Step by step tackling of the problem

• Step I -- Think naively

At first glance, the problem exhibits the feature of "optimal substructure": if we want to rob maximum amount of money from current binary tree (rooted at `root`), we surely hope that we can do the same to its left and right subtrees.

So going along this line, let's define the function `rob(root)` which will return the maximum amount of money that we can rob for the binary tree rooted at `root`; the key now is to construct the solution to the original problem from solutions to its subproblems, i.e., how to get `rob(root)` from `rob(root.left), rob(root.right), ...` etc.

Apparently the analyses above suggest a recursive solution. And for recursion, it's always worthwhile figuring out the following two properties:

1. Termination condition: when do we know the answer to `rob(root)` without any calculation? Of course when the tree is empty -- we've got nothing to rob so the amount of money is zero.

2. Recurrence relation: i.e., how to get `rob(root)` from `rob(root.left), rob(root.right), ...` etc. From the point of view of the tree root, there are only two scenarios at the end: `root` is robbed or is not. If it is, due to the constraint that "we cannot rob any two directly-linked houses", the next level of subtrees that are available would be the four "grandchild-subtrees" (`root.left.left, root.left.right, root.right.left, root.right.right`). However if `root` is not robbed, the next level of available subtrees would just be the two "child-subtrees" (`root.left, root.right`). We only need to choose the scenario which yields the larger amount of money.

Here is the program for the ideas above:

``````public int rob(TreeNode root) {
if (root == null) return 0;

int val = 0;

if (root.left != null) {
val += rob(root.left.left) + rob(root.left.right);
}

if (root.right != null) {
val += rob(root.right.left) + rob(root.right.right);
}

return Math.max(val + root.val, rob(root.left) + rob(root.right));
}
``````

However the solution runs very slowly (`1186 ms`) and barely got accepted (the time complexity turns out to be exponential, see my comments below).

Step II -- Think one step further

In step `I`, we only considered the aspect of "optimal substructure", but think little about the possibilities of overlapping of the subproblems. For example, to obtain `rob(root)`, we need `rob(root.left), rob(root.right), rob(root.left.left), rob(root.left.right), rob(root.right.left), rob(root.right.right)`; but to get `rob(root.left)`, we also need `rob(root.left.left), rob(root.left.right)`, similarly for `rob(root.right)`. The naive solution above computed these subproblems repeatedly, which resulted in bad time performance. Now if you recall the two conditions for dynamic programming: "optimal substructure" + "overlapping of subproblems", we actually have a DP problem. A naive way to implement DP here is to use a hash map to record the results for visited subtrees.

And here is the improved solution:

``````public int rob(TreeNode root) {
return robSub(root, new HashMap<>());
}

private int robSub(TreeNode root, Map<TreeNode, Integer> map) {
if (root == null) return 0;
if (map.containsKey(root)) return map.get(root);

int val = 0;

if (root.left != null) {
val += robSub(root.left.left, map) + robSub(root.left.right, map);
}

if (root.right != null) {
val += robSub(root.right.left, map) + robSub(root.right.right, map);
}

val = Math.max(val + root.val, robSub(root.left, map) + robSub(root.right, map));
map.put(root, val);

return val;
}
``````

The runtime is sharply reduced to `9 ms`, at the expense of `O(n)` space cost (`n` is the total number of nodes; stack cost for recursion is not counted).

Step III -- Think one step back

In step `I`, we defined our problem as `rob(root)`, which will yield the maximum amount of money that can be robbed of the binary tree rooted at `root`. This leads to the DP problem summarized in step `II`.

Now let's take one step back and ask why we have overlapping subproblems. If you trace all the way back to the beginning, you'll find the answer lies in the way how we have defined `rob(root)`. As I mentioned, for each tree root, there are two scenarios: it is robbed or is not. `rob(root)` does not distinguish between these two cases, so "information is lost as the recursion goes deeper and deeper", which results in repeated subproblems.

If we were able to maintain the information about the two scenarios for each tree root, let's see how it plays out. Redefine `rob(root)` as a new function which will return an array of two elements, the first element of which denotes the maximum amount of money that can be robbed if `root` is not robbed, while the second element signifies the maximum amount of money robbed if it is robbed.

Let's relate `rob(root)` to `rob(root.left)` and `rob(root.right)...`, etc. For the 1st element of `rob(root)`, we only need to sum up the larger elements of `rob(root.left)` and `rob(root.right)`, respectively, since `root` is not robbed and we are free to rob its left and right subtrees. For the 2nd element of `rob(root)`, however, we only need to add up the 1st elements of `rob(root.left)` and `rob(root.right)`, respectively, plus the value robbed from `root` itself, since in this case it's guaranteed that we cannot rob the nodes of `root.left` and `root.right`.

As you can see, by keeping track of the information of both scenarios, we decoupled the subproblems and the solution essentially boiled down to a greedy one. Here is the program:

``````public int rob(TreeNode root) {
int[] res = robSub(root);
return Math.max(res[0], res[1]);
}

private int[] robSub(TreeNode root) {
if (root == null) return new int[2];

int[] left = robSub(root.left);
int[] right = robSub(root.right);
int[] res = new int[2];

res[0] = Math.max(left[0], left[1]) + Math.max(right[0], right[1]);
res[1] = root.val + left[0] + right[0];

return res;
}``````

• beautiful solution!
here is c++ version:

``````rob(TreeNode* root) {
vector<int> res = robSub(root);
return max(res[0], res[1]);
}

vector<int> robSub(TreeNode* root) {
if (root == NULL) {
return vector<int>(2,0);
}

vector<int> left = robSub(root->left);
vector<int> right = robSub(root->right);

vector<int> res(2,0);
res[0] = max(left[0], left[1]) + max(right[0], right[1]);
res[1] = root->val + left[0] + right[0];

return res;
}``````

• very nicely explained!

• This is the kind of explanation that I wish someone would put on every problem.

• thank you! this is very helpful!

• very nice explained, you are awesome

• thanks, bro!

• Very helpful ! Thank you !

• extremely helpful explanation to the problem.

• Excellent explanantion!

• neat solution.

• Great Explanation !!!! From easy to hard !

• here's another way of solution, I have a little different definition of DP, so:

maxMoney[0] = max Money avoiding root itself

maxMoney[1] = max Money allowing root to be stolen

the transfer equation can be read as below:

``````public class Solution {
public int rob(TreeNode root) {
return maxMoney(root)[1];
}

// return int[2]: maxMoney[0] = max Money avoiding root itself, maxMoney[1] = max Money allowing root to be stolen
private int[] maxMoney(TreeNode root) {
if (root == null) return new int[2];
int[] ans = new int[2],
l = maxMoney(root.left),
r = maxMoney(root.right);
ans[0] = l[1] + r[1];
ans[1] = Math.max(root.val + l[0] + r[0], ans[0]);
return ans;
}
}``````

• Clear and Awesome

• that is very brilliant

• Wow, you are so good at explaining things! You should consider writing CS textbooks.

• Please correct me if I were wrong, the time complexity is Step 1) O(n^2) Step 2) O(n) Step 3) O(n)

• Hi geminijun. You were right about the time complexity.

• no, step1 is exponential time. 2**n

• I don't quite understand this line.
res[0] = Math.max(left[0], left[1]) + Math.max(right[0], right[1]);

Could you please clarify a little bit?
I thought it should be
res[0] = max(left[0], left[1]) + max(right[0], right[1])
isn't it?

Looks like your connection to LeetCode Discuss was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.