We know that Genetic Algorithms (or evolutionary computation) work with an encoding of the points in our solution space Ω rather than these points directly. In the literature, we often find that GAs have the drawback : (1) since many chromosomes are coded into a similar point of Ω or similar chromosomes have very different points, the efficiency is quite low. Do you think that is really a drawback ? because these kind of algorithms uses the mutation operator in each iteration to diversify the candidate solutions. To add more diversivication we simply increase the probability of crossover. And we mustn't forget that our initial population ( of chromosones ) is randomly generated ( another more diversification). The question is, if you think that (1) is a drawback of GAs, can you provide more details ? Thank you.
Mutation and random initialization are not enough to combat the problem that is known as genetic drift which is the major problem of genetic algorithms. Genetic drift means that the GA may quickly lose most of its genetic diversity and the search proceeds in a way that is not beneficial for crossover. This is because the random initial population quickly converges. Mutation is a different thing, if it is high it will diversify, true, but at the same time it will prevent convergence and the solutions will remain at a certain distance to the optimum with higher probability. You will need to adapt the mutation probability (not the crossover probability) during the search. In a similar manner the Evolution Strategy, which is similar to a GA, adapts the mutation strength during the search.
We have developed a variant of the GA that is called OffspringSelection GA (OSGA) which introduces another selection step after crossover. Only those children will be accepted that surpass their parents' fitness (the better, the worse or any linearly interpolated value). This way you can even use random parent selection and put the bias on the quality of the offspring. It has been shown that this slows the genetic drift. The algorithm is implemented in our framework HeuristicLab. It features a GUI so you can download and try it on some problems.
Other techniques that combat genetic drift are niching and crowding which let the diversity flow into the selection and thus introduce another, but likely different bias.
EDIT: I want to add that the situation of having multiple solutions with equal quality might of course pose a problem as it creates neutral areas in the search space. However, I think you didn't really mean that. The primary problem is genetic drift, ie. the loss of (important) genetic information.
As a sidenote, you (the OP) said:
We know that Genetic Algorithms (or evolutionary computation) work with an encoding of the points in our solution space Ω rather than these points directly.
This is not always true. An individual is coded as a genotype, which can have any shape, such as a string (genetic algorithms) or a vector of real (evolution strategies). Each genotype is transformed into a phenotype when assessing the individual, i.e. when its fitness is calculated. In some cases, the phenotype is identical to the genotype: it is called direct coding. Otherwise, the coding is called indirect. (you may find more definitions here (section 2.2.1))
Example of direct encoding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroevolution#Direct_and_Indirect_Encoding_of_Networks
Example of indirect encoding:
Suppose you want to optimize the size of a rectangular parallelepiped dened by its length, height and width. To simplify the example, assume that these three quantities are integers between 0 and 15. We can then describe each of them using a 4-bit binary number. An example of a potential solution may be to genotype 0001 0111 01010. The corresponding phenotype is a parallelepiped of length 1, height 7 and width 10.
Now back to the original question on diversity, in addition to what DonAndre said you could read you read chapter 9 "Multi-Modal Problems and Spatial Distribution" of the excellent book Introduction to Evolutionary Computing written by A. E. Eiben and J. E. Smith. as well as a research paper on that matter such as Encouraging Behavioral Diversity in Evolutionary Robotics: an Empirical Study. In a word, diversity is not a drawback of GA, it is "just" an issue.
I'm observing a sinusoidally-varying source, i.e. f(x) = a sin (bx + d) + c, and want to determine the amplitude a, offset c and period/frequency b - the shift d is unimportant. Measurements are sparse, with each source measured typically between 6 and 12 times, and observations are at (effectively) random times, with intervals between observations roughly between a quarter and ten times the period (just to stress, the spacing of observations is not constant for each source). In each source the offset c is typically quite large compared to the measurement error, while amplitudes vary - at one extreme they are only on the order of the measurement error, while at the other extreme they are about twenty times the error. Hopefully that fully outlines the problem, if not, please ask and i'll clarify.
Thinking naively about the problem, the average of the measurements will be a good estimate of the offset c, while half the range between the minimum and maximum value of the measured f(x) will be a reasonable estimate of the amplitude, especially as the number of measurements increase so that the prospects of having observed the maximum offset from the mean improve. However, if the amplitude is small then it seems to me that there is little chance of accurately determining b, while the prospects should be better for large-amplitude sources even if they are only observed the minimum number of times.
Anyway, I wrote some code to do a least-squares fit to the data for the range of periods, and it identifies best-fit values of a, b and d quite effectively for the larger-amplitude sources. However, I see it finding a number of possible periods, and while one is the 'best' (in as much as it gives the minimum error-weighted residual) in the majority of cases the difference in the residuals for different candidate periods is not large. So what I would like to do now is quantify the possibility that the derived period is a 'false positive' (or, to put it slightly differently, what confidence I can have that the derived period is correct).
Does anybody have any suggestions on how best to proceed? One thought I had was to use a Monte-Carlo algorithm to construct a large number of sources with known values for a, b and c, construct samples that correspond to my measurement times, fit the resultant sample with my fitting code, and see what percentage of the time I recover the correct period. But that seems quite heavyweight, and i'm not sure that it's particularly useful other than giving a general feel for the false-positive rate.
And any advice for frameworks that might help? I have a feeling this is something that can likely be done in a line or two in Mathematica, but (a) I don't know it, an (b) don't have access to it. I'm fluent in Java, competent in IDL and can probably figure out other things...
This looks tailor-made for working in the frequency domain. Apply a Fourier transform and identify the frequency based on where the power is located, which should be clear for a sinusoidal source.
ADDENDUM To get an idea of how accurate is your estimate, I'd try a resampling approach such as cross-validation. I think this is the direction that you're heading with the Monte Carlo idea; lots of work is out there, so hopefully that's a wheel you won't need to re-invent.
The trick here is to do what might seem at first to make the problem more difficult. Rewrite f in the similar form:
f(x) = a1*sin(b*x) + a2*cos(b*x) + c
This is based on the identity for the sin(u+v).
Recognize that if b is known, then the problem of estimating {a1, a2, c} is a simple LINEAR regression problem. So all you need to do is use a 1-variable minimization tool, working on the value of b, to minimize the sum of squares of the residuals from that linear regression model. There are many such univariate optimizers to be found.
Once you have those parameters, it is easy to find the parameter a in your original model, since that is all you care about.
a = sqrt(a1^2 + a2^2)
The scheme I have described is called a partitioned least squares.
If you have a reasonable estimate of the size and the nature of your noise (e.g. white Gaussian with SD sigma), you can
(a) invert the Hessian matrix to get an estimate of the error in your position and
(b) should be able to easily derive a significance statistic for your fit residues.
For (a), compare http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys6720/handouts/curve_fit/curve_fit/node6.html
For (b), assume that your measurement errors are independent and thus the variance of their sum is the sum of their variances.
I have asked a question a few days back on how to find the nearest neighbors for a given vector. My vector is now 21 dimensions and before I proceed further, because I am not from the domain of Machine Learning nor Math, I am beginning to ask myself some fundamental questions:
Is Euclidean distance a good metric for finding the nearest neighbors in the first place? If not, what are my options?
In addition, how does one go about deciding the right threshold for determining the k-neighbors? Is there some analysis that can be done to figure this value out?
Previously, I was suggested to use kd-Trees but the Wikipedia page clearly says that for high-dimensions, kd-Tree is almost equivalent to a brute-force search. In that case, what is the best way to find nearest-neighbors in a million point dataset efficiently?
Can someone please clarify the some (or all) of the above questions?
I currently study such problems -- classification, nearest neighbor searching -- for music information retrieval.
You may be interested in Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) algorithms. The idea is that you allow the algorithm to return sufficiently near neighbors (perhaps not the nearest neighbor); in doing so, you reduce complexity. You mentioned the kd-tree; that is one example. But as you said, kd-tree works poorly in high dimensions. In fact, all current indexing techniques (based on space partitioning) degrade to linear search for sufficiently high dimensions [1][2][3].
Among ANN algorithms proposed recently, perhaps the most popular is Locality-Sensitive Hashing (LSH), which maps a set of points in a high-dimensional space into a set of bins, i.e., a hash table [1][3]. But unlike traditional hashes, a locality-sensitive hash places nearby points into the same bin.
LSH has some huge advantages. First, it is simple. You just compute the hash for all points in your database, then make a hash table from them. To query, just compute the hash of the query point, then retrieve all points in the same bin from the hash table.
Second, there is a rigorous theory that supports its performance. It can be shown that the query time is sublinear in the size of the database, i.e., faster than linear search. How much faster depends upon how much approximation we can tolerate.
Finally, LSH is compatible with any Lp norm for 0 < p <= 2. Therefore, to answer your first question, you can use LSH with the Euclidean distance metric, or you can use it with the Manhattan (L1) distance metric. There are also variants for Hamming distance and cosine similarity.
A decent overview was written by Malcolm Slaney and Michael Casey for IEEE Signal Processing Magazine in 2008 [4].
LSH has been applied seemingly everywhere. You may want to give it a try.
[1] Datar, Indyk, Immorlica, Mirrokni, "Locality-Sensitive Hashing Scheme Based on p-Stable Distributions," 2004.
[2] Weber, Schek, Blott, "A quantitative analysis and performance study for similarity-search methods in high-dimensional spaces," 1998.
[3] Gionis, Indyk, Motwani, "Similarity search in high dimensions via hashing," 1999.
[4] Slaney, Casey, "Locality-sensitive hashing for finding nearest neighbors", 2008.
I. The Distance Metric
First, the number of features (columns) in a data set is not a factor in selecting a distance metric for use in kNN. There are quite a few published studies directed to precisely this question, and the usual bases for comparison are:
the underlying statistical
distribution of your data;
the relationship among the features
that comprise your data (are they
independent--i.e., what does the
covariance matrix look like); and
the coordinate space from which your
data was obtained.
If you have no prior knowledge of the distribution(s) from which your data was sampled, at least one (well documented and thorough) study concludes that Euclidean distance is the best choice.
YEuclidean metric used in mega-scale Web Recommendation Engines as well as in current academic research. Distances calculated by Euclidean have intuitive meaning and the computation scales--i.e., Euclidean distance is calculated the same way, whether the two points are in two dimension or in twenty-two dimension space.
It has only failed for me a few times, each of those cases Euclidean distance failed because the underlying (cartesian) coordinate system was a poor choice. And you'll usually recognize this because for instance path lengths (distances) are no longer additive--e.g., when the metric space is a chessboard, Manhattan distance is better than Euclidean, likewise when the metric space is Earth and your distances are trans-continental flights, a distance metric suitable for a polar coordinate system is a good idea (e.g., London to Vienna is is 2.5 hours, Vienna to St. Petersburg is another 3 hrs, more or less in the same direction, yet London to St. Petersburg isn't 5.5 hours, instead, is a little over 3 hrs.)
But apart from those cases in which your data belongs in a non-cartesian coordinate system, the choice of distance metric is usually not material. (See this blog post from a CS student, comparing several distance metrics by examining their effect on kNN classifier--chi square give the best results, but the differences are not large; A more comprehensive study is in the academic paper, Comparative Study of Distance Functions for Nearest Neighbors--Mahalanobis (essentially Euclidean normalized by to account for dimension covariance) was the best in this study.
One important proviso: for distance metric calculations to be meaningful, you must re-scale your data--rarely is it possible to build a kNN model to generate accurate predictions without doing this. For instance, if you are building a kNN model to predict athletic performance, and your expectation variables are height (cm), weight (kg), bodyfat (%), and resting pulse (beats per minute), then a typical data point might look something like this: [ 180.4, 66.1, 11.3, 71 ]. Clearly the distance calculation will be dominated by height, while the contribution by bodyfat % will be almost negligible. Put another way, if instead, the data were reported differently, so that bodyweight was in grams rather than kilograms, then the original value of 86.1, would be 86,100, which would have a large effect on your results, which is exactly what you don't want. Probably the most common scaling technique is subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation (mean and sd refer calculated separately for each column, or feature in that data set; X refers to an individual entry/cell within a data row):
X_new = (X_old - mu) / sigma
II. The Data Structure
If you are concerned about performance of the kd-tree structure, A Voronoi Tessellation is a conceptually simple container but that will drastically improve performance and scales better than kd-Trees.
This is not the most common way to persist kNN training data, though the application of VT for this purpose, as well as the consequent performance advantages, are well-documented (see e.g. this Microsoft Research report). The practical significance of this is that, provided you are using a 'mainstream' language (e.g., in the TIOBE Index) then you ought to find a library to perform VT. I know in Python and R, there are multiple options for each language (e.g., the voronoi package for R available on CRAN)
Using a VT for kNN works like this::
From your data, randomly select w points--these are your Voronoi centers. A Voronoi cell encapsulates all neighboring points that are nearest to each center. Imagine if you assign a different color to each of Voronoi centers, so that each point assigned to a given center is painted that color. As long as you have a sufficient density, doing this will nicely show the boundaries of each Voronoi center (as the boundary that separates two colors.
How to select the Voronoi Centers? I use two orthogonal guidelines. After random selecting the w points, calculate the VT for your training data. Next check the number of data points assigned to each Voronoi center--these values should be about the same (given uniform point density across your data space). In two dimensions, this would cause a VT with tiles of the same size.That's the first rule, here's the second. Select w by iteration--run your kNN algorithm with w as a variable parameter, and measure performance (time required to return a prediction by querying the VT).
So imagine you have one million data points..... If the points were persisted in an ordinary 2D data structure, or in a kd-tree, you would perform on average a couple million distance calculations for each new data points whose response variable you wish to predict. Of course, those calculations are performed on a single data set. With a V/T, the nearest-neighbor search is performed in two steps one after the other, against two different populations of data--first against the Voronoi centers, then once the nearest center is found, the points inside the cell corresponding to that center are searched to find the actual nearest neighbor (by successive distance calculations) Combined, these two look-ups are much faster than a single brute-force look-up. That's easy to see: for 1M data points, suppose you select 250 Voronoi centers to tesselate your data space. On average, each Voronoi cell will have 4,000 data points. So instead of performing on average 500,000 distance calculations (brute force), you perform far lesss, on average just 125 + 2,000.
III. Calculating the Result (the predicted response variable)
There are two steps to calculating the predicted value from a set of kNN training data. The first is identifying n, or the number of nearest neighbors to use for this calculation. The second is how to weight their contribution to the predicted value.
W/r/t the first component, you can determine the best value of n by solving an optimization problem (very similar to least squares optimization). That's the theory; in practice, most people just use n=3. In any event, it's simple to run your kNN algorithm over a set of test instances (to calculate predicted values) for n=1, n=2, n=3, etc. and plot the error as a function of n. If you just want a plausible value for n to get started, again, just use n = 3.
The second component is how to weight the contribution of each of the neighbors (assuming n > 1).
The simplest weighting technique is just multiplying each neighbor by a weighting coefficient, which is just the 1/(dist * K), or the inverse of the distance from that neighbor to the test instance often multiplied by some empirically derived constant, K. I am not a fan of this technique because it often over-weights the closest neighbors (and concomitantly under-weights the more distant ones); the significance of this is that a given prediction can be almost entirely dependent on a single neighbor, which in turn increases the algorithm's sensitivity to noise.
A must better weighting function, which substantially avoids this limitation is the gaussian function, which in python, looks like this:
def weight_gauss(dist, sig=2.0) :
return math.e**(-dist**2/(2*sig**2))
To calculate a predicted value using your kNN code, you would identify the n nearest neighbors to the data point whose response variable you wish to predict ('test instance'), then call the weight_gauss function, once for each of the n neighbors, passing in the distance between each neighbor the the test point.This function will return the weight for each neighbor, which is then used as that neighbor's coefficient in the weighted average calculation.
What you are facing is known as the curse of dimensionality. It is sometimes useful to run an algorithm like PCA or ICA to make sure that you really need all 21 dimensions and possibly find a linear transformation which would allow you to use less than 21 with approximately the same result quality.
Update:
I encountered them in a book called Biomedical Signal Processing by Rangayyan (I hope I remember it correctly). ICA is not a trivial technique, but it was developed by researchers in Finland and I think Matlab code for it is publicly available for download. PCA is a more widely used technique and I believe you should be able to find its R or other software implementation. PCA is performed by solving linear equations iteratively. I've done it too long ago to remember how. = )
The idea is that you break up your signals into independent eigenvectors (discrete eigenfunctions, really) and their eigenvalues, 21 in your case. Each eigenvalue shows the amount of contribution each eigenfunction provides to each of your measurements. If an eigenvalue is tiny, you can very closely represent the signals without using its corresponding eigenfunction at all, and that's how you get rid of a dimension.
Top answers are good but old, so I'd like to add up a 2016 answer.
As said, in a high dimensional space, the curse of dimensionality lurks around the corner, making the traditional approaches, such as the popular k-d tree, to be as slow as a brute force approach. As a result, we turn our interest in Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search (ANNS), which in favor of some accuracy, speedups the process. You get a good approximation of the exact NN, with a good propability.
Hot topics that might be worthy:
Modern approaches of LSH, such as Razenshteyn's.
RKD forest: Forest(s) of Randomized k-d trees (RKD), as described in FLANN,
or in a more recent approach I was part of, kd-GeRaF.
LOPQ which stands for Locally Optimized Product Quantization, as described here. It is very similar to the new Babenko+Lemptitsky's approach.
You can also check my relevant answers:
Two sets of high dimensional points: Find the nearest neighbour in the other set
Comparison of the runtime of Nearest Neighbor queries on different data structures
PCL kd-tree implementation extremely slow
To answer your questions one by one:
No, euclidean distance is a bad metric in high dimensional space. Basically in high dimensions, data points have large differences between each other. That decreases the relative difference in the distance between a given data point and its nearest and farthest neighbour.
Lot of papers/research are there in high dimension data, but most of the stuff requires a lot of mathematical sophistication.
KD tree is bad for high dimensional data ... avoid it by all means
Here is a nice paper to get you started in the right direction. "When in Nearest Neighbour meaningful?" by Beyer et all.
I work with text data of dimensions 20K and above. If you want some text related advice, I might be able to help you out.
Cosine similarity is a common way to compare high-dimension vectors. Note that since it's a similarity not a distance, you'd want to maximize it not minimize it. You can also use a domain-specific way to compare the data, for example if your data was DNA sequences, you could use a sequence similarity that takes into account probabilities of mutations, etc.
The number of nearest neighbors to use varies depending on the type of data, how much noise there is, etc. There are no general rules, you just have to find what works best for your specific data and problem by trying all values within a range. People have an intuitive understanding that the more data there is, the fewer neighbors you need. In a hypothetical situation where you have all possible data, you only need to look for the single nearest neighbor to classify.
The k Nearest Neighbor method is known to be computationally expensive. It's one of the main reasons people turn to other algorithms like support vector machines.
kd-trees indeed won't work very well on high-dimensional data. Because the pruning step no longer helps a lot, as the closest edge - a 1 dimensional deviation - will almost always be smaller than the full-dimensional deviation to the known nearest neighbors.
But furthermore, kd-trees only work well with Lp norms for all I know, and there is the distance concentration effect that makes distance based algorithms degrade with increasing dimensionality.
For further information, you may want to read up on the curse of dimensionality, and the various variants of it (there is more than one side to it!)
I'm not convinced there is a lot use to just blindly approximating Euclidean nearest neighbors e.g. using LSH or random projections. It may be necessary to use a much more fine tuned distance function in the first place!
A lot depends on why you want to know the nearest neighbors. You might look into the mean shift algorithm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean-shift if what you really want is to find the modes of your data set.
I think cosine on tf-idf of boolean features would work well for most problems. That's because its time-proven heuristic used in many search engines like Lucene. Euclidean distance in my experience shows bad results for any text-like data. Selecting different weights and k-examples can be done with training data and brute-force parameter selection.
iDistance is probably the best for exact knn retrieval in high-dimensional data. You can view it as an approximate Voronoi tessalation.
I've experienced the same problem and can say the following.
Euclidean distance is a good distance metric, however it's computationally more expensive than the Manhattan distance, and sometimes yields slightly poorer results, thus, I'd choose the later.
The value of k can be found empirically. You can try different values and check the resulting ROC curves or some other precision/recall measure in order to find an acceptable value.
Both Euclidean and Manhattan distances respect the Triangle inequality, thus you can use them in metric trees. Indeed, KD-trees have their performance severely degraded when the data have more than 10 dimensions (I've experienced that problem myself). I found VP-trees to be a better option.
KD Trees work fine for 21 dimensions, if you quit early,
after looking at say 5 % of all the points.
FLANN does this (and other speedups)
to match 128-dim SIFT vectors. (Unfortunately FLANN does only the Euclidean metric,
and the fast and solid
scipy.spatial.cKDTree
does only Lp metrics;
these may or may not be adequate for your data.)
There is of course a speed-accuracy tradeoff here.
(If you could describe your Ndata, Nquery, data distribution,
that might help people to try similar data.)
Added 26 April, run times for cKDTree with cutoff on my old mac ppc, to give a very rough idea of feasibility:
kdstats.py p=2 dim=21 N=1000000 nask=1000 nnear=2 cutoff=1000 eps=0 leafsize=10 clustype=uniformp
14 sec to build KDtree of 1000000 points
kdtree: 1000 queries looked at av 0.1 % of the 1000000 points, 0.31 % of 188315 boxes; better 0.0042 0.014 0.1 %
3.5 sec to query 1000 points
distances to 2 nearest: av 0.131 max 0.253
kdstats.py p=2 dim=21 N=1000000 nask=1000 nnear=2 cutoff=5000 eps=0 leafsize=10 clustype=uniformp
14 sec to build KDtree of 1000000 points
kdtree: 1000 queries looked at av 0.48 % of the 1000000 points, 1.1 % of 188315 boxes; better 0.0071 0.026 0.5 %
15 sec to query 1000 points
distances to 2 nearest: av 0.131 max 0.245
You could try a z order curve. It's easy for 3 dimension.
I had a similar question a while back. For fast Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search you can use the annoy library from spotify: https://github.com/spotify/annoy
This is some example code for the Python API, which is optimized in C++.
from annoy import AnnoyIndex
import random
f = 40
t = AnnoyIndex(f, 'angular') # Length of item vector that will be indexed
for i in range(1000):
v = [random.gauss(0, 1) for z in range(f)]
t.add_item(i, v)
t.build(10) # 10 trees
t.save('test.ann')
# ...
u = AnnoyIndex(f, 'angular')
u.load('test.ann') # super fast, will just mmap the file
print(u.get_nns_by_item(0, 1000)) # will find the 1000 nearest neighbors
They provide different distance measurements. Which distance measurement you want to apply depends highly on your individual problem. Also consider prescaling (meaning weighting) certain dimensions for importance first. Those dimension or feature importance weights might be calculated by something like entropy loss or if you have a supervised learning problem gini impurity gain or mean average loss, where you check how much worse your machine learning model performs, if you scramble this dimensions values.
Often the direction of the vector is more important than it's absolute value. For example in the semantic analysis of text documents, where we want document vectors to be close when their semantics are similar, not their lengths. Thus we can either normalize those vectors to unit length or use angular distance (i.e. cosine similarity) as a distance measurement.
Hope this is helpful.
Is Euclidean distance a good metric for finding the nearest neighbors in the first place? If not, what are my options?
I would suggest soft subspace clustering, a pretty common approach nowadays, where feature weights are calculated to find the most relevant dimensions. You can use these weights when using euclidean distance, for example. See curse of dimensionality for common problems and also this article can enlighten you somehow:
A k-means type clustering algorithm for subspace clustering of mixed numeric and
categorical datasets
There was a post on here recently which posed the following question:
You have a two-dimensional plane of (X, Y) coordinates. A bunch of random points are chosen. You need to select the largest possible set of chosen points, such that no two points share an X coordinate and no two points share a Y coordinate.
This is all the information that was provided.
There were two possible solutions presented.
One suggested using a maximum flow algorithm, such that each selected point maps to a path linking (source → X → Y → sink). This runs in O(V3) time, where V is the number of vertices selected.
Another (mine) suggested using the Hungarian algorithm. Create an n×n matrix of 1s, then set every chosen (x, y) coordinate to 0. The Hungarian algorithm will give you the lowest cost for this matrix, and the answer is the number of coordinates selected which equal 0. This runs in O(n3) time, where n is the greater of the number of rows or the number of columns.
My reasoning is that, for the vast majority of cases, the Hungarian algorithm is going to be faster; V is equal to n in the case where there's one chosen point for each row or column, and substantially greater for any case where there's more than that: given a 50×50 matrix with half the coordinates chosen, V is 1,250 and n is 50.
The counterargument is that there are some cases, like a 109×109 matrix with only two points selected, where V is 2 and n is 1,000,000,000. For this case, it takes the Hungarian algorithm a ridiculously long time to run, while the maximum flow algorithm is blinding fast.
Here is the question: Given that the problem doesn't provide any information regarding the size of the matrix or the probability that a given point is chosen (so you can't know for sure) how do you decide which algorithm, in general, is a better choice for the problem?
You can't, it's an imponderable.
You can only define which is better "in general" by defining what inputs you will see "in general". So for example you could whip up a probability model of the inputs, so that the expected value of V is a function of n, and choose the one with the best expected runtime under that model. But there may be arbitrary choices made in the construction of your model, so that different models give different answers. One model might choose co-ordinates at random, another model might look at the actual use-case for some program you're thinking of writing, and look at the distribution of inputs it will encounter.
You can alternatively talk about which has the best worst case (across all possible inputs with given constraints), which has the virtue of being easy to define, and the flaw that it's not guaranteed to tell you anything about the performance of your actual program. So for instance HeapSort is faster than QuickSort in the worst case, but slower in the average case. Which is faster? Depends whether you care about average case or worst case. If you don't care which case, you're not allowed to care which "is faster".
This is analogous to trying to answer the question "what is the probability that the next person you see will have an above (mean) average number of legs?".
We might implicitly assume that the next person you meet will be selected at random with uniform distribution from the human population (and hence the answer is "slightly less than one", since the mean is less than the mode average, and the vast majority of people are at the mode).
Or we might assume that your next meeting with another person is randomly selected with uniform distribution from the set of all meetings between two people, in which case the answer is still "slightly less than one", but I reckon not the exact same value as the first - one-and-zero-legged people quite possibly congregate with "their own kind" very slightly more than their frequency within the population would suggest. Or possibly they congregate less, I really don't know, I just don't see why it should be exactly the same once you take into account Veterans' Associations and so on.
Or we might use knowledge about you - if you live with a one-legged person then the answer might be "very slightly above 0".
Which of the three answers is "correct" depends precisely on the context which you are forbidding us from talking about. So we can't talk about which is correct.
Given that you don't know what each pill does, do you take the red pill or the blue pill?
If there really is not enough information to decide, there is not enough information to decide. Any guess is as good as any other.
Maybe, in some cases, it is possible to divine extra information to base the decision on. I haven't studied your example in detail, but it seems like the Hungarian algorithm might have higher memory requirements. This might be a reason to go with the maximum flow algorithm.
You don't. I think you illustrated that clearly enough. I think the proper practical solution is to spawn off both implementations in different threads, and then take the response that comes back first. If you're more clever, you can heuristically route requests to implementations.
Many algorithms require huge amounts of memory beyond the physical maximum of a machine, and in these cases, the algorithmically more ineffecient in time but efficient in space algorithm is chosen.
Given that we have distributed parallel computing, I say you just let both horses run and let the results speak for themselves.
This is a valid question, but there's no "right" answer — they are incomparable, so there's no notion of "better".
If your interest is practical, then you need to analyze the kinds of inputs that are likely to arise in practice, as well as the practical running times (constants included) of the two algorithms.
If your interest is theoretical, where worst-case analysis is often the norm, then, in terms of the input size, the O(V3) algorithm is better: you know that V ≤ n2, but you cannot polynomially bound n in terms of V, as you showed yourself. Of course the theoretical best algorithm is a hybrid algorithm that runs both and stops when whichever one of them finishes first, thus its running time would be O(min(V3,n3)).
Theoretically, they are both the same, because you actually compare how the number of operations grows when the size of the problem is increased to infinity.
The way your problem is defined, it has 2 sizes - n and number of points, so this question has no answer.
I am looking for a general algorithm to help in situations with similar constraints as this example :
I am thinking of a system where images are constructed based on a set of operations. Each operation has a set of parameters. The total "gene" of the image is then the sequential application of the operations with the corresponding parameters. The finished image is then given a vote by one or more real humans according to how "beautiful" it is.
The question is what kind of algorithm would be able to do better than simply random search if you want to find the most beautiful image? (and hopefully improve the confidence over time as votes tick in and improve the fitness function)
Given that the operations will probably be correlated, it should be possible to do better than random search. So for example operation A with parameters a1 and a2 followed by B with parameters b1 could generally be vastly superior to B followed by A. The order of operations will matter.
I have tried googling for research papers on random walk and markov chains as that is my best guesses about where to look, but so far have found no scenarios similar enough. I would really appreciate even just a hint of where to look for such an algorithm.
I think what you are looking for fall in a broad research area called metaheuristics (which include many non-linear optimization algorithms such as genetic algorithms, simulated annealing or tabu search).
Then if your raw fitness function is just giving a statistical value somehow approximating a real (but unknown) fitness function, you can probably still use most metaheuristics by (somehow) smoothing your fitness function (averaging results would do that).
Do you mean the Metropolis algorithm?
This approach uses a random walk, weighted by the fitness function. It is useful for locating local extrema in complicated fitness landscapes, but is generally slower than deterministic approaches where those will work.
You're pretty much describing a genetic algorithm in which the sequence of operations represents the "gene" ("chromosome" would be a better term for this, where the parameter[s] passed to each operation represents a single "gene", and multiple genes make up a chromosome), the image produced represents the phenotypic expression of the gene, and the votes from the real humans represent the fitness function.
If I understand your question, you're looking for an alternative algorithm of some sort that will evaluate the operations and produce a "beauty" score similar to what the real humans produce. Good luck with that - I don't think there really is any such thing, and I'm not surprised that you didn't find anything. Human brains, and correspondingly human evaluations of aesthetics, are much too staggeringly complex to be reducible to a simplistic algorithm.
Interestingly, your question seems to encapsulate the bias against using real human responses as the fitness function in genetic-algorithm-based software. This is a subject of relevance to me, since my namesake software is specifically designed to use human responses (or "votes") to evaluate music produced via a genetic process.
Simple Markov Chain
Markov chains, which you mention, aren't a bad way to go. A Markov chain is just a state machine, represented as a graph with edge weights which are transition probabilities. In your case, each of your operations is a node in the graph, and the edges between the nodes represent allowable sequences of operations. Since order matters, your edges are directed. You then need three components:
A generator function to construct the graph of allowed transitions (which operations are allowed to follow one another). If any operation is allowed to follow any other, then this is easy to write: all nodes are connected, and your graph is said to be complete. You can initially set all the edge weights to 1.
A function to traverse the graph, crossing N nodes, where N is your 'gene-length'. At each node, your choice is made randomly, but proportionally weighted by the values of the edges (so better edges have a higher chance of being selected).
A weighting update function which can be used to adjust the weightings of the edges when you get feedback about an image. For example, a simple update function might be to give each edge involved in a 'pleasing' image a positive vote each time that image is nominated by a human. The weighting of each edge is then normalised, with the currently highest voted edge set to 1, and all the others correspondingly reduced.
This graph is then a simple learning network which will be refined by subsequent voting. Over time as votes accumulate, successive traversals will tend to favour the more highly rated sequences of operations, but will still occasionally explore other possibilities.
Advantages
The main advantage of this approach is that it's easy to understand and code, and makes very few assumptions about the problem space. This is good news if you don't know much about the search space (e.g. which sequences of operations are likely to be favourable).
It's also easy to analyse and debug - you can inspect the weightings at any time and very easily calculate things like the top 10 best sequences known so far, etc. This is a big advantage - other approaches are typically much harder to investigate ("why did it do that?") because of their increased abstraction. Although very efficient, you can easily melt your brain trying to follow and debug the convergence steps of a simplex crawler!
Even if you implement a more sophisticated production algorithm, having a simple baseline algorithm is crucial for sanity checking and efficiency comparisons. It's also easy to tinker with, by messing with the update function. For example, an even more baseline approach is pure random walk, which is just a null weighting function (no weighting updates) - whatever algorithm you produce should perform significantly better than this if its existence is to be justified.
This idea of baselining is very important if you want to evaluate the quality of your algorithm's output empirically. In climate modelling, for example, a simple test is "does my fancy simulation do any better at predicting the weather than one where I simply predict today's weather will be the same as yesterday's?" Since weather is often correlated on a timescale of several days, this baseline can give surprisingly good predictions!
Limitations
One disadvantage of the approach is that it is slow to converge. A more agressive choice of update function will push promising results faster (for example, weighting new results according to a power law, rather than the simple linear normalisation), at the cost of giving alternatives less credence.
This is equivalent to fiddling with the mutation rate and gene pool size in a genetic algorithm, or the cooling rate of a simulated annealing approach. The tradeoff between 'climbing hills or exploring the landscape' is an inescapable "twiddly knob" (free parameter) which all search algorithms must deal with, either directly or indirectly. You are trying to find the highest point in some fitness search space. Your algorithm is trying to do that in less tries than random inspection, by looking at the shape of the space and trying to infer something about it. If you think you're going up a hill, you can take a guess and jump further. But if it turns out to be a small hill in a bumpy landscape, then you've just missed the peak entirely.
Also note that since your fitness function is based on human responses, you are limited to a relatively small number of iterations regardless of your choice of algorithmic approach. For example, you would see the same issue with a genetic algorithm approach (fitness function limits the number of individuals and generations) or a neural network (limited training set).
A final potential limitation is that if your "gene-lengths" are long, there are many nodes, and many transitions are allowed, then the size of the graph will become prohibitive, and the algorithm impractical.