## Competitive programming in Haskell: building unordered trees

In my previous post I challenged you to solve Subway Tree System, which encodes trees by recording sequences of steps taken away from and towards the root while exploring the whole tree, and asks whether two such recordings denote the same tree. There are two main difficulties here: the first is how to do the parsing; second, how to compare two trees when we don’t care about the order of children at each node. Thanks to all of you who posted your solutions—I learned a lot. I often feel like my solution is obviously the “only” solution, but then when I see how others solve a problem I realize that the solution space is much larger than I thought!

## My solution

Here’s my solution, with some commentary interspersed. First, some pragmas and imports and such:

{-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-}
{-# LANGUAGE TupleSections     #-}

import           Control.Arrow
import           Data.Bool
import qualified Data.ByteString.Lazy.Char8  as C
import           Data.Function
import           Data.List
import           Data.List.Split
import           Data.Map                    (Map)
import qualified Data.Map                    as M

import           Text.Parsec
import           Text.Parsec.ByteString.Lazy
import           Text.Parsec.Char

My main then looks like this:

parseForest  = fromList <$> many parseSubtree parseSubtree = char '0' *> parseTree <* char '1' Of course I haven’t actually shown the definition of Tree, Node, or fromList yet, but hopefully you get the idea. either undefined id is justified here since the input is guaranteed to be well-formed, so the parser will never actually fail with a Left. ## Unordered trees The other difficulty is how to compare trees up to reordering children. Trying all permutations of the children at each node and seeing whether any match is obviously going to be much too slow! The key insight, and what this problem had in common with the one from my previous post, is that we can use an (automatically-derived) Ord instance to sort the children at each node into a canonical order. We don’t really need to know or care what order they end up in, which depends on the precise details of how the derived Ord instance works. The point is that sorting into some consistent order allows us to efficiently test whether two lists are permutations of each other. I think everyone who posted a solution created some kind of function to “canonicalize” a tree, by first canonicalizing all subtrees and then sorting them. When I first solved this problem, however, I approached it along slightly different lines, hinted at by commenter Globules: can we define the Tree type in such a way that there is only a single representation for each tree-up-to-reordering? My first idea was to use a Data.Set of children at each node, but this is subtly wrong, since it gets rid of duplicates! We don’t actually want a set of children at each node, but rather a bag (aka multiset). So I made a little Bag abstraction out of a Map. The magical thing is that GHC can still derive an Ord instance for my recursive tree type containing a newtype containing a Map containing trees! (OK, OK, it’s not really magic, but it still feels magic…) Now, actually, I no longer think this is the best solution, but it’s interesting, so I’ll leave it. Later on I will show what I think is an even better solution. newtype Tree = Node (Bag Tree) deriving (Eq, Ord) newtype Bag a = Bag (Map a Int) deriving (Eq, Ord) fromList :: Ord a => [a] -> Bag a fromList = map (,1) >>> M.fromListWith (+) >>> Bag The final piece is the solve function, which simply calls readTree on the two strings and compares the resulting (canonical!) Tree values for equality. solve :: [C.ByteString] -> Bool solve [t1,t2] = ((==) on readTree) t1 t2 ## A better way I still think it’s a nice idea to have canonical-by-construction trees, rather than building ordered trees and then calling a separate function to canonicalize them afterwards. But inspired by several commenters’ solutions, I realized that rather than my complex Bag type, it’s much nicer to simply use a sorted list as the canonical representation of a Node’s bag of subtrees, and to use a smart constructor to build them: newtype Tree = Node [Tree] deriving (Eq, Ord) mkNode :: [Tree] -> Tree mkNode = Node . sort Then we just use mkNode instead of Node in the parser, and voilà! The canonicalization happens on the fly while parsing the tree. By contrast, if we write a separate canonicalization function, like canonical :: Tree -> Tree canonical (Node ts) = Node (map canonical (sort ts)) it is actually possible to get it wrong. In fact, I deliberately introduced a bug into the above function: can you see what it is? All told, then, here is the (in my opinion) nicest solution that I know of: {-# LANGUAGE OverloadedStrings #-} import Control.Arrow import Data.Bool import qualified Data.ByteString.Lazy.Char8 as C import Data.Function import Data.List import Text.Parsec import ScannerBS hiding (many) main = C.interact$
runScanner (numberOf (two str)) >>>
map (solve >>> bool "different" "same") >>> C.unlines

solve :: [C.ByteString] -> Bool
solve [t1,t2] = ((==) on readTree) t1 t2

newtype Tree = Node [Tree] deriving (Eq, Ord)

readTree = parse parseTree "" >>> either undefined id
where
parseTree    = (Node . sort) <$> many parseSubtree parseSubtree = char '0' *> parseTree <* char '1' ## Next problem For Tuesday, I invite you to solve The Power of Substitution. Don’t let the high difficulty rating scare you; in my estimation it should be quite accessible if you know a bit of math and have been following along with some of my previous posts (YMMV). However, it’s not quite as obvious what the nicest way to write it in Haskell is. ## About Brent Assistant Professor of Computer Science at Hendrix College. Functional programmer, mathematician, teacher, pianist, follower of Jesus. This entry was posted in competitive programming, haskell and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. ### 16 Responses to Competitive programming in Haskell: building unordered trees 1. Arnaud Bailly says: I am so stupid: I did not realize until now the string was simply a well-formed string of nested parens! Thanks to your parsec-based solution, it’s now obvious :) • Brent says: Yes, it took me a while to realize that too! =) 2. Arnaud Bailly says: Also, a quick and dirty “solution” to the Power of Substitution problem: https://gist.github.com/abailly/240e4c7d3a361098a633e493eb952bb4 I think laziness should make it efficient because in the end we’ll only need to compute and compare one item for each iteration of the message. • Brent says: Did you try submitting it on Kattis? I suspect it will not fit within the time limit. • Arnaud Bailly says: Fair enough :) It times out… 3. Jason Hooper says: For Power of Substitution, the naive solution times out for me, so I used a lazily-evaluated array (bounds are (1,1)-(100,100), computing as-needed the distance from a number to its ciphered number). This brings the time down to 0.02s on kattis. However it’s not correct, the second test is failing. I suspect I’m off by a simple idea somewhere https://github.com/jasonincanada/kattis/blob/master/src/Substitution.hs • Brent says: I can see what is wrong but I will only give a hint if you want one. =) • Jason Hooper says: Sure, thanks! I figured it might be zero distances causing the LCM to be 0 overall, but that wasn’t it. Can you suggest an input that the code wouldn’t work on? • Brent says: Sure, how about 1 2 1 4 3 5 2 3 1 5 4 6 7 8 9 … where the … means to continue counting up to 100. I’ll let you figure out what the answer should be. 4. Arnaud Bailly says: This problem is fun and I am completely stuck trying to go faster with mutable arrays but to no avail. I suspect I am missing some important property related to permutation groups that alleviate the need for repeatedly comparing the lists… Eagerly waiting the solution :) 5. shaurya gupta says: I’m enjoying the current format of CP in Haskell. Here’s my solution to Power of Substitution. https://github.com/sureyeaah/Competitive/blob/master/kattis/substitution.hs If we start walking from any point in the permutation graph, we will eventually land in a cycle. So I first brute force n (size of character set, here 100) steps, this ensure that I have either found my answer or I’m in a loop. After that, I find the length of the loop in which the character (i.e. node in permutation graph) lies and the distance between the current character and the final transformed character and used CRT to find the final answer. I am sure there must be a lot more elegant way of writing this than I have written here. The main parts are: solve :: ([Int], [Int], V.Vector Int) -> Int solve (m, c, p) = either id undefined$ go m 0 >>= go’
where
go :: [Int] -> Int -> Either Int [Int]
go m acc
| m == c = Left acc
| acc == n = Right m
| otherwise = go (substitute m) (acc + 1)
go’ :: [Int] -> Either Int [Int]
go’ m =
[(stepsTo substitute st nd, cycleSize substitute st) | (st, nd) (a -> a) -> a -> Int
cycleSize f x = 1 + stepsTo f (f x) x

stepsTo :: (Eq a) => (a -> a) -> a -> a -> Int
stepsTo f st nd = go 0 st
where
go acc x = if x == nd then acc else go (acc + 1) (f x)

• shaurya gupta says:

It would be nice if the comments systems had code blocks and the ability to make edits!

• Brent says:

Yeah, code blocks would be nice. I think you can make edits though, can you not?

• blaisepascal2014 says:

I’ve seen others do code blocks, but I don’t know how to do it. I don’t think I can make edits in posted comments.

• blaisepascal2014 says:

I’m working on a similar idea, but I haven’t gotten my CRT code to work yet. I don’t have a full test, yet.

The heart of my code is:

solve kase = show $fst$ foldr1 crt klPairs
where
[_,message,ctext,perm] = map ((map ((- 1) . read)) . words) kase
mcPairs = zip message ctext
klPairs = map findKl mcPairs
findKl (m, c) = (fromJust \$ elemIndex c cycle, length cycle)
where
cycle = cycleFrom perm m

cycleFrom perm m = m : (takeWhile (/= m) (tail (iterate (perm!!) m )))

mcPairs is a list of pairs of message characters and cyphertext characters. klPairs is a list of how many iterations of the permutation is necessary to bring the given plaintext character to the cyphertext character. For each symbol in the message, we have an equation $n \equiv k_i \mod l_i$, Folding over the list of $(k_i,l_i)$ pairs solves for $n$.

6. Connor Baker says:

First, thank you for introducing me to Control.Arrow — I learned about them from your previous two write-ups. Similarly, thank you for introducing me to the bool and chunksOf functions!

My “solution” (it times out on the second secret test case, so not really a solution, I think) uses Vector’s unsafeBackpermute for most of the heavy lifting:

I’m very much looking forward to your writeup!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.