, in the case where there are any number of duplicate characters, this reduces to the problem of finding out the largest number of cycles in a directed graph, which, I think, is NP-hard, (e.g. check out: http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~jverstra/dcig.pdf ).
In that paper a few greedy algorithms are pointed out, one of which is particularly simple:
At each step, find the minimum length cycle in the graph (e.g. Find cycle of shortest length in a directed graph with positive weights )
Delete it
Repeat until all vertexes have not been covered.
However, there may be efficient algorithms utilizing the properties of your case (the only one I can think of is that your graphs will be K-partite, where K is the number of unique characters in S). Good luck!
Edit:
Please refer to David's answer for a fuller and correct explanation of the problem.
Do an A* search (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-star_search_algorithm for an explanation) for the shortest path through the graph of equivalent strings from one string to the other. Use the Levenshtein distance / 2 as your cost heuristic.
I have a corpus of 900,000 strings. They vary in length, but have an average character count of about 4,500. I need to find the most efficient way of computing the Dice coefficient of every string as it relates to every other string. Unfortunately, this results in the Dice coefficient algorithm being used some 810,000,000,000 times.
What is the best way to structure this program for increased efficiency? Obviously, I can prevent computing the Dice of sections A and B, and then B and A--but this only halves the work required. Should I consider taking some shortcuts or creating some sort of binary tree?
I'm using the following implementation of the Dice coefficient algorithm in Java:
public static double diceCoefficient(String s1, String s2) {
Set<String> nx = new HashSet<String>();
Set<String> ny = new HashSet<String>();
for (int i = 0; i < s1.length() - 1; i++) {
char x1 = s1.charAt(i);
char x2 = s1.charAt(i + 1);
String tmp = "" + x1 + x2;
nx.add(tmp);
}
for (int j = 0; j < s2.length() - 1; j++) {
char y1 = s2.charAt(j);
char y2 = s2.charAt(j + 1);
String tmp = "" + y1 + y2;
ny.add(tmp);
}
Set<String> intersection = new HashSet<String>(nx);
intersection.retainAll(ny);
double totcombigrams = intersection.size();
return (2 * totcombigrams) / (nx.size() + ny.size());
}
My ultimate goal is to output an ID for every section that has a Dice coefficient of greater than 0.9 with another section.
Thanks for any advice that you can provide!
Make a single pass over all the Strings, and build up a HashMap which maps each bigram to a set of the indexes of the Strings which contain that bigram. (Currently you are building the bigram set 900,000 times, redundantly, for each String.)
Then make a pass over all the sets, and build a HashMap of [index,index] pairs to common-bigram counts. (The latter Map should not contain redundant pairs of keys, like [1,2] and [2,1] -- just store one or the other.)
Both of these steps can easily be parallelized. If you need some sample code, please let me know.
NOTE one thing, though: from the 26 letters of the English alphabet, a total of 26x26 = 676 bigrams can be formed. Many of these will never or almost never be found, because they don't conform to the rules of English spelling. Since you are building up sets of bigrams for each String, and the Strings are so long, you will probably find almost the same bigrams in each String. If you were to build up lists of bigrams for each String (in other words, if the frequency of each bigram counted), it's more likely that you would actually be able to measure the degree of similarity between Strings, but then the calculation of Dice's coefficient as given in the Wikipedia article wouldn't work; you'd have to find a new formula.
I suggest you continue researching algorithms for determining similarity between Strings, try implementing a few of them, and run them on a smaller set of Strings to see how well they work.
You should come up with some kind of inequality like: D(X1,X2) > 1-p, D(X1,X3) < 1-q and p D(X2,X3) < 1-q+p . Or something like that. Now, if 1-q+p < 0.9, then probably you don't have to evaluate D(X2,X3).
PS: I am not sure about this exact inequality, but I have a gut feeling that this might be right (but I do not have enough time to actually do the derivations now). Look for some of the inequalities with other similarity measures and see if any of them are valid for Dice co-efficient.
=== Also ===
If there are a elements in set A, and if your threshold is r (=0.9), then set B should have number of elements b should be such that: r*a/(2-r) <= b <= (2-r)*a/r . This should eliminate need for lots of comparisons IMHO. You can probably sort the strings according to length and use the window describe above to limit comparisons.
Disclaimer first: This will not reduce the number of comparisons you'll have to make. But this should make a Dice comparison faster.
1) Don't build your HashSets every time you do a diceCoefficient() call! It should speed things up considerably if you just do it once for each string and keep the result around.
2) Since you only care about if a particular bigram is present in the string, you could get away with a BitSet with a bit for each possible bigram, rather than a full HashMap. Coefficient calculation would then be simplified to ANDing two bit sets and counting the number of set bits in the result.
3) Or, if you have a huge number of possible bigrams (Unicode, perhaps?) - or monotonous strings with only a handful of bigrams each - a sorted Array of bigrams might provide faster, more space-efficent comparisons.
Is their charset limited somehow? If it is, you can compute character counts by their code in each string and compare these numbers. After such pre-computation (it will occupy 2*900K*S bytes of memory [if we assume no character is found more then 65K time in the same string], where S is different character count). Then computing the coefficent would take O(S) time. Sure, this would be helpful if S<4500.