Delete Nodes And Return Forest
The “Delete Nodes And Return Forest” problem asks you to delete a given set of nodes from a binary tree and return the remaining connected components as a list of new tree roots. After deletions, the original tree may break into multiple smaller trees, forming a forest. Any child of a deleted node that is not itself deleted becomes the root of a new tree in the forest.
This problem is interesting because it combines tree traversal with structural modification. You are not just reading the tree; you are actively changing its shape, cutting links, and deciding which nodes become new roots.
Why deletion in a tree is not just “remove the node”
In array-like structures, deletion usually means shifting elements. In trees, deletion means breaking parent-child relationships. When you delete a node, you must decide what happens to its children. In this problem, children do not get reattached elsewhere. They either get deleted too, or they become roots of new trees.
That creates a careful bookkeeping requirement. You must sever pointers correctly so deleted nodes disappear from the final structure, and you must also collect the correct set of new roots to return.
Check out Shortest Path in a Grid with Obstacles Elimination and Bitwise AND of Numbers Range coding problem solutions.
Recognizing the importance of parent context
A node’s fate depends not only on whether it is deleted but also on whether its parent is deleted. If a node is not deleted and its parent is deleted, then it becomes a new root in the resulting forest. If a node is not deleted and its parent is not deleted, then it stays within the same tree.
This dependence on parent context is what makes the problem feel more complex than a simple “remove these values” operation. Your traversal must be able to answer two questions at once: should this node remain, and if it remains, should it be considered a root in the output?
Postorder traversal fits the deletion mechanics
A natural way to solve this problem is to traverse the tree in a way that processes children before the parent, which is exactly what postorder traversal provides. Postorder is well-suited here because when deciding what to do with a parent node, you want its left and right subtrees already processed and possibly rewritten.
This ordering also makes pointer updates straightforward. If a child is deleted, you can simply set that child pointer to null in the parent. If a parent is deleted, you can safely “disconnect” it while already having determined the final state of its children.
Using a deletion set for fast decisions
Because you must repeatedly check whether a node should be deleted, it helps to store the values to delete in a structure that supports fast membership checks. Conceptually, this allows you to decide in constant time whether any node should be removed.
This is important for both correctness and efficiency. The traversal visits every node, and repeated slow lookups would degrade performance on large trees.
How the forest is formed during traversal
As you traverse, you make a deletion decision for each node. If the node is deleted, you do not return it upward as part of the rebuilt tree. Instead, you potentially add its non-deleted children to the output list as new roots, because they become disconnected components.
If the node is not deleted, you return it upward, but with its children pointers possibly updated to reflect deletions in its subtrees. This return value idea is subtle but powerful: it allows the traversal to rebuild the tree on the fly while simultaneously collecting forest roots.
Handling the original root correctly
The original tree root is a special case because it has no parent. If the root is not deleted, it must be included in the final forest as one of the roots. If the root is deleted, then the forest roots come entirely from its surviving children.
A clean way to handle this is to treat the root as having an imaginary deleted parent. That framing makes the “if parent is deleted and node survives, it becomes a root” rule apply uniformly.
Why this approach guarantees correctness
Correctness comes from a consistent invariant: after processing a node, its returned pointer represents the correct subtree after deletions, and any newly formed roots beneath it have already been recorded. Because children are processed first, you never lose track of subtrees when cutting nodes out.
Every deleted node is removed because it is not returned to its parent. Every surviving node that becomes disconnected due to parent deletion is captured as a new root. Together, these guarantees ensure the final forest is exactly the set of remaining connected components.
Time and space complexity considerations
The traversal visits each node once, so the runtime scales linearly with the number of nodes. Space usage comes from recursion depth, which depends on tree height, plus the storage of the deletion set and the output list of roots.
This is efficient for typical constraints and is about as good as it gets, since you must inspect nodes to decide whether they should be deleted.
Why this problem is common in interviews
Delete Nodes and Return Forest shows up in interviews because it tests structural reasoning with trees. It requires more than basic traversal. You must modify pointers safely, manage parent-child relationships, and produce a set of roots as output.
It also tests whether you can choose the right traversal order. Candidates who try to delete top-down often struggle with losing subtrees or mishandling root formation, while candidates who reason bottom-up usually arrive at a clean solution.
What this problem teaches beyond tree deletion
Beyond this specific task, the problem teaches a general pattern for “edit a tree and produce multiple components.” Whenever you remove nodes and need to return the remaining pieces, you typically want a postorder-style traversal that rewrites subtrees and collects new roots when disconnections happen.
If you can clearly explain why parent context matters, why postorder makes pointer updates safe, and how new roots are identified when parents are deleted, you demonstrate strong mastery of tree transformations. That depth of understanding makes “Delete Nodes And Return Forest” an excellent exercise in structured tree editing and component extraction.
If you want more coding problems explained, check out:
Top comments (0)