If coins are placed on a grid and only an entire row or column can be flipped, how can we flip the coins to obtain the minimum number of tails.
I tried to using the greedy solution, in which I flip the row or column where the number of tails are greater than heads and repeat the process until there exists no change on the number. But I found that this approach does not give me an optimal solution in some times.
HHT
THH
THT
For example, if the coins are placed like the above and I flip the coins in below manner, the obtained value is 3 but actually the answer is 2.
1. Flip the row 3
HHT
THH
HTH
2. Then there exists no row or column where the number of tails are greater than that of heads.
3. But if I flip the column 3, row 3, column 1, there exists a solution whose value is 2.
THH
HHT
HHH
So, I think the above algorithm doesn't work. What approach and what algorithm should I use?
First let us notice that there is no point in flipping the same row or column twice or more (a better solution is always either flipping the row/column zero or one time), and the order we flip the rows or columns is irrelevant, so we can describe a solution as a bit array of length 2N. One bit per row and one bit per column. On if we flip that row/column once, off if we flip it zero times.
So we need to search 2^(2N) possible solutions, prefering solutions with more zeros.
Secondly let us notice that for one solution there are four possible states of a coin:
The coin was not flipped (0 flips)
The coin was flipped by its row (1 flip)
The coin was flipped by its column (1 flip)
The coin was flipped by both its row and column (2 flips)
Notice that state 1 and 4 result in the original value of the coin
Also notice that state 2 and 3 result in the opposite of the original value of the coin
Start by expressing the original state of the coins as a binary matrix (B). The 2N-bit field as 2 binary vectors (R, C), and the total number of tails as a function of this f(B, R, C), and the total number of bits as a function g(V_1, V_2)
So your goal is to make f >= minimum while minimizing g.
Think that if we first fix our R configuration (which rows we will flip), how can we solve the problem just for C (which columns we will flip)? Put another way, consider the simpler problem of only being allowed to flip columns, and not being allowed to flip rows. How would you solve this? (hint: DP) Can you extend this stategy back to the full problem now?
Not sure about the complete algorithm, but one thing you should definitely try exploit here are the large number of symmetries in your problem.
A lot of different coin configurations will actually be equivalent, so you can rotate, mirror your configuration without altering the problem. Most importantly, since you can reverse the whole set by flipping all rows, looking for the minimum number of tails is equivalent to looking for the minimum number of heads.
In your case, it would be
HHT
THH
THT
HTT
TTH
TTT
By flipping the middle column, and you're done (you then have to flip everything of course if you really need it).
An obvious solution is to try all possibilities of flipping a row or a column. There are O(2^(2N)) such possibilities. However, we can solve the problem in O(N^2 * 2^N) with a combination of greedy + brute force.
Generate all possibilities of flipping the rows (O(2^N)) and for each of these, flip each column that has more tails than heads. Take the solution that gives you the minimum tails.
This should work. I will add more details about why a bit later.
One approach would be to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_and_bound, alternately considering new vertical lines and new horizontal lines. There is also some symmetry you can remove - if you flip all the horizontal lines and all the vertical line, you will end up back where you started, so with branch and bound you might as well arbitrarily assume that the leftmost vertical line is never flipped.
HHT
THH
THT
In this example, if we assume that the leftmost vertical line is not flipped, then if we branch on the lowest horizontal line we know the value of the leftmost lowest coin, so we have two possible partial solutions - one in which that single known coin is fixed at tails, and one in which it is fixed at heads. If we recurse first to try and extend the partial solution in which the single known coin is heads and find that we can extend this to a solution that produces no tails, then we can discard all the partial solutions produced by extending the other, because all its descendants must have at least one tail.
I would next branch on the leftmost but one vertical line, which will give us another known coin, and continue branching alternately horizontally and vertically.
This will be a feasible way of finding an exact solution if there is a nearly perfect solution or if the table is very small. Otherwise you will have to stop it early or have it skip credible solutions to get the problem finished in a reasonable time, and you will probably not get the exact best answer.
Related
the unknown one blue marked
it's 3/5? 1/3? 2/5? or max value of above, or maybe another(I think this...)?
how to caculate? it confuses me very much...
It's actually 1/2.
Note that there must be at least two mines in the three cells below 3 (because the other two cells are adjacent to a 1 and as such can't have more than 1 mine).
This means that there must be at least one mine between the cell below the 3 and cell to the bottom right of 3. Since both of these are also adjacent to a 1, only one of them can have mine at most. Thus, exactly one of these cells is a mine. The 2 on the right becomes irrelevant at this point.
With that out of the way, is there a general algorithm which can generate results like these?
I can't thing of any polynomial time solutions but it might be possible to simple try all the alternatives while backtracking when a constraint fails.
Consider the following puzzle:
A cell is either marked or unmarked. Numbers along the right and bottom side of the puzzle denote the total sum for a certain row or column. Cells contribute (if marked) to the sum in its row and column: a cell in position (i,j) contributes i to the column sum and j to the row sum. For example, in the first row in the picture above, the 1st, 2nd and 5th cell are marked. These contribute 1 + 2 + 5 to the row sum (thus totalling 8), and 1 each to their column sum.
I have a solver in ECLiPSe CLP for this puzzle and I am tyring to write a custom heuristic for it.
The easiest cells to start with, I think, are those for which the column and row hint are as low as possible. In general, the lower N is, the fewer possibilities exist to write N as a sum of natural numbers between 1 and N. In the context of this puzzle it means the cell with the lowest column hint + row hint has lowest odds of being wrong, so less backtracking.
In the implementation I have a NxN array that represents the board, and two lists of size N that represent the hints. (The numbers to the side and on the bottom.)
I see two options:
Write a custom selection predicate for search/6. However, if I understand correctly, I can only give it 2 parameters. There's no way to calculate the row + column sum for a given variable then, because I need to be able to pass it to the predicate. I need 4 parameters.
Ignore search/6 and write an own labelling method. That's how I have
it right now, see the code below.
It takes the board (the NxN array containing all decision variables), both lists of hints and returns a list containing all variables, now sorted according to their row + column sum.
However, this possibly cannot get any more cumbersome, as you can see. To be able to sort, I need to attach the sum to each variable, but in order to do that, I first need to convert it to a term that also contains the coordinates of said variable, so that I convert back to the variable as soon as sorting is done...
lowest_hints_first(Board,RowArr,ColArr,Out) :-
dim(Board,[N,N]),
dim(OutBoard,[N,N]),
( multifor([I,J],[1,1],[N,N]), foreach(Term,Terms), param(RowArr,ColArr) do
RowHint is ColArr[I],
ColHint is RowArr[J],
TotalSum is RowHint + ColHint,
Term = field(I,J,TotalSum)
),
sort(3,<,Terms,SortedTerms), % Sort based on TotalSum
terms_to_vars(SortedTerms,Board,Out), % Convert fields back to vars...
( foreach(Var,Out) do
indomain(Var,max)
).
terms_to_vars([],_,[]).
terms_to_vars([field(I,J,TotalSum)|RestTerms],Vars,[Out|RestOut]) :-
terms_to_vars(RestTerms,Vars,RestOut),
Out is Vars[I,J].
In the end this heuristic is barely faster than input_order. I suspect its due to the awful way it's implemented. Any ideas on how to do it better? Or is my feeling that this heuristic should be a huge improvement incorrect?
I see you are already happy with the improvement suggested by Joachim; however, as you ask for further improvements of your heuristic, consider that there is only one way to get 0 as a sum, as well as there is only one way to get 15.
There is only one way to get 1 and 14, 2 and 13; two ways to get 3 and 12.
In general, if you have K ways to get sum N, you also have K ways to get 15-N.
So the difficult sums are not the large ones, they are the middle ones.
Background:
This is extra credit in a logic and algorithms class, we are currently covering propositional logic, P implies Q that kind of thing, so I think the Prof wanted to give us and assignment out of our depth.
I will implement this in C++, but right now I just want to understand whats going on in the example....which I don't.
Example
Enclosed is a walkthrough for the Lefty algorithm which computes the number
of nxn 0-1 matrices with t ones in each row and column, but none on the main
diagonal.
The algorithm used to verify the equations presented counts all the possible
matrices, but does not construct them.
It is called "Lefty", it is reasonably simple, and is best described with an
example.
Suppose we wanted to compute the number of 6x6 0-1 matrices with 2 ones
in each row and column, but no ones on the main diagonal. We first create a
state vector of length 6, filled with 2s:
(2 2 2 2 2 2)
This state vector symbolizes the number of ones we must yet place in each
column. We accompany it with an integer which we call the "puck", which is
initialized to 1. This puck will increase by one each time we perform a ones
placement in a row of the matrix (a "round"), and we will think of the puck as
"covering up" the column that we wonít be able to place ones in for that round.
Since we are starting with the first row (and hence the first round), we place
two ones in any column, but since the puck is 1, we cannot place ones in the
first column. This corresponds to the forced zero that we must place in the first
column, since the 1,1 entry is part of the matrixís main diagonal.
The algorithm will iterate over all possible choices, but to show each round,
we shall make a choice, say the 2nd and 6th columns. We then drop the state
vector by subtracting 1 from the 2nd and 6th values, and advance the puck:
(2 1 2 2 2 1); 2
For the second round, the puck is 2, so we cannot place a one in that column.
We choose to place ones in the 4th and 6th columns instead and advance the
puck:
(2 1 2 1 2 0); 3
Now at this point, we can place two ones anywhere but the 3rd and 6th
columns. At this stage the algorithm treats the possibilities di§erently: We
can place some ones before the puck (in the column indexes less than the puck
value), and/or some ones after the puck (in the column indexes greater than
the puck value). Before the puck, we can place a one where there is a 1, or
where there is a 2; after the puck, we can place a one in the 4th or 5th columns.
Suppose we place ones in the 4th and 5th columns. We drop the state vector
and advance the puck once more:
(2 1 2 0 1 0); 4
1
For the 4th round, we once again notice we can place some ones before the
puck, and/or some ones after.
Before the puck, we can place:
(a) two ones in columns of value 2 (1 choice)
(b) one one in the column of value 2 (2 choices)
(c) one one in the column of value 1 (1 choice)
(d) one one in a column of value 2 and one one in a column of value 1 (2
choices).
After we choose one of the options (a)-(d), we must multiply the listed
number of choices by one for each way to place any remaining ones to the right
of the puck.
So, for option (a), there is only one way to place the ones.
For option (b), there are two possible ways for each possible placement of
the remaining one to the right of the puck. Since there is only one nonzero value
remaining to the right of the puck, there are two ways total.
For option (c), there is one possible way for each possible placement of the
remaining one to the right of the puck. Again, since there is only one nonzero
value remaining, there is one way total.
For option (d), there are two possible ways to place the ones.
We choose option (a). We drop the state vector and advance the puck:
(1 1 1 0 1 0); 5
Since the puck is "covering" the 1 in the 5th column, we can only place
ones before the puck. There are (3 take 2) ways to place two ones in the three
columns of value 1, so we multiply 3 by the number of ways to get remaining
possibilities. After choosing the 1st and 3rd columns (though it doesnít matter
since weíre left of the puck; any two of the three will do), we drop the state
vector and advance the puck one final time:
(0 1 0 0 1 0); 6
There is only one way to place the ones in this situation, so we terminate
with a count of 1. But we must take into account all the multiplications along
the way: 1*1*1*1*3*1 = 3.
Another way of thinking of the varying row is to start with the first matrix,
focus on the lower-left 2x3 submatrix, and note how many ways there were to
permute the columns of that submatrix. Since there are only 3 such ways, we
get 3 matrices.
What I think I understand
This algorithm counts the the all possible 6x6 arrays with 2 1's in each row and column with none in the descending diagonal.
Instead of constructing the matrices it uses a "state_vector" filled with 6 2's, representing how many 2's are in that column, and a "puck" that represents the index of the diagonal and the current row as the algorithm iterates.
What I don't understand
The algorithm comes up with a value of 1 for each row except 5 which is assigned a 3, at the end these values are multiplied for the end result. These values are supposed to be the possible placements for each row but there are many possibilities for row 1, why was it given a one, why did the algorithm wait until row 5 to figure all the possible permutations?
Any help will be much appreciated!
I think what is going on is a tradeoff between doing combinatorics and doing recursion.
The algorithm is using recursion to add up all the counts for each choice of placing the 1's. The example considers a single choice at each stage, but to get the full count it needs to add the results for all possible choices.
Now it is quite possible to get the final answer simply using recursion all the way down. Every time we reach the bottom we just add 1 to the total count.
The normal next step is to cache the result of calling the recursive function as this greatly improves the speed. However, the memory use for such a dynamic programming approach depends on the number of states that need to be expanded.
The combinatorics in the later stages is making use of the fact that once the puck has passed a column, the exact arrangement of counts in the columns doesn't matter so you only need to evaluate one representative of each type and then add up the resulting counts multiplied by the number of equivalent ways.
This both reduces the memory use and improves the speed of the algorithm.
Note that you cannot use combinatorics for counts to the right of the puck, as for these the order of the counts is still important due to the restriction about the diagonal.
P.S. You can actually compute the number of ways for counting the number of n*n matrices with 2 1's in each column (and no diagonal entries) with pure combinatorics as:
a(n) = Sum_{k=0..n} Sum_{s=0..k} Sum_{j=0..n-k} (-1)^(k+j-s)*n!*(n-k)!*(2n-k-2j-s)!/(s!*(k-s)!*(n-k-j)!^2*j!*2^(2n-2k-j))
According to OEIS.
Given a 2-D array starting at (0,0) and proceeding to infinity in positive x and y axes. Given a number k>0 , find the number of cells reachable from (0,0) such that at every moment -> sum of digits of x+ sum of digits of y <=k . Moves can be up, down ,left or right. given x,y>=0 . Dfs gives answers but not sufficient for large values of k. anyone can help me with a better algorithm for this?
I think they asked you to calculate the number of cells (x,y) reachable with k>=x+y. If x=1 for example, then y can take any number between 0 and k-1 and the sum would be <=k. The total number of possibilities can be calculated by
sum(sum(1,y=0..k-x),x=0..k) = 1/2*k²+3/2*k+1
That should be able to do the trick for large k.
I am somewhat confused by the "digits" in your question. The digits make up the index like 3 times 9 makes 999. The sum of digits for the cell (999,888) would be 51. If you would allow the sum of digits to be 10^9 then you could potentially have 10^8 digits for an index, resulting something around 10^(10^8) entries, well beyond normal sizes for a table. I am therefore assuming my first interpretation. If that's not correct, then could you explain it a bit more?
EDIT:
okay, so my answer is not going to solve it. I'm afraid I don't see a nice formula or answer. I would approach it as a coloring/marking problem and mark all valid cells, then use some other technique to make sure all the parts are connected/to count them.
I have tried to come up with something but it's too messy. Basically I would try and mark large parts at once based on the index and k. If k=20, you can mark the cell range (0,0..299) at once (as any lower index will have a lower index sum) and continue to check the rest of the range. I start with 299 by fixing the 2 last digits to their maximum value and look for the max value for the first digit. Then continue that process for the remaining hundreds (300-999) and only fix the last digit to end up with 300..389 and 390..398. However, you can already see that it's a mess... (nevertheless i wanted to give it to you, you might get some better idea)
Another thing you can see immediately is that you problem is symmetric in index so any valid cell (x,y) tells you there's another valid cell (y,x). In a marking scheme / dfs/ bfs this can be exploited.
Given a large sparse matrix (say 10k+ by 1M+) I need to find a subset, not necessarily continuous, of the rows and columns that form a dense matrix (all non-zero elements). I want this sub matrix to be as large as possible (not the largest sum, but the largest number of elements) within some aspect ratio constraints.
Are there any known exact or aproxamate solutions to this problem?
A quick scan on Google seems to give a lot of close-but-not-exactly results. What terms should I be looking for?
edit: Just to clarify; the sub matrix need not be continuous. In fact the row and column order is completely arbitrary so adjacency is completely irrelevant.
A thought based on Chad Okere's idea
Order the rows from largest count to smallest count (not necessary but might help perf)
Select two rows that have a "large" overlap
Add all other rows that won't reduce the overlap
Record that set
Add whatever row reduces the overlap by the least
Repeat at #3 until the result gets to small
Start over at #2 with a different starting pair
Continue until you decide the result is good enough
I assume you want something like this. You have a matrix like
1100101
1110101
0100101
You want columns 1,2,5,7 and rows 1 and 2, right? That submatrix would 4x2 with 8 elements. Or you could go with columns 1,5,7 with rows 1,2,3 which would be a 3x3 matrix.
If you want an 'approximate' method, you could start with a single non-zero element, then go on to find another non-zero element and add it to your list of rows and columns. At some point you'll run into a non-zero element that, if it's rows and columns were added to your collection, your collection would no longer be entirely non-zero.
So for the above matrix, if you added 1,1 and 2,2 you would have rows 1,2 and columns 1,2 in your collection. If you tried to add 3,7 it would cause a problem because 1,3 is zero. So you couldn't add it. You could add 2,5 and 2,7 though. Creating the 4x2 submatrix.
You would basically iterate until you can't find any more new rows and columns to add. That would get you too a local minimum. You could store the result and start again with another start point (perhaps one that didn't fit into your current solution).
Then just stop when you can't find any more after a while.
That, obviously, would take a long time, but I don't know if you'll be able to do it any more quickly.
I know you aren't working on this anymore, but I thought someone might have the same question as me in the future.
So, after realizing this is an NP-hard problem (by reduction to MAX-CLIQUE) I decided to come up with a heuristic that has worked well for me so far:
Given an N x M binary/boolean matrix, find a large dense submatrix:
Part I: Generate reasonable candidate submatrices
Consider each of the N rows to be a M-dimensional binary vector, v_i, where i=1 to N
Compute a distance matrix for the N vectors using the Hamming distance
Use the UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) algorithm to cluster vectors
Initially, each of the v_i vectors is a singleton cluster. Step 3 above (clustering) gives the order that the vectors should be combined into submatrices. So each internal node in the hierarchical clustering tree is a candidate submatrix.
Part II: Score and rank candidate submatrices
For each submatrix, calculate D, the number of elements in the dense subset of the vectors for the submatrix by eliminating any column with one or more zeros.
Select the submatrix that maximizes D
I also had some considerations regarding the min number of rows that needed to be preserved from the initial full matrix, and I would discard any candidate submatrices that did not meet this criteria before selecting a submatrix with max D value.
Is this a Netflix problem?
MATLAB or some other sparse matrix libraries might have ways to handle it.
Is your intent to write your own?
Maybe the 1D approach for each row would help you. The algorithm might look like this:
Loop over each row
Find the index of the first non-zero element
Find the index of the non-zero row element with the largest span between non-zero columns in each row and store both.
Sort the rows from largest to smallest span between non-zero columns.
At this point I start getting fuzzy (sorry, not an algorithm designer). I'd try looping over each row, lining up the indexes of the starting point, looking for the maximum non-zero run of column indexes that I could.
You don't specify whether or not the dense matrix has to be square. I'll assume not.
I don't know how efficient this is or what its Big-O behavior would be. But it's a brute force method to start with.
EDIT. This is NOT the same as the problem below.. My bad...
But based on the last comment below, it might be equivilent to the following:
Find the furthest vertically separated pair of zero points that have no zero point between them.
Find the furthest horizontally separated pair of zero points that have no zeros between them ?
Then the horizontal region you're looking for is the rectangle that fits between these two pairs of points?
This exact problem is discussed in a gem of a book called "Programming Pearls" by Jon Bentley, and, as I recall, although there is a solution in one dimension, there is no easy answer for the 2-d or higher dimensional variants ...
The 1=D problem is, effectively, find the largest sum of a contiguous subset of a set of numbers:
iterate through the elements, keeping track of a running total from a specific previous element, and the maximum subtotal seen so far (and the start and end elemnt that generateds it)... At each element, if the maxrunning subtotal is greater than the max total seen so far, the max seen so far and endelemnt are reset... If the max running total goes below zero, the start element is reset to the current element and the running total is reset to zero ...
The 2-D problem came from an attempt to generate a visual image processing algorithm, which was attempting to find, within a stream of brightnesss values representing pixels in a 2-color image, find the "brightest" rectangular area within the image. i.e., find the contained 2-D sub-matrix with the highest sum of brightness values, where "Brightness" was measured by the difference between the pixel's brighness value and the overall average brightness of the entire image (so many elements had negative values)
EDIT: To look up the 1-D solution I dredged up my copy of the 2nd edition of this book, and in it, Jon Bentley says "The 2-D version remains unsolved as this edition goes to print..." which was in 1999.