Related
I'm trying to find a name for my problem, so I don't have to re-invent wheel when coding an algorithm which solves it...
I have say 2,000 binary (row) vectors and I need to pick 500 from them. In the picked sample I do column sums and I want my sample to be as close as possible to a pre-defined distribution of the column sums. I'll be working with 20 to 60 columns.
A tiny example:
Out of the vectors:
110
010
011
110
100
I need to pick 2 to get column sums 2, 1, 0. The solution (exact in this case) would be
110
100
My ideas so far
one could maybe call this a binary multidimensional knapsack, but I did not find any algos for that
Linear Programming could help, but I'd need some step by step explanation as I got no experience with it
as exact solution is not always feasible, something like simulated annealing brute force could work well
a hacky way using constraint solvers comes to mind - first set the constraints tight and gradually loosen them until some solution is found - given that CSP should be much faster than ILP...?
My concrete, practical (if the approximation guarantee works out for you) suggestion would be to apply the maximum entropy method (in Chapter 7 of Boyd and Vandenberghe's book Convex Optimization; you can probably find several implementations with your favorite search engine) to find the maximum entropy probability distribution on row indexes such that (1) no row index is more likely than 1/500 (2) the expected value of the row vector chosen is 1/500th of the predefined distribution. Given this distribution, choose each row independently with probability 500 times its distribution likelihood, which will give you 500 rows on average. If you need exactly 500, repeat until you get exactly 500 (shouldn't take too many tries due to concentration bounds).
Firstly I will make some assumptions regarding this problem:
Regardless whether the column sum of the selected solution is over or under the target, it weighs the same.
The sum of the first, second, and third column are equally weighted in the solution (i.e. If there's a solution whereas the first column sum is off by 1, and another where the third column sum is off by 1, the solution are equally good).
The closest problem I can think of this problem is the Subset sum problem, which itself can be thought of a special case of Knapsack problem.
However both of these problem are NP-Complete. This means there are no polynomial time algorithm that can solve them, even though it is easy to verify the solution.
If I were you the two most arguably efficient solution of this problem are linear programming and machine learning.
Depending on how many columns you are optimising in this problem, with linear programming you can control how much finely tuned you want the solution, in exchange of time. You should read up on this, because this is fairly simple and efficient.
With Machine learning, you need a lot of data sets (the set of vectors and the set of solutions). You don't even need to specify what you want, a lot of machine learning algorithms can generally deduce what you want them to optimise based on your data set.
Both solution has pros and cons, you should decide which one to use yourself based on the circumstances and problem set.
This definitely can be modeled as (integer!) linear program (many problems can). Once you have it, you can use a program such as lpsolve to solve it.
We model vector i is selected as x_i which can be 0 or 1.
Then for each column c, we have a constraint:
sum of all (x_i * value of i in column c) = target for column c
Taking your example, in lp_solve this could look like:
min: ;
+x1 +x4 +x5 >= 2;
+x1 +x4 +x5 <= 2;
+x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 <= 1;
+x1 +x2 +x3 +x4 >= 1;
+x3 <= 0;
+x3 >= 0;
bin x1, x2, x3, x4, x5;
If you are fine with a heuristic based search approach, here is one.
Go over the list and find the minimum squared sum of the digit wise difference between each bit string and the goal. For example, if we are looking for 2, 1, 0, and we are scoring 0, 1, 0, we would do it in the following way:
Take the digit wise difference:
2, 0, 1
Square the digit wise difference:
4, 0, 1
Sum:
5
As a side note, squaring the difference when scoring is a common method when doing heuristic search. In your case, it makes sense because bit strings that have a 1 in as the first digit are a lot more interesting to us. In your case this simple algorithm would pick first 110, then 100, which would is the best solution.
In any case, there are some optimizations that could be made to this, I will post them here if this kind of approach is what you are looking for, but this is the core of the algorithm.
You have a given target binary vector. You want to select M vectors out of N that have the closest sum to the target. Let's say you use the eucilidean distance to measure if a selection is better than another.
If you want an exact sum, have a look at the k-sum problem which is a generalization of the 3SUM problem. The problem is harder than the subset sum problem, because you want an exact number of elements to add to a target value. There is a solution in O(N^(M/2)). lg N), but that means more than 2000^250 * 7.6 > 10^826 operations in your case (in the favorable case where vectors operations have a cost of 1).
First conclusion: do not try to get an exact result unless your vectors have some characteristics that may reduce the complexity.
Here's a hill climbing approach:
sort the vectors by number of 1's: 111... first, 000... last;
use the polynomial time approximate algorithm for the subset sum;
you have an approximate solution with K elements. Because of the order of elements (the big ones come first), K should be a little as possible:
if K >= M, you take the M first vectors of the solution and that's probably near the best you can do.
if K < M, you can remove the first vector and try to replace it with 2 or more vectors from the rest of the N vectors, using the same technique, until you have M vectors. To sumarize: split the big vectors into smaller ones until you reach the correct number of vectors.
Here's a proof of concept with numbers, in Python:
import random
def distance(x, y):
return abs(x-y)
def show(ls):
if len(ls) < 10:
return str(ls)
else:
return ", ".join(map(str, ls[:5]+("...",)+ls[-5:]))
def find(is_xs, target):
# see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem#Pseudo-polynomial_time_dynamic_programming_solution
S = [(0, ())] # we store indices along with values to get the path
for i, x in is_xs:
T = [(x + t, js + (i,)) for t, js in S]
U = sorted(S + T)
y, ks = U[0]
S = [(y, ks)]
for z, ls in U:
if z == target: # use the euclidean distance here if you want an approximation
return ls
if z != y and z < target:
y, ks = z, ls
S.append((z, ls))
ls = S[-1][1] # take the closest element to target
return ls
N = 2000
M = 500
target = 1000
xs = [random.randint(0, 10) for _ in range(N)]
print ("Take {} numbers out of {} to make a sum of {}", M, xs, target)
xs = sorted(xs, reverse = True)
is_xs = list(enumerate(xs))
print ("Sorted numbers: {}".format(show(tuple(is_xs))))
ls = find(is_xs, target)
print("FIRST TRY: {} elements ({}) -> {}".format(len(ls), show(ls), sum(x for i, x in is_xs if i in ls)))
splits = 0
while len(ls) < M:
first_x = xs[ls[0]]
js_ys = [(i, x) for i, x in is_xs if i not in ls and x != first_x]
replace = find(js_ys, first_x)
splits += 1
if len(replace) < 2 or len(replace) + len(ls) - 1 > M or sum(xs[i] for i in replace) != first_x:
print("Give up: can't replace {}.\nAdd the lowest elements.")
ls += tuple([i for i, x in is_xs if i not in ls][len(ls)-M:])
break
print ("Replace {} (={}) by {} (={})".format(ls[:1], first_x, replace, sum(xs[i] for i in replace)))
ls = tuple(sorted(ls[1:] + replace)) # use a heap?
print("{} elements ({}) -> {}".format(len(ls), show(ls), sum(x for i, x in is_xs if i in ls)))
print("AFTER {} splits, {} -> {}".format(splits, ls, sum(x for i, x in is_xs if i in ls)))
The result is obviously not guaranteed to be optimal.
Remarks:
Complexity: find has a polynomial time complexity (see the Wikipedia page) and is called at most M^2 times, hence the complexity remains polynomial. In practice, the process is reasonably fast (split calls have a small target).
Vectors: to ensure that you reach the target with the minimum of elements, you can improve the order of element. Your target is (t_1, ..., t_c): if you sort the t_js from max to min, you get the more importants columns first. You can sort the vectors: by number of 1s and then by the presence of a 1 in the most important columns. E.g. target = 4 8 6 => 1 1 1 > 0 1 1 > 1 1 0 > 1 0 1 > 0 1 0 > 0 0 1 > 1 0 0 > 0 0 0.
find (Vectors) if the current sum exceed the target in all the columns, then you're not connecting to the target (any vector you add to the current sum will bring you farther from the target): don't add the sum to S (z >= target case for numbers).
I propose a simple ad hoc algorithm, which, broadly speaking, is a kind of gradient descent algorithm. It seems to work relatively well for input vectors which have a distribution of 1s “similar” to the target sum vector, and probably also for all “nice” input vectors, as defined in a comment of yours. The solution is not exact, but the approximation seems good.
The distance between the sum vector of the output vectors and the target vector is taken to be Euclidean. To minimize it means minimizing the sum of the square differences off sum vector and target vector (the square root is not needed because it is monotonic). The algorithm does not guarantee to yield the sample that minimizes the distance from the target, but anyway makes a serious attempt at doing so, by always moving in some locally optimal direction.
The algorithm can be split into 3 parts.
First of all the first M candidate output vectors out of the N input vectors (e.g., N=2000, M=500) are put in a list, and the remaining vectors are put in another.
Then "approximately optimal" swaps between vectors in the two lists are done, until either the distance would not decrease any more, or a predefined maximum number of iterations is reached. An approximately optimal swap is one where removing the first vector from the list of output vectors causes a maximal decrease or minimal increase of the distance, and then, after the removal of the first vector, adding the second vector to the same list causes a maximal decrease of the distance. The whole swap is avoided if the net result is not a decrease of the distance.
Then, as a last phase, "optimal" swaps are done, again stopping on no decrease in distance or maximum number of iterations reached. Optimal swaps cause a maximal decrease of the distance, without requiring the removal of the first vector to be optimal in itself. To find an optimal swap all vector pairs have to be checked. This phase is much more expensive, being O(M(N-M)), while the previous "approximate" phase is O(M+(N-M))=O(N). Luckily, when entering this phase, most of the work has already been done by the previous phase.
from typing import List, Tuple
def get_sample(vects: List[Tuple[int]], target: Tuple[int], n_out: int,
max_approx_swaps: int = None, max_optimal_swaps: int = None,
verbose: bool = False) -> List[Tuple[int]]:
"""
Get a sample of the input vectors having a sum close to the target vector.
Closeness is measured in Euclidean metrics. The output is not guaranteed to be
optimal (minimum square distance from target), but a serious attempt is made.
The max_* parameters can be used to avoid too long execution times,
tune them to your needs by setting verbose to True, or leave them None (∞).
:param vects: the list of vectors (tuples) with the same number of "columns"
:param target: the target vector, with the same number of "columns"
:param n_out: the requested sample size
:param max_approx_swaps: the max number of approximately optimal vector swaps,
None means unlimited (default: None)
:param max_optimal_swaps: the max number of optimal vector swaps,
None means unlimited (default: None)
:param verbose: print some info if True (default: False)
:return: the sample of n_out vectors having a sum close to the target vector
"""
def square_distance(v1, v2):
return sum((e1 - e2) ** 2 for e1, e2 in zip(v1, v2))
n_vec = len(vects)
assert n_vec > 0
assert n_out > 0
n_rem = n_vec - n_out
assert n_rem > 0
output = vects[:n_out]
remain = vects[n_out:]
n_col = len(vects[0])
assert n_col == len(target) > 0
sumvect = (0,) * n_col
for outvect in output:
sumvect = tuple(map(int.__add__, sumvect, outvect))
sqdist = square_distance(sumvect, target)
if verbose:
print(f"sqdist = {sqdist:4} after"
f" picking the first {n_out} vectors out of {n_vec}")
if max_approx_swaps is None:
max_approx_swaps = sqdist
n_approx_swaps = 0
while sqdist and n_approx_swaps < max_approx_swaps:
# find the best vect to subtract (the square distance MAY increase)
sqdist_0 = None
index_0 = None
sumvect_0 = None
for index in range(n_out):
tmp_sumvect = tuple(map(int.__sub__, sumvect, output[index]))
tmp_sqdist = square_distance(tmp_sumvect, target)
if sqdist_0 is None or sqdist_0 > tmp_sqdist:
sqdist_0 = tmp_sqdist
index_0 = index
sumvect_0 = tmp_sumvect
# find the best vect to add,
# but only if there is a net decrease of the square distance
sqdist_1 = sqdist
index_1 = None
sumvect_1 = None
for index in range(n_rem):
tmp_sumvect = tuple(map(int.__add__, sumvect_0, remain[index]))
tmp_sqdist = square_distance(tmp_sumvect, target)
if sqdist_1 > tmp_sqdist:
sqdist_1 = tmp_sqdist
index_1 = index
sumvect_1 = tmp_sumvect
if sumvect_1:
tmp = output[index_0]
output[index_0] = remain[index_1]
remain[index_1] = tmp
sqdist = sqdist_1
sumvect = sumvect_1
n_approx_swaps += 1
else:
break
if verbose:
print(f"sqdist = {sqdist:4} after {n_approx_swaps}"
f" approximately optimal swap{'s'[n_approx_swaps == 1:]}")
diffvect = tuple(map(int.__sub__, sumvect, target))
if max_optimal_swaps is None:
max_optimal_swaps = sqdist
n_optimal_swaps = 0
while sqdist and n_optimal_swaps < max_optimal_swaps:
# find the best pair to swap,
# but only if the square distance decreases
best_sqdist = sqdist
best_diffvect = diffvect
best_pair = None
for i0 in range(M):
tmp_diffvect = tuple(map(int.__sub__, diffvect, output[i0]))
for i1 in range(n_rem):
new_diffvect = tuple(map(int.__add__, tmp_diffvect, remain[i1]))
new_sqdist = sum(d * d for d in new_diffvect)
if best_sqdist > new_sqdist:
best_sqdist = new_sqdist
best_diffvect = new_diffvect
best_pair = (i0, i1)
if best_pair:
tmp = output[best_pair[0]]
output[best_pair[0]] = remain[best_pair[1]]
remain[best_pair[1]] = tmp
sqdist = best_sqdist
diffvect = best_diffvect
n_optimal_swaps += 1
else:
break
if verbose:
print(f"sqdist = {sqdist:4} after {n_optimal_swaps}"
f" optimal swap{'s'[n_optimal_swaps == 1:]}")
return output
from random import randrange
C = 30 # number of columns
N = 2000 # total number of vectors
M = 500 # number of output vectors
F = 0.9 # fill factor of the target sum vector
T = int(M * F) # maximum value + 1 that can be appear in the target sum vector
A = 10000 # maximum number of approximately optimal swaps, may be None (∞)
B = 10 # maximum number of optimal swaps, may be None (unlimited)
target = tuple(randrange(T) for _ in range(C))
vects = [tuple(int(randrange(M) < t) for t in target) for _ in range(N)]
sample = get_sample(vects, target, M, A, B, True)
Typical output:
sqdist = 2639 after picking the first 500 vectors out of 2000
sqdist = 9 after 27 approximately optimal swaps
sqdist = 1 after 4 optimal swaps
P.S.: As it stands, this algorithm is not limited to binary input vectors, integer vectors would work too. Intuitively I suspect that the quality of the optimization could suffer, though. I suspect that this algorithm is more appropriate for binary vectors.
P.P.S.: Execution times with your kind of data are probably acceptable with standard CPython, but get better (like a couple of seconds, almost a factor of 10) with PyPy. To handle bigger sets of data, the algorithm would have to be translated to C or some other language, which should not be difficult at all.
P is an n*d matrix, holding n d-dimensional samples. P in some areas is several times more dense than others. I want to select a subset of P in which distance between any pairs of samples be more than d0, and I need it to be spread all over the area. All samples have same priority and there's no need to optimize anything (e.g. covered area or sum of pairwise distances).
Here is a sample code that does so, but it's really slow. I need a more efficient code since I need to call it several times.
%% generating sample data
n_4 = 1000; n_2 = n_4*2;n = n_4*4;
x1=[ randn(n_4, 1)*10+30; randn(n_4, 1)*3 + 60];
y1=[ randn(n_4, 1)*5 + 35; randn(n_4, 1)*20 + 80 ];
x2 = rand(n_2, 1)*(max(x1)-min(x1)) + min(x1);
y2 = rand(n_2, 1)*(max(y1)-min(y1)) + min(y1);
P = [x1,y1;x2, y2];
%% eliminating close ones
tic
d0 = 1.5;
D = pdist2(P, P);D(1:n+1:end) = inf;
E = zeros(n, 1); % eliminated ones
for i=1:n-1
if ~E(i)
CloseOnes = (D(i,:)<d0) & ((1:n)>i) & (~E');
E(CloseOnes) = 1;
end
end
P2 = P(~E, :);
toc
%% plotting samples
subplot(121); scatter(P(:, 1), P(:, 2)); axis equal;
subplot(122); scatter(P2(:, 1), P2(:, 2)); axis equal;
Edit: How big the subset should be?
As j_random_hacker pointed out in comments, one can say that P(1, :) is the fastest answer if we don’t define a constraint on the number of selected samples. It delicately shows incoherence of the title! But I think the current title better describes the purpose. So let’s define a constraint: “Try to select m samples if it’s possible”. Now with the implicit assumption of m=n we can get the biggest possible subset. As I mentioned before a faster method excels the one that finds the optimum answer.
Finding closest points over and over suggests a different data structure that is optimized for spatial searches. I suggest a delaunay triangulation.
The below solution is "approximate" in the sense that it will likely remove more points than strictly necessary. I'm batching all the computations and removing all points in each iteration that contribute to distances that are too long, and in many cases removing one point may remove the edge that appears later in the same iteration. If this matters, the edge list can be further processed to avoid duplicates, or even to find points to remove that will impact the greatest number of distances.
This is fast.
dt = delaunayTriangulation(P(:,1), P(:,2));
d0 = 1.5;
while 1
edge = edges(dt); % vertex ids in pairs
% Lookup the actual locations of each point and reorganize
pwise = reshape(dt.Points(edge.', :), 2, size(edge,1), 2);
% Compute length of each edge
difference = pwise(1,:,:) - pwise(2,:,:);
edge_lengths = sqrt(difference(1,:,1).^2 + difference(1,:,2).^2);
% Find edges less than minimum length
idx = find(edge_lengths < d0);
if(isempty(idx))
break;
end
% pick first vertex of each too-short edge for deletion
% This could be smarter to avoid overdeleting
points_to_delete = unique(edge(idx, 1));
% remove them. triangulation auto-updates
dt.Points(points_to_delete, :) = [];
% repeat until no edge is too short
end
P2 = dt.Points;
You don't specify how many points you want to select. This is crucial to the problem.
I don't readily see a way to optimise your method.
Assuming that Euclidean distance is acceptable as a distance measure, the following implementation is much faster when selecting only a small number of points, and faster even when trying to the subset with 'all' valid points (note that finding the maximum possible number of points is hard).
%%
figure;
subplot(121); scatter(P(:, 1), P(:, 2)); axis equal;
d0 = 1.5;
m_range = linspace(1, 2000, 100);
m_time = NaN(size(m_range));
for m_i = 1:length(m_range);
m = m_range(m_i)
a = tic;
% Test points in random order.
r = randperm(n);
r_i = 1;
S = false(n, 1); % selected ones
for i=1:m
found = false;
while ~found
j = r(r_i);
r_i = r_i + 1;
if r_i > n
% We have tried all points. Nothing else can be valid.
break;
end
if sum(S) == 0
% This is the first point.
found = true;
else
% Get the points already selected
P_selected = P(S, :);
% Exclude points >= d0 along either axis - they cannot have
% a Euclidean distance less than d0.
P_valid = (abs(P_selected(:, 1) - P(j, 1)) < d0) & (abs(P_selected(:, 2) - P(j, 2)) < d0);
if sum(P_valid) == 0
% There are no points that can be < d0.
found = true;
else
% Implement Euclidean distance explicitly rather than
% using pdist - this makes a large difference to
% timing.
found = min(sqrt(sum((P_selected(P_valid, :) - repmat(P(j, :), sum(P_valid), 1)) .^ 2, 2))) >= d0;
end
end
end
if found
% We found a valid point - select it.
S(j) = true;
else
% Nothing found, so we must have exhausted all points.
break;
end
end
P2 = P(S, :);
m_time(m_i) = toc(a);
subplot(122); scatter(P2(:, 1), P2(:, 2)); axis equal;
drawnow;
end
%%
figure
plot(m_range, m_time);
hold on;
plot(m_range([1 end]), ones(2, 1) * original_time);
hold off;
where original_time is the time taken by your method. This gives the following timings, where the red line is your method, and the blue is mine, with the number of points selected along the x axis. Note that the line flattens when 'all' points meeting the criteria have been selected.
As you say in your comment, performance is highly dependent on the value of d0. In fact, as d0 is reduced, the method above appears to have even greater improvement in performance (this is for d0=0.1):
Note however that this is also dependent on other factors such as the distribution of your data. This method exploits specific properties of your data set, and reduces the number of expensive calculations by filtering out points where calculating the Euclidean distance is pointless. This works particularly well for selecting fewer points, and it is actually faster for smaller d0 because there are fewer points in the data set that match the criteria (so there are fewer computations of the Euclidean distance required). The optimal solution for a problem like this will usually be specific to the exact data set used.
Also note that in my code above, manually calculating the Euclidean distance is much faster then calling pdist. The flexibility and generality of the Matlab built-ins is often detrimental to performance in simple cases.
I'm currently trying to optimize some MATLAB/Octave code by means of an algorithmic change, but can't figure out how to deal with some randomness here. Suppose that I have a vector V of integers, with each element representing a count of some things, photons in my case. Now I want to randomly pick some amount of those "things" and create a new vector of the same size, but with the counts adjusted.
Here's how I do this at the moment:
function W = photonfilter(V, eff)
% W = photonfilter(V, eff)
% Randomly takes photons from V according to the given efficiency.
%
% Args:
% V: Input vector containing the number of emitted photons in each
% timeslot (one element is one timeslot). The elements are rounded
% to integers before processing.
% eff: Filter efficiency. On the average, every 1/eff photon will be
% taken. This value must be in the range 0 < eff <= 1.
% W: Output row vector with the same length as V and containing the number
% of received photons in each timeslot.
%
% WARNING: This function operates on a photon-by-photon basis in that it
% constructs a vector with one element per photon. The storage requirements
% therefore directly depend on sum(V), not only on the length of V.
% Round V and make it flat.
Ntot = length(V);
V = round(V);
V = V(:);
% Initialize the photon-based vector, so that each element contains
% the original index of the photon.
idxV = zeros(1, sum(V), 'uint32');
iout = 1;
for i = 1:Ntot
N = V(i);
idxV(iout:iout+N-1) = i;
iout = iout + N;
end;
% Take random photons.
idxV = idxV(randperm(length(idxV)));
idxV = idxV(1:round(length(idxV)*eff));
% Generate the output vector by placing the remaining photons back
% into their timeslots.
[W, trash] = hist(idxV, 1:Ntot);
This is a rather straightforward implementation of the description above. But it has an obvious performance drawback: The function creates a vector (idxV) containing one element per single photon. So if my V has only 1000 elements but an average count of 10000 per element, the internal vector will have 10 million elements making the function slow and heavy.
What I'd like to achieve now is not to directly optimize this code, but to use some other kind of algorithm which immediately calculates the new counts without giving each photon some kind of "identity". This must be possible somehow, but I just can't figure out how to do it.
Requirements:
The output vector W must have the same number of elements as the input vector V.
W(i) must be an integer and bounded by 0 <= W(i) <= V(i).
The expected value of sum(W) must be sum(V)*eff.
The algorithm must somehow implement this "random picking" of photons, i.e. there should not be some deterministic part like "run through V dividing all counts by the stepsize and propagating the remainders", as the whole point of this function is to bring randomness into the system.
An explicit loop over V is allowed if unavoidable, but a vectorized approach is preferable.
Any ideas how to implement something like this? A solution using only a random vector and then some trickery with probabilities and rounding would be ideal, but I haven't had any success with that so far.
Thanks! Best regards, Philipp
The method you employ to compute W is called Monte Carlo method. And indeed there can be some optimizations. Once of such is instead of calculating indices of photons, let's imagine a set of bins. Each bin has some probability and the sum of all bins' probabilities adds up to 1. We divide the segment [0, 1] into parts whose lengths are proportional to the probabilities of the bins. Now for every random number within [0, 1) that we generate we can quickly find the bin that it belongs to. Finally, we count numbers in the bins to obtain the final result. The code below illustrates the idea.
% Population size (number of photons).
N = 1000000;
% Sample size, size of V and W as well.
% For convenience of plotting, V and W are of the same size, but
% the algorithm doesn't enforce this constraint.
M = 10000;
% Number of Monte Carlo iterations, greater numbers give better quality.
K = 100000;
% Generate population of counts, use gaussian distribution to test the method.
% If implemented correctly histograms should have the same shape eventually.
V = hist(randn(1, N), M);
P = cumsum(V / sum(V));
% For every generated random value find its bin and then count the bins.
% Finally we normalize counts by the ration of N / K.
W = hist(lookup(P, rand(1, K)), M) * N / K;
% Compare distribution plots, they should be the same.
hold on;
plot(W, '+r');
plot(V, '*b');
pause
Based on the answer from Alexander Solovets, this is how the code now looks:
function W = photonfilter(V, eff, impl=1)
Ntot = length(V);
V = V(:);
if impl == 0
% Original "straightforward" solution.
V = round(V);
idxV = zeros(1, sum(V), 'uint32');
iout = 1;
for i = 1:Ntot
N = V(i);
idxV(iout:iout+N-1) = i;
iout = iout + N;
end;
idxV = idxV(randperm(length(idxV)));
idxV = idxV(1:round(length(idxV)*eff));
[W, trash] = hist(idxV, 1:Ntot);
else
% Monte Carlo approach.
Nphot = sum(V);
P = cumsum(V / Nphot);
W = hist(lookup(P, rand(1, round(Nphot * eff))), 0:Ntot-1);
end;
The results are quite comparable, as long as eff if not too close to 1 (with eff=1, the original solution yields W=V while the Monte Carlo approach still has some randomness, thereby violating the upper bound constraints).
Test in the interactive Octave shell:
octave:1> T=linspace(0,10*pi,10000);
octave:2> V=100*(1+sin(T));
octave:3> W1=photonfilter(V, 0.1, 0);
octave:4> W2=photonfilter(V, 0.1, 1);
octave:5> plot(T,V,T,W1,T,W2);
octave:6> legend('V','Random picking','Monte Carlo')
octave:7> sum(W1)
ans = 100000
octave:8> sum(W2)
ans = 100000
Plot:
My Questions
Is there anyway that I can speed up this calculation?
Is there a better algorithm or implementation that I can be use to calculate the same values?
Describing the algorithm
I have a complex indexing problem that I'm struggling to solve in an efficient way.
The goal is to calculate the matrix w_prime using values a combination of values from the equally sized matrices w, dY, and dX.
The value of w_prime(i,j) is calculated as mean( w( indY & indX ) ), where indY and indX are the indices of dY and dX that are equal to i and j respectively.
Here's a simple implementation in matlab of an algorithm to compute w_prime:
for i = 1:size(w_prime,1)
indY = dY == i;
for j = 1:size(w_prime,2)
indX = dX == j;
w_prime(ind) = mean( w( indY & indX ) );
end
end
Performance Problems
This implementation is sufficient in example case below; however, in my actual use case w, dY, dX are ~3000x3000 and w_prime is ~60X900. Meaning that each index calculation is happening on a ~9 million elements. Needless this implementation is too slow to be usable. Additionally I'll need to run this code a few dozen times.
Example Calculation
If I want to compute w(1,1)
Find the indices of dY that equal 1, save as indY
Find the indices of dX that equal 1, save as indX
Find intersection of indY and indX save as ind
Save the mean( w(ind) ) to w_prime(1,1)
General Problem Description
I have a set points defined by two vectors X, and T, both are 1XN where N is ~3000. Additionally the values of X and T are integers bound by the intervals (1 60) and (1 900) respectively.
The matrices dX and dT, are simply distance matrices, meaning that they contain the pairwise distances between the points. Ie dx(i,j) is equal abs( x(i) - x(j) ).
They are calculated using: dx = pdist(x);
The matrix w can be thought of as a weight matrix that describes how much influence one point has on another.
The purpose of calculating w_prime(a,b) is to determine the average weight between the sub-set of points that are separated by a in the X dimension and b in the T dimension.
This can be expressed as follows:
This is straightforward with ACCUMARRAY:
nx = max(dX(:));
ny = max(dY(:));
w_prime = accumarray([dX(:),dY(:)],w(:),[nx,ny],#mean,NaN)
The output will be a nx-by-ny sized array with NaNs wherever there was no corresponding pair of indices. If you're sure that there will be a full complement of indices all the time, you can simplify the above calculation to
w_prime = accumarray([dX(:),dY(:)],w(:),[],#mean)
So, what does accumarray do? It looks at the rows of [dX(:),dY(:)]. Each row gives the (i,j) coordinate pair in w_prime to which the row contributes. For all pairs (1,1), it applies the function (#mean) to the corresponding entries in w(:), and writes the output into w_prime(1,1).
Consider this way of solving the Subset sum problem:
def subset_summing_to_zero (activities):
subsets = {0: []}
for (activity, cost) in activities.iteritems():
old_subsets = subsets
subsets = {}
for (prev_sum, subset) in old_subsets.iteritems():
subsets[prev_sum] = subset
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
new_subset = subset + [activity]
if 0 == new_sum:
new_subset.sort()
return new_subset
else:
subsets[new_sum] = new_subset
return []
I have it from here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2267392
There is also a comment which says that it is possible to make it "more efficient".
How?
Also, are there any other ways to solve the problem which are at least as fast as the one above?
Edit
I'm interested in any kind of idea which would lead to speed-up. I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem#cite_note-Pisinger09-2
which mentions a linear time algorithm. But I don't have the paper, perhaps you, dear people, know how it works? An implementation perhaps? Completely different approach perhaps?
Edit 2
There is now a follow-up:
Fast solution to Subset sum algorithm by Pisinger
I respect the alacrity with which you're trying to solve this problem! Unfortunately, you're trying to solve a problem that's NP-complete, meaning that any further improvement that breaks the polynomial time barrier will prove that P = NP.
The implementation you pulled from Hacker News appears to be consistent with the pseudo-polytime dynamic programming solution, where any additional improvements must, by definition, progress the state of current research into this problem and all of its algorithmic isoforms. In other words: while a constant speedup is possible, you're very unlikely to see an algorithmic improvement to this solution to the problem in the context of this thread.
However, you can use an approximate algorithm if you require a polytime solution with a tolerable degree of error. In pseudocode blatantly stolen from Wikipedia, this would be:
initialize a list S to contain one element 0.
for each i from 1 to N do
let T be a list consisting of xi + y, for all y in S
let U be the union of T and S
sort U
make S empty
let y be the smallest element of U
add y to S
for each element z of U in increasing order do
//trim the list by eliminating numbers close to one another
//and throw out elements greater than s
if y + cs/N < z ≤ s, set y = z and add z to S
if S contains a number between (1 − c)s and s, output yes, otherwise no
Python implementation, preserving the original terms as closely as possible:
from bisect import bisect
def ssum(X,c,s):
""" Simple impl. of the polytime approximate subset sum algorithm
Returns True if the subset exists within our given error; False otherwise
"""
S = [0]
N = len(X)
for xi in X:
T = [xi + y for y in S]
U = set().union(T,S)
U = sorted(U) # Coercion to list
S = []
y = U[0]
S.append(y)
for z in U:
if y + (c*s)/N < z and z <= s:
y = z
S.append(z)
if not c: # For zero error, check equivalence
return S[bisect(S,s)-1] == s
return bisect(S,(1-c)*s) != bisect(S,s)
... where X is your bag of terms, c is your precision (between 0 and 1), and s is the target sum.
For more details, see the Wikipedia article.
(Additional reference, further reading on CSTheory.SE)
While my previous answer describes the polytime approximate algorithm to this problem, a request was specifically made for an implementation of Pisinger's polytime dynamic programming solution when all xi in x are positive:
from bisect import bisect
def balsub(X,c):
""" Simple impl. of Pisinger's generalization of KP for subset sum problems
satisfying xi >= 0, for all xi in X. Returns the state array "st", which may
be used to determine if an optimal solution exists to this subproblem of SSP.
"""
if not X:
return False
X = sorted(X)
n = len(X)
b = bisect(X,c)
r = X[-1]
w_sum = sum(X[:b])
stm1 = {}
st = {}
for u in range(c-r+1,c+1):
stm1[u] = 0
for u in range(c+1,c+r+1):
stm1[u] = 1
stm1[w_sum] = b
for t in range(b,n+1):
for u in range(c-r+1,c+r+1):
st[u] = stm1[u]
for u in range(c-r+1,c+1):
u_tick = u + X[t-1]
st[u_tick] = max(st[u_tick],stm1[u])
for u in reversed(range(c+1,c+X[t-1]+1)):
for j in reversed(range(stm1[u],st[u])):
u_tick = u - X[j-1]
st[u_tick] = max(st[u_tick],j)
return st
Wow, that was headache-inducing. This needs proofreading, because, while it implements balsub, I can't define the right comparator to determine if the optimal solution to this subproblem of SSP exists.
I don't know much python, but there is an approach called meet in the middle.
Pseudocode:
Divide activities into two subarrays, A1 and A2
for both A1 and A2, calculate subsets hashes, H1 and H2, the way You do it in Your question.
for each (cost, a1) in H1
if(H2.contains(-cost))
return a1 + H2[-cost];
This will allow You to double the number of elements of activities You can handle in reasonable time.
I apologize for "discussing" the problem, but a "Subset Sum" problem where the x values are bounded is not the NP version of the problem. Dynamic programing solutions are known for bounded x value problems. That is done by representing the x values as the sum of unit lengths. The Dynamic programming solutions have a number of fundamental iterations that is linear with that total length of the x's. However, the Subset Sum is in NP when the precision of the numbers equals N. That is, the number or base 2 place values needed to state the x's is = N. For N = 40, the x's have to be in the billions. In the NP problem the unit length of the x's increases exponentially with N.That is why the dynamic programming solutions are not a polynomial time solution to the NP Subset Sum problem. That being the case, there are still practical instances of the Subset Sum problem where the x's are bounded and the dynamic programming solution is valid.
Here are three ways to make the code more efficient:
The code stores a list of activities for each partial sum. It is more efficient in terms of both memory and time to just store the most recent activity needed to make the sum, and work out the rest by backtracking once a solution is found.
For each activity the dictionary is repopulated with the old contents (subsets[prev_sum] = subset). It is faster to simply grow a single dictionary
Splitting the values in two and applying a meet in the middle approach.
Applying the first two optimisations results in the following code which is more than 5 times faster:
def subset_summing_to_zero2 (activities):
subsets = {0:-1}
for (activity, cost) in activities.iteritems():
for prev_sum in subsets.keys():
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
if 0 == new_sum:
new_subset = [activity]
while prev_sum:
activity = subsets[prev_sum]
new_subset.append(activity)
prev_sum -= activities[activity]
return sorted(new_subset)
if new_sum in subsets: continue
subsets[new_sum] = activity
return []
Also applying the third optimisation results in something like:
def subset_summing_to_zero3 (activities):
A=activities.items()
mid=len(A)//2
def make_subsets(A):
subsets = {0:-1}
for (activity, cost) in A:
for prev_sum in subsets.keys():
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
if new_sum and new_sum in subsets: continue
subsets[new_sum] = activity
return subsets
subsets = make_subsets(A[:mid])
subsets2 = make_subsets(A[mid:])
def follow_trail(new_subset,subsets,s):
while s:
activity = subsets[s]
new_subset.append(activity)
s -= activities[activity]
new_subset=[]
for s in subsets:
if -s in subsets2:
follow_trail(new_subset,subsets,s)
follow_trail(new_subset,subsets2,-s)
if len(new_subset):
break
return sorted(new_subset)
Define bound to be the largest absolute value of the elements.
The algorithmic benefit of the meet in the middle approach depends a lot on bound.
For a low bound (e.g. bound=1000 and n=300) the meet in the middle only gets a factor of about 2 improvement other the first improved method. This is because the dictionary called subsets is densely populated.
However, for a high bound (e.g. bound=100,000 and n=30) the meet in the middle takes 0.03 seconds compared to 2.5 seconds for the first improved method (and 18 seconds for the original code)
For high bounds, the meet in the middle will take about the square root of the number of operations of the normal method.
It may seem surprising that meet in the middle is only twice as fast for low bounds. The reason is that the number of operations in each iteration depends on the number of keys in the dictionary. After adding k activities we might expect there to be 2**k keys, but if bound is small then many of these keys will collide so we will only have O(bound.k) keys instead.
Thought I'd share my Scala solution for the discussed pseudo-polytime algorithm described in wikipedia. It's a slightly modified version: it figures out how many unique subsets there are. This is very much related to a HackerRank problem described at https://www.hackerrank.com/challenges/functional-programming-the-sums-of-powers. Coding style might not be excellent, I'm still learning Scala :) Maybe this is still helpful for someone.
object Solution extends App {
var input = "1000\n2"
System.setIn(new ByteArrayInputStream(input.getBytes()))
println(calculateNumberOfWays(readInt, readInt))
def calculateNumberOfWays(X: Int, N: Int) = {
val maxValue = Math.pow(X, 1.0/N).toInt
val listOfValues = (1 until maxValue + 1).toList
val listOfPowers = listOfValues.map(value => Math.pow(value, N).toInt)
val lists = (0 until maxValue).toList.foldLeft(List(List(0)): List[List[Int]]) ((newList, i) =>
newList :+ (newList.last union (newList.last.map(y => y + listOfPowers.apply(i)).filter(z => z <= X)))
)
lists.last.count(_ == X)
}
}