Problem Description

In this problem, you're given a binary tree that represents houses in a neighborhood. The root of the tree is the main entrance. Each house in this neighborhood is connected to one parent house and to two child houses, except for the leaf houses which do not have any child houses. This setup forms a binary tree structure. The goal is to calculate the maximum amount of money a thief can steal without alerting the police. The catch is that the thief cannot rob two directly-linked houses on the same night because this would trigger an alarm and alert the police.

Flowchart Walkthrough

Let's analyze the problem "Leetcode 337. House Robber III" using the algorithm flowchart from the Flowchart. Here’s a step-by-step walkthrough of the decision process:

Is it a graph?

• Yes: The binary tree structure in this problem can be treated as a graph where each node is a vertex, and the edges exist between parent and child nodes.

Is it a tree?

• Yes: By definition, the binary tree is a tree.

DFS

• Concluding from the above two steps, the house robbery problem in a tree structure fits into using a depth-first search approach. This algorithm utilizes DFS to visit each node (house in this context) and decide whether to rob it or not based on optimal substructure properties (robbery amount from children nodes).

Conclusion: The flowchart suggests using DFS for this tree-structured problem involving the decision of robbing a house or not at each step, in a way that doesn't trigger alerts (i.e., rob no two directly connected houses). The depth-first search provides a mechanism to optimally decide at each node by considering its descendants, which fits perfectly for this problem's requirements.

Intuition

The intuition behind the solution is to use a depth-first search (DFS) technique and dynamic programming to explore all possible combinations and make the optimal choice at each house (or node). We perform DFS to reach the bottom of the tree and then make our way up, deciding at each step whether it's more profitable to rob the current house or not.

There are a few points we should consider to understand the solution:

• Robbing a house means we cannot rob its children, but we can rob its grandchildren.
• We should not rob two adjacent houses (in the way of the tree connections).

The solution uses a helper function, dfs(root), which returns two values for each house: the maximum amount of money obtained by robbing the house (root.val) and not robbing the house. Therefore, for each node, we have two scenarios:

1. We rob the current house and therefore add its value to the total amount and can only add the values of not robbing its children to the total (root.val + lb + rb).
2. We do not rob the current house and hence we take the maximum amounts that we can obtain whether we robbed or did not rob each of its children (max(la, lb) + max(ra, rb)).

At each step, we make the decision that gives more money. We accumulate these decisions to calculate our final answer. The efficiency of this approach lies in the fact that we're only visiting each node once and computing the optimal outcome at each node using the results from its children.

Learn more about Tree, Depth-First Search, Dynamic Programming and Binary Tree patterns.

Solution Approach

The solution makes use of a bottom-up approach to dynamic programming. Here's a step-by-step breakdown of the algorithm used in the rob function:

1. Define the recursive function dfs inside the rob function. The dfs function takes a node (root) from the binary tree as its parameter.

2. The dfs function returns a tuple (int, int) that contains two values:

   • The first value is the maximum amount of money that can be robbed if the current house is robbed this night.
   • The second value is the maximum amount if the current house is not robbed this night.

3. When dfs is called on a None node (an empty subtree), it returns (0, 0) since there's nothing to rob.

4. When dfs is called on a non-empty node, it first calls itself recursively for both the left child (root.left) and right child (root.right). These recursive calls return the best possible outcomes for robbing/not-robbing from the left and right subtrees. Let's denote these returns as (la, lb) for the left subtree and (ra, rb) for the right subtree.

5. With these results from the left and right children, it calculates what would happen if we rob the current house. If we rob the current house (root.val), we can't rob its direct children due to the problem's constraints but we can add what we could rob from the grandchildren (or next level down). So we create a value root.val + lb + rb.

6. If we don't rob the current house, we can take the best outcomes from robbing or not robbing its children. We determine this using max(la, lb) + max(ra, rb).

7. The final return statement of the dfs function returns the tuple with these two values, which gets passed up the tree.

8. Finally, the rob function initiates this process by calling dfs(root) - starting the recursive calculation from the root of the binary tree. It then returns the maximum of the two values returned by the dfs call, which represents the maximum amount of money that can be robbed without alerting the police.

At the end of this recursive process, the solution has efficiently computed the optimal choice (to rob or not to rob each house) at every step without needing to check all possible combinations explicitly.

This algorithm is efficient because each node is visited only once due to the recursive nature of DFS, and the decision at each node is made using already-computed information from its children. The use of dynamic programming enables us to store and use the results of subproblems, preventing redundant calculations.

Example Walkthrough

Let's illustrate the solution approach with a small example binary tree of houses where the values represent the money in each house:

          3
         / \
        2   5
         \   \
          3   1

The rob function starts by calling the dfs function on the root of the tree. Let's walk through the process:

1. The 'dfs' function is called on the root node (house with value 3). This node is not a leaf and it has two children.

2. The 'dfs' function is then recursively called on the left child (house with value 2) and the right child (house with value 5).

3. Starting with the left child (value 2), it's not a leaf and has one right child (value 3). The 'dfs' function calls on this right child, which is a leaf. The call returns (0, 0) since there are no further children.

4. For the left child (value 2), we now decide:

   • If we rob this house, we can only add what we could rob from its grandchild (0) since it's a leaf. Hence, 2 + 0 = 2 for robbing the house.
   • If we don't rob the house, we take the best of robbing or not robbing the grandchild (which are both 0). Therefore, not robbing yields max(0, 0) = 0.

   So, the 'dfs' call for the left child (value 2) returns (2, 0).

5. Moving on to the right child (value 5), it's also not a leaf and has one right child (value 1). The 'dfs' function is called on this right child, which is a leaf, and it returns (0, 0).

6. For the right child (value 5), the decision is:

   • If we rob the house, we add its value to what we could rob from its grandchild (0), hence 5 + 0 = 5.
   • If we don't rob the house, we consider the grandchild and get max(0, 0) = 0.

   Thus, the 'dfs' call for the right child (value 5) returns (5, 0).

7. Now, we're back at the root house (value 3). We have the figures for robbing/not robbing its children, so we make our calculations:

   • If we rob the root house, we can't rob its children, but we can include what we could get from its grandchildren. Thus, we have 3 + 0 (from not robbing left child) + 0 (from not robbing right child) = 3.
   • If we don't rob the root, we look at the best results from its children and combine those: max(2, 0) + max(5, 0) = 2 + 5 = 7. Normally we would have different numbers to consider here if the children were robbed or not, but in our case, the values are the same since the grandchildren nodes are leaves (hence giving 0).

   Therefore, the 'dfs' call for the root returns (3, 7).

8. Finally, the 'rob' function takes the maximum of the two values from the root's 'dfs' return value, which is max(3, 7) = 7. This means the maximum amount of money the thief can steal without alerting the police is 7.

This small example showcases the essence of the algorithm. The recursive nature of the 'dfs' function allows for an efficient and elegant bottom-up approach, only visiting each node once but always making the optimal decision based on the precomputed outcomes of its children.

Solution Implementation

Time and Space Complexity

Time Complexity

The time complexity of the given code is O(N), where N is the number of nodes in the binary tree. This is because the dfs function is called exactly once for each node in the tree. During each call to dfs, it performs a constant amount of work (one addition, and a few comparisons) beside the recursive calls to the left and right children. Thus, the total work done is directly proportional to the number of nodes.

Space Complexity

The space complexity is O(H), where H is the height of the binary tree. This accounts for the call stack used during the depth-first search. In the worst-case scenario (a skewed tree), the height of the tree can become N, resulting in a space complexity of O(N). For a balanced tree, the height H is log(N), so the space complexity would be O(log(N)). However, since H is always less than or equal to N and is not constant, O(H) is the more accurate representation of the space complexity.

Learn more about how to find time and space complexity quickly using problem constraints.