Say you have a warehouse with fragile goods (f.e. vegetables or fruits), and you can only take out a container with vegetables once. If you move them twice, they'll rot too fast and cant be sold anymore.
So if you give a value to every container of vegetables (depending on how long they'll still be fresh), you want to sell the lowest value first. And when a client asks a certain weight, you want to deliver a good service, and give the exact weight (so you need to take some extra out of your warehouse, and throw the extra bit away after selling).
I don't know if this problem has a name, but I would consider this the dual form of the knapsack problem. In the knapsack problem, you want to maximise the value and limit the weight to a maximum. While here you want to minimise the value and limit the weight to a minimum.
You can easily see this duality by treating the warehouse as the knapsack, and optimising the warehouse for the maximum value and limited weight to a maximum of the current weight minus what the client asks.
However, many practical algorithms on solving the knapsack problem rely on the assumption that the weight you can carry is small compared to the total weight you can chose from. F.e. the dynamic programming 0/1 solution relies on looping until you reach the maximum weight, and the FPTAS solution guarantees to be correct within a factor of (1-e) of the total weight (but a small factor of a huge value can still make a pretty big difference).
So both have issues when the wanted weight is big.
As such, I wondered if anyone studied the "dual knapsack problem" already (if some literature can be found around it), or if there's some easy modification to the existing algorithms that I'm missing.
The usual pseudopolynomial DP algorithm for solving knapsack asks, for each i and w, "What is the largest total value I can get from the first i items if I use at most w capacity?"
You can instead ask, for each i and w, "What is the smallest total value I can get from the first i items if I use at least w capacity?" The logic is almost identical, except that the direction of the comparison is reversed, and you need a special value to record the possibility that even taking all i of the first i items cannot reach w capacity -- infinity works for this, since you want this value to lose against any finite value when they are compared with min().
Related
I'm trying to plan a work out with sit-ups/press ups etc. Each exercise will fatigue a muscle group by 'x' amount. After fatiguing a muscle, that muscle will recover (for simplicity linearly) at a rate of 'r' amount per second.
I want to order a set of exercises to minimise the maximum fatigue for any muscle at any point.
This feels like it may be similar to a standard problem which has been solved. Could you please point in this known problem?
If we're talking about 14 exercises, the best option would probably be to use the branch and bound method. Let's go through all the permutations recursively. If our current maximum is bigger than the upper bound estimate we had before, we should not continue this permutation, because it is guaranteed to be worse. If we calculated one full permutation, we should update the upper bound. The total number of states is
14! = 8e10, but a good number of them would be cut off.
It also helps to have a decent greedy solution to use as the initial estimate.
I'm also pretty sure that no polynomial solution exists because the function we're trying to optimize is too complicated.
I'm trying to come up with a fast and reasonably optimal algorithm to solve the following TSP/hamiltonian-path-like problem:
A delivery vehicle has a number of pickups and dropoffs it needs to
perform:
For each delivery, the pickup needs to come before the
dropoff.
The vehicle is quite small and the packages vary in size.
The total carriage cannot exceed some upper bound (e.g. 1 cubic
metre). Each delivery has a deadline.
The planner can run mid-route, so the vehicle will begin with a number of jobs already picked up and some capacity already taken up.
A near-optimal solution should minimise the total cost (for simplicity, distance) between each waypoint. If a solution does not exist because of the time constraints, I need to find a solution that has the fewest number of late deliveries. Some illustrations of an example problem and a non-optimal, but valid solution:
I am currently using a greedy best first search with backtracking bounded to 100 branches. If it fails to find a solution with on-time deliveries, I randomly generate as many as I can in one second (the most computational time I can spare) and pick the one with the fewest number of late deliveries. I have looked into linear programming but can't get my head around it - plus I would think it would be inappropriate given it needs to be run very frequently. I've also tried algorithms that require mutating the tour, but the issue is mutating a tour nearly always makes it invalid due to capacity constraints and precedence. Can anyone think of a better heuristic approach to solving this problem? Many thanks!
Safe Moves
Here are some ideas for safely mutating an existing feasible solution:
Any two consecutive stops can always be swapped if they are both pickups, or both deliveries. This is obviously true for the "both deliveries" case; for the "both pickups" case: if you had room to pick up A, then pick up B without delivering anything in between, then you have room to pick up B first, then pick up A. (In fact a more general rule is possible: In any pure-delivery or pure-pickup sequence of consecutive stops, the stops can be rearranged arbitrarily. But enumerating all the possibilities might become prohibitive for long sequences, and you should be able to get most of the benefit by considering just pairs.)
A pickup of A can be swapped with any later delivery of something else B, provided that A's original pickup comes after B was picked up, and A's own delivery comes after B's original delivery. In the special case where the pickup of A is immediately followed by the delivery of B, they can always be swapped.
If there is a delivery of an item of size d followed by a pickup of an item of size p, then they can be swapped provided that there is enough extra room: specifically, provided that f >= p, where f is the free space available before the delivery. (We already know that f + d >= p, otherwise the original schedule wouldn't be feasible -- this is a hint to look for small deliveries to apply this rule to.)
If you are starting from purely randomly generated schedules, then simply trying all possible moves, greedily choosing the best, applying it and then repeating until no more moves yield an improvement should give you a big quality boost!
Scoring Solutions
It's very useful to have a way to score a solution, so that they can be ordered. The nice thing about a score is that it's easy to incorporate levels of importance: just as the first digit of a two-digit number is more important than the second digit, you can design the score so that more important things (e.g. deadline violations) receive a much greater weight than less important things (e.g. total travel time or distance). I would suggest something like 1000 * num_deadline_violations + total_travel_time. (This assumes of course that total_travel_time is in units that will stay beneath 1000.) We would then try to minimise this.
Managing Solutions
Instead of taking one solution and trying all the above possible moves on it, I would instead suggest using a pool of k solutions (say, k = 10000) stored in a min-heap. This allows you to extract the best solution in the pool in O(log k) time, and to insert new solutions in the same time.
You could initially populate the pool with randomly generated feasible solutions; then on each step, you would extract the best solution in the pool, try all possible moves on it to generate child solutions, and insert any child solutions that are better than their parent back into the pool. Whenever the pool doubles in size, pull out the first (i.e. best) k solutions and make a new min-heap with them, discarding the old one. (Performing this step after the heap grows to a constant multiple of its original size like this has the nice property of leaving the amortised time complexity unchanged.)
It can happen that some move on solution X produces a child solution Y that is already in the pool. This wastes memory, which is unfortunate, but one nice property of the min-heap approach is that you can at least handle these duplicates cheaply when they arrive at the front of the heap: all duplicates will have identical scores, so they will all appear consecutively when extracting solutions from the top of the heap. Thus to avoid having duplicate solutions generate duplicate children "down through the generations", it suffices to check that the new top of the heap is different from the just-extracted solution, and keep extracting and discarding solutions until this holds.
A note on keeping worse solutions: It might seem that it could be worthwhile keeping child solutions even if they are slightly worse than their parent, and indeed this may be useful (or even necessary to find the absolute optimal solution), but doing so has a nasty consequence: it means that it's possible to cycle from one solution to its child and back again (or possibly a longer cycle). This wastes CPU time on solutions we have already visited.
You are basically combining the Knapsack Problem with the Travelling Salesman Problem.
Your main problem here seems to be actually the Knapsack Problem, rather then the Travelling Salesman Problem, since it has the one hard restriction (maximum delivery volume). Maybe try to combine the solutions for the Knapsack Problem with the Travelling Salesman.
If you really only have one second max for calculations a greedy algorithm with backtracking might actually be one of the best solutions that you can get.
I am given a list of n products with associated profits and costs per unit. The aim is to maximize the profits while keeping the total cost below some threshold. For each product either one or zero are produced.
Now suppose we have three products and Suppose we label these products 1,2 and 3. Then all possible combinations of productions can be given as the binary numbers 111,110,101,011,100,010,001 and 000, where a 1 in the i^th position denotes a production of one of product i and similarly for zero. We could then easily check which of these combinations has a production cost under the threshold and has the maximum profit. This algorithm would then be of order O(2^n) because for n products we have to check 2^n binary numbers. We can probably make this a little faster by recognizing that if 100 is above the threshold already we need not check 110 and 111 and some stuff like this but the order will not change because of this. How can I make a smarter algorithm maybe that has a better time complexity. The n can be as large as 100 in which case checking 2^100 numbers is not possible. Thanks in advance
If your costs are integers that are not too big, you can use the dynamic programming solution for the knapsack problem, which is listed in the link mentioned in David Eisenstat's comment. If your costs are either big integers or fractional, then your best bet is using one of the existing knapsack solvers that e.g. reduce to an integer linear programming problem and then do something like branch and bound in order to solve. At any rate, your problem IS the knapsack problem, with the only slight modification that you don't have to fill the knapsack completely, you can fill it partially as long as you don't overfill it. However this variant is also studied along with the original formulation, and there are solvers for it. Also it is easy to modify the dynamic programming solution to handle this, let me know if it's unclear how and I'll update my answer with an explanation.
I'm currently trying to solve the following problem, but am unsure which algorithm I should be using. Its in the area of mass identification.
I have a series of "weights", *w_i*, which can sum up to a total weight. The as-measured total weight has an error associated with it, so is thus inexact.
I need to find, given the total weight T, the closest k possible combinations of weights that can sum up to the total, where k is an input from the user. Each weight can be used multiple times.
Now, this sounds suspiciously like the bounded-integer multiple knapsack problem, however
it is possible to go over the weight, and
I also want all of the ranked solutions in terms of error
I can probably solve it using multiple sweeps of the knapsack problem, from weight-error->weight+error, by stepping in small enough increments, however it is possible if the increment is too large to miss certain weight combinations that could be used.
The number of weights is usually small (4 ->10 weights) and the ratio of the total weight to the mean weight is usually around 2 or 3
Does anyone know the names of an algorithm that might be suitable here?
Your problem effectively resembles the knapsack problem which is a NP-complete problem.
For really limited number of weights, you could run over every combinations with repetition followed by a sorting which gives you a quite high number of manipulations; at best: (n + k - 1)! / ((n - 1)! · k!) for the combination and n·log(n) for the sorting part.
Solving this kind of problem in a reasonable amount of time is best done by evolutionary algorithms nowadays.
If you take the following example from deap, an evolutionary algorithm framework in Python:
ga_knapsack.py, you realise that by modifying lines 58-59 that automatically discards an overweight solution for something smoother (a linear relation, for instance), it will give you solutions close to the optimal one in a shorter time than brute force. Solutions are already sorted for you at the end, as you requested.
As a first attempt I'd go for constraint programming (but then I almost always do, so take the suggestion with a pinch of salt):
Given W=w_1, ..., w_i for weights and E=e_1,.., e_i for the error (you can also make it asymmetric), and T.
Find all sets S (if the weights are unique, or a list) st sum w_1+e_1,..., w_k+e_k (where w_1, .., w_k \elem and e_1, ..., e_k \elem E) \approx T within some delta which you derive from k. Or just set it to some reasonably large value and decrease it as you are solving the constraints.
I just realise that you also want to parametrise the expression w_n op e_m over op \elem +, - (any combination of weights and error terms) and off the top of my head I don't know which constraint solver would allow you to do that. In any case, you can always fall back to prolog. It may not fly, especially if you have a lot of weights, but it will give you solutions quickly.
My best shot so far:
A delivery vehicle needs to make a series of deliveries (d1,d2,...dn), and can do so in any order--in other words, all the possible permutations of the set D = {d1,d2,...dn} are valid solutions--but the particular solution needs to be determined before it leaves the base station at one end of the route (imagine that the packages need to be loaded in the vehicle LIFO, for example).
Further, the cost of the various permutations is not the same. It can be computed as the sum of the squares of distance traveled between di -1 and di, where d0 is taken to be the base station, with the caveat that any segment that involves a change of direction costs 3 times as much (imagine this is going on on a railroad or a pneumatic tube, and backing up disrupts other traffic).
Given the set of deliveries D represented as their distance from the base station (so abs(di-dj) is the distance between two deliveries) and an iterator permutations(D) which will produce each permutation in succession, find a permutation which has a cost less than or equal to that of any other permutation.
Now, a direct implementation from this description might lead to code like this:
function Cost(D) ...
function Best_order(D)
for D1 in permutations(D)
Found = true
for D2 in permutations(D)
Found = false if cost(D2) > cost(D1)
return D1 if Found
Which is O(n*n!^2), e.g. pretty awful--especially compared to the O(n log(n)) someone with insight would find, by simply sorting D.
My question: can you come up with a plausible problem description which would naturally lead the unwary into a worse (or differently awful) implementation of a sorting algorithm?
I assume you're using this question for an interview to see if the applicant can notice a simple solution in a seemingly complex question.
[This assumption is incorrect -- MarkusQ]
You give too much information.
The key to solving this is realizing that the points are in one dimension and that a sort is all that is required. To make this question more difficult hide this fact as much as possible.
The biggest clue is the distance formula. It introduces a penalty for changing directions. The first thing an that comes to my mind is minimizing this penalty. To remove the penalty I have to order them in a certain direction, this ordering is the natural sort order.
I would remove the penalty for changing directions, it's too much of a give away.
Another major clue is the input values to the algorithm: a list of integers. Give them a list of permutations, or even all permutations. That sets them up to thinking that a O(n!) algorithm might actually be expected.
I would phrase it as:
Given a list of all possible
permutations of n delivery locations,
where each permutation of deliveries
(d1, d2, ...,
dn) has a cost defined by:
Return permutation P such that the
cost of P is less than or equal to any
other permutation.
All that really needs to be done is read in the first permutation and sort it.
If they construct a single loop to compare the costs ask them what the big-o runtime of their algorithm is where n is the number of delivery locations (Another trap).
This isn't a direct answer, but I think more clarification is needed.
Is di allowed to be negative? If so, sorting alone is not enough, as far as I can see.
For example:
d0 = 0
deliveries = (-1,1,1,2)
It seems the optimal path in this case would be 1 > 2 > 1 > -1.
Edit: This might not actually be the optimal path, but it illustrates the point.
YOu could rephrase it, having first found the optimal solution, as
"Give me a proof that the following convination is the most optimal for the following set of rules, where optimal means the smallest number results from the sum of all stage costs, taking into account that all stages (A..Z) need to be present once and once only.
Convination:
A->C->D->Y->P->...->N
Stage costs:
A->B = 5,
B->A = 3,
A->C = 2,
C->A = 4,
...
...
...
Y->Z = 7,
Z->Y = 24."
That ought to keep someone busy for a while.
This reminds me of the Knapsack problem, more than the Traveling Salesman. But the Knapsack is also an NP-Hard problem, so you might be able to fool people to think up an over complex solution using dynamic programming if they correlate your problem with the Knapsack. Where the basic problem is:
can a value of at least V be achieved
without exceeding the weight W?
Now the problem is a fairly good solution can be found when V is unique, your distances, as such:
The knapsack problem with each type of
item j having a distinct value per
unit of weight (vj = pj/wj) is
considered one of the easiest
NP-complete problems. Indeed empirical
complexity is of the order of O((log
n)2) and very large problems can be
solved very quickly, e.g. in 2003 the
average time required to solve
instances with n = 10,000 was below 14
milliseconds using commodity personal
computers1.
So you might want to state that several stops/packages might share the same vj, inviting people to think about the really hard solution to:
However in the
degenerate case of multiple items
sharing the same value vj it becomes
much more difficult with the extreme
case where vj = constant being the
subset sum problem with a complexity
of O(2N/2N).
So if you replace the weight per value to distance per value, and state that several distances might actually share the same values, degenerate, some folk might fall in this trap.
Isn't this just the (NP-Hard) Travelling Salesman Problem? It doesn't seem likely that you're going to make it much harder.
Maybe phrasing the problem so that the actual algorithm is unclear - e.g. by describing the paths as single-rail railway lines so the person would have to infer from domain knowledge that backtracking is more costly.
What about describing the question in such a way that someone is tempted to do recursive comparisions - e.g. "can you speed up the algorithm by using the optimum max subset of your best (so far) results"?
BTW, what's the purpose of this - it sounds like the intent is to torture interviewees.
You need to be clearer on whether the delivery truck has to return to base (making it a round trip), or not. If the truck does return, then a simple sort does not produce the shortest route, because the square of the return from the furthest point to base costs so much. Missing some hops on the way 'out' and using them on the way back turns out to be cheaper.
If you trick someone into a bad answer (for example, by not giving them all the information) then is it their foolishness or your deception that has caused it?
How great is the wisdom of the wise, if they heed not their ego's lies?