Related
I am completely stuck on a task scheduling problem.
Here is the requirement:
Implement a scheduling algorithm that adds jobs to the regular queue and pushes them through in such a way that the average wait time for all jobs in the queue is minimized. A new job isn't pushed through unless it minimizes the average waiting time.
Assume that your program starts working at 0 seconds. A request for the ith job came at requestTimei, and let's assume that it takes jobProcessi seconds to process it.
def jobScheduling(requestTime, jobProcess, timeFromStart):
requestTimeAndDuration={}
for i in range(len(requestTime)):
job=[]
job.append(requestTime[i])
job.append(jobProcess[i])
requestTimeAndDuration[i]=job
taskProcessed=[]
previousEndTime=0
while (requestTimeAndDuration):
endTimes={}
for k,v in requestTimeAndDuration.items():
if(len(taskProcessed)==0):
previousEndTime=0
else:
previousEndTime=taskProcessed[-1][1]
#print previousEndTime
if(v[0]<=previousEndTime):
endTimes[k]= previousEndTime+v[1]
else:
endTimes[k]= v[0]+v[1]
endTimesSorted = sorted(endTimes.items(), key=lambda endTimes: endTimes[1])
nextJobId = endTimesSorted[0][0]
nextJobEndTime = endTimesSorted[0][1]
nextJob=[]
nextJob.append(nextJobId)
previousEndTime=0
if(len(taskProcessed)>0):
previousEndTime=taskProcessed[-1][1]
nextJobStarTime = nextJobEndTime-jobProcess[nextJobId]
nextJob.append(nextJobEndTime)
nextJob.append(nextJobStarTime)
taskProcessed.append(nextJob)
del requestTimeAndDuration[nextJobId]
print taskProcessed
My algorithm tries to sort the tasks by its end time, which is computed from previousEndTime + currentJobProcess
requestTime = [0, 5, 8, 11], jobProcess = [9, 4, 2, 1]
iteration 1:
task = [[0,9],[5,4],[8,2][11,1]]
PreviousEndTime=0 //since we started, there were no previous tasks 0+9=9, 5+4=9, 8+2=10, 11+1=12
endTime = {0:9, 1:9, 2:11, 3:12} //take task 0 and remove it from tasks
iteration 2:
task = [[5,4],[8,2][11,1]]
PreviousEndTime=9 9+4=13, 9+2=11, 11+1=12
endTime = {1:13,2:11,3:12} //remove task 2
iteration 3:
task = [[5,4],[11,1]]
previousEndTime=11
11+4=15, 11+1=12
endTime = {1:13,3:12} //remove task 3
iteration 4:
task = [[5,4],[11,1]]
previousEndTime=12
12+4=15
endTime = {1:16} //remove task 1
Final Result printed is [0,2,3,1]
My problem is that, my algorithm works for some cases, but not the complicated ones.
requestTime: [4, 6, 8, 8, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 25]
jobProcess: [30, 25, 14, 16, 26, 10, 11, 11, 14, 8]
The answer is [9, 5, 6, 7, 2, 8, 3, 1, 4]
But my algoritm produces [5, 9, 6, 7, 8, 3, 1, 4, 0]
So does anyone know how to do this problem? I'm afraid my algorithm may be fundamentally flawed.
I don't see a really neat solution like sorting by end time, but if there is such a solution, you should be able to get the same answer by sorting the tasks using as a comparator a function that works out which task should be scheduled first if those are the only two tasks to be considered.
I don't even know how to explain this... I've been looking for algos but no luck.
I need a function that would return an array of incrementally bigger numbers (not sure what kind of curve) from two numbers that I'd pass as parameters.
Ex.:
$length = 20;
get_numbers(1, 1000, $length);
> 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200, 500... // let's say that these are 20 numbers that add up to 1000
Any idea how I could do this..? I guess I'm not smart enough to figure it out.
How about an exponential curve? Sample Python implementation:
begin = 1
end = 1000
diff = end - begin
length = 10
X = diff**(1.0/(length-1))
seq = []
for i in range(length):
seq.append(int(begin+X**i))
print seq
(note: ** is the Python operator for exponentiation. Other languages may or may not use ^ instead)
Result:
[2, 3, 5, 10, 22, 47, 100, 216, 464, 999]
The scenario is that there are n objects, of different sizes, unevenly spread over m buckets. The size of a bucket is the sum of all of the object sizes that it contains. It now happens that the sizes of the buckets are varying wildly.
What would be a good algorithm if I want to spread those objects evenly over those buckets so that the total size of each bucket would be about the same? It would be nice if the algorithm leaned towards less move size over a perfectly even spread.
I have this naïve, ineffective, and buggy solution in Ruby.
buckets = [ [10, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1], [5, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 1, 1], [2] ]
avg_size = buckets.flatten.reduce(:+) / buckets.count + 1
large_buckets = buckets.take_while {|arr| arr.reduce(:+) >= avg_size}.to_a
large_buckets.each do |large|
smallest = buckets.last
until ((small_sum = smallest.reduce(:+)) >= avg_size)
break if small_sum + large.last >= avg_size
smallest << large.pop
end
buckets.insert(0, buckets.pop)
end
=> [[3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3], [2, 1, 2, 3, 3], [10, 4], [5, 5]]
I believe this is a variant of the bin packing problem, and as such it is NP-hard. Your answer is essentially a variant of the first fit decreasing heuristic, which is a pretty good heuristic. That said, I believe that the following will give better results.
Sort each individual bucket in descending size order, using a balanced binary tree.
Calculate average size.
Sort the buckets with size less than average (the "too-small buckets") in descending size order, using a balanced binary tree.
Sort the buckets with size greater than average (the "too-large buckets") in order of the size of their greatest elements, using a balanced binary tree (so the bucket with {9, 1} would come first and the bucket with {8, 5} would come second).
Pass1: Remove the largest element from the bucket with the largest element; if this reduces its size below the average, then replace the removed element and remove the bucket from the balanced binary tree of "too-large buckets"; else place the element in the smallest bucket, and re-index the two modified buckets to reflect the new smallest bucket and the new "too-large bucket" with the largest element. Continue iterating until you've removed all of the "too-large buckets."
Pass2: Iterate through the "too-small buckets" from smallest to largest, and select the best-fitting elements from the largest "too-large bucket" without causing it to become a "too-small bucket;" iterate through the remaining "too-large buckets" from largest to smallest, removing the best-fitting elements from them without causing them to become "too-small buckets." Do the same for the remaining "too-small buckets." The results of this variant won't be as good as they are for the more complex variant because it won't shift buckets from the "too-large" to the "too-small" category or vice versa (hence the search space will be smaller), but this also means that it has much simpler halting conditions (simply iterate through all of the "too-small" buckets and then halt), whereas the complex variant might cause an infinite loop if you're not careful.
The idea is that by moving the largest elements in Pass1 you make it easier to more precisely match up the buckets' sizes in Pass2. You use balanced binary trees so that you can quickly re-index the buckets or the trees of buckets after removing or adding an element, but you could use linked lists instead (the balanced binary trees would have better worst-case performance but the linked lists might have better average-case performance). By performing a best-fit instead of a first-fit in Pass2 you're less likely to perform useless moves (e.g. moving a size-10 object from a bucket that's 5 greater than average into a bucket that's 5 less than average - first fit would blindly perform the movie, best-fit would either query the next "too-large bucket" for a better-sized object or else would remove the "too-small bucket" from the bucket tree).
I ended up with something like this.
Sort the buckets in descending size order.
Sort each individual bucket in descending size order.
Calculate average size.
Iterate over each bucket with a size larger than average size.
Move objects in size order from those buckets to the smallest bucket until either the large bucket is smaller than average size or the target bucket reaches average size.
Ruby code example
require 'pp'
def average_size(buckets)
(buckets.flatten.reduce(:+).to_f / buckets.count + 0.5).to_i
end
def spread_evenly(buckets)
average = average_size(buckets)
large_buckets = buckets.take_while {|arr| arr.reduce(:+) >= average}.to_a
large_buckets.each do |large_bucket|
smallest_bucket = buckets.last
smallest_size = smallest_bucket.reduce(:+)
large_size = large_bucket.reduce(:+)
until (smallest_size >= average)
break if large_size <= average
if smallest_size + large_bucket.last > average and large_size > average
buckets.unshift buckets.pop
smallest_bucket = buckets.last
smallest_size = smallest_bucket.reduce(:+)
end
smallest_size += smallest_object = large_bucket.pop
large_size -= smallest_object
smallest_bucket << smallest_object
end
buckets.unshift buckets.pop if smallest_size >= average
end
buckets
end
test_buckets = [
[ [10, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1], [5, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 1, 1], [2] ],
[ [4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1], [10, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 3, 3], [6] ],
[ [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1], [1, 1] ],
[ [10, 9, 8, 7], [6, 5, 4], [3, 2], [1] ],
]
test_buckets.each do |buckets|
puts "Before spread with average of #{average_size(buckets)}:"
pp buckets
result = spread_evenly(buckets)
puts "Result and sum of each bucket:"
pp result
sizes = result.map {|bucket| bucket.reduce :+}
pp sizes
puts
end
Output:
Before spread with average of 12:
[[10, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1], [5, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 1, 1], [2]]
Result and sum of each bucket:
[[3, 1, 1, 4, 1, 2], [2, 1, 2, 3, 3], [10], [5, 5, 3]]
[12, 11, 10, 13]
Before spread with average of 14:
[[4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1], [10, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 3, 3], [6]]
Result and sum of each bucket:
[[3, 3, 3, 2, 3], [6, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1], [4, 3, 3, 2, 2], [10, 5]]
[14, 13, 14, 15]
Before spread with average of 4:
[[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1], [1, 1]]
Result and sum of each bucket:
[[1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1]]
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4]
Before spread with average of 14:
[[10, 9, 8, 7], [6, 5, 4], [3, 2], [1]]
Result and sum of each bucket:
[[1, 7, 9], [10], [6, 5, 4], [3, 2, 8]]
[17, 10, 15, 13]
This isn't bin packing as others have suggested. There the size of bins is fixed and you are trying to minimize the number. Here you are trying to minimize the variance among a fixed number of bins.
It turns out this is equivalent to Multiprocessor Scheduling, and - according to the reference - the algorithm below (known as "Longest Job First" or "Longest Processing Time First") is certain to produce a largest sum no more than 4/3 - 1/(3m) times optimal, where m is the number of buckets. In the test cases shonw, we'd have 4/3-1/12 = 5/4 or no more than 25% above optimal.
We just start with all bins empty, and put each item in decreasing order of size into the currently least full bin. We can track the least full bin efficiently with a min heap. With a heap having O(log n) insert and deletemin, the algorithm has O(n log m) time (n and m defined as #Jonas Elfström says). Ruby is very expressive here: only 9 sloc for the algorithm itself.
Here is code. I am not a Ruby expert, so please feel free to suggest better ways. I am using #Jonas Elfström's test cases.
require 'algorithms'
require 'pp'
test_buckets = [
[ [10, 4, 3, 3, 2, 1], [5, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 1, 1], [2] ],
[ [4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1], [10, 5, 3, 2, 1], [3, 3, 3], [6] ],
[ [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1, 1], [1, 1, 1], [1, 1] ],
[ [10, 9, 8, 7], [6, 5, 4], [3, 2], [1] ],
]
def relevel(buckets)
q = Containers::PriorityQueue.new { |x, y| x < y }
# Initially all buckets to be returned are empty and so have zero sums.
rtn = Array.new(buckets.length) { [] }
buckets.each_index {|i| q.push(i, 0) }
sums = Array.new(buckets.length, 0)
# Add to emptiest bucket in descending order.
# Bang! ops would generate less garbage.
buckets.flatten.sort.reverse.each do |val|
i = q.pop # Get index of emptiest bucket
rtn[i] << val # Append current value to it
q.push(i, sums[i] += val) # Update sums and min heap
end
rtn
end
test_buckets.each {|b| pp relevel(b).map {|a| a.inject(:+) }}
Results:
[12, 11, 11, 12]
[14, 14, 14, 14]
[4, 4, 4, 4, 4]
[13, 13, 15, 14]
You could use my answer to fitting n variable height images into 3 (similar length) column layout.
Mentally map:
Object size to picture height, and
bucket count to bincount
Then the rest of that solution should apply...
The following uses the first_fit algorithm mentioned by Robin Green earlier but then improves on this by greedy swapping.
The swapping routine finds the column that is furthest away from the average column height then systematically looks for a swap between one of its pictures and the first picture in another column that minimizes the maximum deviation from the average.
I used a random sample of 30 pictures with heights in the range five to 50 'units'. The convergenge was swift in my case and improved significantly on the first_fit algorithm.
The code (Python 3.2:
def first_fit(items, bincount=3):
items = sorted(items, reverse=1) # New - improves first fit.
bins = [[] for c in range(bincount)]
binsizes = [0] * bincount
for item in items:
minbinindex = binsizes.index(min(binsizes))
bins[minbinindex].append(item)
binsizes[minbinindex] += item
average = sum(binsizes) / float(bincount)
maxdeviation = max(abs(average - bs) for bs in binsizes)
return bins, binsizes, average, maxdeviation
def swap1(columns, colsize, average, margin=0):
'See if you can do a swap to smooth the heights'
colcount = len(columns)
maxdeviation, i_a = max((abs(average - cs), i)
for i,cs in enumerate(colsize))
col_a = columns[i_a]
for pic_a in set(col_a): # use set as if same height then only do once
for i_b, col_b in enumerate(columns):
if i_a != i_b: # Not same column
for pic_b in set(col_b):
if (abs(pic_a - pic_b) > margin): # Not same heights
# new heights if swapped
new_a = colsize[i_a] - pic_a + pic_b
new_b = colsize[i_b] - pic_b + pic_a
if all(abs(average - new) < maxdeviation
for new in (new_a, new_b)):
# Better to swap (in-place)
colsize[i_a] = new_a
colsize[i_b] = new_b
columns[i_a].remove(pic_a)
columns[i_a].append(pic_b)
columns[i_b].remove(pic_b)
columns[i_b].append(pic_a)
maxdeviation = max(abs(average - cs)
for cs in colsize)
return True, maxdeviation
return False, maxdeviation
def printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation):
print('columns')
pp(columns)
print('colsize:', colsize)
print('average, maxdeviation:', average, maxdeviation)
print('deviations:', [abs(average - cs) for cs in colsize])
print()
if __name__ == '__main__':
## Some data
#import random
#heights = [random.randint(5, 50) for i in range(30)]
## Here's some from the above, but 'fixed'.
from pprint import pprint as pp
heights = [45, 7, 46, 34, 12, 12, 34, 19, 17, 41,
28, 9, 37, 32, 30, 44, 17, 16, 44, 7,
23, 30, 36, 5, 40, 20, 28, 42, 8, 38]
columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation = first_fit(heights)
printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
while 1:
swapped, maxdeviation = swap1(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
if not swapped:
break
#input('Paused: ')
The output:
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 28, 32, 17, 44, 5, 40, 8, 38],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 34, 9, 37, 44, 30, 20, 28]]
colsize: [286, 267, 248]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 19.0
deviations: [19.0, 0.0, 19.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 28, 17, 44, 5, 40, 8, 38, 9],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 34, 37, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32]]
colsize: [263, 267, 271]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 4.0
deviations: [4.0, 0.0, 4.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 17, 44, 5, 40, 8, 38, 9, 34],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 37, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32, 28]]
colsize: [269, 267, 265]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 2.0
deviations: [2.0, 0.0, 2.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 17, 44, 5, 8, 38, 9, 34, 37],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32, 28, 40]]
colsize: [266, 267, 268]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 1.0
deviations: [1.0, 0.0, 1.0]
columns
[[45, 12, 17, 17, 44, 5, 8, 38, 9, 34, 37],
[7, 34, 12, 19, 41, 30, 16, 7, 23, 36, 42],
[46, 44, 30, 20, 28, 32, 28, 40]]
colsize: [266, 267, 268]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 1.0
deviations: [1.0, 0.0, 1.0]
Nice problem.
Heres the info on reverse-sorting mentioned in my separate comment below.
>>> h = sorted(heights, reverse=1)
>>> h
[46, 45, 44, 44, 42, 41, 40, 38, 37, 36, 34, 34, 32, 30, 30, 28, 28, 23, 20, 19, 17, 17, 16, 12, 12, 9, 8, 7, 7, 5]
>>> columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation = first_fit(h)
>>> printit(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
columns
[[46, 41, 40, 34, 30, 28, 19, 12, 12, 5],
[45, 42, 38, 36, 30, 28, 17, 16, 8, 7],
[44, 44, 37, 34, 32, 23, 20, 17, 9, 7]]
colsize: [267, 267, 267]
average, maxdeviation: 267.0 0.0
deviations: [0.0, 0.0, 0.0]
If you have the reverse-sorting, this extra code appended to the bottom of the above code (in the 'if name == ...), will do extra trials on random data:
for trial in range(2,11):
print('\n## Trial %i' % trial)
heights = [random.randint(5, 50) for i in range(random.randint(5, 50))]
print('Pictures:',len(heights))
columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation = first_fit(heights)
print('average %7.3f' % average, '\nmaxdeviation:')
print('%5.2f%% = %6.3f' % ((maxdeviation * 100. / average), maxdeviation))
swapcount = 0
while maxdeviation:
swapped, maxdeviation = swap1(columns, colsize, average, maxdeviation)
if not swapped:
break
print('%5.2f%% = %6.3f' % ((maxdeviation * 100. / average), maxdeviation))
swapcount += 1
print('swaps:', swapcount)
The extra output shows the effect of the swaps:
## Trial 2
Pictures: 11
average 72.000
maxdeviation:
9.72% = 7.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 3
Pictures: 14
average 118.667
maxdeviation:
6.46% = 7.667
4.78% = 5.667
3.09% = 3.667
0.56% = 0.667
swaps: 3
## Trial 4
Pictures: 46
average 470.333
maxdeviation:
0.57% = 2.667
0.35% = 1.667
0.14% = 0.667
swaps: 2
## Trial 5
Pictures: 40
average 388.667
maxdeviation:
0.43% = 1.667
0.17% = 0.667
swaps: 1
## Trial 6
Pictures: 5
average 44.000
maxdeviation:
4.55% = 2.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 7
Pictures: 30
average 295.000
maxdeviation:
0.34% = 1.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 8
Pictures: 43
average 413.000
maxdeviation:
0.97% = 4.000
0.73% = 3.000
0.48% = 2.000
swaps: 2
## Trial 9
Pictures: 33
average 342.000
maxdeviation:
0.29% = 1.000
swaps: 0
## Trial 10
Pictures: 26
average 233.333
maxdeviation:
2.29% = 5.333
1.86% = 4.333
1.43% = 3.333
1.00% = 2.333
0.57% = 1.333
swaps: 4
Adapt the Knapsack Problem solving algorithms' by, for example, specify the "weight" of every buckets to be roughly equals to the mean of the n objects' sizes (try a gaussian distri around the mean value).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem#Solving
Sort buckets in size order.
Move an object from the largest bucket into the smallest bucket, re-sorting the array (which is almost-sorted, so we can use "limited insertion sort" in both directions; you can also speed things up by noting where you placed the last two buckets to be sorted. If you have 6-6-6-6-6-6-5... and get one object from the first bucket, you will move it to the sixth position. Then on the next iteration you can start comparing from the fifth. The same goes, right-to-left, for the smallest buckets).
When the difference of the two buckets is one, you can stop.
This moves the minimum number of buckets, but is of order n^2 log n for comparisons (the simplest version is n^3 log n). If object moving is expensive while bucket size checking is not, for reasonable n it might still do:
12 7 5 2
11 7 5 3
10 7 5 4
9 7 5 5
8 7 6 5
7 7 6 6
12 7 3 1
11 7 3 2
10 7 3 3
9 7 4 3
8 7 4 4
7 7 5 4
7 6 5 5
6 6 6 5
Another possibility would be to calculate the expected average size for every bucket, and "move along" a bag (or a further bucket) with the excess from the larger buckets to the smaller ones.
Otherwise, strange things may happen:
12 7 3 1, the average is a bit less than 6, so we take 5 as the average.
5 7 3 1 bag = 7 from 1st bucket
5 5 3 1 bag = 9
5 5 5 1 bag = 7
5 5 5 8 which is a bit unbalanced.
By taking 6 (i.e. rounding) it goes better, but again sometimes it won't work:
12 5 3 1
6 5 3 1 bag = 6 from 1st bucket
6 6 3 1 bag = 5
6 6 6 1 bag = 2
6 6 6 3 which again is unbalanced.
You can run two passes, the first with the rounded mean left-to-right, the other with the truncated mean right-to-left:
12 5 3 1 we want to get no more than 6 in each bucket
6 11 3 1
6 6 8 1
6 6 6 3
6 6 6 3 and now we want to get at least 5 in each bucket
6 6 4 5 (we have taken 2 from bucket #3 into bucket #5)
6 5 5 5 (when the difference is 1 we stop).
This will require "n log n" size checks, and no more than 2n object moves.
Another possibility which is interesting is to reason thus: you have m objects into n buckets. So you need to do an integer mapping of m onto n, and this is Bresenham's linearization algorithm. Run a (n,m) Bresenham on the sorted array, and at step i (i.e. against bucket i-th) the algorithm will tell you whether to use round(m/n) or floor(m/n) size. Then move objects from or to the "moving bag" according to bucket i-th size.
This requires n log n comparisons.
You can further reduce the number of object moves by initially removing all buckets that are either round(m/n) or floor(m/n) in size to two pools of buckets sized R or F. When, running the algorithm, you need the i-th bucket to hold R objects, if the pool of R objects is not empty, swap the i-th bucket with one of the R-sized ones. This way, only buckets that are hopelessly under- or over-sized get balanced; (most of) the others are simply ignored, except for their references being shuffled.
If object access time is huge in proportion to computation time (e.g. some kind of automatic loader magazine), this will yield a magazine that is as balanced as possible, with the absolute minimum of overall object moves.
You could use an Integer Programming Package if it's fast enough.
It may be tricky getting your constraints right. Something like the following may do the trick:
let variable Oij denote Object i being in Bucket j. Let Wi represent the weight or size of Oi
Constraints:
sum(Oij for all j) == 1 #each object is in only one bucket
Oij = 1 or 0. #object is either in bucket j or not in bucket j
sum(Oij * Wi for all i) <= X + R #restrict weight on buckets.
Objective:
minimize X
Note R is the relaxation constant that you can play with depending on how much movement is required and how much performance is needed.
Now the maximum bucket size is X + R
The next step is to figure out the minimum amount movement possible whilst keeping the bucket size less than X + R
Define a Stay variable Si that controls if Oi stays in bucket j
If Si is 0 it indicates that Oi stays where it was.
Constraints:
Si = 1 or 0.
Oij = 1 or 0.
Oij <= Si where j != original bucket of Object i
Oij != Si where j == original bucket of Object i
Sum(Oij for all j) == 1
Sum(Oij for all i) <= X + R
Objective:
minimize Sum(Si for all i)
Here Sum(Si for all i) represents the number of objects that have moved.
My friend posed this question to me; felt like sharing it here.
Given a deck of cards, we split it into 2 groups, and "interleave them"; let us call this operation a 'split-join'. And repeat the same operation on the resulting deck.
E.g., { 1, 2, 3, 4 } becomes { 1, 2 } & { 3, 4 } (split) and we get { 1, 3, 2, 4 } (join)
Also, if we have an odd number of cards i.e., { 1, 2, 3 } we can split it like { 1, 2 } & { 3 } (bigger-half first) leading to { 1, 3, 2 }
(i.e., n is split up as Ceil[n/2] & n-Ceil[n/2])
The question my friend asked me was:
HOW many such split-joins are needed to get the original deck back?
And that got me wondering:
If the deck has n cards, what is the number of split-joins needed if:
n is even ?
n is odd ?
n is a power of '2' ? [I found that we then need log (n) (base 2) number of split-joins...]
(Feel free to explore different scenarios like that.)
Is there a simple pattern/formula/concept correlating n and the number of split-joins required?
I believe, this is a good thing to explore in Mathematica, especially, since it provides the Riffle[] method.
To quote MathWorld:
The numbers of out-shuffles needed to return a deck of n=2, 4, ... to its original order are 1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 10, 12, 4, 8, 18, 6, 11, ... (Sloane's A002326), which is simply the multiplicative order of 2 (mod n-1). For example, a deck of 52 cards therefore is returned to its original state after eight out-shuffles, since 2**8=1 (mod 51) (Golomb 1961). The smallest numbers of cards 2n that require 1, 2, 3, ... out-shuffles to return to the deck's original state are 1, 2, 4, 3, 16, 5, 64, 9, 37, 6, ... (Sloane's A114894).
The case when n is odd isn't addressed.
Note that the article also includes a Mathematica notebook with functions to explore out-shuffles.
If we have an odd number of cards n==2m-1, and if we split the cards such that during each shuffle the first group contains m cards, the second group m-1 cards, and the groups are joined such that no two cards of the same group end up next to each other, then the number of shuffles needed is equal to MultiplicativeOrder[2, n].
To show this, we note that after one shuffle the card which was at position k has moved to position 2k for 0<=k<m and to 2k-2m+1 for m<=k<2m-1, where k is such that 0<=k<2m-1. Written modulo n==2m-1 this means that the new position is Mod[2k, n] for all 0<=k<n. Therefore, for each card to return to its original position we need N shuffles where N is such that Mod[2^N k, n]==Mod[k, n] for all 0<=k<n from which is follows that N is any multiple of MultiplicativeOrder[2, n].
Note that due to symmetry the result would have been exactly the same if we had split the deck the other way around, i.e. the first group always contains m-1 cards and the second group m cards. I don't know what would happen if you alternate, i.e. for odd shuffles the first group contains m cards, and for even shuffles m-1 cards.
There's old work by magician/mathematician Persi Diaconnis about restoring the order with perfect riffle shuffles. Ian Stewart wrote about that work in one of his 1998 Scientific American Mathematical Recreation columns -- see, e.g.: http://www.whydomath.org/Reading_Room_Material/ian_stewart/shuffle/shuffle.html
old question I know, but strange no one put up an actual mathematica solution..
countrifflecards[deck_] := Module[{n = Length#deck, ct, rifdeck},
ct = 0;
rifdeck =
Riffle ##
Partition[ # , Ceiling[ n/2], Ceiling[ n/2], {1, 1}, {} ] &;
NestWhile[(++ct; rifdeck[#]) &, deck, #2 != deck &,2 ]; ct]
This handles even and odd cases:
countrifflecards[RandomSample[ Range[#], #]] & /# Range[2, 52, 2]
{1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 10, 12, 4, 8, 18, 6, 11, 20, 18, 28, 5, 10, 12, 36,
12, 20, 14, 12, 23, 21, 8}
countrifflecards[RandomSample[ Range[#], #]] & /# Range[3, 53, 2]
{2, 4, 3, 6, 10, 12, 4, 8, 18, 6, 11, 20, 18, 28, 5, 10, 12, 36, 12,
20, 14, 12, 23, 21, 8, 52}
You can readily show if you add a card to the odd-case the extra card will stay on the bottom and not change the sequence, hence the odd case result is just the n+1 even result..
ListPlot[{#, countrifflecards[RandomSample[ Range[#], #]]} & /#
Range[2, 1000]]
What is the best way to find the period in a repeating list?
For example:
a = {4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2}
has repeat {4, 5, 1, 2, 3} with the remainder {4, 5, 1, 2} matching, but being incomplete.
The algorithm should be fast enough to handle longer cases, like so:
b = RandomInteger[10000, {100}];
a = Join[b, b, b, b, Take[b, 27]]
The algorithm should return $Failed if there is no repeating pattern like above.
Please see the comments interspersed with the code on how it works.
(* True if a has period p *)
testPeriod[p_, a_] := Drop[a, p] === Drop[a, -p]
(* are all the list elements the same? *)
homogeneousQ[list_List] := Length#Tally[list] === 1
homogeneousQ[{}] := Throw[$Failed] (* yes, it's ugly to put this here ... *)
(* auxiliary for findPeriodOfFirstElement[] *)
reduce[a_] := Differences#Flatten#Position[a, First[a], {1}]
(* the first element occurs every ?th position ? *)
findPeriodOfFirstElement[a_] := Module[{nl},
nl = NestWhileList[reduce, reduce[a], ! homogeneousQ[#] &];
Fold[Total#Take[#2, #1] &, 1, Reverse[nl]]
]
(* the period must be a multiple of the period of the first element *)
period[a_] := Catch#With[{fp = findPeriodOfFirstElement[a]},
Do[
If[testPeriod[p, a], Return[p]],
{p, fp, Quotient[Length[a], 2], fp}
]
]
Please ask if findPeriodOfFirstElement[] is not clear. I did this independently (for fun!), but now I see that the principle is the same as in Verbeia's solution, except the problem pointed out by Brett is fixed.
I was testing with
b = RandomInteger[100, {1000}];
a = Flatten[{ConstantArray[b, 1000], Take[b, 27]}];
(Note the low integer values: there will be lots of repeating elements within the same period *)
EDIT: According to Leonid's comment below, another 2-3x speedup (~2.4x on my machine) is possible by using a custom position function, compiled specifically for lists of integers:
(* Leonid's reduce[] *)
myPosition = Compile[
{{lst, _Integer, 1}, {val, _Integer}},
Module[{pos = Table[0, {Length[lst]}], i = 1, ctr = 0},
For[i = 1, i <= Length[lst], i++,
If[lst[[i]] == val, pos[[++ctr]] = i]
];
Take[pos, ctr]
],
CompilationTarget -> "C", RuntimeOptions -> "Speed"
]
reduce[a_] := Differences#myPosition[a, First[a]]
Compiling testPeriod gives a further ~20% speedup in a quick test, but I believe this will depend on the input data:
Clear[testPeriod]
testPeriod =
Compile[{{p, _Integer}, {a, _Integer, 1}},
Drop[a, p] === Drop[a, -p]]
Above methods are better if you have no noise. If your signal is only approximate then Fourier transform methods might be useful. I'll illustrate with a "parametrized" setup wherein the length and number of repetitions of the base signal, the length of the trailing part, and a bound on the noise perturbation are all variables one can play with.
noise = 20;
extra = 40;
baselen = 103;
base = RandomInteger[10000, {baselen}];
repeat = 5;
signal = Flatten[Join[ConstantArray[base, repeat], Take[base, extra]]];
noisysignal = signal + RandomInteger[{-noise, noise}, Length[signal]];
We compute the absolute value of the FFT. We adjoin zeros to both ends. The object will be to threshold by comparing to neighbors.
sigfft = Join[{0.}, Abs[Fourier[noisysignal]], {0}];
Now we create two 0-1 vectors. In one we threshold by making a 1 for each element in the fft that is greater than twice the geometric mean of its two neighbors. In the other we use the average (arithmetic mean) but we lower the size bound to 3/4. This was based on some experimentation. We count the number of 1s in each case. Ideally we'd get 100 for each, as that would be the number of nonzeros in a "perfect" case of no noise and no tail part.
In[419]:=
thresh1 =
Table[If[sigfft[[j]]^2 > 2*sigfft[[j - 1]]*sigfft[[j + 1]], 1,
0], {j, 2, Length[sigfft] - 1}];
count1 = Count[thresh1, 1]
thresh2 =
Table[If[sigfft[[j]] > 3/4*(sigfft[[j - 1]] + sigfft[[j + 1]]), 1,
0], {j, 2, Length[sigfft] - 1}];
count2 = Count[thresh2, 1]
Out[420]= 114
Out[422]= 100
Now we get our best guess as to the value of "repeats", by taking the floor of the total length over the average of our counts.
approxrepeats = Floor[2*Length[signal]/(count1 + count2)]
Out[423]= 5
So we have found that the basic signal is repeated 5 times. That can give a start toward refining to estimate the correct length (baselen, above). To that end we might try removing elements at the end and seeing when we get ffts closer to actually having runs of four 0s between nonzero values.
Something else that might work for estimating number of repeats is finding the modal number of zeros in run length encoding of the thresholded ffts. While I have not actually tried that, it looks like it might be robust to bad choices in the details of how one does the thresholding (mine were just experiments that seem to work).
Daniel Lichtblau
The following assumes that the cycle starts on the first element and gives the period length and the cycle.
findCyclingList[a_?VectorQ] :=
Module[{repeats1, repeats2, cl, cLs, vec},
repeats1 = Flatten#Differences[Position[a, First[a]]];
repeats2 = Flatten[Position[repeats1, First[repeats1]]];
If[Equal ## Differences[repeats2] && Length[repeats2] > 2(*
is potentially cyclic - first element appears cyclically *),
cl = Plus ### Partition[repeats1, First[Differences[repeats2]]];
cLs = Partition[a, First[cl]];
If[SameQ ## cLs (* candidate cycles all actually the same *),
vec = First[cLs];
{Length[vec], vec}, $Failed], $Failed] ]
Testing
b = RandomInteger[50, {100}];
a = Join[b, b, b, b, Take[b, 27]];
findCyclingList[a]
{100, {47, 15, 42, 10, 14, 29, 12, 29, 11, 37, 6, 19, 14, 50, 4, 38,
23, 3, 41, 39, 41, 17, 32, 8, 18, 37, 5, 45, 38, 8, 39, 9, 26, 33,
40, 50, 0, 45, 1, 48, 32, 37, 15, 37, 49, 16, 27, 36, 11, 16, 4, 28,
31, 46, 30, 24, 30, 3, 32, 31, 31, 0, 32, 35, 47, 44, 7, 21, 1, 22,
43, 13, 44, 35, 29, 38, 31, 31, 17, 37, 49, 22, 15, 28, 21, 8, 31,
42, 26, 33, 1, 47, 26, 1, 37, 22, 40, 27, 27, 16}}
b1 = RandomInteger[10000, {100}];
a1 = Join[b1, b1, b1, b1, Take[b1, 23]];
findCyclingList[a1]
{100, {1281, 5325, 8435, 7505, 1355, 857, 2597, 8807, 1095, 4203,
3718, 3501, 7054, 4620, 6359, 1624, 6115, 8567, 4030, 5029, 6515,
5921, 4875, 2677, 6776, 2468, 7983, 4750, 7609, 9471, 1328, 7830,
2241, 4859, 9289, 6294, 7259, 4693, 7188, 2038, 3994, 1907, 2389,
6622, 4758, 3171, 1746, 2254, 556, 3010, 1814, 4782, 3849, 6695,
4316, 1548, 3824, 5094, 8161, 8423, 8765, 1134, 7442, 8218, 5429,
7255, 4131, 9474, 6016, 2438, 403, 6783, 4217, 7452, 2418, 9744,
6405, 8757, 9666, 4035, 7833, 2657, 7432, 3066, 9081, 9523, 3284,
3661, 1947, 3619, 2550, 4950, 1537, 2772, 5432, 6517, 6142, 9774,
1289, 6352}}
This case should fail because it isn't cyclical.
findCyclingList[Join[b, Take[b, 11], b]]
$Failed
I tried to something with Repeated, e.g. a /. Repeated[t__, {2, 100}] -> {t} but it just doesn't work for me.
Does this work for you?
period[a_] :=
Quiet[Check[
First[Cases[
Table[
{k, Equal ## Partition[a, k]},
{k, Floor[Length[a]/2]}],
{k_, True} :> k
]],
$Failed]]
Strictly speaking, this will fail for things like
a = {1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}
although this can be fixed by using something like:
(Equal ## Partition[a, k]) && (Equal ## Partition[Reverse[a], k])
(probably computing Reverse[a] just once ahead of time.)
I propose this. It borrows from both Verbeia and Brett's answers.
Do[
If[MatchQ ## Equal ## Partition[#, i, i, 1, _], Return ## i],
{i, #[[ 2 ;; Floor[Length##/2] ]] ~Position~ First##}
] /. Null -> $Failed &
It is not quite as efficient as Vebeia's function on long periods, but it is faster on short ones, and it is simpler as well.
I don't know how to solve it in mathematica, but the following algorithm (written in python) should work. It's O(n) so speed should be no concern.
def period(array):
if len(array) == 0:
return False
else:
s = array[0]
match = False
end = 0
i = 0
for k in range(1,len(array)):
c = array[k]
if not match:
if c == s:
i = 1
match = True
end = k
else:
if not c == array[i]:
match = False
i += 1
if match:
return array[:end]
else:
return False
# False
print(period([4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2,1]))
# [4, 5, 1, 2, 3]
print(period([4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2]))
# False
print(period([4]))
# [4, 2]
print(period([4,2,4]))
# False
print(period([4,2,1]))
# False
print(period([]))
Ok, just to show my own work here:
ModifiedTortoiseHare[a_List] := Module[{counter, tortoise, hare},
Quiet[
Check[
counter = 1;
tortoise = a[[counter]];
hare = a[[2 counter]];
While[(tortoise != hare) || (a[[counter ;; 2 counter - 1]] != a[[2 counter ;; 3 counter - 1]]),
counter++;
tortoise = a[[counter]];
hare = a[[2 counter]];
];
counter,
$Failed]]]
I'm not sure this is a 100% correct, especially with cases like {pattern,pattern,different,pattern, pattern} and it gets slower and slower when there are a lot of repeating elements, like so:
{ 1,2,1,1, 1,2,1,1, 1,2,1,1, ...}
because it is making too many expensive comparisons.
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
int period(vector<int> v)
{
int p=0; // period 0
for(int i=p+1; i<v.size(); i++)
{
if(v[i] == v[0])
{
p=i; // new potential period
bool periodical=true;
for(int i=0; i<v.size()-p; i++)
{
if(v[i]!=v[i+p])
{
periodical=false;
break;
}
}
if(periodical) return p;
i=p; // try to find new period
}
}
return 0; // no period
}
int main()
{
vector<int> v3{1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3};
cout<<"Period is :\t"<<period(v3)<<endl;
vector<int> v0{1,2,3,1,2,3,1,9,6};
cout<<"Period is :\t"<<period(v0)<<endl;
vector<int> v1{1,2,1,1,7,1,2,1,1,7,1,2,1,1};
cout<<"Period is :\t"<<period(v1)<<endl;
return 0;
}
This sounds like it might relate to sequence alignment. These algorithms are well studied, and might already be implemented in mathematica.