Let the set S be {1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 10}
Now i want to find the number of ways to represent x as sum of K numbers of the set S. (a number can be included any number of times)
if x = 10 and k = 3
Then the ans should be 2 => (5,4,1) , (4,4,2)
The order of the numbers doesn't matter ie.(4,4,2) and (4,2,4) count as one.
I did some research and found that the set can be represented as a polynomial x^1+x^2+x^4+x^5+x^10 and after raising the polynomial to the power K the coefficients of the product polynomial gives the ans.
But the ans includes (4,4,2) and (4,2,4) as unique terms which i don't want
Is there any way to make (4,4,2) and (4,2,4) count as same term ?
This is a NP-complete, a variant of the sum-subset problem as described here.
So frankly, I don't think you can solve it via a non-exponential (iterate though all combinations) solution, without any restrictions on the problem input (such as maximum number range, etc.).
Without any restrictions on the problem domain, I suggest iterating through all your possible k-set instances (as described in the Pseudo-polynomial time dynamic programming solution) and see which are a solution.
Checking whether 2 solutions are identical is nothing compared to the complexity of the overall algo. So, a hash of the solution set-elements will work just fine:
E.g. hash-order-insensitive(4,4,2)==hash-order-insensitive(4,2,4) => check the whole set, otherwise the solutions are distinct.
PS: you can also describe step-by-step your current solution.
I've been self-studying the Expectation Maximization lately, and grabbed myself some simple examples in the process:
http://cs.dartmouth.edu/~cs104/CS104_11.04.22.pdf
There are 3 coins 0, 1 and 2 with P0, P1 and P2 probability landing on Head when tossed. Toss coin 0, if the result is Head, toss coin 1 three times else toss coin 2 three times. The observed data produced by coin 1 and 2 is like this: HHH, TTT, HHH, TTT, HHH. The hidden data is coin 0's result. Estimate P0, P1 and P2.
http://ai.stanford.edu/~chuongdo/papers/em_tutorial.pdf
There are two coins A and B with PA and PB being the probability landing on Head when tossed. Each round, select one coin at random and toss it 10 times then record the results. The observed data is the toss results provided by these two coins. However, we don't know which coin was selected for a particular round. Estimate PA and PB.
While I can get the calculations, I can't relate the ways they are solved to the original EM theory. Specifically, during the M-Step of both examples, I don't see how they're maximizing anything. It just seems they are recalculating the parameters and somehow, the new parameters are better than the old ones. Moreover, the two E-Steps don't even look similar to each other, not to mention the original theory's E-Step.
So how exactly do these example work?
The second PDF won't download for me, but I also visited the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation%E2%80%93maximization_algorithm which has more information. http://melodi.ee.washington.edu/people/bilmes/mypapers/em.pdf (which claims to be a gentle introduction) might be worth a look too.
The whole point of the EM algorithm is to find parameters which maximize the likelihood of the observed data. This is the only bullet point on page 8 of the first PDF, the equation for capital Theta subscript ML.
The EM algorithm comes in handy where there is hidden data which would make the problem easy if you knew it. In the three coins example this is the result of tossing coin 0. If you knew the outcome of that you could (of course) produce an estimate for the probability of coin 0 turning up heads. You would also know whether coin 1 or coin 2 was tossed three times in the next stage, which would allow you to make estimates for the probabilities of coin 1 and coin 2 turning up heads. These estimates would be justified by saying that they maximized the likelihood of the observed data, which would include not only the results that you are given, but also the hidden data that you are not - the results from coin 0. For a coin that gets A heads and B tails you find that the maximum likelihood for the probability of A heads is A/(A+B) - it might be worth you working this out in detail, because it is the building block for the M step.
In the EM algorithm you say that although you don't know the hidden data, you come in with probability estimates which allow you to write down a probability distribution for it. For each possible value of the hidden data you could find the parameter values which would optimize the log likelihood of the data including the hidden data, and this almost always turns out to mean calculating some sort of weighted average (if it doesn't the EM step may be too difficult to be practical).
What the EM algorithm asks you to do is to find the parameters maximizing the weighted sum of log likelihoods given by all the possible hidden data values, where the weights are given by the probability of the associated hidden data given the observations using the parameters at the start of the EM step. This is what almost everybody, including the Wikipedia algorithm, calls the Q-function. The proof behind the EM algorithm, given in the Wikipedia article, says that if you change the parameters so as to increase the Q-function (which is only a means to an end), you will also have changed them so as to increase the likelihood of the observed data (which you do care about). What you tend to find in practice is that you can maximize the Q-function using a variation of what you would do if you know the hidden data, but using the probabilities of the hidden data, given the estimates at the start of the EM-step, to weight the observations in some way.
In your example it means totting up the number of heads and tails produced by each coin. In the PDF they work out P(Y=H|X=) = 0.6967. This means that you use weight 0.6967 for the case Y=H, which means that you increment the counts for Y=H by 0.6967 and increment the counts for X=H in coin 1 by 3*0.6967, and you increment the counts for Y=T by 0.3033 and increment the counts for X=H in coin 2 by 3*0.3033. If you have a detailed justification for why A/(A+B) is a maximum likelihood of coin probabilities in the standard case, you should be ready to turn it into a justification for why this weighted updating scheme maximizes the Q-function.
Finally, the log likelihood of the observed data (the thing you are maximizing) gives you a very useful check. It should increase with every EM step, at least until you get so close to convergence that rounding error comes in, in which case you may have a very small decrease, signalling convergence. If it decreases dramatically, you have a bug in your program or your maths.
As luck would have it, I have been struggling with this material recently as well. Here is how I have come to think of it:
Consider a related, but distinct algorithm called the classify-maximize algorithm, which we might use as a solution technique for a mixture model problem. A mixture model problem is one where we have a sequence of data that may be produced by any of N different processes, of which we know the general form (e.g., Gaussian) but we do not know the parameters of the processes (e.g., the means and/or variances) and may not even know the relative likelihood of the processes. (Typically we do at least know the number of the processes. Without that, we are into so-called "non-parametric" territory.) In a sense, the process which generates each data is the "missing" or "hidden" data of the problem.
Now, what this related classify-maximize algorithm does is start with some arbitrary guesses at the process parameters. Each data point is evaluated according to each one of those parameter processes, and a set of probabilities is generated-- the probability that the data point was generated by the first process, the second process, etc, up to the final Nth process. Then each data point is classified according to the most likely process.
At this point, we have our data separated into N different classes. So, for each class of data, we can, with some relatively simple calculus, optimize the parameters of that cluster with a maximum likelihood technique. (If we tried to do this on the whole data set prior to classifying, it is usually analytically intractable.)
Then we update our parameter guesses, re-classify, update our parameters, re-classify, etc, until convergence.
What the expectation-maximization algorithm does is similar, but more general: Instead of a hard classification of data points into class 1, class 2, ... through class N, we are now using a soft classification, where each data point belongs to each process with some probability. (Obviously, the probabilities for each point need to sum to one, so there is some normalization going on.) I think we might also think of this as each process/guess having a certain amount of "explanatory power" for each of the data points.
So now, instead of optimizing the guesses with respect to points that absolutely belong to each class (ignoring the points that absolutely do not), we re-optimize the guesses in the context of those soft classifications, or those explanatory powers. And it so happens that, if you write the expressions in the correct way, what you're maximizing is a function that is an expectation in its form.
With that said, there are some caveats:
1) This sounds easy. It is not, at least to me. The literature is littered with a hodge-podge of special tricks and techniques-- using likelihood expressions instead of probability expressions, transforming to log-likelihoods, using indicator variables, putting them in basis vector form and putting them in the exponents, etc.
These are probably more helpful once you have the general idea, but they can also obfuscate the core ideas.
2) Whatever constraints you have on the problem can be tricky to incorporate into the framework. In particular, if you know the probabilities of each of the processes, you're probably in good shape. If not, you're also estimating those, and the sum of the probabilities of the processes must be one; they must live on a probability simplex. It is not always obvious how to keep those constraints intact.
3) This is a sufficiently general technique that I don't know how I would go about writing code that is general. The applications go far beyond simple clustering and extend to many situations where you are actually missing data, or where the assumption of missing data may help you. There is a fiendish ingenuity at work here, for many applications.
4) This technique is proven to converge, but the convergence is not necessarily to the global maximum; be wary.
I found the following link helpful in coming up with the interpretation above: Statistical learning slides
And the following write-up goes into great detail of some painful mathematical details: Michael Collins' write-up
I wrote the below code in Python which explains the example given in your second example paper by Do and Batzoglou.
I recommend that you read this link first for a clear explanation of how and why the 'weightA' and 'weightB' in the code below are obtained.
Disclaimer : The code does work but I am certain that it is not coded optimally. I am not a Python coder normally and have started using it two weeks ago.
import numpy as np
import math
#### E-M Coin Toss Example as given in the EM tutorial paper by Do and Batzoglou* ####
def get_mn_log_likelihood(obs,probs):
""" Return the (log)likelihood of obs, given the probs"""
# Multinomial Distribution Log PMF
# ln (pdf) = multinomial coeff * product of probabilities
# ln[f(x|n, p)] = [ln(n!) - (ln(x1!)+ln(x2!)+...+ln(xk!))] + [x1*ln(p1)+x2*ln(p2)+...+xk*ln(pk)]
multinomial_coeff_denom= 0
prod_probs = 0
for x in range(0,len(obs)): # loop through state counts in each observation
multinomial_coeff_denom = multinomial_coeff_denom + math.log(math.factorial(obs[x]))
prod_probs = prod_probs + obs[x]*math.log(probs[x])
multinomial_coeff = math.log(math.factorial(sum(obs))) - multinomial_coeff_denom
likelihood = multinomial_coeff + prod_probs
return likelihood
# 1st: Coin B, {HTTTHHTHTH}, 5H,5T
# 2nd: Coin A, {HHHHTHHHHH}, 9H,1T
# 3rd: Coin A, {HTHHHHHTHH}, 8H,2T
# 4th: Coin B, {HTHTTTHHTT}, 4H,6T
# 5th: Coin A, {THHHTHHHTH}, 7H,3T
# so, from MLE: pA(heads) = 0.80 and pB(heads)=0.45
# represent the experiments
head_counts = np.array([5,9,8,4,7])
tail_counts = 10-head_counts
experiments = zip(head_counts,tail_counts)
# initialise the pA(heads) and pB(heads)
pA_heads = np.zeros(100); pA_heads[0] = 0.60
pB_heads = np.zeros(100); pB_heads[0] = 0.50
# E-M begins!
delta = 0.001
j = 0 # iteration counter
improvement = float('inf')
while (improvement>delta):
expectation_A = np.zeros((5,2), dtype=float)
expectation_B = np.zeros((5,2), dtype=float)
for i in range(0,len(experiments)):
e = experiments[i] # i'th experiment
ll_A = get_mn_log_likelihood(e,np.array([pA_heads[j],1-pA_heads[j]])) # loglikelihood of e given coin A
ll_B = get_mn_log_likelihood(e,np.array([pB_heads[j],1-pB_heads[j]])) # loglikelihood of e given coin B
weightA = math.exp(ll_A) / ( math.exp(ll_A) + math.exp(ll_B) ) # corresponding weight of A proportional to likelihood of A
weightB = math.exp(ll_B) / ( math.exp(ll_A) + math.exp(ll_B) ) # corresponding weight of B proportional to likelihood of B
expectation_A[i] = np.dot(weightA, e)
expectation_B[i] = np.dot(weightB, e)
pA_heads[j+1] = sum(expectation_A)[0] / sum(sum(expectation_A));
pB_heads[j+1] = sum(expectation_B)[0] / sum(sum(expectation_B));
improvement = max( abs(np.array([pA_heads[j+1],pB_heads[j+1]]) - np.array([pA_heads[j],pB_heads[j]]) ))
j = j+1
The key to understanding this is knowing what the auxiliary variables are that make estimation trivial. I will explain the first example quickly, the second follows a similar pattern.
Augment each sequence of heads/tails with two binary variables, which indicate whether coin 1 was used or coin 2. Now our data looks like the following:
c_11 c_12
c_21 c_22
c_31 c_32
...
For each i, either c_i1=1 or c_i2=1, with the other being 0. If we knew the values these variables took in our sample, estimation of parameters would be trivial: p1 would be the proportion of heads in samples where c_i1=1, likewise for c_i2, and \lambda would be the mean of the c_i1s.
However, we don't know the values of these binary variables. So, what we basically do is guess them (in reality, take their expectation), and then update the parameters in our model assuming our guesses were correct. So the E step is to take the expectation of the c_i1s and c_i2s. The M step is to take maximum likelihood estimates of p_1, p_2 and \lambda given these cs.
Does that make a bit more sense? I can write out the updates for the E and M step if you prefer. EM then just guarantees that by following this procedure, likelihood will never decrease as iterations increase.
I am trying to implement a solution for a set coverage problem using a greedy algorithm.
The classic greedy approximation algorithm for it is
input: collection C of sets over universe U , costs: C→R ≥0
output: set cover S
1. Let S←∅.
2. Repeat until S covers all elements:
3. Add a set s to S, where s∈C maximizes the number of elements in s not yet covered by set s in S, divided by the cost c(s).
4. Return S.
I have a question in 2 parts:
a. Will doing the algorithm in reverse be a valid algorithm i.e.
input: collection C of sets over universe U , costs: C→R ≥0
output: set cover S
1. Let S←C .
2. Repeat until there are no s∈S such that S-s=S (i.e. all elements in s are redundant):
3. Remove a set s from S, where s∈S minimises the number of elements in s, divided by the cost c(s).
4. Return S.
b. The nature of the problem is such that it easy to get C and there will be a limited number (<5) of redundant sets - in this case will this removal algorithmm would perform better?
The algorithm will surely return a valid set cover as at every step it checks if all elements of s are redundant.
Intuitively I feel that part b is true though I am unable to write a formal proof for it. Read chapter 2 of Vijay Vazirani as it might help do the analysis part.
This is for a diff utility I'm writing in C++.
I have a list of n character-sets {"a", "abc", "abcde", "bcd", "de"} (taken from an alphabet of k=5 different letters). I need a way to observe that the entire list can be constructed by disjunctions of the character-sets {"a", "bc", "d", "e"}. That is, "b" and "c" are linearly dependent, and every other pair of letters is independent.
In the bit-twiddling version, the character-sets above are represented as {10000, 11100, 11111, 01110, 00011}, and I need a way to observe that they can all be constructed by ORing together bitstrings from the smaller set {10000, 01100, 00010, 00001}.
In other words, I believe I'm looking for a "discrete basis" of a set of n different bit-vectors in {0,1}k. This paper claims the general problem is NP-complete... but luckily I'm only looking for a solution to small cases (k < 32).
I can think of really stupid algorithms for generating the basis. For example: For each of the k2 pairs of letters, try to demonstrate (by an O(n) search) that they're dependent. But I really feel like there's an efficient bit-twiddling algorithm that I just haven't stumbled upon yet. Does anyone know it?
EDIT: I ended up not really needing a solution to this problem after all. But I'd still like to know if there is a simple bit-twiddling solution.
I'm thinking a disjoint set data structure, like union find turned on it's head (rather than combining nodes, we split them).
Algorithm:
Create an array main where you assign all the positions to the same group, then:
for each bitstring curr
for each position i
if (curr[i] == 1)
// max of main can be stored for constant time access
main[i] += max of main from previous iteration
Then all the distinct numbers in main are your different sets (possibly using the actual union-find algorithm).
Example:
So, main = 22222. (I won't use 1 as groups to reduce possible confusion, as curr uses bitstrings).
curr = 10000
main = 42222 // first bit (=2) += max (=2)
curr = 11100
main = 86622 // first 3 bits (=422) += max (=4)
curr = 11111
main = 16-14-14-10-10
curr = 01110
main = 16-30-30-26-10
curr = 00011
main = 16-30-30-56-40
Then split by distinct numbers:
{10000, 01100, 00010, 00001}
Improvement:
To reduce the speed at which main increases, we can replace
main[i] += max of main from previous iteration
with
main[i] += 1 + (max - min) of main from previous iteration
EDIT: Edit based on j_random_hacker's comment
You could combine the passes of the stupid algorithm at the cost of space.
Make a bit vector called violations that is (k - 1) k / 2 bits long (so, 496 for k = 32.) Take a single pass over character sets. For each, and for each pair of letters, look for violations (i.e. XOR the bits for those letters, OR the result into the corresponding position in violations.) When you're done, negate and read off what's left.
You could give Principal Component Analysis a try. There are some flavors of PCA designed for binary or more generally for categorical data.
Since someone showed it as NP complete, for large vocabs I doubt you will do better than a brute force search (with various pruning possible) of the entire set of possibilities O((2k-1) * n). At least in a worst case scenario, probably some heuristics will help in many cases as outlined in the paper you linked. This is your "stupid" approach generalized to all possible basis strings instead of just basis of length 2.
However, for small vocabs, I think an approach like this would do a lot better:
Are your words disjoint? If so, you are done (simple case of independent words like "abc" and "def")
Perform bitwise and on each possible pair of words. This gives you an initial set of candidate basis strings.
Goto step 1, but instead of using the original words, use the current basis candidate strings
Afterwards you also need to include any individual letter which is not a subset of one of the final accepted candidates. Maybe some other minor bookeeping for things like unused letters (using something like a bitwise or on all possible words).
Considering your simple example:
First pass gives you a, abc, bc, bcd, de, d
Second pass gives you a, bc, d
Bookkeeping gives you a, bc, d, e
I don't have a proof that this is right but I think intuitively it is at least in the right direction. The advantage lies in using the words instead of the brute force's approach of using possible candidates. With a large enough set of words, this approach would become terrible, but for vocabularies up to say a few hundred or maybe even a few thousand I bet it would be pretty quick. The nice thing is that it will still work even for a huge value of k.
If you like the answer and bounty it I'd be happy to try to solve in 20 lines of code :) and come up with a more convincing proof. Seems very doable to me.
I want to preface this by saying that this is a homework assignment.
I am given a set of Q binary input variables that will be used to classify output of Y which is also binary.
The first part of the question is: at most how many examples do I need to enumarate all possibile combinations of Q? I am currently think that since it asks for at most I will need Q as it is possible that all values up to Q-1 are the same for instance 1 and the item at Q is 0 .
The second part of the question is: at most how many leaf nodes can the tree have given Z examples?
My current answer is that at most the tree would have 2 leaf nodes, one representing true and one representing false since it is dealing with binary inputs and binary outputs.
Is this the correct way of examining this problem or am I generalizing my answers too deeply?
Edit
After looking at Cameron's response, I would now turn my first answer into 2^Q and to build on his example of Q = 3, I would get 2^3 or 8 (2*2*2). Please correct if that is incorrect thinking.
Edit #2
The second part of the question it appears as though it should be (2^Q) * Z or to provide an example: (2^3) * 3) or 8*3 = 24 leaf nodes. To recap if I have 3 inputs that are binary I would initially take 2^3 and get 8 now I want to go over 3 examples. Therefore I should get 8*3 or 24.
Edit #3
In hindsight it seems that no matter how many examples I use the number of leaf nodes should never increase, as it is a per tree basis.
I'd suggest you approach the problem by working out small example cases by hand.
For the first part, choose a small value for Q, say 3, and write down all possible combinations of Q. Then you can figure out how many examples you need. Increase Q and do it again.
For the second part of your question, pick a small Z and run the decision tree algorithm by hand. See how many leaves you get. Then pick another Z and see if/how it changes. Try generating different examples (with the same Z) and see if you can change the number of leaves.