indy256's blog

By indy256, 11 years ago, In English

Several recent problems on Codeforces concerned dynamic programming optimization techniques.

The following table summarizes methods known to me.

Name Original Recurrence Sufficient Condition of Applicability Original Complexity Optimized Complexity Links
Convex Hull Optimization1 b[j] ≥ b[j + 1]
optionally a[i] ≤ a[i + 1]
O(n2) O(n) 1 2 3
p1
Convex Hull Optimization2 dp[i][j] = mink < j{dp[i - 1][k] + b[k] * a[j]} b[k] ≥ b[k + 1]
optionally a[j] ≤ a[j + 1]
O(kn2) O(kn) 1
p1 p2
Divide and Conquer Optimization dp[i][j] = mink < j{dp[i - 1][k] + C[k][j]} A[i][j] ≤ A[i][j + 1] O(kn2) O(knlogn) 1
p1
Knuth Optimization dp[i][j] = mini < k < j{dp[i][k] + dp[k][j]} + C[i][j] A[i, j - 1] ≤ A[i, j] ≤ A[i + 1, j] O(n3) O(n2) 1 2
p1

Notes:

  • A[i][j] — the smallest k that gives optimal answer, for example in dp[i][j] = dp[i - 1][k] + C[k][j]
  • C[i][j] — some given cost function
  • We can generalize a bit in the following way: dp[i] = minj < i{F[j] + b[j] * a[i]}, where F[j] is computed from dp[j] in constant time.
  • It looks like Convex Hull Optimization2 is a special case of Divide and Conquer Optimization.
  • It is claimed (in the references) that Knuth Optimization is applicable if C[i][j] satisfies the following 2 conditions:
  •      quadrangle inequality:
  •      monotonicity:
  • It is claimed (in the references) that the recurrence dp[j] = mini < j{dp[i] + C[i][j]} can be solved in O(nlogn) (and even O(n)) if C[i][j] satisfies quadrangle inequality. YuukaKazami described how to solve some case of this problem.

Open questions:

  1. Are there any other optimization techniques?
  2. What is the sufficient condition of applying Divide and Conquer Optimization in terms of function C[i][j]? Answered

References:

  • "Efficient dynamic programming using quadrangle inequalities" by F. Frances Yao. find
  • "Speed-Up in Dynamic Programming" by F. Frances Yao. find
  • "The Least Weight Subsequence Problem" by D. S. Hirschberg, L. L. Larmore. find
  • "Dynamic programming with convexity, concavity and sparsity" by Zvi Galil, Kunsoo Park. find
  • "A Linear-Time Algorithm for Concave One-Dimensional Dynamic Programming" by Zvi Galil, Kunsoo Park. find

Please, share your knowledge and links on the topic.

  • Vote: I like it
  • +388
  • Vote: I do not like it

| Write comment?
»
11 years ago, # |
Rev. 4   Vote: I like it +27 Vote: I do not like it

Here is another way to optimize some 1D1D dynamic programming problem that I know.

Suppose that the old choice will only be worse compare to the new choice(it is quite common in such kind of problems).

Then suppose at current time we are deal with dpi, and we have some choice a0 < a1 < a2, ..., ak - 1 < ak. then we know at current time ai should be better than ai + 1. Otherwise it will never be better than ai + 1,so it is useless.

we can use a deque to store all the ai.

And Also Let us denote D(a, b) as the smallest i such that choice b will be better than a.

If D(ai, ai + 1) > D(ai + 1, ai + 2),we can find ai + 1 is also useless because when it overpass ai,it is already overpass by ai + 2.

So we also let D(ai, ai + 1) < D(ai + 1, ai + 2). then we can find the overpass will only happen at the front of the deque.

So we can maintain this deque quickly, and if we can solve D(a, b) in O(1),it can run in O(n).

  • »
    »
    11 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    could you please give some example problems?

  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Hi. I'm trying to solve https://mirror.codeforces.com/contest/321/problem/E with this approach (e.g. O(n)) I know there is a solution with D&C, but I would like to try this approach.

    We can easily prove quadrangle inequality: $$$C[i][j] = \sum\limits_{k = i}^j\sum\limits_{l = i}^j a[k][l]$$$

    $$$C[a][d] + C[b][c] - C[a][c] - C[b][d] = \sum\limits_{k = a}^{b-1}\sum\limits_{l = c}^d a[k][l] * 2 >= 0.$$$

    Now let's maintain deque $$$Q$$$ with potential candidates(opt). As we know that $$$opt[i] <= opt[i+1]$$$, so $$$Q[0]$$$ will hold the best candidate for the current time.

    Let $$$Solve(i,j) = dp[i-1][0] + \sum\limits_{i}^j\sum\limits_{i}^j a[k][l]$$$

    Mine approach:

    1) Try to add $$$i$$$ to the candidates list. We can compare the last candidate and current:

    while (Solve(Q.back(), i) > Solve(i,i)) Q.pop_back();
    

    2) Add i to the candidate list: $$$Q.pushback(i)$$$

    3) Check if Q[0] is still the best answer:

    while (Solve(Q[0], i) > Solve(Q[1],i)) Q.pop_back();
    

    4) update dp: $dp[i][1] = Solve(Q[0], i);

    This approach gives me WA10. My code. Any ideas why this approach is wrong?

»
11 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

For question 2: The sufficient condition is: C[a][d] + C[b][c] ≥ C[a][c] + C[b][d] where a < b < c < d.

  • »
    »
    11 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Is it quadrangle inequalities? ∀i≤ j,w[i, j]+w[i+1, j+1]≤w[i+1, j]+w[i, j+1], and are these two inequalities equivalent except the >= & <=?

  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    How do you prove that if this condition is met, then A[i][j]<= A[i][j+1]?

»
11 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +18 Vote: I do not like it

There is one more optimization of dimanic progamming: 101E - Candies and Stones (editoral)

»
11 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +13 Vote: I do not like it

you have put problem "B. Cats Transport" in "Convex Hull Optimization1", actually it belongs to "Convex Hull Optimization2"

»
11 years ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +55 Vote: I do not like it

For this moment it's the most useful topic of this year. Exactly in the middle: June 30th, 2013.

»
11 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

this one seemed a nice dp with optimization to me:https://www.hackerrank.com/contests/monthly/challenges/alien-languages

»
11 years ago, # |
Rev. 4   Vote: I like it +29 Vote: I do not like it

The problem mentioned in the article (Breaking Strings) is "Optimal Binary Search Tree Problem" , traditional one.

It can be solved by simple DP in O(N^3), by using Knuth's optimization , in O(N^2) . But it still can be solved in O(NlogN) — http://poj.org/problem?id=1738 (same problem but bigger testcases) (I don't know how to solve it. I hear the algorithm uses meld-able heap)

»
11 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +20 Vote: I do not like it

Convex Hull Optimization 1 Problems:

Convex Hull Optimization 2 Problems:

Convex Hull Optimization 3 Problems (No conditions for a[] array and b[] array) :

  • »
    »
    9 years ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    GOODG can be solved with Type 1

    EDIT: I explain that below.

    • »
      »
      »
      9 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      How? I noticed that, in this problem, b[j] follows no order and a[i] can be either decreasing or increasing, depending on how the equation is modeled. I was able to solve it using the fully dynamic variant, but I can't see how to apply the "type 1" optimization.

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        9 years ago, # ^ |
        Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        Can you add a link to your code I tried to implement the dynamic variant few weeks ago but there were so many bugs in my code :( .Maybe yours can help :/ .

    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
      Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +13 Vote: I do not like it

      Yeah, I'm sorry about saying this and not explaining. Actually I should give credit because yancouto first realized the fully dynamic approach was not necessary. Here's my code.

      Maybe the most natural approach for this problem is to try to solve the following recurrence (or something similar) where f(0) = 0 and d0 = 0:

      f(i) = maxj < i(f(j) - dj * (i - j)) + ai

      Well, this recurrence really requires a fully dynamic approach. We'll find one that doesn't. Instead of trying to solve the problem for each prefix, let's try to solve it for each suffix. We'll set g(n + 1) = 0, a0 = d0 = 0 and compute

      g(i) = maxj > i(g(j) - di * (j - i) + aj)

      which can be written as

      g(i) = maxj > i( - di * j + aj + g(j)) + di * i)

      now we notice that the function inside the max is actually a line with angular coefficient j and constant term aj + g(j) (which are constant on i) evaluated at  - di. Apply convex trick there (the standart one) and we're done.

      Notifying possibly interested people after a long delay (sorry about that again): fofao_funk, Sgauwjwjj and -synx-. And sorry in advance for any mistake, the ideia for the solution is there.

  • »
    »
    9 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it
»
11 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

For some reason I cannot open the links with firefox because they go over the Top Rated table.

»
11 years ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

One more problem where Knuth Optimization is used:
Andrew Stankevich Contest 10, Problem C.
BTW, does anybody know how to insert a direct link to a problem from gyms?

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I need some problems to solve on Divide and Conquer Optimization. Where can I find them? An online judge / testdata available would be helpful.

  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

    Check this one : Guardians of the Lunatics

    • »
      »
      »
      10 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Learnt Divide and Conquer Optimization just from there. :P That is why I'm asking for more problems to practice. :D

    • »
      »
      »
      9 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Is this the best complexity for this problem? Can't we do any better? Can't we somehow turn the logL needed into a constant?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        9 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

        We can, using that opt[i-1][j] <= opt[i][j] <= opt[i][j+1].

        Key thing is to see that opt function is monotone for both arguments. With that observation, we don't need to use binary search.

        Check out my submission.

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

can anyone provide me good editorial for dp with bitmask .

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Has matrix-exponent optimizations been included here?

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

Can matrix chain multiplication problem b also optimized by knuth optimization? If not, dn why?

  • »
    »
    10 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    Quote from the first of the references above:

    The monotonicity property for the division points does not hold for the matrix multiplication chain problem...

    Consider the matrices M1,M2,M3,M4 with dimensions 2x3, 3x2, 2x10, and 10x1, respectively. As can be easily verified, the proper order to compute M1M2M3 is to parenthesize it as (M1M2)M3, while the optimal computation of M1M2M3M4 corresponds to M1(M2(M3M4)).

    The second reference gives O(n2) dynamic programming solution, based on some properties of the matrix chain multiplication problem.

    There is also an algorithm by Hu and Shing.

»
10 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

What are some recent USACO questions that use this technique or variations of it?

»
9 years ago, # |
Rev. 6   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can this problem be solved using convex hull optimization?

You are given a sequence A of N positive integers. Let’s define “value of a splitting” the sequence to K blocks as a sum of maximums in each of K blocks. For given K find the minimal possible value of splittings.

N <= 105

K <= 100

Input:       Output: 
5 2          6
1 2 3 4 5    
  • »
    »
    9 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    I don't think so, but I guess it can be solved by Divide And Conquer optimization.

    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
      Rev. 3   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Divide and Conquer optimization doesn't work here since the monotonicity of the argmin doesn't hold, consider e.g. 2 3 1 5. The optimal partition is [2] [3 1 5] but when you remove the 5 it becomes [2 3] [1].

»
8 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I don't get it why there is a O(logN) depth of recursion in Divide and conquer optimization ?
Can someone explain it ?

  • »
    »
    8 years ago, # ^ |
    Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    Because each time range is decreased twice.

    • »
      »
      »
      8 years ago, # ^ |
      Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Oh, that was very trivial.

      I get it now, we spend total O(N) for computing the cost at each depth 2N to be specific at the last level of recursion tree.

      And therefore O(N * logN) is the cost of whole computation in dividing conquer scheme for relaxation.
      Thanks

»
8 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Hello , I have a doubt can anyone help?

In the divide and conquer optimization ,can we always say that it is possible to use in a system where we have to minimize the sum of cost of k continuous segments( such that their union is the whole array and their intersection is null set) such that the cost of segment increases with increase in length of the segment?

I feel so we can and we can prove it using contradiction Thanks :)

»
8 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

For convex hull optimizations, with only b[j] ≥ b[j + 1] but WITHOUT a[i] ≤ a[i + 1],

I don't think the complexity can be improved to O(n), but only O(n log n) Is there any example that can show I am wrong?

»
8 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

ZOJ is currently dead. For the problem "Breaking String" (Knuth opt.), please find at here

»
8 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

please someone tell me why in convex hull optimization should be b[j] ≥ b[j + 1] and a[i] ≤ a[i + 1]
in APIO'10 Commando the DP equation is
Dp[i] = -2 * a * pre_sum[j] * pre_sum[i] + pre_sum[j]^2 + Dp[j] -b * pre_sum[j] + a * pre_sum[i]^2 + b * pre_sum[i] + c
we can use convex hull trick so the line is y = A * X + B
A = -2 * a * pre_sum[j]
X = pre_sum[i]
B = pre_sum[j]^2 + Dp[j] -b * pre_sum[j]
Z = a * pre_sum[i]^2 + b * pre_sum[i] + c
and then we can add to Dp[i] += Z , because z has no relation with j
the question is , since a is always negative (according to the problem statement) and pre_sum[i],pre_sum[j] is always increasing we conclude that b[j] ≤  b[j + 1] and a[i] ≤ a[i + 1]
I've coded it with convex hull trick and got AC , and the official solution is using convex hull trick
someone please explain to me why I'm wrong or why that is happening
thanks in advance

  • »
    »
    8 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    if b[j] >= b[j + 1], then the technique is going to calculate the minimum value of the lines, if b[j] <= b[j + 1], then it's going to calculate the maximum value of the lines, as this problem requires.

»
8 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

Is it necessary for the recurrence relation to be of the specific form in the table for Knuth's optimization to be applicable? For example, take this problem. The editorial mentions Knuth Optimization as a solution but the recurrence is not of the form in the table. Rather, it is similar to the Divide-and-Conquer one, i.e. dp[i][j] = mink < j{dp[i - 1][k] + C[k][j]}. Does anyone know how/why Knuth's optimization is applicable here?

»
7 years ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

It is also worthwhile to mention the DP Optimization given here http://mirror.codeforces.com/blog/entry/49691 in this post.

»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can we have the same dp optimizations with dp[i][j] = max (dp....)?

  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Yes.

    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      In that case (dp[i][j] = max (dp...) ) the condition still unchanged : A[i][j] ≤ A[i][j + 1]. Is that true? Thanks!

»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

can someone please give me intuition on proof of A[i, j - 1] ≤ A[i, j] ≤ A[i + 1, j] given for knuth optimization of optimal binary search tree.

»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Fresh problem. Can be solved with CHT.

»
7 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

What will be the actual complexity of Knuth optimization on a O(n^2 * k) DP solution ? Will it be O(n^2) or O(n*k)? Here n = number of elements and k = number of partitions.

  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +13 Vote: I do not like it

    I would like to mention Zlobober, rng_58, Errichto, Swistakk here politely. It would be really helpful if you kindly answered my query.

  • »
    »
    7 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    It can only remove n from the complexity because it (more or less) gets rid of iterating over all elements of the interval (up to n elements).

    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

      Thanks a lot for replying to me. So what you are saying is — a O(n^2 * k) solution will turn into a O(n * k) solution? I got TLE in problem SPOJ NKLEAVES (n=10^5, k=10) using Knuth optimization, but passed comfortably using divide & conquer optimization in O(n k log n). That's why I am curious to know whether knuth optimization reduces a n factor or a k factor from the original O(n^2 * k) solution, since a O(n*k) solution should have definitely passed. Would you please have a look?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

        Can you show the code? I'm not sure but I think that Knuth optimization can be used here to speed up the O(n3·k) solution with states dp[left][right][k]. The improved complexity would be O(n2·k).

    • »
      »
      »
      7 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -10 Vote: I do not like it

      How does it help in any way xd?

      • »
        »
        »
        »
        6 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

        He asked if N or K will be removed from the complexity, I answered. What is wrong here?

        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          6 years ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it -10 Vote: I do not like it

          You said "at most n" what brings 0 bits of information since k<=n.

  • »
    »
    6 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +13 Vote: I do not like it

    It is O(n2) as the complexity upper bound is proven by summating the running time of DP value calculation over the diagonals of the n × k DP matrix. There are n + k - 1 diagonals, on each of them running time is at most O(n) due to the given inequalities, so the total running time is O((n + k)n) = O(n2).

»
6 years ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Someone know where i can find an article about Lagrange optimization? (i know that this can be used for reduce one state of the dp performing a binary search on a constant and add this on every transition until the realized number of transition for reach the final state become the desired)

»
6 years ago, # |
Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

I know this can be treated as off-topic by many of us, but what about solving DP states which are direct arithmetic (specifically sum/difference) of previous states:

Say the DP state is 1D, like in Fibonacci series (dp[i] = dp[i-1] + dp[i-2]), we already know of a solution in O(k^3 * log n) using matrix binary exponentiation, where k represents that dp[i] depends on dp[i-1], dp[i-2], .. dp[i-k].

Is there an optimisation for 2D states like the same? Say the state is as follows:

dp[i][j] = dp[i][j-1] + dp[i-1][j-1] + dp[i-1][j-2]
dp[i][j] = 0, i < j

I am finding it hard to reduce it to any less than O(n * m) for finding dp[n][m]

»
6 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrH2ah4ylv4 a video by algorithms live for convex hull trick. The link given for convex hull optimization is dead now please update.

»
6 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I know it's necroposting, but still. Can anyone give a link to tutorial or something(in English) for the trick used in IOI16 Aliens problem?

»
6 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can someone help me prove that the sufficient conditions for Divide and Conquer Optimization are satisfied in this problem.
I was able to solve it using the same technique with some intuition. But wasn't able to formally prove it.

  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Define $$$dp_{i,j}$$$ to be the minimum cost if we split the first $$$i$$$ plants into $$$j$$$ groups.

    $$$ dp_{i,j} = \min\limits_{k<j}(dp_{i-1,k} + cost_{k+1,j}) $$$

    where $$$cost_{k,j}$$$ is the cost of grouping plants from $$$k$$$ to $$$j$$$. Assume that for certain $$$j$$$ the optimal $$$k$$$ for the formula above is $$$\hat k$$$ i.e. $$$dp_{i,j} = dp_{i-1,\hat k} + cost_{\hat k+1,j}$$$ and for any $$$k<\hat k$$$:

    $$$ dp_{i-1, k} + cost_{k+1,j} \geq dp_{i-1,\hat k} + cost_{\hat k+1,j} $$$

    Advance $$$j$$$ to $$$j+1$$$. Take any $$$k<\hat k$$$ and prove:

    $$$ dp_{i-1, k} + cost_{k+1,j+1} \geq dp_{i-1,\hat k} + cost_{\hat k+1,j+1} $$$

    But this is not hard to see since:

    $$$ cost_{k+1,j+1} - cost_{k+1,j} \geq cost_{\hat k+1,j+1} - cost_{\hat k+1,j} $$$

    which is true because adding plant $$$j+1$$$ to a bigger group of plants from $$$k+1$$$ to $$$j$$$ certainly costs no more than adding plant $$$j+1$$$ to a smaller group of plants from $$$\hat k+1$$$ to $$$j$$$.

    This shows that when we advance $$$j$$$ to $$$j+1$$$ we can ignore any $$$k<\hat k$$$ which allows us to apply divide and conquer.

»
6 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

Please update link of Convex Hull Optimize1 that link is now dead.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181030143808/http://wcipeg.com/wiki/Convex_hull_trick

»
5 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

I solved Problem 1. Redistricting from the Platinum division of the USACO 2019 January contest in O(n) using the deque optimization described in this comment while the official solution is O(n log n).

Solution
»
5 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -10 Vote: I do not like it

orz indy256 meta-san. optimizing the optimization technique itself?

»
5 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

Cp-algorithms has added official translation of Divide and Conquer Optimization, thought it might be useful to add. https://cp-algorithms.com/dynamic_programming/divide-and-conquer-dp.html

»
5 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Also exists Alien's optimization (link1, link2).

»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it
»
4 years ago, # |
Rev. 6   Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

Can anyone explain how to bring the DP of NKLEAVES to the form of Convex Hull Optimization 2 from above? More specifically, how to I define $$$b$$$ and $$$a$$$ from $$$dp[i][j] = \min\limits_{k < j}(dp[i - 1][k] + b[k] \cdot a[j])$$$ so that $$$b[k] \geq b[k + 1]$$$ and $$$a[j] \leq a[j + 1]$$$?

My DP so far is $$$dp[i][j] = \min\limits_{k < j}(dp[i - 1][k] + cost(k, j))$$$ where $$$cost(k, j)$$$ is the cost to move leaves from $$$(k+1)$$$-th to $$$j$$$-th into a pile at location $$$j$$$. After some simplification, we have:

$$$ dp[i][j] = \min\limits_{k < j}(dp[i - 1][k] + j \cdot (sum[j] - sum[k]) - (wsum[j] - wsum[k]) $$$
$$$ dp[i][j] = \min\limits_{k < j}(-sum(k) \cdot j + wsum(k) + dp[i - 1][k] + sum[j] \cdot j - wsum[j]) $$$

where $$$sum(k) = \sum\limits_1^k w(i)$$$ and $$$wsum(k) = \sum\limits_1^k i \cdot w(i)$$$ which we can precompute.

If we fix $$$j$$$ then in the formula above, $$$sum[j] \cdot j - wsum[j]$$$ is a constant that we can ignore and focus on $$$-sum(k) \cdot j + wsum(k) + dp[i - 1][k]$$$ and for each $$$k$$$ define a line $$$hx + m$$$ where $$$h = -sum(k)$$$ and $$$m = wsum(k) + dp[i - 1][k]$$$. We then use CHT to get values for all $$$j$$$ on $$$i$$$-th row in $$$O(n)$$$ time.

But it still baffles me how to bring my formula to the neat one in the post.

  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

    Actually, right under the table in the post the author wrote:

    We can generalize a bit in the following way: $$$dp[i] = \min\limits_{j<i}(F[j] + b[j] \cdot a[i])$$$, where $$$F[j]$$$ is computed from $$$dp[j]$$$ in constant time.

    I slightly disagree with the second part, $$$F[j]$$$ is just computed from $$$j$$$ and not from $$$dp[j]$$$ but that's just being nitpicky with notations. Applying that to NKLEAVES we get:

    $$$ dp[i][j] = sum[j] \cdot j - wsum[j] + \min\limits_{k < j}(-sum(k) \cdot j + wsum(k) + dp[i - 1][k]) = C + \min\limits_{k < j}(b(k) \cdot a(j) + F(k)) $$$

    where $$$C = sum[j] \cdot j - wsum[j]$$$ is a constant when we fix $$$j$$$, $$$F(k) = wsum(k) + dp[i - 1][k]$$$, $$$b(k) = -sum(k)$$$, $$$a(j) = j$$$. It's not hard to see that $$$b$$$ is a decreasing function and $$$a$$$ is an increasing function while $$$F$$$ is computable in $$$O(1)$$$.

»
4 years ago, # |
Rev. 5   Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

Are there any other optimization techniques?

Sorry if I misunderstanding your questions, but here are some DP-optimization techniques

1. DP-bitmask

By storing all states by bit numbers, in most problems, you can have some bitwise tricks that reduce both constant time (calculating by bitwise cost less) and complexity ($$$O(f(x))$$$ -> $$$O(\frac{f(x)}{w})$$$, $$$w$$$ is normally use as $$$wordsize = 32$$$)

2. Space-optimization

In some problems where we only care about $$$f[n][..]$$$ and $$$f[n][..]$$$ depends on $$$f[n - 1][..]$$$ then we can reduce to $$$2$$$ DP-array $$$f[0][..]$$$ & $$$f[1][..]$$$ (reduced $$$O(n)$$$ times of space)

Some other linear reccurence $$$f[n][..]$$$ depends on $$$f[n][..], f[n - 1][..], ... f[n - k][..]$$$ and when $$$k$$$ is much smaller than $$$n$$$ we can use this trick with $$$k$$$ DP-array (reduced $$$O(\frac{n}{k})$$$ times of space)

3. Recursive-DP with branch-and-bound

Normally Iterative-DP runs faster than Recursive-DP. But in some specific case as $$$Knapsack_{\ 0/1}$$$ problem, where we can have some good observations with optimizing algorithm by remove as many not-good cases as possibles. We can have much fewer cases to take care for.

Ofcourse in some cases it will break the $$$space-optimization$$$ tricks, and we have to store data by another ways to reduce the time (like using global variables, passing reference data)

4. DP-swaplabel

Sometimes by changing DP-states will results in another way of computing the results, thus will change the complexity

** 5. Alien trick**

»
3 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Can you add ioi 2016 alien's trick to the tables with the conditions required to be satisfied for the trick to be used ?

»
9 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

There's one more optimization idea which came in one of the recent contests as well.

Consider dp[i] as array of n points.

Now, if recurrence is as follows: dp[i] is a linear combination of different j values of dp[i-1] and where coefficients are independent of j.

example: dp[i][j] = dp[i-1][j1] + c_1(i)*dp[i-1][j2] + c_2*dp[i-1][j3]+.....

we can do this naively in O(N^2), But to optimize it, one can use FFT algorithm treating dp[i] and dp[i-1] as polynomials.

for example: consider the recurrence: dp[i][j]= 2*dp[i-1][j-1] + 3*dp[i-1][j] and we need to find dp[n][j0]

so, let A= [3 2] => a(x) = 3 + 2*x and B = vector(dp(i-1)) => b_i(x) = dp[i-1][0] + dp[i-1][1]*x + dp[i-1][2]*x^2 +....+dp[i-1][j-1]*x^(j-1) + dp[i-1][j]*x^j +....+dp[i-1][n]*x^n.

Now, to get dp[i][j] we can multiply the above polynomials to get C=A*B, and then dp[i][j] will be the coefficient of x^j. This can be done in O(N*logN) using FFT.

But doing this N times will get TC O(N*N*logN)

Now, how to optimize this?

Spoiler

This is one of the idea to optimize recurrence using FFT.

Problem that can be solved using this technique: Colourful Balls-codechef

»
7 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

You forgot Aliens Trick :)