Sum Root to Leaf Numbers is an [interesting problem from LeetCode](https://leetcode.com/problems/sum-root-to-leaf-numbers/). The problem is of medium difficulty and is about binary trees. This post is an explained solution to the problem.
Sum Root to Leaf Numbers is an [interesting problem from LeetCode](https://leetcode.com/problems/sum-root-to-leaf-numbers/). The problem is of medium difficulty and is about binary trees. This post is an explained solution to the problem.
I assume that you’re familiar with Python and the concept of binary trees. If you’re not, you can read [this article](https://www.tutorialspoint.com/python_data_structure/python_binary_tree.htm) to get started.
I assume that you’re familiar with Python and the concept of binary trees. If you’re not, you can read [this article](https://www.tutorialspoint.com/python_data_structure/python_binary_tree.htm) to get started.
@ -26,83 +26,86 @@ In the tree on the left, the output is `25`. `25` is the sum of `12` and `13`, w
## The Observations and Insights
## The Observations and Insights
1. To construct a number, we traverse the tree from the root to the leaf, appending digits where the most significant digit is at the root, and the least significant digit is at the leaf. We visit some leaves before other nodes that are closer to the root. This suggests that a depth-first search will be useful.
1. To construct a number, we traverse the tree from the root to the leaf, appending digits where the most significant digit is at the root, and the least significant digit is at the leaf. We visit some leaves before other nodes that are closer to the root. This suggests that a depth-first search will be useful.
2. The *construction* of numbers is incremental and similar of sorts: the only difference between `495` and `491` (from the tree on the right) is the last digit. If we remove the `5` and insert a `1` in its place, we have the next required number. A number essentially comprises of the leaf's digit appended to all the digits in ancestor nodes. Thus, numbers within the same subtree have common digits.
2. The _construction_ of numbers is incremental and similar of sorts: the only difference between `495` and `491` (from the tree on the right) is the last digit. If we remove the `5` and insert a `1` in its place, we have the next required number. A number essentially comprises of the leaf's digit appended to all the digits in ancestor nodes. Thus, numbers within the same subtree have common digits.
3. Finally, notice that this problem involves a tree, so a recursive solution is helpful.
3. Finally, notice that this problem involves a tree, so a recursive solution is helpful.
## The Solution
## The Solution
We can do a `pre-order` traversal of the tree where we incrementally construct a number and exploit the fact that numbers formed by nodes in the same sub-tree have common digits. When we’re done forming numbers in a sub-tree, we can backtrack and go to another sub-tree.
We can do a `pre-order` traversal of the tree where we incrementally construct a number and exploit the fact that numbers formed by nodes in the same sub-tree have common digits. When we’re done forming numbers in a sub-tree, we can backtrack and go to another sub-tree.
Let’s create a `Solution` class to encompass our solution.
Let’s create a `Solution` class to encompass our solution.
```
class Solution:
```py
def sum_numbers(self, root: TreeNode) -> int:
class Solution:
def sum_numbers(self, root: TreeNode) -> int:
```
```
The method signature given to us in the problem has one argument: root, which is of the type `TreeNode` . A `TreeNode` class is as follows (from LeetCode):
The method signature given to us in the problem has one argument: root, which is of the type `TreeNode` . A `TreeNode` class is as follows (from LeetCode):
```
```py
class TreeNode:
class TreeNode:
def __init__(self, val=0, left=None, right=None):
def __init__(self, val=0, left=None, right=None):
self.val = val
self.val = val
self.left = left
self.left = left
self.right = right
self.right = right
```
```
From observation #2, notice that appending a node's digit to its ancestors can be achieved by *moving* all the digits of the number formed by ancestors to the right by 1 place and adding the current node's digit. The digits can be *moved* by multiplying the number formed by ancestors by 10 (since we're in base-10). For example:
From observation #2, notice that appending a node's digit to its ancestors can be achieved by _moving_ all the digits of the number formed by ancestors to the right by 1 place and adding the current node's digit. The digits can be _moved_ by multiplying the number formed by ancestors by 10 (since we're in base-10). For example:
`495 = 49 x 10 + 5`
`495 = 49 x 10 + 5`
Thus, we can keep track of the *current* digits in an integer. This is important because we won't incur extra storage space for higher input sizes. We can pass around this value in the function parameter itself. Since the method signature given can only have one parameter, let's create a `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method.
Thus, we can keep track of the _current_ digits in an integer. This is important because we won't incur extra storage space for higher input sizes. We can pass around this value in the function parameter itself. Since the method signature given can only have one parameter, let's create a `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method.
We can think of the `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method recursively and process each node differently based on whether or not it is a leaf.
We can think of the `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method recursively and process each node differently based on whether or not it is a leaf.
* If the node is a leaf, we want to add its digit to our current digits by moving all the other digits to the right. We also want to return this value (since we'll backtrack from here).
- If the node is a leaf, we want to add its digit to our current digits by moving all the other digits to the right. We also want to return this value (since we'll backtrack from here).
* If it is not a leaf, we want to add the digit to our current digits by moving all the other digits to the right. We also want to continue constructing the number by traversing down this node's left and right subtrees.
- If it is not a leaf, we want to add the digit to our current digits by moving all the other digits to the right. We also want to continue constructing the number by traversing down this node's left and right subtrees.
If the current node is a `None`, we can simply return 0 because it doesn't count.
If the current node is a `None`, we can simply return 0 because it doesn't count.
Thus, our `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method will be as follows:
Thus, our `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method will be as follows:
We use a default value for the partial sum to be 0.
We use a default value for the partial sum to be 0.
In our main method, we want to include the `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method as a nested method and simply pass on the node parameter. Finally, this is how our solution looks:
In our main method, we want to include the `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` method as a nested method and simply pass on the node parameter. Finally, this is how our solution looks:
When we come up with a solution, it is important to analyze its algorithmic complexity not only to estimate its performance but also to identify areas for improvement and reflect on our problem-solving skills. We should always ask the question: *can we do better than X?* Where X is the current complexity of our solution.
When we come up with a solution, it is important to analyze its algorithmic complexity not only to estimate its performance but also to identify areas for improvement and reflect on our problem-solving skills. We should always ask the question: _can we do better than X?_ Where X is the current complexity of our solution.
Time:
Time:
@ -110,7 +113,7 @@ Our solution is a modification of the depth-first-search pre-order traversal whe
Space:
Space:
In terms of storage, we incur a high cost in the recursion call stack that builds up as our `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` calls itself. These calls *build-up* as one waits for another to finish.
In terms of storage, we incur a high cost in the recursion call stack that builds up as our `sum_root_to_leaf_helper` calls itself. These calls _build-up_ as one waits for another to finish.
The maximum call stack is dependent upon the height of the binary tree (since we start backtracking after we visit a leaf), giving a complexity of `O(H)` where `H` is the height of the binary tree. In the worst case, the binary tree is skewed in either direction and thus `H = N`. Therefore, the worst-case space complexity is `O(N)`.
The maximum call stack is dependent upon the height of the binary tree (since we start backtracking after we visit a leaf), giving a complexity of `O(H)` where `H` is the height of the binary tree. In the worst case, the binary tree is skewed in either direction and thus `H = N`. Therefore, the worst-case space complexity is `O(N)`.
@ -118,10 +121,10 @@ You can read [this article](https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-recursion-work
It is possible to do better than `O(N)` by using a Morris Preorder Traversal. The basic idea is to link a node and its predecessor temporarily. You can read more about it [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0020019079900681).
It is possible to do better than `O(N)` by using a Morris Preorder Traversal. The basic idea is to link a node and its predecessor temporarily. You can read more about it [here](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0020019079900681).
## The Conclusion
## The Conclusion
I hope this post helped! Please do let me know if you have any feedback, comments or suggestions by responding to this post.
I hope this post helped! Please do let me know if you have any feedback, comments or suggestions by responding to this post.
## Acknowledgements
## Acknowledgements
Advay, Kevin, Louie for reviewing this post and Yangshun for the idea of adding it as a blogpost.
Advay, Kevin, Louie for reviewing this post and Yangshun for the idea of adding it as a blogpost.
Yangshun Tay
5 years ago