\chapter{Complete search} \key{Complete search} is a general method that can be used to solve almost any algorithm problem. The idea is to generate all possible solutions to the problem using brute force, and then select the best solution or count the number of solutions, depending on the problem. Complete search is a good technique if there is enough time to go through all the solutions, because the search is usually easy to implement and it always gives the correct answer. If complete search is too slow, other techniques, such as greedy algorithms or dynamic programming, may be needed. \section{Generating subsets} \index{subset} We first consider the problem of generating all subsets of a set of $n$ elements. There are two common methods for this: we can either implement a recursive search or use bit operations of integers. \subsubsection{Method 1} An elegant way to go through all subsets of a set is to use recursion. The following function generates the subsets of the set $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$. The function maintains a vector that will contain the elements of each subset. The search begins when the function is called with parameter 1. \begin{lstlisting} void gen(int k) { if (k == n+1) { // process subset v } else { gen(k+1); v.push_back(k); gen(k+1); v.pop_back(); } } \end{lstlisting} The parameter $k$ is the next candidate to be included in the subset. The function considers two cases that both generate a recursive call: either $k$ is included or not included in the subset. Finally, when $k=n+1$, all elements have been processed and one subset has been generated. The following tree illustrates how the function is called when $n=3$. We can always choose either the left branch ($k$ is not included in the subset) or the right branch ($k$ is included in the subset). \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.45] \begin{scope} \small \node at (0,0) {$\texttt{gen}(1)$}; \node at (-8,-4) {$\texttt{gen}(2)$}; \node at (8,-4) {$\texttt{gen}(2)$}; \path[draw,thick,->] (0,0-0.5) -- (-8,-4+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (0,0-0.5) -- (8,-4+0.5); \node at (-12,-8) {$\texttt{gen}(3)$}; \node at (-4,-8) {$\texttt{gen}(3)$}; \node at (4,-8) {$\texttt{gen}(3)$}; \node at (12,-8) {$\texttt{gen}(3)$}; \path[draw,thick,->] (-8,-4-0.5) -- (-12,-8+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (-8,-4-0.5) -- (-4,-8+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (8,-4-0.5) -- (4,-8+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (8,-4-0.5) -- (12,-8+0.5); \node at (-14,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (-10,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (-6,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (-2,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (2,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (6,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (10,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (14,-12) {$\texttt{gen}(4)$}; \node at (-14,-13.5) {$\emptyset$}; \node at (-10,-13.5) {$\{3\}$}; \node at (-6,-13.5) {$\{2\}$}; \node at (-2,-13.5) {$\{2,3\}$}; \node at (2,-13.5) {$\{1\}$}; \node at (6,-13.5) {$\{1,3\}$}; \node at (10,-13.5) {$\{1,2\}$}; \node at (14,-13.5) {$\{1,2,3\}$}; \path[draw,thick,->] (-12,-8-0.5) -- (-14,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (-12,-8-0.5) -- (-10,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (-4,-8-0.5) -- (-6,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (-4,-8-0.5) -- (-2,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (4,-8-0.5) -- (2,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (4,-8-0.5) -- (6,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (12,-8-0.5) -- (10,-12+0.5); \path[draw,thick,->] (12,-8-0.5) -- (14,-12+0.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} \subsubsection{Method 2} Another way to generate subsets is to exploit the bit representation of integers. Each subset of a set of $n$ elements can be represented as a sequence of $n$ bits, which corresponds to an integer between $0 \ldots 2^n-1$. The ones in the bit sequence indicate which elements are included in the subset. The usual convention is that the $k$th element is included in the subset exactly when the $k$th last bit in the sequence is one. For example, the bit representation of 25 is 11001, that corresponds to the subset $\{1,4,5\}$. The following code goes through all subsets of a set of $n$ elements \begin{lstlisting} for (int b = 0; b < (1< v; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { if (b&(1< v; for (int i = 1; i <= n; i++) { v.push_back(i); } do { // process permutation v } while (next_permutation(v.begin(),v.end())); \end{lstlisting} \section{Backtracking} \index{backtracking} A \key{backtracking} algorithm begins with an empty solution and extends the solution step by step. The search recursively goes through all different ways how a solution can be constructed. \index{queen problem} As an example, consider the \key{queen problem} where the task is to calculate the number of ways we can place $n$ queens to an $n \times n$ chessboard so that no two queens attack each other. For example, when $n=4$, there are two possible solutions to the problem: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.65] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (4, 4); \node at (1.5,3.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (3.5,2.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (0.5,1.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (2.5,0.5) {\symqueen}; \draw (6, 0) grid (10, 4); \node at (6+2.5,3.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (6+0.5,2.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (6+3.5,1.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (6+1.5,0.5) {\symqueen}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} The problem can be solved using backtracking by placing queens to the board row by row. More precisely, exactly one queen will be placed to each row so that no queen attacks any of the queens placed before. A solution has been found when all $n$ queens have been placed to the board. For example, when $n=4$, some partial solutions generated by the backtracking algorithm are as follows: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (4, 4); \draw (-9, -6) grid (-5, -2); \draw (-3, -6) grid (1, -2); \draw (3, -6) grid (7, -2); \draw (9, -6) grid (13, -2); \node at (-9+0.5,-3+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (-3+1+0.5,-3+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (3+2+0.5,-3+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (9+3+0.5,-3+0.5) {\symqueen}; \draw (2,0) -- (-7,-2); \draw (2,0) -- (-1,-2); \draw (2,0) -- (5,-2); \draw (2,0) -- (11,-2); \draw (-11, -12) grid (-7, -8); \draw (-6, -12) grid (-2, -8); \draw (-1, -12) grid (3, -8); \draw (4, -12) grid (8, -8); \draw[white] (11, -12) grid (15, -8); \node at (-11+1+0.5,-9+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (-6+1+0.5,-9+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (-1+1+0.5,-9+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (4+1+0.5,-9+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (-11+0+0.5,-10+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (-6+1+0.5,-10+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (-1+2+0.5,-10+0.5) {\symqueen}; \node at (4+3+0.5,-10+0.5) {\symqueen}; \draw (-1,-6) -- (-9,-8); \draw (-1,-6) -- (-4,-8); \draw (-1,-6) -- (1,-8); \draw (-1,-6) -- (6,-8); \node at (-9,-13) {\ding{55}}; \node at (-4,-13) {\ding{55}}; \node at (1,-13) {\ding{55}}; \node at (6,-13) {\ding{51}}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} At the bottom level, the three first boards are not valid, because the queens attack each other. However, the fourth board is valid and it can be extended to a complete solution by placing two more queens to the board. \begin{samepage} The following code implements the search: \begin{lstlisting} void search(int y) { if (y == n) { c++; return; } for (int x = 0; x < n; x++) { if (r1[x] || r2[x+y] || r3[x-y+n-1]) continue; r1[x] = r2[x+y] = r3[x-y+n-1] = 1; search(y+1); r1[x] = r2[x+y] = r3[x-y+n-1] = 0; } } \end{lstlisting} \end{samepage} The search begins by calling \texttt{search(0)}. The size of the board is in the variable $n$, and the code calculates the number of solutions to the variable $c$. The code assumes that the rows and columns of the board are numbered from 0. The function places a queen to row $y$ where $0 \le y < n$. Finally, if $y=n$, a solution has been found and the variable $c$ is increased by one. The array \texttt{r1} keeps track of the columns that already contain a queen, and the arrays \texttt{r2} and \texttt{r3} keep track of the diagonals. It is not allowed to add another queen to a column or diagonal that already contains a queen. For example, the rows and diagonals of the $4 \times 4$ board are numbered as follows: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.65] \begin{scope} \draw (0-6, 0) grid (4-6, 4); \node at (-6+0.5,3.5) {$0$}; \node at (-6+1.5,3.5) {$1$}; \node at (-6+2.5,3.5) {$2$}; \node at (-6+3.5,3.5) {$3$}; \node at (-6+0.5,2.5) {$0$}; \node at (-6+1.5,2.5) {$1$}; \node at (-6+2.5,2.5) {$2$}; \node at (-6+3.5,2.5) {$3$}; \node at (-6+0.5,1.5) {$0$}; \node at (-6+1.5,1.5) {$1$}; \node at (-6+2.5,1.5) {$2$}; \node at (-6+3.5,1.5) {$3$}; \node at (-6+0.5,0.5) {$0$}; \node at (-6+1.5,0.5) {$1$}; \node at (-6+2.5,0.5) {$2$}; \node at (-6+3.5,0.5) {$3$}; \draw (0, 0) grid (4, 4); \node at (0.5,3.5) {$0$}; \node at (1.5,3.5) {$1$}; \node at (2.5,3.5) {$2$}; \node at (3.5,3.5) {$3$}; \node at (0.5,2.5) {$1$}; \node at (1.5,2.5) {$2$}; \node at (2.5,2.5) {$3$}; \node at (3.5,2.5) {$4$}; \node at (0.5,1.5) {$2$}; \node at (1.5,1.5) {$3$}; \node at (2.5,1.5) {$4$}; \node at (3.5,1.5) {$5$}; \node at (0.5,0.5) {$3$}; \node at (1.5,0.5) {$4$}; \node at (2.5,0.5) {$5$}; \node at (3.5,0.5) {$6$}; \draw (6, 0) grid (10, 4); \node at (6.5,3.5) {$3$}; \node at (7.5,3.5) {$4$}; \node at (8.5,3.5) {$5$}; \node at (9.5,3.5) {$6$}; \node at (6.5,2.5) {$2$}; \node at (7.5,2.5) {$3$}; \node at (8.5,2.5) {$4$}; \node at (9.5,2.5) {$5$}; \node at (6.5,1.5) {$1$}; \node at (7.5,1.5) {$2$}; \node at (8.5,1.5) {$3$}; \node at (9.5,1.5) {$4$}; \node at (6.5,0.5) {$0$}; \node at (7.5,0.5) {$1$}; \node at (8.5,0.5) {$2$}; \node at (9.5,0.5) {$3$}; \node at (-4,-1) {\texttt{r1}}; \node at (2,-1) {\texttt{r2}}; \node at (8,-1) {\texttt{r3}}; \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} Let $q(n)$ denote the number of ways to place $n$ queens to te $n \times n$ chessboard. The above backtracking algorithm tells us that $q(n)=92$. When $n$ increases, the search quickly becomes slow, because the number of the solutions increases exponentially. For example, calculating $q(16)=14772512$ using the above algorithm already takes about a minute on a modern computer\footnote{There is no known way to efficiently calculate larger values of $q(n)$. The current record is $q(27)=234907967154122528$, calculated in 2016 \cite{q27}.}. \section{Pruning the search} We can often optimize backtracking by pruning the search tree. The idea is to add ''intelligence'' to the algorithm so that it will notice as soon as possible if a partial solution cannot be extended to a complete solution. Such optimizations can have a tremendous effect on the efficiency of the search. Let us consider a problem of calculating the number of paths in an $n \times n$ grid from the upper-left corner to the lower-right corner so that each square will be visited exactly once. For example, in a $7 \times 7$ grid, there are 111712 such paths. One of the paths is as follows: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (7, 7); \draw[thick,->] (0.5,6.5) -- (0.5,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5) -- (2.5,3.5) -- (0.5,3.5) -- (0.5,0.5) -- (3.5,0.5) -- (3.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,2.5) -- (4.5,2.5) -- (4.5,0.5) -- (5.5,0.5) -- (5.5,3.5) -- (3.5,3.5) -- (3.5,5.5) -- (1.5,5.5) -- (1.5,6.5) -- (4.5,6.5) -- (4.5,4.5) -- (5.5,4.5) -- (5.5,6.5) -- (6.5,6.5) -- (6.5,0.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} We will concentrate on the $7 \times 7$ case, because its level of difficulty is appropriate to our needs. We begin with a straightforward backtracking algorithm, and then optimize it step by step using observations how the search can be pruned. After each optimization, we measure the running time of the algorithm and the number of recursive calls, so that we will clearly see the effect of each optimization on the efficiency of the search. \subsubsection{Basic algorithm} The first version of the algorithm does not contain any optimizations. We simply use backtracking to generate all possible paths from the upper-left corner to the lower-right corner and count the number of such paths. \begin{itemize} \item running time: 483 seconds \item recursive calls: 76 billions \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Optimization 1} In any solution, we first move one step down or right. There are always two paths that are symmetric about the diagonal of the grid after the first step. For example, the following paths are symmetric: \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{ccc} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (7, 7); \draw[thick,->] (0.5,6.5) -- (0.5,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5) -- (2.5,3.5) -- (0.5,3.5) -- (0.5,0.5) -- (3.5,0.5) -- (3.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,2.5) -- (4.5,2.5) -- (4.5,0.5) -- (5.5,0.5) -- (5.5,3.5) -- (3.5,3.5) -- (3.5,5.5) -- (1.5,5.5) -- (1.5,6.5) -- (4.5,6.5) -- (4.5,4.5) -- (5.5,4.5) -- (5.5,6.5) -- (6.5,6.5) -- (6.5,0.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} & \hspace{20px} & \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope}[yscale=1,xscale=-1,rotate=-90] \draw (0, 0) grid (7, 7); \draw[thick,->] (0.5,6.5) -- (0.5,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5) -- (2.5,3.5) -- (0.5,3.5) -- (0.5,0.5) -- (3.5,0.5) -- (3.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,2.5) -- (4.5,2.5) -- (4.5,0.5) -- (5.5,0.5) -- (5.5,3.5) -- (3.5,3.5) -- (3.5,5.5) -- (1.5,5.5) -- (1.5,6.5) -- (4.5,6.5) -- (4.5,4.5) -- (5.5,4.5) -- (5.5,6.5) -- (6.5,6.5) -- (6.5,0.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{tabular} \end{center} Hence, we can decide that we always first move one step down, and finally multiply the number of the solutions by two. \begin{itemize} \item running time: 244 seconds \item recursive calls: 38 billions \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Optimization 2} If the path reaches the lower-right square before it has visited all other squares of the grid, it is clear that it will not be possible to complete the solution. An example of this is the following path: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (7, 7); \draw[thick,->] (0.5,6.5) -- (0.5,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5) -- (2.5,3.5) -- (0.5,3.5) -- (0.5,0.5) -- (3.5,0.5) -- (3.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,2.5) -- (4.5,2.5) -- (4.5,0.5) -- (6.5,0.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} Using this observation, we can terminate the search immediately if we reach the lower-right square too early. \begin{itemize} \item running time: 119 seconds \item recursive calls: 20 billions \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Optimization 3} If the path touches the wall so that there is an unvisited square on both sides, the grid splits into two parts. For example, in the following path both the left and right squares are unvisited: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (7, 7); \draw[thick,->] (0.5,6.5) -- (0.5,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5) -- (2.5,3.5) -- (0.5,3.5) -- (0.5,0.5) -- (3.5,0.5) -- (3.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,2.5) -- (4.5,2.5) -- (4.5,0.5) -- (5.5,0.5) -- (5.5,6.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} Now it will not be possible to visit every square, so we can terminate the search. It turns out that this optimization is very useful: \begin{itemize} \item running time: 1.8 seconds \item recursive calls: 221 millions \end{itemize} \subsubsection{Optimization 4} The idea of the previous optimization can be generalized: the grid splits into two parts if the top and bottom neighbors of the current square are unvisited and the left and right neighbors are wall or visited (or vice versa). For example, in the following path the top and bottom neighbors are unvisited, so the path cannot visit all squares in the grid anymore: \begin{center} \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.55] \begin{scope} \draw (0, 0) grid (7, 7); \draw[thick,->] (0.5,6.5) -- (0.5,4.5) -- (2.5,4.5) -- (2.5,3.5) -- (0.5,3.5) -- (0.5,0.5) -- (3.5,0.5) -- (3.5,1.5) -- (1.5,1.5) -- (1.5,2.5) -- (4.5,2.5) -- (4.5,0.5) -- (5.5,0.5) -- (5.5,4.5) -- (3.5,4.5); \end{scope} \end{tikzpicture} \end{center} Thus, we can terminate the search in all such cases. After this optimization, the search will be very efficient: \begin{itemize} \item running time: 0.6 seconds \item recursive calls: 69 millions \end{itemize} ~\\ Now it is a good moment to stop optimizing the algorithm and see what we have achieved. The running time of the original algorithm was 483 seconds, and now after the optimizations, the running time is only 0.6 seconds. Thus, the algorithm became nearly 1000 times faster thanks to the optimizations. This is a usual phenomenon in backtracking, because the search tree is usually large and even simple observations can effectively prune the search. Especially useful are optimizations that occur during the first steps of the algorithm, i.e., at the top of the search tree. \section{Meet in the middle} \index{meet in the middle} \key{Meet in the middle} is a technique where the search space is divided into two parts of about equal size. A separate search is performed for both of the parts, and finally the results of the searches are combined. The technique can be used if there is an efficient way to combine the results of the searches. In such a situation, the two searches may require less time than one large search. Typically, we can turn a factor of $2^n$ into a factor of $2^{n/2}$ using the meet in the middle technique. As an example, consider a problem where we are given a list of $n$ numbers and a number $x$. Our task is to find out if it is possible to choose some numbers from the list so that their sum is $x$. For example, given the list $[2,4,5,9]$ and $x=15$, we can choose the numbers $[2,4,9]$ to get $2+4+9=15$. However, if $x=10$, it is not possible to form the sum. A standard solution for the problem is to go through all subsets of the elements and check if the sum of any of the subsets is $x$. The running time of such a solution is $O(2^n)$, because there are $2^n$ subsets. However, using the meet in the middle technique, we can achieve a more efficient $O(2^{n/2})$ time solution\footnote{This technique was introduced in 1974 by E. Horowitz and S. Sahni \cite{hor74}.}. Note that $O(2^n)$ and $O(2^{n/2})$ are different complexities because $2^{n/2}$ equals $\sqrt{2^n}$. The idea is to divide the list into two lists $A$ and $B$ such that both lists contain about half of the numbers. The first search generates all subsets of the numbers in $A$ and stores their sums to a list $S_A$. Correspondingly, the second search creates a list $S_B$ from $B$. After this, it suffices to check if it is possible to choose one element from $S_A$ and another element from $S_B$ so that their sum is $x$. This is possible exactly when there is a way to form the sum $x$ using the numbers in the original list. For example, suppose that the list is $[2,4,5,9]$ and $x=15$. First, we divide the list into $A=[2,4]$ and $B=[5,9]$. After this, we create lists $S_A=[0,2,4,6]$ and $S_B=[0,5,9,14]$. In this case, the sum $x=15$ is possible to form, because we can choose the number $6$ from $S_A$ and the number $9$ from $S_B$, which corresponds to the solution $[2,4,9]$. The time complexity of the algorithm is $O(2^{n/2})$, because both lists $A$ and $B$ contain $n/2$ numbers and it takes $O(2^{n/2})$ time to calculate the sums of their subsets to lists $S_A$ and $S_B$. After this, it is possible to check in $O(2^{n/2})$ time if the sum $x$ can be formed using the numbers in $S_A$ and $S_B$.