Skip to main content

Inversion Count - Medium

Given an Array A[1..n] of distinct integers find out how many instances are there where A[i] > A[j] where i < j. Such instances can be called Inversions.

Say, [100,20,10,30] the inversions are (100,20), (100, 10), (100,30), (20,10) and the count is of course 4

The question appears as an exercise in the  Chapter 4 of Introduction to Algorithms.  (3rd Edition)

As per our tradition we'll start with the worst algorithm and incrementally improve upon it. So on with it.

So the complexity of the algorithm is O(n^2). We can do this even faster using divide and conquer, more aptly if we use a variation of Merge Sort. To do this, unfortunately, we will have to mutate the array.

The key to the algorithm is to understand that in an ascending sorted array the inversion count is zero. Say [10,20,30]

If we perhaps have an element 100 before the rest of the array, the inversion count becomes 3. [100,10,20,30]. If we placed the 100 at the second position the inversion count would be 2, [10,100,20,30].

So here's what we're going to do, we write a recursive function which returns inversion count. The function first recursively does it for the first half and second half of the array, the byproduct of these recursive calls is that both half's become sorted. (Just like Merge Sort!) Now if you have two sorted Arrays which should be merged into one, we can piggy back on the merging process (of merge sort!) and count the inversions by merely counting the number of times an element from the first half was greater than the element in the second half.

An example, for those who found my explanation confusing.

Say, at some point of the recursion, we have the following
First half : [20,40,60,80] , Second half : [10,30,50,70]

If you recall the merge subroutine, we first compare 20 and 10, since 20 > 10, that counts as an inversion. But also note, since the first half is sorted therefore it is guaranteed that  [20, 40, 60, 80] will all be greater than 10. Since 20 had to be the minimum element of the first half. Therefore the inversion count for 10 in this instance becomes 4 (size of the unexplored first half). Important to note, this algorithm only works if the integers are all distinct.

Speaking generally, let's say i is the index for first half, j is the index for the second. Aux is the auxillary array to store the result. Then,

If A[i] > A[j] then    // implies A[j] < A[i…mid]
    invCount = mid - i + 1
    Aux[k++] = A[j++]
Else
    Aux[k++] = A[i++]
End If

Now for the code, notice it's uncanny resemblance to merge sort.

And that's Inversion Count! :)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Find Increasing Triplet Subsequence - Medium

Problem - Given an integer array A[1..n], find an instance of i,j,k where 0 < i < j < k <= n and A[i] < A[j] < A[k]. Let's start with the obvious solution, bruteforce every three element combination until we find a solution. Let's try to reduce this by searching left and right for each element, we search left for an element smaller than the current one, towards the right an element greater than the current one. When we find an element that has both such elements, we found the solution. The complexity of this solution is O(n^2). To reduce this even further, One can simply apply the longest increasing subsequence algorithm and break when we get an LIS of length 3. But the best algorithm that can find an LIS is O(nlogn) with O( n ) space . An O(nlogn) algorithm seems like an overkill! Can this be done in linear time? The Algorithm: We iterate over the array and keep track of two things. The minimum value iterated over (min) The minimum increa

Merge k-sorted lists - Medium

Problem - Given k-sorted lists, merge them into a single sorted list. A daft way of doing this would be to copy all the list into a new array and sorting the new array. ie O(n log(n)) The naive method would be to simply perform k-way merge similar to the auxiliary method in Merge Sort. But that is reduces the problem to a minimum selection from a list of k-elements. The Complexity of this algorithm is an abysmal O(nk). Here's how it looks in Python. We maintain an additional array called Index[1..k] to maintain the head of each list. We improve upon this by optimizing the minimum selection process by using a familiar data structure, the Heap! Using a MinHeap, we extract the minimum element from a list and then push the next element from the same list into the heap, until all the list get exhausted. This reduces the Time complexity to O(nlogk) since for each element we perform O(logk) operations on the heap. An important implementation detail is we need to keep track

QuickSelect - Medium

Problem : Given an unsorted array, find the kth smallest element. The problem is called the Selection problem . It's been intensively studied and has a couple of very interesting algorithms that do the job. I'll be  describing an algorithm called QuickSelect . The algorithm derives its name from QuickSort. You will probably recognise that most of the code directly borrows from QuickSort. The only difference being there is a single recursive call rather than 2 in QuickSort. The naive solution is obvious, simply sort the array `O(nlogn)` and return the kth element. Infact, you can partially sort it and use the Selection sort to get the solution in `O(nk)` An interesting side effect of finding the kth smallest element is you end up finding the k smallest elements. This also effectively gives you (n - k) largest elements in the array as well. These elements are not in any particular order though. The version I'm using uses a random pivot selection, this part of the al