I have to design an algorithm to solve a problem：
We have two groups of people (group A and group B, the number of people in group A is always less or equal to the number of people in group B）, all standing in a one-dimensional line, each people have a corresponding number indicating its location. When the timer starts, each people in group A must find a partner in group B, but people in group B cannot move at all and each people in group B can only have at most 1 partner.
Suppose that people in group A move 1 unit/sec, how can I find the minimum time for everyone in group A to find a partner？
for example, if there are three people in group A with location {5,7,8}, and four people in group B with location {2,3,4,9}, the optimal solution would be 3 sec because max(5-3,7-4,9-8)=3
I could just use brute-force to solve it, but is there a better way of solving this problem？
This problem is a special case of the edit distance problem, and so a similar Dynamic Programming solution can be used to solve it. It's possible that a faster solution exists for this special case.
Let A = [a_0, a_1...,a_(m-1)] be the (sorted) positions of our m moving people, and B = [b_0, b_1...,b_(n-1)] be the n (sorted) destination spots, with m <= n. For the edit distance analogy, the allowed operations are:
Insert a number into A (free), or
Substitute an element a -> a' in A with cost |a-a'|.
We can solve this in O(n*m) time (plus sorting time of both A and B, if necessary).
We can define the dynamic programming via a cost function C(i, j) which is the minimum cost to move the first i people a_0, ... a_(i-1) using only the first j spots b_0, ... b_(j-1). You want C(m,n). Define C as follows:
Let's say that I have a room with 3 different colors of blocks, labelled A, B, and C:
My goal is to find the three blocks closest to Lolo such that I have one A, one B, and one C. Additionally, each block and Lolo himself must be on different rows:
For example, no block on Row 1 may be used, since Lolo is on that row:
If we pick the A block above Lolo, no other block from Row 0 can be used:
For this example, the correct answer is these blocks:
I can easily find the closest three blocks to Lolo; however, I'm having a hard time applying the additional constraints (one of each letter, not on same row). This feels like a variation of the travelling salesman problem.
What is an efficient way of figuring out these blocks? (Even a point in the right direction would be greatly appreciated!) Thanks!
Greedy solution:
All picking of blocks below should be done such that it adheres to the row constraints.
Pick the closest block not already picked (say this is an A).
Pick the closest non-A block (say this is an B).
Pick the closest non-A, non-B (thus C) block.
Record this distance.
If there was a closer C in the same row as B, pick that C, along with the next closest B and record the distance.
For more than 3 colors, you'd want to just pick the next closest B in a different row.
Stop if the closest unpicked block is further than bestDistanceSoFar/3, otherwise repeat from 1.
Return the best distance.
For this I'd suggest having a sorted list for each colour.
I believe this is optimal, but why it would be requires some thought.
Preprocess:
You can remove all blocks in the same row as Lolo, as you mentioned, but also all blocks further from Lolo than another block of the same type in the same row, which is not a lot in this case, but still.
Additional note:
Given that you only have 3 colours, the running time of brute force will be O(n3), which is quite a lot less than the O(n!) or O(2n) of the TSP.
The obvious optimization to the brute force is to separate all the colours, which will result in a running time of O(n1n2n3) where ni is the amount of blocks with the i-th colour.
I think you should use DFS
You build the G in the next way :
Lolo is the root
Choose available block that is not have color that already visit, add to G with weight is the distance from Lolo
Make all block on the same row as un-available
If there are more available blocks Go to 2
If no available blocks go back Lolo, and choose block that is not direct son of Lolo
After you build the graph you can run DFS with depth 3 and choose the lowest cost path.
This will give you the lowest distance.
There are other constrains ? how fast does it need to run ?
From this link: Link
If an adjacent square is already on the open list, check to see if
this path to that square is a better one. In other words, check to see
if the G score for that square is lower if we use the current square
to get there. If not, don’t do anything.
Example:
parent (already traversed): O
branches: A, B, C
parent (working on): A
Branches: B, D
The open list contains, A, B, C and now D.
Now, the bold statements in the above quote are comparing which path with, path A to B?
i.e.
Comparison of A to B && O to B
OR
Comparison of A to B && A to D
Please clarify.
Basic A* is:
While we're not close enough to the / a destination
Take the point that we have now, with the lowest expected total cost (so known cost up to this point plus estimated remaining cost).
Calculate cost for all surrounding locations & add them back to the priority queue with their expected total cost.
return route that we followed to the closest point
In the official A* terminology, G-score is the cost to get there. H-score is the estimate to get from there to where you want to go.
Extremes are if your H-score always overestimates; the new score (estimate + new cost) will then always be lower than the previous square's estimate + cost, so you'll beeline to the target. If your H-score always underestimates (or is 0, or whatever) you'll always prefer squares closer to your point of departure, as they'll have a lower cost so far, so you'll basically floodfill from that position.
You can use A* from a theoretical point of view or from a practical point of view. Theoretically, you may never overestimate the cost of any link. That means that you will always find the most efficient route, but will take longer finding it as you'll expand a lot more nodes.
Using it from the practical point of view allows slightly-inadmissible heuristics (ones that can overestimate slightly). The route you find will most likely be slightly unoptimal but shouldn't be too bad for game use. The calculations get way faster though, since you don't expand everything anymore. One (slow) implementation I had made took 6 minutes across a 1k*1k map with a regular trig distance heuristic but only a few seconds with that augmented times 3. The routes weren't too different. Making the heuristic times 5 made the routes basically a beeline & much faster still, but unusably so.
WRT your direct question:
It's the second square you evaluate. You have the roads from O to A,B,C planned (with a given cost G for each of those routes). Now, suppose there's a highway from O through A to B, instead of a dirt road from O to B. That means that going through A is faster. When expanding A it looks at all surrounding squares and adds the cost + heuristic to the open list if it wasn't in there already. If it was in there, it sees if the new route is faster (lower G to get to that square) and only if so, does it replace it.
So in your example, it adds O->A->D to the list and then checks if O->A->B is faster than O->B.
-- addendum
Open list: 2 / A (through O), 5 / B (through O), 7 / C (through O)
Closed list: 0 / O (origin / through nothing)
Take A as it's the lowest cost so far. Then, for each neighbor of A calculate the cost to get there.
If there's an entry for it already and the cost is lower than we know so far, replace the entry.
If there's no current entry, add it.
Working on A, with roads of cost 2 to B and 3 to D. Going to B through A has a cost of 4, where the current entry is 5. So we replace it. D isn't in there, so we add it.
Open list: 4 / B (through A), 5 / D (through A), 7 / C (through O)
Closed list: 0 / O (origin / through nothing), 2 / A (through O)
So we compared A to B versus O to B.
Well, if we are working on the node A, we are considering its neighbours. Say we are considering the B node now (which is in the openList).
The definition given tells us to compare the G value of B (previously computed when it was first added to open list when the working node was O) and the sum of the cost of reaching A from the begining (O) and the cost of reaching B from A.
This is a followup to my earlier question about deciding if a hand is ready.
Knowledge of mahjong rules would be excellent, but a poker- or romme-based background is also sufficient to understand this question.
In Mahjong 14 tiles (tiles are like
cards in Poker) are arranged to 4 sets
and a pair. A straight ("123") always
uses exactly 3 tiles, not more and not
less. A set of the same kind ("111")
consists of exactly 3 tiles, too. This
leads to a sum of 3 * 4 + 2 = 14
tiles.
There are various exceptions like Kan
or Thirteen Orphans that are not
relevant here. Colors and value ranges
(1-9) are also not important for the
algorithm.
A hand consists of 13 tiles, every time it's our turn we get to pick a new tile and have to discard any tile so we stay on 13 tiles - except if we can win using the newly picked tile.
A hand that can be arranged to form 4 sets and a pair is "ready". A hand that requires only 1 tile to be exchanged is said to be "tenpai", or "1 from ready". Any other hand has a shanten-number which expresses how many tiles need to be exchanged to be in tenpai. So a hand with a shanten number of 1 needs 1 tile to be tenpai (and 2 tiles to be ready, accordingly). A hand with a shanten number of 5 needs 5 tiles to be tenpai and so on.
I'm trying to calculate the shanten number of a hand. After googling around for hours and reading multiple articles and papers on this topic, this seems to be an unsolved problem (except for the brute force approach). The closest algorithm I could find relied on chance, i.e. it was not able to detect the correct shanten number 100% of the time.
Rules
I'll explain a bit on the actual rules (simplified) and then my idea how to tackle this task. In mahjong, there are 4 colors, 3 normal ones like in card games (ace, heart, ...) that are called "man", "pin" and "sou". These colors run from 1 to 9 each and can be used to form straights as well as groups of the same kind. The forth color is called "honors" and can be used for groups of the same kind only, but not for straights. The seven honors will be called "E, S, W, N, R, G, B".
Let's look at an example of a tenpai hand: 2p, 3p, 3p, 3p, 3p, 4p, 5m, 5m, 5m, W, W, W, E. Next we pick an E. This is a complete mahjong hand (ready) and consists of a 2-4 pin street (remember, pins can be used for straights), a 3 pin triple, a 5 man triple, a W triple and an E pair.
Changing our original hand slightly to 2p, 2p, 3p, 3p, 3p, 4p, 5m, 5m, 5m, W, W, W, E, we got a hand in 1-shanten, i.e. it requires an additional tile to be tenpai. In this case, exchanging a 2p for an 3p brings us back to tenpai so by drawing a 3p and an E we win.
1p, 1p, 5p, 5p, 9p, 9p, E, E, E, S, S, W, W is a hand in 2-shanten. There is 1 completed triplet and 5 pairs. We need one pair in the end, so once we pick one of 1p, 5p, 9p, S or W we need to discard one of the other pairs. Example: We pick a 1 pin and discard an W. The hand is in 1-shanten now and looks like this: 1p, 1p, 1p, 5p, 5p, 9p, 9p, E, E, E, S, S, W. Next, we wait for either an 5p, 9p or S. Assuming we pick a 5p and discard the leftover W, we get this: 1p, 1p, 1p, 5p, 5p, 5p, 9p, 9p, E, E, E, S, S. This hand is in tenpai in can complete on either a 9 pin or an S.
To avoid drawing this text in length even more, you can read up on more example at wikipedia or using one of the various search results at google. All of them are a bit more technical though, so I hope the above description suffices.
Algorithm
As stated, I'd like to calculate the shanten number of a hand. My idea was to split the tiles into 4 groups according to their color. Next, all tiles are sorted into sets within their respective groups to we end up with either triplets, pairs or single tiles in the honor group or, additionally, streights in the 3 normal groups. Completed sets are ignored. Pairs are counted, the final number is decremented (we need 1 pair in the end). Single tiles are added to this number. Finally, we divide the number by 2 (since every time we pick a good tile that brings us closer to tenpai, we can get rid of another unwanted tile).
However, I can not prove that this algorithm is correct, and I also have trouble incorporating straights for difficult groups that contain many tiles in a close range. Every kind of idea is appreciated. I'm developing in .NET, but pseudo code or any readable language is welcome, too.
I've thought about this problem a bit more. To see the final results, skip over to the last section.
First idea: Brute Force Approach
First of all, I wrote a brute force approach. It was able to identify 3-shanten within a minute, but it was not very reliable (sometimes too a lot longer, and enumerating the whole space is impossible even for just 3-shanten).
Improvement of Brute Force Approach
One thing that came to mind was to add some intelligence to the brute force approach. The naive way is to add any of the remaining tiles, see if it produced Mahjong, and if not try the next recursively until it was found. Assuming there are about 30 different tiles left and the maximum depth is 6 (I'm not sure if a 7+-shanten hand is even possible [Edit: according to the formula developed later, the maximum possible shanten number is (13-1)*2/3 = 8]), we get (13*30)^6 possibilities, which is large (10^15 range).
However, there is no need to put every leftover tile in every position in your hand. Since every color has to be complete in itself, we can add tiles to the respective color groups and note down if the group is complete in itself. Details like having exactly 1 pair overall are not difficult to add. This way, there are max around (13*9)^6 possibilities, that is around 10^12 and more feasible.
A better solution: Modification of the existing Mahjong Checker
My next idea was to use the code I wrote early to test for Mahjong and modify it in two ways:
don't stop when an invalid hand is found but note down a missing tile
if there are multiple possible ways to use a tile, try out all of them
This should be the optimal idea, and with some heuristic added it should be the optimal algorithm. However, I found it quite difficult to implement - it is definitely possible though. I'd prefer an easier to write and maintain solution first.
An advanced approach using domain knowledge
Talking to a more experienced player, it appears there are some laws that can be used. For instance, a set of 3 tiles does never need to be broken up, as that would never decrease the shanten number. It may, however, be used in different ways (say, either for a 111 or a 123 combination).
Enumerate all possible 3-set and create a new simulation for each of them. Remove the 3-set. Now create all 2-set in the resulting hand and simulate for every tile that improves them to a 3-set. At the same time, simulate for any of the 1-sets being removed. Keep doing this until all 3- and 2-sets are gone. There should be a 1-set (that is, a single tile) be left in the end.
Learnings from implementation and final algorithm
I implemented the above algorithm. For easier understanding I wrote it down in pseudocode:
Remove completed 3-sets
If removed, return (i.e. do not simulate NOT taking the 3-set later)
Remove 2-set by looping through discarding any other tile (this creates a number of branches in the simulation)
If removed, return (same as earlier)
Use the number of left-over single tiles to calculate the shanten number
By the way, this is actually very similar to the approach I take when calculating the number myself, and obviously never to yields too high a number.
This works very well for almost all cases. However, I found that sometimes the earlier assumption ("removing already completed 3-sets is NEVER a bad idea") is wrong. Counter-example: 23566M 25667P 159S. The important part is the 25667. By removing a 567 3-set we end up with a left-over 6 tile, leading to 5-shanten. It would be better to use two of the single tiles to form 56x and 67x, leading to 4-shanten overall.
To fix, we simple have to remove the wrong optimization, leading to this code:
Remove completed 3-sets
Remove 2-set by looping through discarding any other tile
Use the number of left-over single tiles to calculate the shanten number
I believe this always accurately finds the smallest shanten number, but I don't know how to prove that. The time taken is in a "reasonable" range (on my machine 10 seconds max, usually 0 seconds).
The final point is calculating the shanten out of the number of left-over single tiles. First of all, it is obvious that the number is in the form 3*n+1 (because we started out with 14 tiles and always subtracted 3 tiles).
If there is 1 tile left, we're shanten already (we're just waiting for the final pair). With 4 tiles left, we have to discard 2 of them to form a 3-set, leaving us with a single tile again. This leads to 2 additional discards. With 7 tiles, we have 2 times 2 discards, adding 4. And so on.
This leads to the simple formula shanten_added = (number_of_singles - 1) * (2/3).
The described algorithm works well and passed all my tests, so I'm assuming it is correct. As stated, I can't prove it though.
Since the algorithm removes the most likely tiles combinations first, it kind of has a built-in optimization. Adding a simple check if (current_depth > best_shanten) then return; it does very well even for high shanten numbers.
My best guess would be an A* inspired approach. You need to find some heuristic which never overestimates the shanten number and use it to search the brute-force tree only in the regions where it is possible to get into a ready state quickly enough.
Correct algorithm sample: syanten.cpp
Recursive cut forms from hand in order: sets, pairs, incomplete forms, - and count it. In all variations. And result is minimal Shanten value of all variants:
Shanten = Min(Shanten, 8 - * 2 - - )
C# sample (rewrited from c++) can be found here (in Russian).
I've done a little bit of thinking and came up with a slightly different formula than mafu's. First of all, consider a hand (a very terrible hand):
1s 4s 6s 1m 5m 8m 9m 9m 7p 8p West East North
By using mafu's algorithm all we can do is cast out a pair (9m,9m). Then we are left with 11 singles. Now if we apply mafu's formula we get (11-1)*2/3 which is not an integer and therefore cannot be a shanten number. This is where I came up with this:
N = ( (S + 1) / 3 ) - 1
N stands for shanten number and S for score sum.
What is score? It's a number of tiles you need to make an incomplete set complete. For example, if you have (4,5) in your hand you need either 3 or 6 to make it a complete 3-set, that is, only one tile. So this incomplete pair gets score 1. Accordingly, (1,1) needs only 1 to become a 3-set. Any single tile obviously needs 2 tiles to become a 3-set and gets score 2. Any complete set of course get score 0. Note that we ignore the possibility of singles becoming pairs. Now if we try to find all of the incomplete sets in the above hand we get:
(4s,6s) (8m,9m) (7p,8p) 1s 1m 5m 9m West East North
Then we count the sum of its scores = 1*3+2*7 = 17.
Now if we apply this number to the formula above we get (17+1)/3 - 1 = 5 which means this hand is 5-shanten. It's somewhat more complicated than Alexey's and I don't have a proof but so far it seems to work for me. Note that such a hand could be parsed in the other way. For example:
(4s,6s) (9m,9m) (7p,8p) 1s 1m 5m 8m West East North
However, it still gets score sum 17 and 5-shanten according to formula. I also can't proof this and this is a little bit more complicated than Alexey's formula but also introduces scores that could be applied(?) to something else.
Take a look here: ShantenNumberCalculator. Calculate shanten really fast. And some related stuff (in japanese, but with code examples) http://cmj3.web.fc2.com
The essence of the algorithm: cut out all pairs, sets and unfinished forms in ALL possible ways, and thereby find the minimum value of the number of shanten.
The maximum value of the shanten for an ordinary hand: 8.
That is, as it were, we have the beginnings for 4 sets and one pair, but only one tile from each (total 13 - 5 = 8).
Accordingly, a pair will reduce the number of shantens by one, two (isolated from the rest) neighboring tiles (preset) will decrease the number of shantens by one,
a complete set (3 identical or 3 consecutive tiles) will reduce the number of shantens by 2, since two suitable tiles came to an isolated tile.
Shanten = 8 - Sets * 2 - Pairs - Presets
Determining whether your hand is already in tenpai sounds like a multi-knapsack problem. Greedy algorithms won't work - as Dialecticus pointed out, you'll need to consider the entire problem space.
This is intended to be a more concrete, easily expressable form of my earlier question.
Take a list of words from a dictionary with common letter length.
How to reorder this list tto keep as many letters as possible common between adjacent words?
Example 1:
AGNI, CIVA, DEVA, DEWA, KAMA, RAMA, SIVA, VAYU
reorders to:
AGNI, CIVA, SIVA, DEVA, DEWA, KAMA, RAMA, VAYU
Example 2:
DEVI, KALI, SHRI, VACH
reorders to:
DEVI, SHRI, KALI, VACH
The simplest algorithm seems to be: Pick anything, then search for the shortest distance?
However, DEVI->KALI (1 common) is equivalent to DEVI->SHRI (1 common)
Choosing the first match would result in fewer common pairs in the entire list (4 versus 5).
This seems that it should be simpler than full TSP?
What you're trying to do, is calculate the shortest hamiltonian path in a complete weighted graph, where each word is a vertex, and the weight of each edge is the number of letters that are differenct between those two words.
For your example, the graph would have edges weighted as so:
DEVI KALI SHRI VACH
DEVI X 3 3 4
KALI 3 X 3 3
SHRI 3 3 X 4
VACH 4 3 4 X
Then it's just a simple matter of picking your favorite TSP solving algorithm, and you're good to go.
My pseudo code:
Create a graph of nodes where each node represents a word
Create connections between all the nodes (every node connects to every other node). Each connection has a "value" which is the number of common characters.
Drop connections where the "value" is 0.
Walk the graph by preferring connections with the highest values. If you have two connections with the same value, try both recursively.
Store the output of a walk in a list along with the sum of the distance between the words in this particular result. I'm not 100% sure ATM if you can simply sum the connections you used. See for yourself.
From all outputs, chose the one with the highest value.
This problem is probably NP complete which means that the runtime of the algorithm will become unbearable as the dictionaries grow. Right now, I see only one way to optimize it: Cut the graph into several smaller graphs, run the code on each and then join the lists. The result won't be as perfect as when you try every permutation but the runtime will be much better and the final result might be "good enough".
[EDIT] Since this algorithm doesn't try every possible combination, it's quite possible to miss the perfect result. It's even possible to get caught in a local maximum. Say, you have a pair with a value of 7 but if you chose this pair, all other values drop to 1; if you didn't take this pair, most other values would be 2, giving a much better overall final result.
This algorithm trades perfection for speed. When trying every possible combination would take years, even with the fastest computer in the world, you must find some way to bound the runtime.
If the dictionaries are small, you can simply create every permutation and then select the best result. If they grow beyond a certain bound, you're doomed.
Another solution is to mix the two. Use the greedy algorithm to find "islands" which are probably pretty good and then use the "complete search" to sort the small islands.
This can be done with a recursive approach. Pseudo-code:
Start with one of the words, call it w
FindNext(w, l) // l = list of words without w
Get a list l of the words near to w
If only one word in list
Return that word
Else
For every word w' in l do FindNext(w', l') //l' = l without w'
You can add some score to count common pairs and to prefer "better" lists.
You may want to take a look at BK-Trees, which make finding words with a given distance to each other efficient. Not a total solution, but possibly a component of one.
This problem has a name: n-ary Gray code. Since you're using English letters, n = 26. The Wikipedia article on Gray code describes the problem and includes some sample code.