\fi
\chapter{Ranking Combinatorial Structures}
+\id{rankchap}
-\section{Ranking and unranking}
+\section{Ranking and unranking}\id{ranksect}%
The techniques for building efficient data structures on the RAM described
in Chapter~\ref{ramchap} can be also used for a~variety of problems related
\nota\id{brackets}%
We will view permutations on a~finite set $A\subseteq {\bb N}$ as ordered $\vert A\vert$-tuples
(in other words, arrays) containing every element of~$A$ exactly once. We will
-use square brackets to index these tuples: $\pi=(\pi[1],\ldots,\pi[\vert A\vert])$.
-The corresponding lexicographic ranking and unranking functions will be denoted by~$L(\pi,A)$
-and $L^{-1}(i,A)$ respectively.
+use square brackets to index these tuples: $\pi=(\pi[1],\ldots,\pi[\vert A\vert])$,
+and sub-tuples: $\pi[i\ldots j] = (\pi[i],\ldots,\pi[j])$.
+The lexicographic ranking and unranking functions for the permutations on~$A$
+will be denoted by~$L(\pi,A)$ and $L^{-1}(i,A)$ respectively.
\obs\id{permrec}%
Let us first observe that permutations have a simple recursive structure.
elements $\pi[2], \ldots, \pi[n]$ form a~permutation on $[n]-\{\pi[1]\} = \{1,\ldots,\pi[1]-1,\pi[1]+1,\ldots,n\}$.
The lexicographic order of two permutations $\pi$ and~$\pi'$ on the original set is then determined
by $\pi[1]$ and $\pi'[1]$ and only if these elements are equal, it is decided
-by the lexicographic comparison of permutations $(\pi[2],\ldots,\pi[n])$ and
-$(\pi'[2],\ldots,\pi'[n])$. Moreover, for fixed~$\pi[1]$ all permutations on
-the smaller set occur exactly once, so the rank of $\pi$ is $(\pi[1]-1)\cdot
-(n-1)!$ plus the rank of $(\pi[2],\ldots,\pi[n])$.
+by the lexicographic comparison of permutations $\pi[2\ldots n]$ and $\pi'[2\ldots n]$.
+Moreover, for fixed~$\pi[1]$ all permutations on the smaller set occur exactly
+once, so the rank of $\pi$ is $(\pi[1]-1)\cdot (n-1)!$ plus the rank of
+$\pi[2\ldots n]$.
-This gives us a~reduction from (un)ranking of permutations on $[n]$ to (un)ranking
+This gives us a~reduction from (un)ranking of permutations on $[n]$ to (un)rank\-ing
of permutations on a $(n-1)$-element set, which suggests a straightforward
algorithm, but unfortunately this set is different from $[n-1]$ and it even
depends on the value of~$\pi[1]$. We could renumber the elements to get $[n-1]$,
\>We can call $\<Rank>(\pi,1,n,[n])$ for ranking on~$[n]$, i.e., to calculate
$L(\pi,[n])$.
-\alg $\<Unrank>(j,i,n,A)$: Return an~array~$\pi$ such that $\pi[i,\ldots,n]$ is the $j$-th permutation on~$A$.
+\alg $\<Unrank>(j,i,n,A)$: Return an~array~$\pi$ such that $\pi[i\ldots n]$ is the $j$-th permutation on~$A$.
\id{unrankalg}
\algo
\:If $i>n$, return $(0,\ldots,0)$.
\:Return~$\pi$.
\endalgo
-\>We can call $\<Unrank>(j,1,n,[n])$ for the unranking problem on~$[n]$, i.e., to get $L^{-1}(j,[n])$.
+\>We can call $\<Unrank>(j,1,n,[n])$ for the unranking problem on~$[n]$, i.e., to calculate $L^{-1}(j,[n])$.
\para
The most time-consuming parts of the above algorithms are of course operations
\proof
Let us analyse the above algorithms. The depth of the recursion is~$n$ and in each
-nested invokation of the recursive procedure we perform a~constant number of operations.
+nested invocation of the recursive procedure we perform a~constant number of operations.
All of them are either trivial, or calculations of factorials (which can be precomputed in~$\O(n)$ time),
or operations on the data structure.
\qed
machine has to be large as well:
\obs
-$\log n! = \Theta(n\log n)$, therefore the word size~$W$ must be~$\Omega(n\log n)$.
+$\log n! = \Theta(n\log n)$, therefore the word size must be~$\Omega(n\log n)$.
\proof
We have $n^n \ge n! \ge \lfloor n/2\rfloor^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor}$, so $n\log n \ge \log n! \ge \lfloor n/2\rfloor\cdot\log \lfloor n/2\rfloor$.
structure (i.e., on the sequence of deletes performed so far). We can observe that
although the algorithm no longer gives the lexicographic ranks, the unranking function
is still an~inverse of the ranking function, because the sequence of deletes
-from~$A$ is the same when both ranking and unraking.
+from~$A$ is the same when both ranking and unranking.
The implementation of the relaxed structure is straightforward. We store the set~$A$
in an~array~$\alpha$ and use the order of the elements in~$\alpha$ determine the
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-\section{Ranking of {\secitfont k\/}-permutations}
+\section{Ranking of \iftoc $k$\else{\secitfont k\/}\fi-permutations}
\id{kpranksect}
The technique from the previous section can be also generalized to lexicographic ranking of
It remains to show how to translate the operations on~$A$ to operations on~$H$,
again stored as a~sorted vector~${\bf h}$. Insertion to~$A$ correspond to
deletion from~$H$ and vice versa. The rank of any~$x\in[n]$ in~$A$ is $x$ minus
-the number of holes which are smaller than~$x$, therefore $R_A(x)=x-R_H(x)$.
+the number of holes that are smaller than~$x$, therefore $R_A(x)=x-R_H(x)$.
To calculate $R_H(x)$, we can again use the vector operation \<Rank> from Algorithm \ref{vecops},
this time on the vector~$\bf h$.
\section{Restricted permutations}
-Another interesting class of combinatorial objects which can be counted and
+Another interesting class of combinatorial objects that can be counted and
ranked are restricted permutations. An~archetypal member of this class are
permutations without a~fixed point, i.e., permutations~$\pi$ such that $\pi(i)\ne i$
for all~$i$. These are also called \df{derangements} or \df{hatcheck permutations.}\foot{%
Let~$H\subseteq B$ be any set of holes in the board. Then:
\itemize\ibull
\:$N_j$ denotes the number of placements of $n$~rooks on the board such that exactly~$j$ of the rooks
-stand on holes. That is, $N_j := \#\{ \pi\in{\cal P}: \#(H\cap T(\pi)) = j \}$.
+stand on holes. That is, $N_j := \#\{ \pi\in{\cal P} \mid \#(H\cap T(\pi)) = j \}$.
\:$r_k$ is the number of ways how to place $k$~rooks on the holes. In other words,
this is the number of $k$-element subsets of~$H$ such that no two elements share
a~common row or column.
side counts the same: We can obtain any such configuration by placing $k$~rooks
on~$H$ first, labeling them with elements of~$\{2,\ldots,x\}$, placing
additional $n-k$ rooks on the remaining rows and columns (there are $(n-k)!$ ways
-how to do this) and labeling those of the the new rooks standing on a~hole with~1.
+how to do this) and labeling those of the new rooks standing on a~hole with~1.
\qed
\cor
\example\id{hatcheck}%
Let us apply this theory to the hatcheck lady problem. The set~$H$ of holes is the main diagonal
-of the board: $H=\{ (i,i) : i\in[n] \}$. When we want to place $k$~rooks on the holes,
+of the board: $H=\{ (i,i) \mid i\in[n] \}$. When we want to place $k$~rooks on the holes,
we can do that in $r_k={n\choose k}$ ways. By the previous corollary, the number of
derangements is:
$$
The diversity of the characterizations of restricted permutations brings
both good and bad news. The good news is that we can use the
plethora of known results on bipartite matchings. Most importantly, we can efficiently
-determine whether there exists at least one permutation satistying a~given set of restrictions:
+determine whether there exists at least one permutation satisfying a~given set of restrictions:
\thm
There is an~algorithm which decides in time $\O(n^{1/2}\cdot m)$ whether there exists
a~set of restrictions which is a~part of the input, then $P=\#P$.
\proof
-We will show that a~polynomial-time ranking algorithm would imply a~polynomial-time
+We will show that a~polynomial-time ranking algorithm would imply a~po\-ly\-nom\-ial-time
algorithm for computing the permanent of an~arbitrary zero-one matrix, which
is a~$\#P$-complete problem.
\obs
Let us consider a~permutation $\pi\in{\cal P}_A$ and $n=\vert A\vert$.
When we fix the value of the element $\pi[1]$, the remaining elements form
-a~permutation $\pi'=(\pi[2],\ldots,\pi[n])$ on the set~$A'=A\setminus\{\pi[1]\}$.
+a~permutation $\pi'=\pi[2\ldots n]$ on the set~$A'=A\setminus\{\pi[1]\}$.
The permutation~$\pi$ satisfies the restriction matrix~$M$ if and only if
$M[1,a]=1$ for $a=R_A(\pi[1])$ and $\pi'$ satisfies a~restriction matrix~$M'=M^{1,a}$.
This translates to the following counterparts of algorithms \ref{rankalg}
and $\O(n^2\cdot t(n))$ by the computations of the~$N_0$'s.
\qed
+\rem
+In cases where the efficient evaluation of the permanent is out of our reach,
+we can consider using the fully-polynomial randomized approximation scheme
+for the permanent described by Jerrum, Sinclair and Vigoda in \cite{jerrum:permanent}.
+We then get an~approximation scheme for the ranks.
+
+\rem
+There are also deterministic algorithms for computing the number of perfect matchings
+in various special graph families (which imply polynomial-time ranking algorithms for
+the corresponding families of permutations). If the graph is planar, we can
+use the Kasteleyn's algorithm \cite{kasteleyn:crystals} based on Pfaffian
+orientations which runs in time $\O(n^3)$.
+It has been recently extended to arbitrary surfaces by Yuster and Zwick
+\cite{yuster:matching} and sped up to $\O(n^{2.19})$. The counting problem
+for arbitrary minor-closed classes (cf.~section \ref{minorclosed}) is still
+open.
+
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\section{Hatcheck lady and other derangements}
\nota\id{hatrank}%
As we already know, the hatcheck permutations correspond to restriction
-matrices which contain zeroes only on the main diagonal and graphs which are
-complete bipartite with the matching $\{(i,i) : i\in[n]\}$ deleted. For
+matrices that contain zeroes only on the main diagonal and graphs that are
+complete bipartite with the matching $\{(i,i) \mid i\in[n]\}$ deleted. For
a~given order~$n$, we will call this matrix~$D_n$ and the graph~$G_n$ and
we will show that the submatrices of~$D_n$ share several nice properties:
number of matchings is an~isomorphism invariant, the lemma follows.
\qed
+\rem
+There is a~clear combinatorial intuition behind this lemma: if we are
+to count permutations with restrictions placed on~$z$ elements and these
+restrictions are independent, it does not matter how exactly they look like.
+
\defn
Let $n_0(z,d)$ be the permanent shared by all submatrices as described
by the above lemma, which have $d\times d$ entries and exactly~$z$ zeroes.
First, there are $n_0(z-1,d)$ such permutations. On the other hand, we can divide
the them to two types depending on whether $\pi[1]=1$. Those having $\pi[1]\ne 1$
are exactly the $n_0(z,d)$ permutations satisfying~$M_z$. The others correspond to
-permutations $(\pi[2],\ldots,\pi[d])$ on $\{2,\ldots,d\}$ which satisfy~$M_z^{1,1}$,
+permutations $(\pi[2],\ldots,\pi[d])$ on $\{2,\ldots,d\}$ that satisfy~$M_z^{1,1}$,
so there are $n_0(z-1,d-1)$ of them.
\qed
The algorithm uses the matrix~$M$ only for computing~$N_0$ of its submatrices
and we have shown that this value depends only on the order of the matrix and
the number of zeroes in it. We will therefore replace maintenance of the matrix
-by remember the number~$z$ of its zeroes and the set~$Z$ which contains the elements
+by remember the number~$z$ of its zeroes and the set~$Z$ that contains the elements
$x\in A$ whose locations are restricted (there is a~zero anywhere in the $(R_A(x)+1)$-th
column of~$M$). In other words, every $x\in Z$ can appear at all positions in the
permutation except one (and these forbidden positions are different for different~$x$'s),
be looked up in a~table precalculated in quadratic time as shown in Corollary~\ref{nzeroprecalc}.
\qed
-
-
\endpart
projects / saga.git / blobdiff