Related
My understanding of a tournament selection is:
For a given tournament size, t , randomly select t individuals from the population and determine the winner of that tournament as the individual with the largest fitness function value.
My question is:
Is there a difference between 'Binary Tournament Selection' and 'Tournament Selection', or are they interchangeable terms?
You have a value, lets call it k which determines of how many candidates you pick the best one for each parent you want to chose. This value is often 2 and in this special case we can also call it binary tournament selection. Tournament selection is just the broader term where k can be any number >= 2
I am using elistism to maintain \tau proportion of parent. I am confusing that after copy \tau proportion individual from parent for next generation. Do I need apply generation operator (crossover+mutation) for these individuals. For more detail, I show two algorithm. Which is correct for require "overlap elitism/overlap selection with pair-wise tournament replacement"
Algorithm 1:
P=initial_individual
Fitness_raw=evaluate_raw_fitness(P)
Fitness_Adjust=evaluate_adjust_fitness(Fitness_raw,P) //adjust by Hamming distance
While(t<300)
P_old=P;
Tmp_P=Selection_by_Pair_wise(P, Fitness_Adjust)
Tmp_P=cross_over(Tmp_P)
P=mutation(tmp_P)
//Copy 50% top from P_old ---without mutation and crossover
P=[P_old(1:N/2) P(N/2 N)]
Fitness_raw=evaluate_raw_fitness(P)
Fitness_Adjust=evaluate_adjust_fitness(Fitness_raw,P) //adjust by Hamming distance
End
That means the P after mutation step is construct by original P at ith generation and output of generation operation. Is it right?
Algorithm2:
P=initial_individual
Fitness_raw=evaluate_raw_fitness(P)
Fitness_Adjust=evaluate_adjust_fitness(Fitness_raw,P) //adjust by Hamming distance
While(t<300)
P_old=P;
Tmp_P=Selection_by_Pair_wise(P, Fitness_Adjust)
Tmp_P =[P_old(1:N/2) Tmp_P(N/2 N)]
Tmp_P=cross_over(Tmp_P)
P=mutation(tmp_P)
//Copy 50% top from P_old ---without mutation and crossover
Fitness_raw=evaluate_raw_fitness(P)
Fitness_Adjust=evaluate_adjust_fitness(Fitness_raw,P) //adjust by Hamming distance
End
That means it will copy tau=50% top and 50% rest of populations are replaced by pair-wise. After that, we applied cross_over and mutation in the Tmp_P. Note that 50% top is selected by raw_fitness and 50% last is selected by adjust_fitness for both algorithm.
Elitism means taking explicit measures to preserve good individuals from the current generation to the next. As a result, degradation will not happen. Your first algorithm guarantees that the best 50% individuals of the current population are preserved to the next generation. The second algorithm guarantees nothing. As a result, there may be the case that the best individual in the next generation is even worse than the worst individual in the current generation, obvious degradation. To conclude, your first algorithm, not the second, implements elitism.
You have a set of n objects for which integer positions are given. A group of objects is a set of objects at the same position (not necessarily all the objects at that position: there might be multiple groups at a single position). The objects can be moved to the left or right, and the goal is to move these objects so as to form k groups, and to do so with the minimum distance moved.
For example:
With initial positions at [4,4,7], and k = 3: the minimum cost is 0.
[4,4,7] and k = 2: minimum cost is 0
[1,2,5,7] and k = 2: minimum cost is 1 + 2 = 3
I've been trying to use a greedy approach (by calculating which move would be shortest) but that wouldn't work because every move involves two elements which could be moved either way. I haven't been able to formulate a dynamic programming approach as yet but I'm working on it.
This problem is a one-dimensional instance of the k-medians problem, which can be stated as follows. Given a set of points x_1...x_n, partition these points into k sets S_1...S_k and choose k locations y_1...y_k in a way that minimizes the sum over all x_i of |x_i - y_f(i)|, where y_f(i) is the location corresponding of the set to which x_i is assigned.
Due to the fact that the median is the population minimizer for absolute distance (i.e. L_1 norm), it follows that each location y_j will be the median of the elements x in the corresponding set S_j (hence the name k-medians). Since you are looking at integer values, there is the technicality that if S_j contains an even number of elements, the median might not be an integer, but in such cases choosing either the next integer above or below the median will give the same sum of absolute distances.
The standard heuristic for solving k-medians (and the related and more common k-means problem) is iterative, but this is not guaranteed to produce an optimal or even good solution. Solving the k-medians problem for general metric spaces is NP-hard, and finding efficient approximations for k-medians is an open research problem. Googling "k-medians approximation", for example, will lead to a bunch of papers giving approximation schemes.
http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~sudipto/mypapers/kmedian_jcss.pdf
http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs468-06-winter/Papers/arr-clustering.pdf
In one dimension things become easier, and you can use a dynamic programming approach. A DP solution to the related one-dimensional k-means problem is described in this paper, and the source code in R is available here. See the paper for details, but the idea is essentially the same as what #SajalJain proposed, and can easily be adapted to solve the k-medians problem rather than k-means. For j<=k and m<=n let D(j,m) denote the cost of an optimal j-medians solution to x_1...x_m, where the x_i are assumed to be in sorted order. We have the recurrence
D(j,m) = min (D(j-1,q) + Cost(x_{q+1},...,x_m)
where q ranges from j-1 to m-1 and Cost is equal to the sum of absolute distances from the median. With a naive O(n) implementation of Cost, this would yield an O(n^3k) DP solution to the whole problem. However, this can be improved to O(n^2k) due to the fact that the Cost can be updated in constant time rather than computed from scratch every time, using the fact that, for a sorted sequence:
Cost(x_1,...,x_h) = Cost(x_2,...,x_h) + median(x_1...x_h)-x_1 if h is odd
Cost(x_1,...,x_h) = Cost(x_2,...,x_h) + median(x_2...x_h)-x_1 if h is even
See the writeup for more details. Except for the fact that the update of the Cost function is different, the implementation will be the same for k-medians as for k-means.
http://journal.r-project.org/archive/2011-2/RJournal_2011-2_Wang+Song.pdf
as I understand, the problems is:
we have n points on a line.
we want to place k position on the line. I call them destinations.
move each of n points to one of the k destinations so the sum of distances is minimum. I call this sum, total cost.
destinations can overlap.
An obvious fact is that for each point we should look for the nearest destinations on the left and the nearest destinations on the right and choose the nearest.
Another important fact is all destinations should be on the points. because we can move them on the line to right or to left to reach a point without increasing total distance.
By these facts consider following DP solution:
DP[i][j] means the minimum total cost needed for the first i point, when we can use only j destinations, and have to put a destination on the i-th point.
to calculate DP[i][j] fix the destination before the i-th point (we have i choice), and for each choice (for example k-th point) calculate the distance needed for points between the i-th point and the new point added (k-th point). add this with DP[k][j - 1] and find the minimum for all k.
the calculation of initial states (e.g. j = 1) and final answer is left as an exercise!
Task 0 - sort the position of the objects in non-decreasing order
Let us define 'center' as the position of the object where it is shifted to.
Now we have two observations;
For N positions the 'center' would be the position which is nearest to the mean of these N positions. Example, let 1,3,6,10 be the positions. Then mean = 5. Nearest position is 6. Hence the center for these elements is 6. This gives us the position with minimum cost of moving when all elements need to be grouped into 1 group.
Let N positions be grouped into K groups "optimally". When N+1 th object is added, then it will disturb only the K th group, i.e, first K-1 groups will remain unchanged.
From these observations, we build a dynamic programming approach.
Let Cost[i][k] and Center[i][k] be two 2D arrays.
Cost[i][k] = minimum cost when first 'i' objects are partitioned into 'k' groups
Center[i][k] stores the center of the 'i-th' object when Cost[i][k] is computed.
Let {L} be the elements from i-L,i-L+1,..i-1 which have the same center.
(Center[i-L][k] = Center[i-L+1][k] = ... = Center[i-1][k]) These are the only objects that need to be considered in the computation for i-th element (from observation 2)
Now
Cost[i][k] will be
min(Cost[i-1][k-1] , Cost[i-L-1][k-1] + computecost(i-L, i-L+1, ... ,i))
Update Center[i-L ... i][k]
computecost() can be found trivially by finding the center (from observation 1)
Time Complexity:
Sorting O(NlogN)
Total Cost Computation Matrix = Total elements * Computecost = O(NK * N)
Total = O(NlogN + N*NK) = O(N*NK)
Let's look at k=1.
For k=1 and n odd, all points should move to the center point. For k=1 and n even, all points should move to either of the center points or any spot between them. By 'center' I mean in terms of number of points to either side, i.e. the median.
You can see this because if you select a target spot, x, with more points to its right than it's left, then a new target 1 to the right of x would result in a cost reduction (unless there is exactly one more point to the right than the left and the target spot is a point, in which case n is even and the target is on/between the two center points).
If your points are already sorted, this is an O(1) operation. If not, I believe it's O(n) (via an order statistic algorithm).
Once you've found the spot that all points are moving to, it's O(n) to find the cost.
Thus regardless of whether the points are sorted or not, this is O(n).
I have several numbers. I need to group them in several groups, so that sums of all numbers in one group are between predefined min and max. The point is to left as few numbers ungrouped as possible.
Input:
min, max: range for sum of numbers
N1, N2, N3 ... Ni: numbers to group
Output:
[N1,N3,N5],[Ni,Nj,Nk,Nm...]...: groups where sum of numbers is between min and max
Na,Nb,Nc...: numbers, left ingrouped.
This problem could be viewed as bin packing into bins of size max, with a funny objective: minimize the number of items not packed into bins holding at least min. One idea from the bin-packing literature is that the "small" items (in this case, items that are small relative to max - min) are easy to pack but are accountable for most of the combinatorial explosion of possibilities. Thus some approximation algorithms for bin packing do something clever for big items and then fill in with the small. Another way to reduce the number of possibilities is to round the numbers to belong to a smaller set. It's somewhat obvious how to do that for bin packing (round up), but it's not clear what to do for this problem.
Okay, I'll give an example of how these ideas could be instantiated. Suppose that max = 1 and min = 1/2. Let's try to find a solution that's competitive with the optimum for when max = 2 and min = 1/2. (That may sound terrible, but this sort of approximation guarantee where OPT is held to higher standards is sometimes used in the literature.)
First round every item's size up to a power of 2. Very large items, of size 4 or greater, can't be packed. Large items, of size 2 or 1 or 1/2, are given their own bins. Small items, of size 1/4 or less, are dealt with as follows. Whenever two items of size 1/4 or less have the same size, combine them into one super-item. Pack all of the new items of size 1/2 into their own bins. The remainder has total size less than 1/2. If there is space in another bin, put them there. Otherwise, give them their own bin.
The quality of the resulting solution for max = 2 is at least as good as the quality of OPT for max = 1. Take the optimal solution for max = 1 and round the item sizes. The set of bad bins remains the same, because no item is smaller, and each bin stores less than 2 because each item is less than twice as large as it used to be. Now it suffices to show that the packing algorithm I gave for powers of 2 is optimal. I'll leave that as an exercise.
I don't expect this instantly to generalize into a full algorithm. I have to get back to work, but the approach I would take would be to force OPT to deal with max = 1 while ALG gets to use max = 1 + epsilon, substitute powers of (1 + epsilon) for powers of two in the rounding step, and then figure out how to pack the small items, probably using a dynamic program since greed likely won't work.
If you're not worried about efficiency, simply generate each possible grouping and choose the one that is correct and optimal in the sense you describe. Clearly, this works for any finite list of numbers (and is, by definition, optimal).
If efficiency is desired, the problem seems to become somewhat more difficult. :D I'll keep thinking.
EDIT: Come to think of it, this problem seems at least as hard as "subset sum" and, as such, I don't think there is a solution significantly better than the one I give (i.e., no known polynomial-time algorithm can solve it, if it is NP-Hard.
Lets say I have a parabola. Now I also have a bunch of sticks that are all of the same width (yes my drawing skills are amazing!). How can I stack these sticks within the parabola such that I am minimizing the space it uses as much as possible? I believe that this falls under the category of Knapsack problems, but this Wikipedia page doesn't appear to bring me closer to a real world solution. Is this a NP-Hard problem?
In this problem we are trying to minimize the amount of area consumed (eg: Integral), which includes vertical area.
I cooked up a solution in JavaScript using processing.js and HTML5 canvas.
This project should be a good starting point if you want to create your own solution. I added two algorithms. One that sorts the input blocks from largest to smallest and another that shuffles the list randomly. Each item is then attempted to be placed in the bucket starting from the bottom (smallest bucket) and moving up until it has enough space to fit.
Depending on the type of input the sort algorithm can give good results in O(n^2). Here's an example of the sorted output.
Here's the insert in order algorithm.
function solve(buckets, input) {
var buckets_length = buckets.length,
results = [];
for (var b = 0; b < buckets_length; b++) {
results[b] = [];
}
input.sort(function(a, b) {return b - a});
input.forEach(function(blockSize) {
var b = buckets_length - 1;
while (b > 0) {
if (blockSize <= buckets[b]) {
results[b].push(blockSize);
buckets[b] -= blockSize;
break;
}
b--;
}
});
return results;
}
Project on github - https://github.com/gradbot/Parabolic-Knapsack
It's a public repo so feel free to branch and add other algorithms. I'll probably add more in the future as it's an interesting problem.
Simplifying
First I want to simplify the problem, to do that:
I switch the axes and add them to each other, this results in x2 growth
I assume it is parabola on a closed interval [a, b], where a = 0 and for this example b = 3
Lets say you are given b (second part of interval) and w (width of a segment), then you can find total number of segments by n=Floor[b/w]. In this case there exists a trivial case to maximize Riemann sum and function to get i'th segment height is: f(b-(b*i)/(n+1))). Actually it is an assumption and I'm not 100% sure.
Max'ed example for 17 segments on closed interval [0, 3] for function Sqrt[x] real values:
And the segment heights function in this case is Re[Sqrt[3-3*Range[1,17]/18]], and values are:
Exact form:
{Sqrt[17/6], 2 Sqrt[2/3], Sqrt[5/2],
Sqrt[7/3], Sqrt[13/6], Sqrt[2],
Sqrt[11/6], Sqrt[5/3], Sqrt[3/2],
2/Sqrt[3], Sqrt[7/6], 1, Sqrt[5/6],
Sqrt[2/3], 1/Sqrt[2], 1/Sqrt[3],
1/Sqrt[6]}
Approximated form:
{1.6832508230603465,
1.632993161855452, 1.5811388300841898, 1.5275252316519468, 1.4719601443879744, 1.4142135623730951, 1.35400640077266, 1.2909944487358056, 1.224744871391589, 1.1547005383792517, 1.0801234497346435, 1, 0.9128709291752769, 0.816496580927726, 0.7071067811865475, 0.5773502691896258, 0.4082482904638631}
What you have archived is a Bin-Packing problem, with partially filled bin.
Finding b
If b is unknown or our task is to find smallest possible b under what all sticks form the initial bunch fit. Then we can limit at least b values to:
lower limit : if sum of segment heights = sum of stick heights
upper limit : number of segments = number of sticks longest stick < longest segment height
One of the simplest way to find b is to take a pivot at (higher limit-lower limit)/2 find if solution exists. Then it becomes new higher or lower limit and you repeat the process until required precision is met.
When you are looking for b you do not need exact result, but suboptimal and it would be much faster if you use efficient algorithm to find relatively close pivot point to actual b.
For example:
sort the stick by length: largest to smallest
start 'putting largest items' into first bin thy fit
This is equivalent to having multiple knapsacks (assuming these blocks are the same 'height', this means there's one knapsack for each 'line'), and is thus an instance of the bin packing problem.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing
How can I stack these sticks within the parabola such that I am minimizing the (vertical) space it uses as much as possible?
Just deal with it like any other Bin Packing problem. I'd throw meta-heuristics on it (such as tabu search, simulated annealing, ...) since those algorithms aren't problem specific.
For example, if I'd start from my Cloud Balance problem (= a form of Bin Packing) in Drools Planner. If all the sticks have the same height and there's no vertical space between 2 sticks on top of each other, there's not much I'd have to change:
Rename Computer to ParabolicRow. Remove it's properties (cpu, memory, bandwith). Give it a unique level (where 0 is the lowest row). Create a number of ParabolicRows.
Rename Process to Stick
Rename ProcessAssignement to StickAssignment
Rewrite the hard constraints so it checks if there's enough room for the sum of all Sticks assigned to a ParabolicRow.
Rewrite the soft constraints to minimize the highest level of all ParabolicRows.
I'm very sure it is equivalent to bin-packing:
informal reduction
Be x the width of the widest row, make the bins 2x big and create for every row a placeholder element which is 2x-rowWidth big. So two placeholder elements cannot be packed into one bin.
To reduce bin-packing on parabolic knapsack you just create placeholder elements for all rows that are bigger than the needed binsize with size width-binsize. Furthermore add placeholders for all rows that are smaller than binsize which fill the whole row.
This would obviously mean your problem is NP-hard.
For other ideas look here maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_stock_problem
Most likely this is the 1-0 Knapsack or a bin-packing problem. This is a NP hard problem and most likely this problem I don't understand and I can't explain to you but you can optimize with greedy algorithms. Here is a useful article about it http://www.developerfusion.com/article/5540/bin-packing that I use to make my php class bin-packing at phpclasses.org.
Props to those who mentioned the fact that the levels could be at varying heights (ex: assuming the sticks are 1 'thick' level 1 goes from 0.1 unit to 1.1 units, or it could go from 0.2 to 1.2 units instead)
You could of course expand the "multiple bin packing" methodology and test arbitrarily small increments. (Ex: run the multiple binpacking methodology with levels starting at 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, ... 0.9) and then choose the best result, but it seems like you would get stuck calulating for an infinite amount of time unless you had some methodlogy to verify that you had gotten it 'right' (or more precisely, that you had all the 'rows' correct as to what they contained, at which point you could shift them down until they met the edge of the parabola)
Also, the OP did not specify that the sticks had to be laid horizontally - although perhaps the OP implied it with those sweet drawings.
I have no idea how to optimally solve such an issue, but i bet there are certain cases where you could randomly place sticks and then test if they are 'inside' the parabola, and it would beat out any of the methodologies relying only on horizontal rows.
(Consider the case of a narrow parabola that we are trying to fill with 1 long stick.)
I say just throw them all in there and shake them ;)