I have been working on the following problem from this book.

A certain string-processing language offers a primitive operation which splits a string into two pieces. Since this operation involves copying the original string, it takes n units of time for a string of length n, regardless of the location of the cut. Suppose, now, that you want to break a string into many pieces. The order in which the breaks are made can affect the total running time. For example, if you want to cut a 20-character string at positions $3$ and $10$, then making the first cut at position $3$ incurs a total cost of $20 + 17 = 37$, while doing position 10 first has a better cost of $20 + 10 = 30$.

I need a dynamic programming algorithm that given $m$ cuts, finds the minimum cost of cutting a string into $m +1$ pieces.


3 Answers 3


The basic idea is: Try out all cut positions as first choice, solve the respective parts recursively, add the cost and choose the minimum.

In formula:

$\qquad \displaystyle \operatorname{mino}(s, C) = \begin{cases} |s| &, |C| = 1 \\ |s| + \min_{c \in C} \left[ \begin{align}&\operatorname{mino}(s_{1,c}, \{c' \in C \mid c' < c\})\ \\ +\ &\operatorname{mino}(s_{c+1,|s|}, \{c' - c \in C \mid c' > c\}) \end{align}\right] &, \text{ else} \end{cases}$

Note that applying memoisation to this recursion actually saves work as switching the order of any successively applied pair of cuts results in the same three subproblems being solved.


It is always a good idea to find a recursive algorithm first and then turn it into a table.

  1. $f(C,n)$
  2. $~~$if(C = $\emptyset$) return 0;
  3. $~~$else
  4. $~~~~$opt = infinity;
  5. $~~~~$for each $c\in C$ do
  6. $~~~~~~D=\{d\in C:d<c\}$
  7. $~~~~~~E=\{e-c:e\in D,e>c\}$
  8. $~~~~~~opt = min\{opt,f(D,c)+f(E,n-c)\}$
  9. $~~~~$return $opt+n$;

So you may ask: isn't there too many subsets of C to be put in a table? Observe that only 'consecutive' subsets are needed. And there are only $n \choose 2$ of them.(why?) Another problem is: some entries will change value in $E$. We can walk around this by indicating start and end in each $f$ rather than just specifying the length.


This is very similar to Quicksort on a multiset; it's optimal when the cut point is closest to the middle, and then we recurse.

If I gave you a shuffled version of the multiset M = {1,1,1..1,2,2...2,....,m,m..m} where the runs end at each cut point, you would optimally quicksort it by picking a cut $s_k$ nearest the middle as the pivot. The operation of splitting the elements into left and right partitions takes n operations the same way that string splitting does, so you can use the same arguments as Quicksort to show that the median is optimal.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.