I am currently working on a project that requires us to help a character find an object within a maze, which is run through a GUI.
However, we can only access the nodes neighboring the location that the character is at, so we are unable to pre-process the maze and build the shortest path before moving the character.
We are given a helper method that returns the number of rows + cols (disregarding the walls that block the way) that each of the neighboring nodes are from this object we are looking for, so I have implemented a DFS and included a min-heap to first traverse the path with the neighbor that has the lowest distance.
Our problem is that sometimes, the path with the lowest distance may reach a dead-end, and we have to wait for it to complete an entire DFS of that branch until it can go back and search another path. Is there an algorithm that could circumvent this problem and reach the object in fewer steps?
1111111111
1111110101
1100010101
1111011101
1001010001
1111010101
1100010101
1111011101
1001000001
1111111111
1=Wall
0=Path
Hello i am wondering if i need to add into my adjacency list, wall nodes if i can determine whether a node is a wall through its property, Because since from my knowledge walls will not be considered in calculating the cost for finding a shortest path from a source to a target, for example using A* algorithm.
also Assuming i have a lists of Node objects and each node object contains a list of adjacent nodes, do i need to store adjacent wall nodes?
Well, it is hard to say anything for sure without knowing more details, but for most of the shortest path search algorithms it is fine not to create any nodes for cells that contain a wall at all.
Given a list of points, I'd like to find all "clusters" of N points. My definition of cluster is loose and can be adjusted to whatever allows an easiest solution: it could be N points within a certain size circle or N points that are all within a distance of each other or something else that makes sense. Heuristics are acceptable.
Where N=2, and we're just looking for all point pairs that are close together, it's pretty easy to do ~efficiently with a k-d tree (e.g. recursively break the space into octants or something, where each area is a different branch on the tree and then for each point, compare it to other points with the same parent (if near the edge of an area, check up the appropriate number of levels as well)). I recognize that inductively with a solution for N=N', I can find solution for N=N'+1 by taking the intersections between different N' solutions, but that's super inefficient.
Anyone know a decent way to go about this?
You start by calculating the Euclidean minimum spanning tree, e.g CGAL can do this. From there the precise algorithm depends on your specific requirements, but it goes roughly like this: You sort the edges in that graph by length. Then delete edges, starting with the longest one. It's a singly connected graph, so with each deleted edge you split the graph into two sub-graphs. Check each created sub-graph if it forms a cluster according to your conditions. If not, continue deleting edges.
I'm having trouble finding an algorithm for my problem.
I have a grid of 8x8 blocks, each block has a value ranging from 0 to 9. And I want to find collections of connected blocks that match a total value of for example 15. My first approach was to start of at the border, that worked fine. But when starting in the middle of the grid my algorithm gets lost.
Would anyone know a simple algorithm to use or can you point me in the right direction?
Thanks!
As far as I know, no simple algorithm exists for this. As for pointing you in the right direction, an 8x8 grid is really just a special case of a graph, so I'd start with graph traversal algorithms. I find that in cases like this, it sometimes helps to think how you would solve the problem for a smaller grid (say, 3x3 or 4x4) and then see if your algorithm scales up to "full size."
EDIT :
My proposed algorithm is a modified depth-first traversal. To use it, you'll have to convert your grid into a graph. The graph should be undirected, since connected blocks are connected equally in both directions.
Each graph node represents a single block, containing the block's value and a visited variable. Edge weights represent their edges' resistance to being followed. Set them by summing the values of the nodes they connect. Depending on the sum you're looking for, you may be able to optimize this by removing edges that are guaranteed to fail. For example, if you're looking for 15, you can delete all edges with weight of 16 or greater.
The rest of the algorithm will be performed as many times as there are blocks, with each block serving as the starting block once. Traverse the graph by following the lowest-weighted edge from the current node, unless that takes you to a visited node. Push each visited node onto a stack and set its visited variable to true. Keep a running sum for every path followed.
Whenever the desired sum is reached, save the current path as one of your answers. Do not stop traversal, because the current node could be connected to a zero.
Whenever the total exceeds the desired sum, backtrack by setting visited to false and popping the current node off the stack.
Whenever all edges for a given node have been explored, backtrack.
After every possible path from a given starting node is analyzed, every answer that includes that node has been found. So, remove all edges touching the starting node and choose a new starting node.
I haven't fully analyzed the efficiency/running time of this algorithm yet, but... it's not good. (Consider the number of paths to be searched in a graph containing all zeroes.) That said, it's far better than pure brute force.
Is there an algorithm that can check, in a directed graph, if a vertex, let's say V2, is reachable from a vertex V1, without traversing all the vertices?
You might find a route to that node without traversing all the edges, and if so you can give a yes answer as soon as you do. Nothing short of traversing all the edges can confirm that the node isn't reachable (unless there's some other constraint you haven't stated that could be used to eliminate the possibility earlier).
Edit: I should add that it depends on how often you need to do queries versus how large (and dense) your graph is. If you need to do a huge number of queries on a relatively small graph, it may make sense to pre-process the data in the graph to produce a matrix with a bit at the intersection of any V1 and V2 to indicate whether there's a connection from V1 to V2. This doesn't avoid traversing the graph, but it can avoid traversing the graph at the time of the query. I.e., it's basically a greedy algorithm that assumes you're going to eventually use enough of the combinations that it's easiest to just traverse them all and store the result. Depending on the size of the graph, the pre-processing step may be slow, but once it's done executing a query becomes quite fast (constant time, and usually a pretty small constant at that).
Depth first search or breadth first search. Stop when you find one. But there's no way to tell there's none without going through every one, no. You can improve the performance sometimes with some heuristics, like if you have additional information about the graph. For example, if the graph represents a coordinate space like a real map, and most of the time you know that there's going to be a mostly direct path, then you can attempt to have the depth-first search look along lines that "aim towards the target". However, imagine the case where the start and end points are right next to each other, but with no vector inbetween, and to find it, you have to go way out of the way. You have to check every case in order to be exhaustive.
I doubt it has a name, but a breadth-first search might go like this:
Add V1 to a queue of nodes to be visited
While there are nodes in the queue:
If the node is V2, return true
Mark the node as visited
For every node at the end of an outgoing edge which is not yet visited:
Add this node to the queue
End for
End while
Return false
Create an adjacency matrix when the graph is created. At the same time you do this, create matrices consisting of the powers of the adjacency matrix up to the number of nodes in the graph. To find if there is a path from node u to node v, check the matrices (starting from M^1 and going to M^n) and examine the value at (u, v) in each matrix. If, for any of the matrices checked, that value is greater than zero, you can stop the check because there is indeed a connection. (This gives you even more information as well: the power tells you the number of steps between nodes, and the value tells you how many paths there are between nodes for that step number.)
(Note that if you know the number of steps in the longest path in your graph, for whatever reason, you only need to create a number of matrices up to that power. As well, if you want to save memory, you could just store the base adjacency matrix and create the others as you go along, but for large matrices that may take a fair amount of time if you aren't using an efficient method of doing the multiplications, whether from a library or written on your own.)
It would probably be easiest to just do a depth- or breadth-first search, though, as others have suggested, not only because they're comparatively easy to implement but also because you can generate the path between nodes as you go along. (Technically you'd be generating multiple paths and discarding loops/dead-end ones along the way, but whatever.)
In principle, you can't determine that a path exists without traversing some part of the graph, because the failure case (a path does not exist) cannot be determined without traversing the entire graph.
You MAY be able to improve your performance by searching backwards (search from destination to starting point), or by alternating between forward and backward search steps.
Any good AI textbook will talk at length about search techniques. Elaine Rich's book was good in this area. Amazon is your FRIEND.
You mentioned here that the graph represents a road network. If the graph is planar, you could use Thorup's Algorithm which creates an O(nlogn) space data structure that takes O(nlogn) time to build and answers queries in O(1) time.
Another approach to this problem would allow you to ignore all of the vertices. If you were to only look at the edges, you can produce a transitive closure array that will show you each vertex that is reachable from any other vertex.
Start with your list of edges:
Va -> Vc
Va -> Vd
....
Create an array with start location as the rows and end location as the columns. Fill the arrays with 0. For each edge in the list of edges, place a one in the start,end coordinate of the edge.
Now you iterate a few times until either V1,V2 is 1 or there are no changes.
For each row:
NextRowN = RowN
For each column that is true for RowN
Use boolean OR to OR in the results of that row of that number with the current NextRowN.
Set RowN to NextRowN
If you run this algorithm until the end, you will quickly have a complete list of all reachable vertices without looking at any of them. The runtime is proportional to the number of edges. This would work well with a reasonable implementation and a reasonable number of edges.
A slightly more complex version of this algorithm would be to only calculate the vertices reachable by V1. To do this, you would focus your scope on the ones that are currently reachable at any given time. You can also limit adding rows to only one time, since the other rows are never changing.
In order to be sure, you either have to find a path, or traverse all vertices that are reachable from V1 once.
I would recommend an implementation of depth first or breadth first search that stops when it encounters a vertex that it has already seen. The vertex will be processed on the first occurrence only. You need to make sure that the search starts at V1 and stops when it runs out of vertices or encounters V2.