I recently learnt about anytime algorithm but couldn't find any good explanation of this.
Can any one explain about anytime algorithm and how it works?
Traditionally, an algorithm is some process that, when followed, eventually will stop and return a result (think about something like binary search, mergesort, Dijkstra's algorithm, etc.)
An anytime algorithm is an algorithm that, rather than producing a final answer, continuously searches for better and better answers to a particular problem. The "anytime" aspect means that at any point in time, you can ask the algorithm for its current best guess.
For example, suppose that you have some mathematical function and you want to find the minimum value that the function obtains. There are many numerical algorithms that you can use to do this - gradient descent, Newton's method, etc. - that under most circumstances never truly reach the ultimate answer. Instead, they converge closer and closer to the true value. These algorithms can be made into anytime algorithms. You can just run them indefinitely, and at any point in time, you can ask the algorithm what its best guess is so far.
Note that there is no one single algorithm called the "anytime algorithm." It's a class of algorithms, just in the same way that there's no one "randomized algorithm" or no one "approximation algorithm."
Hope this helps!
An anytime algorithm is an a class of computational procedures that computes a solution to some problem and that also needs to have three technical properties.
(1) It needs to be an algorithm, meaning it is guaranteed to terminate.
(2) It needs to be stoppable at any time, and at that time it needs to provide an answer to to the problem (think of this as an approximation to the ideal solution).
(3) As more time passes, the result you get from stopping the algorithm gets uniformly and continuously better (i.e. it never comes up with a worse solution, which can happen for some optimization procedures that might oscillate or occasionally restart from scratch).
Related
From what I understand, randomised algorithm could give wrong answer.For example, using contraction algorithm to solve graph min-cut problem, you need to run the algorithm n^2*ln(n) times so that the possibility of failing to get the correct answer is at most 1/n. No matter how small the possibility of failure is, the answer could be incorrect, so when is the right time that we allow the incorrect answer?
To begin with, I think you need to differentiate between different classes of randomized algorithms:
A Monte Carlo algorithm is an algorithm which is random w.r.t. correctness. The randomized min-cut algorithm, from your question, is an example of such an algorithm.
A Las Vegas algorithm is an algorithm which is random w.r.t. running time. Randomized quicksort, for example, is such an algorithm.
You seem to mean Monte-Carlo algorithms in your question.
The question of whether a Monte-Carlo algorithm is suitable to you, probably can't be answered objectively, because it is based on something like the ecomonic theory of utility. Given two algorithms, A and B, then each invocation of A or B takes some time t and gives you the result whose correctness is c. The utility U(t, c) is a random variable, and only you can determine whether the distribution of UA(T, C) is better or worse than UB(T, C). Some examples, where algorithm A performs twice as fast as B, but errs with probability 1e-6:
If these are preference recommendations on a website, then it might be worth it for you to have your website twice as responsive as that of a competitor, at the risk that, rarely, a client gets wrong recommendations.
If these are control systems for a nuclear reactor (to borrow from TemplateTypedef's comment), then a slight chance of failure might not be worth the time saving (e.g., you probably would be better investing in a processor twice as fast running the slower algorithm).
The two examples above show that each of the two choices might be correct for different settings. In fact, utility theory rarely shows sets of choices that are clearly wrong. In the introduction to the book Randomized Algorithms by Motwani and Raghavan, however, the authors do give such an example for the fallacy of avoiding Monte-Carlo algorithms. The probability of a CPU malfunctioning due to cosmic radiation is some α (whose value I forget). Thus avoiding running a Monte-Carlo algorithm with probability of error much lower than α, is probably simply irrational.
You'll always need to analyze the properties of the algorithm and decide if the risk of a non-optimal answer is bearable in your application. (If the answer is Boolean, then "non-optimal" is the same as "wrong.")
There are many kinds of programming problems where some answer that's close to optimal and obtained in reasonable time is much better than the optimal answer provided too late or not at all.
The Traveling Salesman problem is an example. If you are Walmart and need to plan delivery routes each night for given sets of cities, getting a route that's close to optimal is much better than no route or a naively chosen one or the best possible route obtained 2 days from now.
There are many kinds of guarantees provided by randomized algorithms. They often have the form error <= F(cost), where error and cost can be almost anything. The cost may be expressed in run time or how many repeat runs are spent looking for better answers. Space may also figure in cost. The error may be probability of a wrong 1/0 answer, a distance metric from an optimal result, a discrete count of erroneous components, etc., etc.
Sometimes you just have to live with a maybe-wrong answer because there's no useful alternative. Primality testing on big numbers is in this category. Though there are polynomial time deterministic tests, they are still much slower than a probabilistic test that produces the correct answer for all practical purposes.
For example, if you have a Boolean randomized function where True results are always correct, but False are wrong 50% of the time, then you are in pretty good shape. (The Miller-Rabin primality test is actually better than this.)
Suppose you can afford to run the algorithm 40 times. If any of the runs says False, you know the answer is False. If they're all True then the probability of that the real answer if false is roughly 2^40 = 1/(1 trillion).
Even in safety-critical applications, this may be a fine result. The chance of being hit by lightning in a lifetime is about 1/10,000. We all live with that and don't give it a second thought.
I have leant that two ways of DP, but I am confused now. How we choose in different condition? And I find that in most of time top-down is more natural for me. Can anyone tell me that how to make the choice.
PS: I have read this post older post but still get confused. Need help. Don't identify my questions as duplication. I have mentioned that they are different. I hope to know how to choose and when to consider problem from top-down or bottom-up way.
To make it simple, I will explain based on my summary from some sources
Top-down: something looks like: a(n) = a(n-1) + a(n-2). With this equation, you can implement with about 4-5 lines of code by making the function a call itself. Its advantage, as you said, is quite intuitive to most developers but it costs more space (memory stack) to execute.
Bottom-up: you first calculate a(0) then a(1), and save it to some array (for instance), then you continuously savea(i) = a(i-1) + a(i-2). With this approach, you can significantly improve the performance of your code. And with big n, you can avoid stack overflow.
A slightly longer answer, but I have tried to explain my own approach to dynamic programming and what I have come to understand after solving such questions. I hope future users find it helpful. Please do feel free to comment and discuss:
A top-down solution comes more naturally when thinking about a dynamic programming problem. You start with the end result and try to figure out the ways you could have gotten there. For example, for fib(n), we know that we could have gotten here only through fib(n-1) and fib(n-2). So we call the function recursively again to calculate the answer for these two cases, which goes deeper and deeper into the tree until the base case is reached. The answer is then built back up until all the stacks are popped off and we get the final result.
To reduce duplicate calculations, we use a cache that stores a new result and returns it if the function tries to calculate it again. So, if you imagine a tree, the function call does not have to go all the way down to the leaves, it already has the answer and so it returns it. This is called memoization and is usually associated with the top-down approach.
Now, one important point I think for the bottom-up approach is that you must know the order in which the final solution has to be built. In the top-down case, you just keep breaking one thing down into many but in the bottom-up case, you must know the number and order of states that need to be involved in a calculation to go from one level to the next. In some simpler problems (eg. fib(n)), this is easy to see, but for more complex cases, it does not lend itself naturally. The approach I usually follow is to think top-down, break the final case into previous states and try to find a pattern or order to then be able to build it back up.
Regarding when to choose either of those, I would suggest the approach above to identify how the states are related to each other and being built. One important distinction you can find this way is how many calculations are really needed and how a lot might just be redundant. In the bottom up case, you have to fill an entire level before you go to the next. However, in the top down case, an entire subtree can be skipped if not needed and in such a way, a lot of extra calculations can be saved.
Hence, the choice obviously depends on the problem, but also on the inter-relation between states. It is usually the case that bottom-up is recommended because it saves you stack space as compared to the recursive approach. However, if you feel the recursion isn't too deep but is very wide and can lead to a lot of unnecessary calculations by tabularization, you can then go for top-down approach with memoization.
For example, in this question: https://leetcode.com/problems/partition-equal-subset-sum/, if you see the discussions, it is mentioned that top-down is faster than bottom-up, basically, the binary tree approach with a cache versus the knapsack bottom up build-up. I leave it as an exercise to understand the relation between the states.
Bottom-up and Top-down DP approaches are the same for many problems in terms of time and space complexity. Difference are that, bottom-up a little bit faster, because you don't need overhead for recursion and, yes, top-down more intuitive and natural.
But, real advantage of Top-bottom approach can be on some small sets of tasks, where you don't need to calculate answer for all smaller subtasks! And you can reduce time complexity in this cases.
For example you can use Top-down approach with memorization for finding N-th Fibonacci number, where the sequence is defined as a[n]=a[n-1]+a[n-2] So, you have both O(N) time for calculating it (I don't compare with O(logN) solution for finding this number). But look at the sequence a[n]=a[n/2]+a[n/2-1] with some edge cases for small N. In botton up approach you can't do it faster than O(N) where top-down algorithm will work with complexity O(logN) (or maybe some poly-logarithmic complexity, I am not sure)
To add on to the previous answers,
Optimal time:
if all sub-problems need to be solved
→ bottom-up approach
else
→ top-down approach
Optimal space:
Bottom-up approach
The question Nikhil_10 linked (i.e https://leetcode.com/problems/partition-equal-subset-sum/) doesn't require all subproblems to be solved. Hence the top-down approach is more optimal.
If you like the top-down natural then use it if you know you can implement it. bottom-up is faster than the top-down one. Sometimes Bottom-ups are easier and most of the times the bottom-up are easy. Depending on your situation make your decision.
I am reading a tutorial about "greedy" algorithms but I have a hard time spotting them solving real "Top Coder" problems.
If I know that a given problem can be solved with a "greedy" algorithm it is pretty easy to code the solution. However if I am not told that this problem is "greedy" I can not spot it.
What are the common properties and patterns of the problems solved with "greedy" algorithms? Can I reduce them to one of the known "greedy" problems (e.g. MST)?
Formally, you'd have to prove the matroid property of course. However, I assume that in terms of topcoder you rather want to find out quickly if a problem can be approached greedily or not.
In that case, the most important point is the optimal sub-structure property. For this, you have to be able to spot that the problem can be decomposed into sub-problems and that their optimal solution is part of the optimal solution of the whole problem.
Of course, greedy problems come in such a wide variety that it's next to impossible to offer a general correct answer to your question. My best advice would hence be to think somewhere along these lines:
Do I have a choice between different alternatives at some point?
Does this choice result in sub-problems that can be solved individually?
Will I be able to use the solution of the sub-problem to derive a solution for the overall problem?
Together with loads and loads of experience (just had to say that, too) this should help you to quickly spot greedy problems. Of course, you may eventually classify a problem as greedy, which is not. In that case, you can only hope to realize it before working on the code for too long.
(Again, for reference, I assume a topcoder context.. for anything more realistic and of practical consequence I strongly advise to actually verify the matroid structure before selecting a greedy algorithm.)
A part of your problem may be caused by thinking of "greedy problems". There are greedy algorithms and problems where there is a greedy algorithm, that leads to an optimal solution. There are other hard problems that can also be solved by greedy algorithms but the result will not necessarily be optimal.
For example, for the bin packing problem, there are several greedy algorithms all of them with much better complexity than the exponential algorithm, but you can only be sure that you'll get a solution that is below a certain threshold compared to the optimal solution.
Only regarding problems where greedy algorithms will lead to an optimal solution, my guess would be that an inductive correctness proof feels totally natural and easy. For every single one of your greedy steps, it is quite clear that this was the best thing to do.
Typically problems with optimal, greedy solutions are easy anyway, and others will force you to come up with a greedy heuristic, because of complexity limitations. Usually a meaningful reduction would be showing that your problem is in fact at least NP-hard and hence you know you'll have to find a heuristic. For those problems, I'm a big fan of trying out. Implement your algorithm and try to find out if solutions are "pretty good" (ideal if you also have a slow but correct algorithm you can compare results against, otherwise you might need manually created ground truths). Only if you have something that works well, try to think why and maybe even try to come up with proof of boundaries. Maybe it works, maybe you'll spot border cases where it doesn't work and needs refinement.
"A term used to describe a family of algorithms. Most algorithms try to reach some "good" configuration from some initial configuration, making only legal moves. There is often some measure of "goodness" of the solution (assuming one is found).
The greedy algorithm always tries to perform the best legal move it can. Note that this criterion is local: the greedy algorithm doesn't "think ahead", agreeing to perform some mediocre-looking move now, which will allow better moves later.
For instance, the greedy algorithm for egyptian fractions is trying to find a representation with small denominators. Instead of looking for a representation where the last denominator is small, it takes at each step the smallest legal denominator. In general, this leads to very large denominators at later steps.
The main advantage of the greedy algorithm is usually simplicity of analysis. It is usually also very easy to program. Unfortunately, it is often sub-optimal."
--- ariels
(http://www.everything2.com/title/greedy+algorithm?searchy=search)
Without resorting to asymptotic notation, is tedious step counting the only way to get the time complexity of an algorithm? And without step count of each line of code can we arrive at a big-O representation of any program?
Details: trying to find out the complexity of several numerical analysis algorithms to decide which will be best suited for solving a particular problem.
E.g. - from among Regula-Falsi or Newton-Rhapson method for solving eqns, intention is to evaluate the exact complexity of each method and then decide (putting value of 'n' or whatever arguments there are) which method is less complex.
The only way --- not the "easy" or hard way but the only reasonable way --- to find the exact complexity of a complicated algorithm is to profile it. A modern implementation of an algorithm has a complex interaction with numerical libraries and with the CPU and its floating point unit. For instance in-cache memory access is much faster than out-of-cache memory access, and on top of that there may be more than one level of cache. Counting steps is really much more suitable to the asymptotic complexity that you say isn't enough for your purpose.
But, if you did want to count steps automatically, there are also ways to do that. You can add a counter increment command (like "bloof++;" in C) to every line of code, and then display the value at the end.
You should also know about the more refined time complexity expression, f(n)*(1+o(1)), that is also useful for analytical calculations. For instance n^2+2*n+7 simplifies to n^2*(1+o(1)). If the constant factor is what bothers you about usual asymptotic notation O(f(n)), this refinement is a way to keep track of it and still throw out negligible terms.
The 'easy way' is to simulate it. Try your algorithms with lots of values of n and lots of different data, plot the results then match the curve on the graph to an equation.
Your results may not be strictly correct and they're only as valid as your ability to generate good test data but for most cases this will work.
E.g. - from among Regula-Falsi or Newton-Rhapson method for solving eqns, intention is to evaluate the exact complexity of each method and then decide (putting value of 'n' or whatever arguments there are) which method is less complex.
I don't think it's possible to answer this question in general for nonlinear solvers. You could an exact number of computations per iteration, but you're never going to know in general how many iterations it will take for each solver to converge. There are other complications like needing the Jacobian for Newton's which could make computing the complexity even more difficult.
To sum up, the most efficient nonlinear solver is always dependent on the problem you're solving. If the variety of problems you're solving is very limited, doing a bunch of experiments with different solvers and measuring the number of iterations and CPU time will probably give you more useful information.
What is the difference between a heuristic and an algorithm?
An algorithm is the description of an automated solution to a problem. What the algorithm does is precisely defined. The solution could or could not be the best possible one but you know from the start what kind of result you will get. You implement the algorithm using some programming language to get (a part of) a program.
Now, some problems are hard and you may not be able to get an acceptable solution in an acceptable time. In such cases you often can get a not too bad solution much faster, by applying some arbitrary choices (educated guesses): that's a heuristic.
A heuristic is still a kind of an algorithm, but one that will not explore all possible states of the problem, or will begin by exploring the most likely ones.
Typical examples are from games. When writing a chess game program you could imagine trying every possible move at some depth level and applying some evaluation function to the board. A heuristic would exclude full branches that begin with obviously bad moves.
In some cases you're not searching for the best solution, but for any solution fitting some constraint. A good heuristic would help to find a solution in a short time, but may also fail to find any if the only solutions are in the states it chose not to try.
An algorithm is typically deterministic and proven to yield an optimal result
A heuristic has no proof of correctness, often involves random elements, and may not yield optimal results.
Many problems for which no efficient algorithm to find an optimal solution is known have heuristic approaches that yield near-optimal results very quickly.
There are some overlaps: "genetic algorithms" is an accepted term, but strictly speaking, those are heuristics, not algorithms.
Heuristic, in a nutshell is an "Educated guess". Wikipedia explains it nicely. At the end, a "general acceptance" method is taken as an optimal solution to the specified problem.
Heuristic is an adjective for
experience-based techniques that help
in problem solving, learning and
discovery. A heuristic method is used
to rapidly come to a solution that is
hoped to be close to the best possible
answer, or 'optimal solution'.
Heuristics are "rules of thumb",
educated guesses, intuitive judgments
or simply common sense. A heuristic is
a general way of solving a problem.
Heuristics as a noun is another name
for heuristic methods.
In more precise terms, heuristics
stand for strategies using readily
accessible, though loosely applicable,
information to control problem solving
in human beings and machines.
While an algorithm is a method containing finite set of instructions used to solving a problem. The method has been proven mathematically or scientifically to work for the problem. There are formal methods and proofs.
Heuristic algorithm is an algorithm that is able to produce an
acceptable solution to a problem in
many practical scenarios, in the
fashion of a general heuristic, but
for which there is no formal proof of
its correctness.
An algorithm is a self-contained step-by-step set of operations to be performed 4, typically interpreted as a finite sequence of (computer or human) instructions to determine a solution to a problem such as: is there a path from A to B, or what is the smallest path between A and B. In the latter case, you could also be satisfied with a 'reasonably close' alternative solution.
There are certain categories of algorithms, of which the heuristic algorithm is one. Depending on the (proven) properties of the algorithm in this case, it falls into one of these three categories (note 1):
Exact: the solution is proven to be an optimal (or exact solution) to the input problem
Approximation: the deviation of the solution value is proven to be never further away from the optimal value than some pre-defined bound (for example, never more than 50% larger than the optimal value)
Heuristic: the algorithm has not been proven to be optimal, nor within a pre-defined bound of the optimal solution
Notice that an approximation algorithm is also a heuristic, but with the stronger property that there is a proven bound to the solution (value) it outputs.
For some problems, noone has ever found an 'efficient' algorithm to compute the optimal solutions (note 2). One of those problems is the well-known Traveling Salesman Problem. Christophides' algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem, for example, used to be called a heuristic, as it was not proven that it was within 50% of the optimal solution. Since it has been proven, however, Christophides' algorithm is more accurately referred to as an approximation algorithm.
Due to restrictions on what computers can do, it is not always possible to efficiently find the best solution possible. If there is enough structure in a problem, there may be an efficient way to traverse the solution space, even though the solution space is huge (i.e. in the shortest path problem).
Heuristics are typically applied to improve the running time of algorithms, by adding 'expert information' or 'educated guesses' to guide the search direction. In practice, a heuristic may also be a sub-routine for an optimal algorithm, to determine where to look first.
(note 1): Additionally, algorithms are characterised by whether they include random or non-deterministic elements. An algorithm that always executes the same way and produces the same answer, is called deterministic.
(note 2): This is called the P vs NP problem, and problems that are classified as NP-complete and NP-hard are unlikely to have an 'efficient' algorithm. Note; as #Kriss mentioned in the comments, there are even 'worse' types of problems, which may need exponential time or space to compute.
There are several answers that answer part of the question. I deemed them less complete and not accurate enough, and decided not to edit the accepted answer made by #Kriss
Actually I don't think that there is a lot in common between them. Some algorithm use heuristics in their logic (often to make fewer calculations or get faster results). Usually heuristics are used in the so called greedy algorithms.
Heuristics is some "knowledge" that we assume is good to use in order to get the best choice in our algorithm (when a choice should be taken). For example ... a heuristics in chess could be (always take the opponents' queen if you can, since you know this is the stronger figure). Heuristics do not guarantee you that will lead you to the correct answer, but (if the assumptions is correct) often get answer which are close to the best in much shorter time.
An Algorithm is a clearly defined set of instructions to solve a problem, Heuristics involve utilising an approach of learning and discovery to reach a solution.
So, if you know how to solve a problem then use an algorithm. If you need to develop a solution then it's heuristics.
Heuristics are algorithms, so in that sense there is none, however, heuristics take a 'guess' approach to problem solving, yielding a 'good enough' answer, rather than finding a 'best possible' solution.
A good example is where you have a very hard (read NP-complete) problem you want a solution for but don't have the time to arrive to it, so have to use a good enough solution based on a heuristic algorithm, such as finding a solution to a travelling salesman problem using a genetic algorithm.
Algorithm is a sequence of some operations that given an input computes something (a function) and outputs a result.
Algorithm may yield an exact or approximate values.
It also may compute a random value that is with high probability close to the exact value.
A heuristic algorithm uses some insight on input values and computes not exact value (but may be close to optimal).
In some special cases, heuristic can find exact solution.
A heuristic is usually an optimization or a strategy that usually provides a good enough answer, but not always and rarely the best answer. For example, if you were to solve the traveling salesman problem with brute force, discarding a partial solution once its cost exceeds that of the current best solution is a heuristic: sometimes it helps, other times it doesn't, and it definitely doesn't improve the theoretical (big-oh notation) run time of the algorithm
I think Heuristic is more of a constraint used in Learning Based Model in Artificial Intelligent since the future solution states are difficult to predict.
But then my doubt after reading above answers is
"How would Heuristic can be successfully applied using Stochastic Optimization Techniques? or can they function as full fledged algorithms when used with Stochastic Optimization?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_optimization
One of the best explanations I have read comes from the great book Code Complete, which I now quote:
A heuristic is a technique that helps you look for an answer. Its
results are subject to chance because a heuristic tells you only how
to look, not what to find. It doesn’t tell you how to get directly
from point A to point B; it might not even know where point A and
point B are. In effect, a heuristic is an algorithm in a clown suit.
It’s less predict- able, it’s more fun, and it comes without a 30-day,
money-back guarantee.
Here is an algorithm for driving to someone’s house: Take Highway 167
south to Puy-allup. Take the South Hill Mall exit and drive 4.5 miles
up the hill. Turn right at the light by the grocery store, and then
take the first left. Turn into the driveway of the large tan house on
the left, at 714 North Cedar.
Here’s a heuristic for getting to someone’s house: Find the last
letter we mailed you. Drive to the town in the return address. When
you get to town, ask someone where our house is. Everyone knows
us—someone will be glad to help you. If you can’t find anyone, call us
from a public phone, and we’ll come get you.
The difference between an algorithm and a heuristic is subtle, and the
two terms over-lap somewhat. For the purposes of this book, the main
difference between the two is the level of indirection from the
solution. An algorithm gives you the instructions directly. A
heuristic tells you how to discover the instructions for yourself, or
at least where to look for them.
They find a solution suboptimally without any guarantee as to the quality of solution found, it is obvious that it makes sense to the development of heuristics only polynomial. The application of these methods is suitable to solve real world problems or large problems so awkward from the computational point of view that for them there is not even an algorithm capable of finding an approximate solution in polynomial time.