The question is: You are appointed by a Non-governmental Organization whose mission is to increase access to drinkable water to find the optimal place to dig a well in a village. The sum of the distances to the houses should be minimal, but there are obstacles (walls, cliffs, trees) in the way.
An example would be:
Where # is an obstacle and * is a house.
What I have tried:
1) for each empty grid, run a Breadth-first search algorithm. and calculate the total distance from that grid to all the houses. Finally, find the one that has the smallest distance.
2) build a complete graph for this map. i.e., connect all the possible routes.
Finally, run the Minimum Spanning Tree algorithm for it. All the empty grid locate on the MST is the solutions
Assuming the number of houses is small, you can run BFS from each house instead of from each empty cell, then take the cell with the minimum sum of distances.
I believe this is over-engineering.
The objective function need not be the “sum” : what if there is an outlier that contributes heavily ?
Also the solutions you have tried are flawed : breadth-first search and MST apply to tree topology which is not existing in your problem setup.
Why don't you do a geographic centre of gravity calculation ; find this initial point ; then apply perturbation techniques to refine the solution ?
I have a weighted undirected graph. Given two vertices in that graph that have no path between them, I want to create a path between then by adding edges to the graph, increasing the total weight of the graph by as little as possible. Is there a known algorithm for determining which edges to add?
An analogous problem would be if I have a graph of a country's road system, where there are two cities that are inaccessible by road from each-other, and I want to build the shortest set of new roads that will connect them. There may be other cities in between them that are connected to neither, and if they exist I want to take advantage of them.
Here's a little illustration; red and green are the vertices I want to connect, black lines are existing edges, and the blue line represents the path I want to exist.
Is there a known algorithm that gives the edges that are missing from that path?
You could use the A* algorithm with a weight of zero for existing edges and distance (or whatever cost makes sense) for missing edges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm
Actually Dijkstra with some preprocessing is best friend for you.
I answered problem that can be similar to this one: What is the time complexity if it needs to revisit visited nodes in BFS?
What I see in common - you want to use as much existing roads as possible. Also you sometimes need to break that and build new road. The point is in setting the proper weights for existing ones and for "possibly new ones".
What would be my approach - lets say, that each 1 km of existing road has cost of 1. You can sum all existing roads in your graph and lets say there are 1000km in total. Then I would preprocess whole graph and from each node(city) I would create path to all other non-diretly-connected cities and each of them would cost 1000 + 1000 per kilometer and then run Dijkstra on it.
It will automatically use as much existing roads as possible and create as less new roads as possible.
Also you can play with that settings a bit to achieve what you want.
Imagine there are two cities that are only 100m away from each other. And there is actually path between them from existing roads that takes 20 000km. With the settings I have suggested you will get 20000km path as the best one (which satisfy need of "dont build any new roads if not necessary"). Sometimes you actually want this. Sometimes you do not. In case you do not, you can think about "ok, if I build like a little of extra road and it dramatically lowers the distance, its still better solution". If this is the case, you can think about lower the price of new roads (like removing the initial cost, or per kilometer cost or both of it - it depends on what you take as best output).
I don't think that there's an accepted algorithm. But you could try and do the following. First run Vitterbi Triangulation, then run a depth first search on this fully connected graph. Take the sum of the new links in the path from A -> B. Remove the longest new link, and repeat. Once the path from A -> B cannot be reached, check the previous solutions to see which of the solutions had the smallest sum of new links.
If you have the full bus schedule for a country, how can you find the
furthest anyone can travel in one day without visiting the same stop twice?
I assume a bus schedule gives you the full list of leaving and arriving times for every bus stop.
A slow and naive method would be as follows.
You can of course make a graph from the bus schedule with multiple directed edges between bus stops. You could then do a depth first search remembering the arrival time of the edge you took to get to each node and only taking edges from that stop that leave after the one that you took to get there. If you go to a node you have been to before you would only carry on from there if the current time in your traversal is before the earliest time you had ever visited that node before. You could record the furthest you can get from each node and then you could check each node to find the furthest you can travel overall.
This seems very inefficient however and it really isn't a normal graph problem. The problem is that in a normal directed graph if you can get from A to B and from B to C then you can get from A to C. This isn't true here.
What is the fastest you can solve this problem?
I think your original algorithm is pretty good.
You can think of your approach as being a version of Dijkstra's algorithm, in attempting to find the shortest path to each node.
Note that it is best at this stage to weight edges in the graph in terms of time. The idea is to use your Dijkstra-like algorithm to compute all nodes reachable within 1 days worth of time, and then pick whichever of these nodes is furthest in space from the start point.
Implementations of Dijkstra can use a heap to retrieve the next node to explore in O(logn), and I think this would be a good enhancement to your approach as well. If you always choose the node that you can reach earliest, you never need to repeat the calculation for that node.
Overall the approach is:
For each starting point
Use a modified Dijkstra to compute all nodes reachable in 1 day
Find the furthest in space of all these nodes.
So for n starting points and e bus routes, the complexity is about O(n(n+e)log(n)) to get the optimal answer.
You should be able to get improved performance by using an appropriate heuristic in an A* search. The heuristic needs to underestimate the max distance possible from a point, so you could use the maximum speed of a bus multiplied by the remaining time.
Instead of making multiple edges for each departure from a location, you can make multiple nodes per location / time.
Create one node per location per departure time.
Create one node per location per arrival time.
Create edges to connect departures to arrivals.
Create edges to connect a given node to the node belonging to the same location at the nearest future time.
By doing this, any path you can traverse through the graph is "valid" (meaning a traveler would be able to achieve this by a combination of bus trips or choosing to sit at a location and wait for a future bus).
Sorry to say, but as described this problem has a pretty high complexity. Misread the problem originally and thought it was np-hard, but it is not. It does however have a pretty high complexity that I personally would not want to deal with. This algorithm is a pretty good approximation that give a considerable complexity savings that I personally think it worth it.
However, if all you want is an answer that is "pretty good" there are are lot of fairly efficient algorithms out there that will get close very quickly.
Personally I would suggest using a simple greedy algorithm here.
I've done this on a few (granted, small and contrived) examples and it's worked pretty well and has an nlog(n) efficiency.
Associate a velocity with each node, velocity being the fastest you can move away from a given node. In my examples this velocity was distance_travelled/(wait_time + travel_time). I used the maximum velocity of all trips leaving a node as the velocity score for that node.
From your node/time calculate the velocities of all neighboring nodes and travel to the "fastest" node.
This algorithm is pretty good for the complexity as it basically transforms the problem into a static search, but there are a couple potential pitfalls that could be adjusted for depending on your data set.
The biggest issue with this algorithm is the possibility of a really fast bus going into the middle of nowhere. You could get around that by adding a "popularity" term to the velocity calculation (make more popular stops effectively faster) but depending on your data set that could easily make things either better or worse.
The simplistic graph representation will not work. I. e. each city is a node and the edges represent time. That's because the "edge" is not always active -- it is only active at certain times of the day.
The second thing that comes to mind is Edward Tufte's Paris Train Schedule which is a different kind of graph. But that does not quite fit the problem either. With the train schedule, the stations have a sequential relationship between stations, but that's not the case in general with cities and bus schedules.
But Tufte motivates the following way to model it as a graph. You could write code only to construct the graph and use a standard graph library that includes the shortest path algorithm.
Each bus trip is an edge with weight = distance covered
Each (city, departure) and (city, arrival) is a node
All nodes for a given city are connected by zero-weight edges in a time-ordered sequence, ignoring whether it is an arrival or a departure. This subgraph will look like a chain.
(it is a directed graph)
Linear Time Solution: Note that the graph will be a directed, acyclic graph. Finding the longest path in such a graph is linear. "A longest path between two given vertices s and t in a weighted graph G is the same thing as a shortest path in a graph −G derived from G by changing every weight to its negation. Therefore, if shortest paths can be found in −G, then longest paths can also be found in G."
Hope this helps! If somebody can post a visualization of the graph, it would be nice. If I can do so myself, I will do 1 more edit.
Naive is the best you'll get -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_path_problem
EDIT:
So the problem is two fold.
Create a list of graphs where its possible to travel from pointA to pointB. Possible is in terms of times available for busA to travel from pointA to pointB.
Find longest path from all the possible generated path above.
Another approach would be to reevaluate the graph upon each node traversal and find the longest path.
It still reduces to finding longest possible path, which is NP-Hard.
In a tower defense game, you have an NxM grid with a start, a finish, and a number of walls.
Enemies take the shortest path from start to finish without passing through any walls (they aren't usually constrained to the grid, but for simplicity's sake let's say they are. In either case, they can't move through diagonal "holes")
The problem (for this question at least) is to place up to K additional walls to maximize the path the enemies have to take. For example, for K=14
My intuition tells me this problem is NP-hard if (as I'm hoping to do) we generalize this to include waypoints that must be visited before moving to the finish, and possibly also without waypoints.
But, are there any decent heuristics out there for near-optimal solutions?
[Edit] I have posted a related question here.
I present a greedy approach and it's maybe close to the optimal (but I couldn't find approximation factor). Idea is simple, we should block the cells which are in critical places of the Maze. These places can help to measure the connectivity of maze. We can consider the vertex connectivity and we find minimum vertex cut which disconnects the start and final: (s,f). After that we remove some critical cells.
To turn it to the graph, take dual of maze. Find minimum (s,f) vertex cut on this graph. Then we examine each vertex in this cut. We remove a vertex its deletion increases the length of all s,f paths or if it is in the minimum length path from s to f. After eliminating a vertex, recursively repeat the above process for k time.
But there is an issue with this, this is when we remove a vertex which cuts any path from s to f. To prevent this we can weight cutting node as high as possible, means first compute minimum (s,f) cut, if cut result is just one node, make it weighted and set a high weight like n^3 to that vertex, now again compute the minimum s,f cut, single cutting vertex in previous calculation doesn't belong to new cut because of waiting.
But if there is just one path between s,f (after some iterations) we can't improve it. In this case we can use normal greedy algorithms like removing node from a one of a shortest path from s to f which doesn't belong to any cut. after that we can deal with minimum vertex cut.
The algorithm running time in each step is:
min-cut + path finding for all nodes in min-cut
O(min cut) + O(n^2)*O(number of nodes in min-cut)
And because number of nodes in min cut can not be greater than O(n^2) in very pessimistic situation the algorithm is O(kn^4), but normally it shouldn't take more than O(kn^3), because normally min-cut algorithm dominates path finding, also normally path finding doesn't takes O(n^2).
I guess the greedy choice is a good start point for simulated annealing type algorithms.
P.S: minimum vertex cut is similar to minimum edge cut, and similar approach like max-flow/min-cut can be applied on minimum vertex cut, just assume each vertex as two vertex, one Vi, one Vo, means input and outputs, also converting undirected graph to directed one is not hard.
it can be easily shown (proof let as an exercise to the reader) that it is enough to search for the solution so that every one of the K blockades is put on the current minimum-length route. Note that if there are multiple minimal-length routes then all of them have to be considered. The reason is that if you don't put any of the remaining blockades on the current minimum-length route then it does not change; hence you can put the first available blockade on it immediately during search. This speeds up even a brute-force search.
But there are more optimizations. You can also always decide that you put the next blockade so that it becomes the FIRST blockade on the current minimum-length route, i.e. you work so that if you place the blockade on the 10th square on the route, then you mark the squares 1..9 as "permanently open" until you backtrack. This saves again an exponential number of squares to search for during backtracking search.
You can then apply heuristics to cut down the search space or to reorder it, e.g. first try those blockade placements that increase the length of the current minimum-length route the most. You can then run the backtracking algorithm for a limited amount of real-time and pick the best solution found thus far.
I believe we can reduce the contained maximum manifold problem to boolean satisifiability and show NP-completeness through any dependency on this subproblem. Because of this, the algorithms spinning_plate provided are reasonable as heuristics, precomputing and machine learning is reasonable, and the trick becomes finding the best heuristic solution if we wish to blunder forward here.
Consider a board like the following:
..S........
#.#..#..###
...........
...........
..........F
This has many of the problems that cause greedy and gate-bound solutions to fail. If we look at that second row:
#.#..#..###
Our logic gates are, in 0-based 2D array ordered as [row][column]:
[1][4], [1][5], [1][6], [1][7], [1][8]
We can re-render this as an equation to satisfy the block:
if ([1][9] AND ([1][10] AND [1][11]) AND ([1][12] AND [1][13]):
traversal_cost = INFINITY; longest = False # Infinity does not qualify
Excepting infinity as an unsatisfiable case, we backtrack and rerender this as:
if ([1][14] AND ([1][15] AND [1][16]) AND [1][17]:
traversal_cost = 6; longest = True
And our hidden boolean relationship falls amongst all of these gates. You can also show that geometric proofs can't fractalize recursively, because we can always create a wall that's exactly N-1 width or height long, and this represents a critical part of the solution in all cases (therefore, divide and conquer won't help you).
Furthermore, because perturbations across different rows are significant:
..S........
#.#........
...#..#....
.......#..#
..........F
We can show that, without a complete set of computable geometric identities, the complete search space reduces itself to N-SAT.
By extension, we can also show that this is trivial to verify and non-polynomial to solve as the number of gates approaches infinity. Unsurprisingly, this is why tower defense games remain so fun for humans to play. Obviously, a more rigorous proof is desirable, but this is a skeletal start.
Do note that you can significantly reduce the n term in your n-choose-k relation. Because we can recursively show that each perturbation must lie on the critical path, and because the critical path is always computable in O(V+E) time (with a few optimizations to speed things up for each perturbation), you can significantly reduce your search space at a cost of a breadth-first search for each additional tower added to the board.
Because we may tolerably assume O(n^k) for a deterministic solution, a heuristical approach is reasonable. My advice thus falls somewhere between spinning_plate's answer and Soravux's, with an eye towards machine learning techniques applicable to the problem.
The 0th solution: Use a tolerable but suboptimal AI, in which spinning_plate provided two usable algorithms. Indeed, these approximate how many naive players approach the game, and this should be sufficient for simple play, albeit with a high degree of exploitability.
The 1st-order solution: Use a database. Given the problem formulation, you haven't quite demonstrated the need to compute the optimal solution on the fly. Therefore, if we relax the constraint of approaching a random board with no information, we can simply precompute the optimum for all K tolerable for each board. Obviously, this only works for a small number of boards: with V! potential board states for each configuration, we cannot tolerably precompute all optimums as V becomes very large.
The 2nd-order solution: Use a machine-learning step. Promote each step as you close a gap that results in a very high traversal cost, running until your algorithm converges or no more optimal solution can be found than greedy. A plethora of algorithms are applicable here, so I recommend chasing the classics and the literature for selecting the correct one that works within the constraints of your program.
The best heuristic may be a simple heat map generated by a locally state-aware, recursive depth-first traversal, sorting the results by most to least commonly traversed after the O(V^2) traversal. Proceeding through this output greedily identifies all bottlenecks, and doing so without making pathing impossible is entirely possible (checking this is O(V+E)).
Putting it all together, I'd try an intersection of these approaches, combining the heat map and critical path identities. I'd assume there's enough here to come up with a good, functional geometric proof that satisfies all of the constraints of the problem.
At the risk of stating the obvious, here's one algorithm
1) Find the shortest path
2) Test blocking everything node on that path and see which one results in the longest path
3) Repeat K times
Naively, this will take O(K*(V+ E log E)^2) but you could with some little work improve 2 by only recalculating partial paths.
As you mention, simply trying to break the path is difficult because if most breaks simply add a length of 1 (or 2), its hard to find the choke points that lead to big gains.
If you take the minimum vertex cut between the start and the end, you will find the choke points for the entire graph. One possible algorithm is this
1) Find the shortest path
2) Find the min-cut of the whole graph
3) Find the maximal contiguous node set that intersects one point on the path, block those.
4) Wash, rinse, repeat
3) is the big part and why this algorithm may perform badly, too. You could also try
the smallest node set that connects with other existing blocks.
finding all groupings of contiguous verticies in the vertex cut, testing each of them for the longest path a la the first algorithm
The last one is what might be most promising
If you find a min vertex cut on the whole graph, you're going to find the choke points for the whole graph.
Here is a thought. In your grid, group adjacent walls into islands and treat every island as a graph node. Distance between nodes is the minimal number of walls that is needed to connect them (to block the enemy).
In that case you can start maximizing the path length by blocking the most cheap arcs.
I have no idea if this would work, because you could make new islands using your points. but it could help work out where to put walls.
I suggest using a modified breadth first search with a K-length priority queue tracking the best K paths between each island.
i would, for every island of connected walls, pretend that it is a light. (a special light that can only send out horizontal and vertical rays of light)
Use ray-tracing to see which other islands the light can hit
say Island1 (i1) hits i2,i3,i4,i5 but doesn't hit i6,i7..
then you would have line(i1,i2), line(i1,i3), line(i1,i4) and line(i1,i5)
Mark the distance of all grid points to be infinity. Set the start point as 0.
Now use breadth first search from the start. Every grid point, mark the distance of that grid point to be the minimum distance of its neighbors.
But.. here is the catch..
every time you get to a grid-point that is on a line() between two islands, Instead of recording the distance as the minimum of its neighbors, you need to make it a priority queue of length K. And record the K shortest paths to that line() from any of the other line()s
This priority queque then stays the same until you get to the next line(), where it aggregates all priority ques going into that point.
You haven't showed the need for this algorithm to be realtime, but I may be wrong about this premice. You could then precalculate the block positions.
If you can do this beforehand and then simply make the AI build the maze rock by rock as if it was a kind of tree, you could use genetic algorithms to ease up your need for heuristics. You would need to load any kind of genetic algorithm framework, start with a population of non-movable blocks (your map) and randomly-placed movable blocks (blocks that the AI would place). Then, you evolve the population by making crossovers and transmutations over movable blocks and then evaluate the individuals by giving more reward to the longest path calculated. You would then simply have to write a resource efficient path-calculator without the need of having heuristics in your code. In your last generation of your evolution, you would take the highest-ranking individual, which would be your solution, thus your desired block pattern for this map.
Genetic algorithms are proven to take you, under ideal situation, to a local maxima (or minima) in reasonable time, which may be impossible to reach with analytic solutions on a sufficiently large data set (ie. big enough map in your situation).
You haven't stated the language in which you are going to develop this algorithm, so I can't propose frameworks that may perfectly suit your needs.
Note that if your map is dynamic, meaning that the map may change over tower defense iterations, you may want to avoid this technique since it may be too intensive to re-evolve an entire new population every wave.
I'm not at all an algorithms expert, but looking at the grid makes me wonder if Conway's game of life might somehow be useful for this. With a reasonable initial seed and well-chosen rules about birth and death of towers, you could try many seeds and subsequent generations thereof in a short period of time.
You already have a measure of fitness in the length of the creeps' path, so you could pick the best one accordingly. I don't know how well (if at all) it would approximate the best path, but it would be an interesting thing to use in a solution.
I was recently trying to come up with the total number of hamiltonian paths (basically starting for start vertex, visit each node exaactly once and reach the end vertex). Brute force dfs goes for a long walk on a moderate sized grid of 7x8. I came up with some of these prunning strategies. The goal of these pruning techniques is that a partial path which cannot be a hamiltonian path should not be extended further.
DFS Algorithm:
Start for the start vertex, visit its neighbor nodes and recurse. Keep a count of the number of nodes visited and once reaching the end vertex, check if the totla visited nodes is same as the total nodes in the grid. This is going to be exponential complexity as for each vertex you can go in 4 directions, which will be of O(4^n). So focus should be to reject a path as soon as possible and not wait until reaching the end vertex.
Pruning Techniques:
1) For a given partial path, check if the remaining graph is connected. If it is not, then this partial path cannot end up to be a hamiltonian path.
2) For a given partial path, each yet-to-be-visited node must have atleast 2 degree such that one neighbor node could be used to enter this node and other other neighbor is used to exit.
I was wondering how much these pruning techniques could save time. Also am I missing some very improtant pruning techinque because my speed up is not significant.
Thanks in Advance !!!
There is an O(n^2 * 2^n) solution that works for general graphs. The structure is identical to the O(2^n * n^2) algorithm described here,
http://www.algorithmist.com/index.php/Traveling_Salesperson_Problem
Except rather than recording minimum distances, you are recording counts.
Any pruning you can do on top of that will still help.