Is it possible to iteratively get the partial sums of an array in descending order?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2












We have a sorted array, say




30, 20, 10, -1, -2, -15




Now we want to calculate its partial sums (for each number, you can choose to add it or not add it), and fetch top n largest numbers of them (say, top 11 of them) in the descending order, i.e.



60 = 30 + 20 + 10
59 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1
58 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2
57 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -2
50 = 30 + 20
49 = 30 + 20 -1
48 = 30 + 20 -2
47 = 30 + 20 -1 -2
45 = 30 + 20 + 10 -15
44 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -15
43 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2 -15


A naive solution is to calculate all the combinations (for the example above, there are 2^6 = 64 combinations), sort them in the descending order, and then fetch the first 11 numbers of them:




60, 59, 58, 57, 50, 49, 48, 47, 45, 44, 43, 42, 40, 39, 38, 37, 35, 34, 33, 32, 30, 30, 29, 29, 28, 28, 27, 27, 25, 24, 23, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 15, 15, 14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, -1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, -15, -16, -17, -18




However, when the length of the array is large, calculating all the combinations is unfeasible. So the question is, is it possible to fetch the top n largest partial sums in an iterative manner, e.g. fetch one number at a time?






EDIT



To be clear, the end goal is, assuming the array to be global, I want a function f(): by calling f() iteratively, it returns the largest partial sums in the descending order




Call f(), return 60

Call f() again, return 59

Call f() again, return 58

......











share|improve this question
























  • Why does you want to do this? What is the end goal? You've described a solution that solves a problem, you haven't given us (XY Problem).
    – Erik Philips
    Nov 11 at 4:51










  • @ErikPhilips sorry maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough. The end goal is to design a function f(array), and I want to iteratively call it and get the top n numbers, e.g. call it once return 60, again return 59, again return 58 ... and the implementation of f(array) should avoid calculating all the combinations.
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 4:55















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2












We have a sorted array, say




30, 20, 10, -1, -2, -15




Now we want to calculate its partial sums (for each number, you can choose to add it or not add it), and fetch top n largest numbers of them (say, top 11 of them) in the descending order, i.e.



60 = 30 + 20 + 10
59 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1
58 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2
57 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -2
50 = 30 + 20
49 = 30 + 20 -1
48 = 30 + 20 -2
47 = 30 + 20 -1 -2
45 = 30 + 20 + 10 -15
44 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -15
43 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2 -15


A naive solution is to calculate all the combinations (for the example above, there are 2^6 = 64 combinations), sort them in the descending order, and then fetch the first 11 numbers of them:




60, 59, 58, 57, 50, 49, 48, 47, 45, 44, 43, 42, 40, 39, 38, 37, 35, 34, 33, 32, 30, 30, 29, 29, 28, 28, 27, 27, 25, 24, 23, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 15, 15, 14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, -1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, -15, -16, -17, -18




However, when the length of the array is large, calculating all the combinations is unfeasible. So the question is, is it possible to fetch the top n largest partial sums in an iterative manner, e.g. fetch one number at a time?






EDIT



To be clear, the end goal is, assuming the array to be global, I want a function f(): by calling f() iteratively, it returns the largest partial sums in the descending order




Call f(), return 60

Call f() again, return 59

Call f() again, return 58

......











share|improve this question
























  • Why does you want to do this? What is the end goal? You've described a solution that solves a problem, you haven't given us (XY Problem).
    – Erik Philips
    Nov 11 at 4:51










  • @ErikPhilips sorry maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough. The end goal is to design a function f(array), and I want to iteratively call it and get the top n numbers, e.g. call it once return 60, again return 59, again return 58 ... and the implementation of f(array) should avoid calculating all the combinations.
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 4:55













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
2






2





We have a sorted array, say




30, 20, 10, -1, -2, -15




Now we want to calculate its partial sums (for each number, you can choose to add it or not add it), and fetch top n largest numbers of them (say, top 11 of them) in the descending order, i.e.



60 = 30 + 20 + 10
59 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1
58 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2
57 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -2
50 = 30 + 20
49 = 30 + 20 -1
48 = 30 + 20 -2
47 = 30 + 20 -1 -2
45 = 30 + 20 + 10 -15
44 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -15
43 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2 -15


A naive solution is to calculate all the combinations (for the example above, there are 2^6 = 64 combinations), sort them in the descending order, and then fetch the first 11 numbers of them:




60, 59, 58, 57, 50, 49, 48, 47, 45, 44, 43, 42, 40, 39, 38, 37, 35, 34, 33, 32, 30, 30, 29, 29, 28, 28, 27, 27, 25, 24, 23, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 15, 15, 14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, -1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, -15, -16, -17, -18




However, when the length of the array is large, calculating all the combinations is unfeasible. So the question is, is it possible to fetch the top n largest partial sums in an iterative manner, e.g. fetch one number at a time?






EDIT



To be clear, the end goal is, assuming the array to be global, I want a function f(): by calling f() iteratively, it returns the largest partial sums in the descending order




Call f(), return 60

Call f() again, return 59

Call f() again, return 58

......











share|improve this question















We have a sorted array, say




30, 20, 10, -1, -2, -15




Now we want to calculate its partial sums (for each number, you can choose to add it or not add it), and fetch top n largest numbers of them (say, top 11 of them) in the descending order, i.e.



60 = 30 + 20 + 10
59 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1
58 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2
57 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -2
50 = 30 + 20
49 = 30 + 20 -1
48 = 30 + 20 -2
47 = 30 + 20 -1 -2
45 = 30 + 20 + 10 -15
44 = 30 + 20 + 10 -1 -15
43 = 30 + 20 + 10 -2 -15


A naive solution is to calculate all the combinations (for the example above, there are 2^6 = 64 combinations), sort them in the descending order, and then fetch the first 11 numbers of them:




60, 59, 58, 57, 50, 49, 48, 47, 45, 44, 43, 42, 40, 39, 38, 37, 35, 34, 33, 32, 30, 30, 29, 29, 28, 28, 27, 27, 25, 24, 23, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 15, 15, 14, 14, 13, 13, 12, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, -1, -2, -3, -5, -6, -7, -8, -15, -16, -17, -18




However, when the length of the array is large, calculating all the combinations is unfeasible. So the question is, is it possible to fetch the top n largest partial sums in an iterative manner, e.g. fetch one number at a time?






EDIT



To be clear, the end goal is, assuming the array to be global, I want a function f(): by calling f() iteratively, it returns the largest partial sums in the descending order




Call f(), return 60

Call f() again, return 59

Call f() again, return 58

......








algorithm sorting






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 11 at 5:05

























asked Nov 11 at 4:48









Stan

637513




637513












  • Why does you want to do this? What is the end goal? You've described a solution that solves a problem, you haven't given us (XY Problem).
    – Erik Philips
    Nov 11 at 4:51










  • @ErikPhilips sorry maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough. The end goal is to design a function f(array), and I want to iteratively call it and get the top n numbers, e.g. call it once return 60, again return 59, again return 58 ... and the implementation of f(array) should avoid calculating all the combinations.
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 4:55


















  • Why does you want to do this? What is the end goal? You've described a solution that solves a problem, you haven't given us (XY Problem).
    – Erik Philips
    Nov 11 at 4:51










  • @ErikPhilips sorry maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough. The end goal is to design a function f(array), and I want to iteratively call it and get the top n numbers, e.g. call it once return 60, again return 59, again return 58 ... and the implementation of f(array) should avoid calculating all the combinations.
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 4:55
















Why does you want to do this? What is the end goal? You've described a solution that solves a problem, you haven't given us (XY Problem).
– Erik Philips
Nov 11 at 4:51




Why does you want to do this? What is the end goal? You've described a solution that solves a problem, you haven't given us (XY Problem).
– Erik Philips
Nov 11 at 4:51












@ErikPhilips sorry maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough. The end goal is to design a function f(array), and I want to iteratively call it and get the top n numbers, e.g. call it once return 60, again return 59, again return 58 ... and the implementation of f(array) should avoid calculating all the combinations.
– Stan
Nov 11 at 4:55




@ErikPhilips sorry maybe I didn't describe it clearly enough. The end goal is to design a function f(array), and I want to iteratively call it and get the top n numbers, e.g. call it once return 60, again return 59, again return 58 ... and the implementation of f(array) should avoid calculating all the combinations.
– Stan
Nov 11 at 4:55












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










There is a very general procedure for this sort of problem called Lawler-Murty described at http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p1028-golenberg.pdf. It is most practical when you don't want all of the answers, perhaps just the top 10, or enough to exhaust the patience of a human looking through search results.



Here is an attempt to provide a simpler version specific to your problem.



Think of each answer as defined by a vector of bits, where 0 means take the lower option and 1 means take the higher option. That is: if the number is positive then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If it's negative, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 means 30+20+10 (+0+0+0) and 000000 means (0+0+0)-1-2-15. 111111 will always be the highest answer.



Think of these vectors as arranged in a tree, with 111111 at the top. You can find the parent of any vector with any 0 bits by setting the leftmost 0 bit. This means that the parent always has a higher value than its children. Nodes have a variable number of children, with 111111 having the most: 011111, 101111, 110111, 111011, 111101, and 111110. One way to enumerate all of the children of a parent is to take all of the 1s in the parent which do not have a 0 bit to their left and clear them in turn.



The top of the tree is 111111. Put this in a priority queue ordered by the sum computed from each vector. Now repeatedly take the item out of the queue with highest sum, print it out, and put all of its children in the queue.



This prints out all of the answers in non-increasing order of sum. The children of a maximum value are no higher than the parent, so the maximum value in the priority queue never increases. Every possible answer has a chain of parents leading back up to 111111 (set the leftmost bit) so you find every possible answer.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 6:42






  • 1




    If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
    – mcdowella
    Nov 11 at 6:55










  • Oh I get it, thank you!
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 7:32











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53245932%2fis-it-possible-to-iteratively-get-the-partial-sums-of-an-array-in-descending-ord%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










There is a very general procedure for this sort of problem called Lawler-Murty described at http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p1028-golenberg.pdf. It is most practical when you don't want all of the answers, perhaps just the top 10, or enough to exhaust the patience of a human looking through search results.



Here is an attempt to provide a simpler version specific to your problem.



Think of each answer as defined by a vector of bits, where 0 means take the lower option and 1 means take the higher option. That is: if the number is positive then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If it's negative, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 means 30+20+10 (+0+0+0) and 000000 means (0+0+0)-1-2-15. 111111 will always be the highest answer.



Think of these vectors as arranged in a tree, with 111111 at the top. You can find the parent of any vector with any 0 bits by setting the leftmost 0 bit. This means that the parent always has a higher value than its children. Nodes have a variable number of children, with 111111 having the most: 011111, 101111, 110111, 111011, 111101, and 111110. One way to enumerate all of the children of a parent is to take all of the 1s in the parent which do not have a 0 bit to their left and clear them in turn.



The top of the tree is 111111. Put this in a priority queue ordered by the sum computed from each vector. Now repeatedly take the item out of the queue with highest sum, print it out, and put all of its children in the queue.



This prints out all of the answers in non-increasing order of sum. The children of a maximum value are no higher than the parent, so the maximum value in the priority queue never increases. Every possible answer has a chain of parents leading back up to 111111 (set the leftmost bit) so you find every possible answer.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 6:42






  • 1




    If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
    – mcdowella
    Nov 11 at 6:55










  • Oh I get it, thank you!
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 7:32















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










There is a very general procedure for this sort of problem called Lawler-Murty described at http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p1028-golenberg.pdf. It is most practical when you don't want all of the answers, perhaps just the top 10, or enough to exhaust the patience of a human looking through search results.



Here is an attempt to provide a simpler version specific to your problem.



Think of each answer as defined by a vector of bits, where 0 means take the lower option and 1 means take the higher option. That is: if the number is positive then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If it's negative, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 means 30+20+10 (+0+0+0) and 000000 means (0+0+0)-1-2-15. 111111 will always be the highest answer.



Think of these vectors as arranged in a tree, with 111111 at the top. You can find the parent of any vector with any 0 bits by setting the leftmost 0 bit. This means that the parent always has a higher value than its children. Nodes have a variable number of children, with 111111 having the most: 011111, 101111, 110111, 111011, 111101, and 111110. One way to enumerate all of the children of a parent is to take all of the 1s in the parent which do not have a 0 bit to their left and clear them in turn.



The top of the tree is 111111. Put this in a priority queue ordered by the sum computed from each vector. Now repeatedly take the item out of the queue with highest sum, print it out, and put all of its children in the queue.



This prints out all of the answers in non-increasing order of sum. The children of a maximum value are no higher than the parent, so the maximum value in the priority queue never increases. Every possible answer has a chain of parents leading back up to 111111 (set the leftmost bit) so you find every possible answer.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 6:42






  • 1




    If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
    – mcdowella
    Nov 11 at 6:55










  • Oh I get it, thank you!
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 7:32













up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






There is a very general procedure for this sort of problem called Lawler-Murty described at http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p1028-golenberg.pdf. It is most practical when you don't want all of the answers, perhaps just the top 10, or enough to exhaust the patience of a human looking through search results.



Here is an attempt to provide a simpler version specific to your problem.



Think of each answer as defined by a vector of bits, where 0 means take the lower option and 1 means take the higher option. That is: if the number is positive then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If it's negative, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 means 30+20+10 (+0+0+0) and 000000 means (0+0+0)-1-2-15. 111111 will always be the highest answer.



Think of these vectors as arranged in a tree, with 111111 at the top. You can find the parent of any vector with any 0 bits by setting the leftmost 0 bit. This means that the parent always has a higher value than its children. Nodes have a variable number of children, with 111111 having the most: 011111, 101111, 110111, 111011, 111101, and 111110. One way to enumerate all of the children of a parent is to take all of the 1s in the parent which do not have a 0 bit to their left and clear them in turn.



The top of the tree is 111111. Put this in a priority queue ordered by the sum computed from each vector. Now repeatedly take the item out of the queue with highest sum, print it out, and put all of its children in the queue.



This prints out all of the answers in non-increasing order of sum. The children of a maximum value are no higher than the parent, so the maximum value in the priority queue never increases. Every possible answer has a chain of parents leading back up to 111111 (set the leftmost bit) so you find every possible answer.






share|improve this answer














There is a very general procedure for this sort of problem called Lawler-Murty described at http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol4/p1028-golenberg.pdf. It is most practical when you don't want all of the answers, perhaps just the top 10, or enough to exhaust the patience of a human looking through search results.



Here is an attempt to provide a simpler version specific to your problem.



Think of each answer as defined by a vector of bits, where 0 means take the lower option and 1 means take the higher option. That is: if the number is positive then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If it's negative, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 means 30+20+10 (+0+0+0) and 000000 means (0+0+0)-1-2-15. 111111 will always be the highest answer.



Think of these vectors as arranged in a tree, with 111111 at the top. You can find the parent of any vector with any 0 bits by setting the leftmost 0 bit. This means that the parent always has a higher value than its children. Nodes have a variable number of children, with 111111 having the most: 011111, 101111, 110111, 111011, 111101, and 111110. One way to enumerate all of the children of a parent is to take all of the 1s in the parent which do not have a 0 bit to their left and clear them in turn.



The top of the tree is 111111. Put this in a priority queue ordered by the sum computed from each vector. Now repeatedly take the item out of the queue with highest sum, print it out, and put all of its children in the queue.



This prints out all of the answers in non-increasing order of sum. The children of a maximum value are no higher than the parent, so the maximum value in the priority queue never increases. Every possible answer has a chain of parents leading back up to 111111 (set the leftmost bit) so you find every possible answer.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 11 at 10:25









Dukeling

44.4k1060105




44.4k1060105










answered Nov 11 at 5:56









mcdowella

17.4k21120




17.4k21120












  • Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 6:42






  • 1




    If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
    – mcdowella
    Nov 11 at 6:55










  • Oh I get it, thank you!
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 7:32


















  • Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 6:42






  • 1




    If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
    – mcdowella
    Nov 11 at 6:55










  • Oh I get it, thank you!
    – Stan
    Nov 11 at 7:32
















Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
– Stan
Nov 11 at 6:42




Thank you for the hint! The solution looks promising. But since the bits in the bit vector are not a direct mapping for "chosen" or "not chosen" of each number, how can I know what a bit vector stands for, e.g. 011111?
– Stan
Nov 11 at 6:42




1




1




If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
– mcdowella
Nov 11 at 6:55




If the number is +ve then 1 means chosen and 0 not chosen. If -ve, then 1 means not chosen and 0 means chosen. So 111111 is always the highest answer and 011111 is 20+10
– mcdowella
Nov 11 at 6:55












Oh I get it, thank you!
– Stan
Nov 11 at 7:32




Oh I get it, thank you!
– Stan
Nov 11 at 7:32


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53245932%2fis-it-possible-to-iteratively-get-the-partial-sums-of-an-array-in-descending-ord%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Vorschmack

Quarantine