Easy interview question got harder: given numbers 1..100, find the missing number(s) given exactly k are missing

A very simple solution to Q2 which I'm surprised nobody answered already. Use the method from Q1 to find the sum of the two missing numbers. Let's denote it by S, then one of the missing numbers is smaller than S/2 and the other is bigger than S/2 (duh). Sum all the numbers from 1 to S/2 and compare it to the formula's result (similarly to the method in Q1) to find the lower between the missing numbers. Subtract it from S to find the bigger missing number.

Motivation

If you want to solve the general-case problem, and you can store and edit the array, then Caf's solution is by far the most efficient. If you can't store the array (streaming version), then sdcvvc's answer is the only type of solution currently suggested.

The solution I propose is the most efficient answer (so far on this thread) if you can store the array but can't edit it, and I got the idea from Svalorzen's solution, which solves for 1 or 2 missing items. This solution takes Θ(k*n) time and O(min(k,log(n))) and Ω(log(k)) space. It also works well with parallelism.

Concept

The idea is that if you use the original approach of comparing sums:
sum = SumOf(1,n) - SumOf(array)

... then you take the average of the missing numbers:
average = sum/n_missing_numbers

... which provides a boundary: Of the missing numbers, there's guaranteed to be at least one number less-or-equal to average, and at least one number greater than average. This means that we can split into sub problems that each scan the array [O(n)] and are only concerned with their respective sub-arrays.

Code

C-style solution (don't judge me for the global variables, I'm just trying to make the code readable for non-c folks):

#include "stdio.h"

// Example problem:
const int array [] = {0, 7, 3, 1, 5};
const int N = 8; // size of original array
const int array_size = 5;

int SumOneTo (int n)
{
    return n*(n-1)/2; // non-inclusive
}

int MissingItems (const int begin, const int end, int & average)
{
    // We consider only sub-array elements with values, v:
    // begin <= v < end
    
    // Initialise info about missing elements.
    // First assume all are missing:
    int n = end - begin;
    int sum = SumOneTo(end) - SumOneTo(begin);

    // Minus everything that we see (ie not missing):
    for (int i = 0; i < array_size; ++i)
    {
        if ((begin <= array[i]) && (array[i] < end))
        {
            --n;
            sum -= array[i];
        }
    }
    
    // used by caller:
    average = sum/n;
    return n;
}

void Find (const int begin, const int end)
{
    int average;

    if (MissingItems(begin, end, average) == 1)
    {
        printf(" %d", average); // average(n) is same as n
        return;
    }
    
    Find(begin, average + 1); // at least one missing here
    Find(average + 1, end); // at least one here also
}

int main ()
{   
    printf("Missing items:");
    
    Find(0, N);
    
    printf("\n");
}

Analysis

Ignoring recursion for a moment, each function call clearly takes O(n) time and O(1) space. Note that sum can equal as much as n(n-1)/2, so requires double the amount of bits needed to store n-1. At most this means than we effectively need two extra elements worth of space, regardless of the size of the array or k, hence it's still O(1) space under the normal conventions.

It's not so obvious how many function calls there are for k missing elements, so I'll provide a visual. Your original sub-array (connected array) is the full array, which has all k missing elements in it. We'll imagine them in increasing order, where -- represent connections (part of same sub-array):

m₁ -- m₂ -- m₃ -- m₄ -- (...) -- m_k-1 -- m_k

The effect of the Find function is to disconnect the missing elements into different non-overlapping sub-arrays. It guarantees that there's at least one missing element in each sub-array, which means breaking exactly one connection.

What this means is that regardless of how the splits occur, it will always take k-1 Find function calls to do the work of finding the sub-arrays that have only one missing element in it.

So the time complexity is Θ((k-1 + k) * n) = Θ(k*n).

For the space complexity, if we divide proportionally each time then we get O(log(k)) space complexity, but if we only separate one at a time it gives us O(k).

See here for a proof as to why the space complexity is O(log(n)). Given that above we've shown that it's also O(k), then we know that it's O(min(k,log(n))).

Here is a solution that doesn't rely on complex math as sdcvvc's/Dimitris Andreou's answers do, doesn't change the input array as caf and Colonel Panic did, and doesn't use the bitset of enormous size as Chris Lercher, JeremyP and many others did. Basically, I began with Svalorzen's/Gilad Deutch's idea for Q2, generalized it to the common case Qk and implemented in Java to prove that the algorithm works.

The idea

Suppose we have an arbitrary interval I of which we only know that it contains at least one of the missing numbers. After one pass through the input array, looking only at the numbers from I, we can obtain both the sum S and the quantity Q of missing numbers from I. We do this by simply decrementing I's length each time we encounter a number from I (for obtaining Q) and by decreasing pre-calculated sum of all numbers in I by that encountered number each time (for obtaining S).

Now we look at S and Q. If Q = 1, it means that then I contains only one of the missing numbers, and this number is clearly S. We mark I as finished (it is called "unambiguous" in the program) and leave it out from further consideration. On the other hand, if Q > 1, we can calculate the average A = S / Q of missing numbers contained in I. As all numbers are distinct, at least one of such numbers is strictly less than A and at least one is strictly greater than A. Now we split I in A into two smaller intervals each of which contains at least one missing number. Note that it doesn't matter to which of the intervals we assign A in case it is an integer.

We make the next array pass calculating S and Q for each of the intervals separately (but in the same pass) and after that mark intervals with Q = 1 and split intervals with Q > 1. We continue this process until there are no new "ambiguous" intervals, i.e. we have nothing to split because each interval contains exactly one missing number (and we always know this number because we know S). We start out from the sole "whole range" interval containing all possible numbers (like [1..N] in the question).

Time and space complexity analysis

The total number of passes p we need to make until the process stops is never greater than the missing numbers count k. The inequality p <= k can be proved rigorously. On the other hand, there is also an empirical upper bound p < log₂N + 3 that is useful for large values of k. We need to make a binary search for each number of the input array to determine the interval to which it belongs. This adds the log k multiplier to the time complexity.

In total, the time complexity is O(N ᛫ min(k, log N) ᛫ log k). Note that for large k, this is significantly better than that of sdcvvc/Dimitris Andreou's method, which is O(N ᛫ k).

For its work, the algorithm requires O(k) additional space for storing at most k intervals, that is significantly better than O(N) in "bitset" solutions.

Java implementation

Here's a Java class that implements the above algorithm. It always returns a sorted array of missing numbers. Besides that, it doesn't require the missing numbers count k because it calculates it in the first pass. The whole range of numbers is given by the minNumber and maxNumber parameters (e.g. 1 and 100 for the first example in the question).

public class MissingNumbers {
    private static class Interval {
        boolean ambiguous = true;
        final int begin;
        int quantity;
        long sum;

        Interval(int begin, int end) { // begin inclusive, end exclusive
            this.begin = begin;
            quantity = end - begin;
            sum = quantity * ((long)end - 1 + begin) / 2;
        }

        void exclude(int x) {
            quantity--;
            sum -= x;
        }
    }

    public static int[] find(int minNumber, int maxNumber, NumberBag inputBag) {
        Interval full = new Interval(minNumber, ++maxNumber);
        for (inputBag.startOver(); inputBag.hasNext();)
            full.exclude(inputBag.next());
        int missingCount = full.quantity;
        if (missingCount == 0)
            return new int[0];
        Interval[] intervals = new Interval[missingCount];
        intervals[0] = full;
        int[] dividers = new int[missingCount];
        dividers[0] = minNumber;
        int intervalCount = 1;
        while (true) {
            int oldCount = intervalCount;
            for (int i = 0; i < oldCount; i++) {
                Interval itv = intervals[i];
                if (itv.ambiguous)
                    if (itv.quantity == 1) // number inside itv uniquely identified
                        itv.ambiguous = false;
                    else
                        intervalCount++; // itv will be split into two intervals
            }
            if (oldCount == intervalCount)
                break;
            int newIndex = intervalCount - 1;
            int end = maxNumber;
            for (int oldIndex = oldCount - 1; oldIndex >= 0; oldIndex--) {
                // newIndex always >= oldIndex
                Interval itv = intervals[oldIndex];
                int begin = itv.begin;
                if (itv.ambiguous) {
                    // split interval itv
                    // use floorDiv instead of / because input numbers can be negative
                    int mean = (int)Math.floorDiv(itv.sum, itv.quantity) + 1;
                    intervals[newIndex--] = new Interval(mean, end);
                    intervals[newIndex--] = new Interval(begin, mean);
                } else
                    intervals[newIndex--] = itv;
                end = begin;
            }
            for (int i = 0; i < intervalCount; i++)
                dividers[i] = intervals[i].begin;
            for (inputBag.startOver(); inputBag.hasNext();) {
                int x = inputBag.next();
                // find the interval to which x belongs
                int i = java.util.Arrays.binarySearch(dividers, 0, intervalCount, x);
                if (i < 0)
                    i = -i - 2;
                Interval itv = intervals[i];
                if (itv.ambiguous)
                    itv.exclude(x);
            }
        }
        assert intervalCount == missingCount;
        for (int i = 0; i < intervalCount; i++)
            dividers[i] = (int)intervals[i].sum;
        return dividers;
    }
}

For fairness, this class receives input in form of NumberBag objects. NumberBag doesn't allow array modification and random access and also counts how many times the array was requested for sequential traversing. It is also more suitable for large array testing than Iterable<Integer> because it avoids boxing of primitive int values and allows wrapping a part of a large int[] for a convenient test preparation. It is not hard to replace, if desired, NumberBag by int[] or Iterable<Integer> type in the find signature, by changing two for-loops in it into foreach ones.

import java.util.*;

public abstract class NumberBag {
    private int passCount;

    public void startOver() {
        passCount++;
    }

    public final int getPassCount() {
        return passCount;
    }

    public abstract boolean hasNext();

    public abstract int next();

    // A lightweight version of Iterable<Integer> to avoid boxing of int
    public static NumberBag fromArray(int[] base, int fromIndex, int toIndex) {
        return new NumberBag() {
            int index = toIndex;

            public void startOver() {
                super.startOver();
                index = fromIndex;
            }

            public boolean hasNext() {
                return index < toIndex;
            }

            public int next() {
                if (index >= toIndex)
                    throw new NoSuchElementException();
                return base[index++];
            }
        };
    }

    public static NumberBag fromArray(int[] base) {
        return fromArray(base, 0, base.length);
    }

    public static NumberBag fromIterable(Iterable<Integer> base) {
        return new NumberBag() {
            Iterator<Integer> it;

            public void startOver() {
                super.startOver();
                it = base.iterator();
            }

            public boolean hasNext() {
                return it.hasNext();
            }

            public int next() {
                return it.next();
            }
        };
    }
}

Tests

Simple examples demonstrating the usage of these classes are given below.

import java.util.*;

public class SimpleTest {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int[] input = { 7, 1, 4, 9, 6, 2 };
        NumberBag bag = NumberBag.fromArray(input);
        int[] output = MissingNumbers.find(1, 10, bag);
        System.out.format("Input: %s%nMissing numbers: %s%nPass count: %d%n",
                Arrays.toString(input), Arrays.toString(output), bag.getPassCount());

        List<Integer> inputList = new ArrayList<>();
        for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
            inputList.add(2 * i);
        Collections.shuffle(inputList);
        bag = NumberBag.fromIterable(inputList);
        output = MissingNumbers.find(0, 19, bag);
        System.out.format("%nInput: %s%nMissing numbers: %s%nPass count: %d%n",
                inputList, Arrays.toString(output), bag.getPassCount());

        // Sieve of Eratosthenes
        final int MAXN = 1_000;
        List<Integer> nonPrimes = new ArrayList<>();
        nonPrimes.add(1);
        int[] primes;
        int lastPrimeIndex = 0;
        while (true) {
            primes = MissingNumbers.find(1, MAXN, NumberBag.fromIterable(nonPrimes));
            int p = primes[lastPrimeIndex]; // guaranteed to be prime
            int q = p;
            for (int i = lastPrimeIndex++; i < primes.length; i++) {
                q = primes[i]; // not necessarily prime
                int pq = p * q;
                if (pq > MAXN)
                    break;
                nonPrimes.add(pq);
            }
            if (q == p)
                break;
        }
        System.out.format("%nSieve of Eratosthenes. %d primes up to %d found:%n",
                primes.length, MAXN);
        for (int i = 0; i < primes.length; i++)
            System.out.format(" %4d%s", primes[i], (i % 10) < 9 ? "" : "\n");
    }
}

Large array testing can be performed this way:

import java.util.*;

public class BatchTest {
    private static final Random rand = new Random();
    public static int MIN_NUMBER = 1;
    private final int minNumber = MIN_NUMBER;
    private final int numberCount;
    private final int[] numbers;
    private int missingCount;
    public long finderTime;

    public BatchTest(int numberCount) {
        this.numberCount = numberCount;
        numbers = new int[numberCount];
        for (int i = 0; i < numberCount; i++)
            numbers[i] = minNumber + i;
    }

    private int passBound() {
        int mBound = missingCount > 0 ? missingCount : 1;
        int nBound = 34 - Integer.numberOfLeadingZeros(numberCount - 1); // ceil(log_2(numberCount)) + 2
        return Math.min(mBound, nBound);
    }

    private void error(String cause) {
        throw new RuntimeException("Error on '" + missingCount + " from " + numberCount + "' test, " + cause);
    }

    // returns the number of times the input array was traversed in this test
    public int makeTest(int missingCount) {
        this.missingCount = missingCount;
        // numbers array is reused when numberCount stays the same,
        // just Fisher–Yates shuffle it for each test
        for (int i = numberCount - 1; i > 0; i--) {
            int j = rand.nextInt(i + 1);
            if (i != j) {
                int t = numbers[i];
                numbers[i] = numbers[j];
                numbers[j] = t;
            }
        }
        final int bagSize = numberCount - missingCount;
        NumberBag inputBag = NumberBag.fromArray(numbers, 0, bagSize);
        finderTime -= System.nanoTime();
        int[] found = MissingNumbers.find(minNumber, minNumber + numberCount - 1, inputBag);
        finderTime += System.nanoTime();
        if (inputBag.getPassCount() > passBound())
            error("too many passes (" + inputBag.getPassCount() + " while only " + passBound() + " allowed)");
        if (found.length != missingCount)
            error("wrong result length");
        int j = bagSize; // "missing" part beginning in numbers
        Arrays.sort(numbers, bagSize, numberCount);
        for (int i = 0; i < missingCount; i++)
            if (found[i] != numbers[j++])
                error("wrong result array, " + i + "-th element differs");
        return inputBag.getPassCount();
    }

    public static void strideCheck(int numberCount, int minMissing, int maxMissing, int step, int repeats) {
        BatchTest t = new BatchTest(numberCount);
        System.out.println("╠═══════════════════════╬═════════════════╬═════════════════╣");
        for (int missingCount = minMissing; missingCount <= maxMissing; missingCount += step) {
            int minPass = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
            int passSum = 0;
            int maxPass = 0;
            t.finderTime = 0;
            for (int j = 1; j <= repeats; j++) {
                int pCount = t.makeTest(missingCount);
                if (pCount < minPass)
                    minPass = pCount;
                passSum += pCount;
                if (pCount > maxPass)
                    maxPass = pCount;
            }
            System.out.format("║ %9d  %9d  ║  %2d  %5.2f  %2d  ║  %11.3f    ║%n", missingCount, numberCount, minPass,
                    (double)passSum / repeats, maxPass, t.finderTime * 1e-6 / repeats);
        }
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        System.out.println("╔═══════════════════════╦═════════════════╦═════════════════╗");
        System.out.println("║      Number count     ║      Passes     ║  Average time   ║");
        System.out.println("║   missimg     total   ║  min  avg   max ║ per search (ms) ║");
        long time = System.nanoTime();
        strideCheck(100, 0, 100, 1, 20_000);
        strideCheck(100_000, 2, 99_998, 1_282, 15);
        MIN_NUMBER = -2_000_000_000;
        strideCheck(300_000_000, 1, 10, 1, 1);
        time = System.nanoTime() - time;
        System.out.println("╚═══════════════════════╩═════════════════╩═════════════════╝");
        System.out.format("%nSuccess. Total time: %.2f s.%n", time * 1e-9);
    }
}

Try them out on Ideone

Thanks for this very interesting question:

It's because you reminded me Newton's work which really can solve this problem

Please refer Newton's Identities

As number of variables to find = number of equations (must for consistency)

I believe for this we should raise power to bag numbers so as to create number of different equations.

I don't know but, I believe if there should a function say f for which we'll add f( x_i )

x₁ + x₂ + ... + x_k = z₁

x₁² + x₂² + ... + x_k² = z₂

............

............

............

x₁^k + x₂^k + ... + x_k^k = z_k

rest is a mathematical work not sure about time and space complexity but Newton's Identities will surely play important role.

• Can't we use set theory .difference_update() or Is there any chance of Linear Algebra in this question method?

I have read all thirty answers and found the simplest one i.e to use a bit array of 100 to be the best. But as the question said we can't use an array of size N, I would use O(1) space complexity and k iterations i.e O(NK) time complexity to solve this.

To make the explanation simpler, consider I have been given numbers from 1 to 15 and two of them are missing i.e 9 and 14 but I don't know. Let the bag look like this:

[8,1,2,12,4,7,5,10,11,13,15,3,6].

We know that each number is represented internally in the form of bits. For numbers till 16 we only need 4 bits. For numbers till 10^9, we will need 32 bits. But let's focus on 4 bits and then later we can generalize it.

Now, assume if we had all the numbers from 1 to 15, then internally, we would have numbers like this (if we had them ordered):

0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1101
1110
1111

But now we have two numbers missing. So our representation will look something like this (shown ordered for understanding but can be in any order):

(2MSD|2LSD)
00|01
00|10
00|11
-----
01|00
01|01
01|10
01|11
-----
10|00
missing=(10|01) 
10|10
10|11
-----
11|00
11|01
missing=(11|10)
11|11

Now let's make a bit array of size 2 that holds the count of numbers with corresponding 2 most significant digits. i.e

= [__,__,__,__] 
   00,01,10,11

Scan the bag from left and right and fill the above array such that each of bin of bit array contains the count of numbers. The result will be as under:

= [ 3, 4, 3, 3] 
   00,01,10,11

If all the numbers would have been present, it would have looked like this:

= [ 3, 4, 4, 4] 
   00,01,10,11

Thus we know that there are two numbers missing: one whose most 2 significant digits are 10 and one whose most 2 significant bits are 11. Now scan the list again and fill out a bit array of size 2 for the lower 2 significant digits. This time, only consider elements whose most 2 significant digits are 10. We will have the bit array as:

= [ 1, 0, 1, 1] 
   00,01,10,11

If all numbers of MSD=10 were present, we would have 1 in all the bins but now we see that one is missing. Thus we have the number whose MSD=10 and LSD=01 is missing which is 1001 i.e 9.

Similarly, if we scan again but consider only elements whose MSD=11,we get MSD=11 and LSD=10 missing which is 1110 i.e 14.

= [ 1, 0, 1, 1] 
   00,01,10,11

Thus, we can find the missing numbers in a constant amount of space. We can generalize this for 100, 1000 or 10^9 or any set of numbers.

References: Problem 1.6 in http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~adnan/afi-samples-new.pdf

Yet another way is using residual graph filtering.

Suppose we have numbers 1 to 4 and 3 is missing. The binary representation is the following,

1 = 001b, 2 = 010b, 3 = 011b, 4 = 100b

And I can create a flow-graph like the following.

                   1
             1 -------------> 1
             |                | 
      2      |     1          |
0 ---------> 1 ----------> 0  |
|                          |  |
|     1            1       |  |
0 ---------> 0 ----------> 0  |
             |                |
      1      |      1         |
1 ---------> 0 -------------> 1

Note that the flow graph contains x nodes, while x being the number of bits. And the maximum number of edges are (2*x)-2 .

So for 32 bit integer it will take O(32) space or O(1) space.

Now if I remove capacity for each number starting from 1,2,4 then I am left with a residual graph.

0 ----------> 1 ---------> 1

Finally I shall run a loop like the following,

 result = []
 for x in range(1,n):
     exists_path_in_residual_graph(x)
     result.append(x)

Now the result is in result contains numbers that are not missing as well(false positive). But the k <= (size of the result) <= n when there are k missing elements.

I shall go through the given list one last time to mark the result missing or not.

So the time complexity will be O(n) .

Finally, it is possible to reduce the number of false positive(and the space required) by taking nodes 00,01,11,10 instead of just 0 and 1.

Lets say an ArrayList object(myList) is filled with those numbers and in that, 2 numbers x and y are missing.So the possible solution can be:

int k = 1;
        while (k < 100) {
            if (!myList.contains(k)) {
                System.out.println("Missing No:" + k);
            }
            k++;
        }

You can also create an array of boolean of the size last_element_in_the_existing_array + 1.

In a for loop mark all the element true that are present in the existing array.

In another for loop print the index of the elements which contains false AKA The missing ones.

Time Complexity: O(last_element_in_the_existing_array)

Space Complexity: O(array.length)