I am working on a mapping application that finds the shortest route between the things a user wants. Each thing the user wants (such as bread or gas) has multiple possible locations. Currently, I am simply planning the route between the user and the closest instance of each item to the user, however; this is not always the best route. As outlined in the diagram below, the fastest route sometimes involves visiting clusters of further away node:
For each item, I have up to fifty possible nodes (locations). How can I plan the shortest route that visits every node (in any order)? While pointers to specific examples of how to solve this would be great, all I'm really looking for is a point in the right direction to begin solving this problem.
A solution to this problem can be found by introducing a new graph G':
the nodes in G' are simple paths through the original graph
an edge exists between two nodes when they correspond to partial paths p and p' s.t. p can be extended into p' by adding a node to it.
In this graph (which is huge, so don't explicitly represent it in memory), your desired tour can be found using something like A* search.
You might want to check out chapter 3 of this dissertation for an overview of techniques for solving the vehicle routing problem.
To start out, I would assign a weight to each node based on its distance to the next nearest resource nodes, for example a Gas node that's distance 5 from a Bread node and distance 8 from a Walmart node would have a weight of 13; now go to the Gas node with the lowest weight + distance-from-current-position.
The problem with this heuristic is that it doesn't take into account the distance between the Bread and Walmart nodes - they could be right next to each other, or they could be up to distance 13 from each other. An alternate heuristic is to find the centroid of the subgraph formed by the Gas-Bread-Walmart triangle (or square or pentagon etc depending on how many types of locations you need to visit), add up the distances from the centroid to the points in the subgraph, and use that as the vertex weight.
Small number of items
If your number of items is small you can solve it by using Djikstra on a new graph.
Make a node for each combination of location and which items you have collected.
Use Djikstra to find the shortest route from your start to any node with all items collected.
For L locations and N items, there would be L*2^(N-1) of these new nodes so this is only practical for small N.
Large number of items
I found that ant colony optimisation gave very good results for a similar problem I looked at recently, so this may also be worth a look.
Related
I have a weighted undirected graph. Given two vertices in that graph that have no path between them, I want to create a path between then by adding edges to the graph, increasing the total weight of the graph by as little as possible. Is there a known algorithm for determining which edges to add?
An analogous problem would be if I have a graph of a country's road system, where there are two cities that are inaccessible by road from each-other, and I want to build the shortest set of new roads that will connect them. There may be other cities in between them that are connected to neither, and if they exist I want to take advantage of them.
Here's a little illustration; red and green are the vertices I want to connect, black lines are existing edges, and the blue line represents the path I want to exist.
Is there a known algorithm that gives the edges that are missing from that path?
You could use the A* algorithm with a weight of zero for existing edges and distance (or whatever cost makes sense) for missing edges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm
Actually Dijkstra with some preprocessing is best friend for you.
I answered problem that can be similar to this one: What is the time complexity if it needs to revisit visited nodes in BFS?
What I see in common - you want to use as much existing roads as possible. Also you sometimes need to break that and build new road. The point is in setting the proper weights for existing ones and for "possibly new ones".
What would be my approach - lets say, that each 1 km of existing road has cost of 1. You can sum all existing roads in your graph and lets say there are 1000km in total. Then I would preprocess whole graph and from each node(city) I would create path to all other non-diretly-connected cities and each of them would cost 1000 + 1000 per kilometer and then run Dijkstra on it.
It will automatically use as much existing roads as possible and create as less new roads as possible.
Also you can play with that settings a bit to achieve what you want.
Imagine there are two cities that are only 100m away from each other. And there is actually path between them from existing roads that takes 20 000km. With the settings I have suggested you will get 20000km path as the best one (which satisfy need of "dont build any new roads if not necessary"). Sometimes you actually want this. Sometimes you do not. In case you do not, you can think about "ok, if I build like a little of extra road and it dramatically lowers the distance, its still better solution". If this is the case, you can think about lower the price of new roads (like removing the initial cost, or per kilometer cost or both of it - it depends on what you take as best output).
I don't think that there's an accepted algorithm. But you could try and do the following. First run Vitterbi Triangulation, then run a depth first search on this fully connected graph. Take the sum of the new links in the path from A -> B. Remove the longest new link, and repeat. Once the path from A -> B cannot be reached, check the previous solutions to see which of the solutions had the smallest sum of new links.
pg_routing find shortest path from a start and an end point which are exacts vertexes on ways (the nodes), but there's no proper solution when we want to find the shortest path for locations which are not on the ways (like POI, exacts addresses, ...). The general solution is to search the nearest nodes, and then compute the shortest path, but the result can be far from the reality if for example, the road has a big length, or the nearest node is on another road which doesn't intersects the nearest road of the searched location. So, I think about 2 solutions for this problem but I don't really know how pg_routing algorithms are efficient if the network grow up :
1- split the road at each X meters, which will drastically increase the number of nodes, and BTW the topology, and then compute the shortest path on these new nodes,
2- At each pg_routing call, pre-compute for start/end locations : find the nearest way, split this way in 2 parts with ST_LineLocatePoint at the nearest location, append these news ways to the others no-splitted ways, and finally call pg_routing
So, which is the best solution in term of performance, taking into account the fact that for solution 2, I don't know how to dynamically modify the topology?
Look at the WithPoints family of functions in 2.2 which will be going to alpha/beta very shortly. And pgr_trsp() already has that capability since 2.0 where you can route between locations defined by edge and percentage along that edge.
If you have the full bus schedule for a country, how can you find the
furthest anyone can travel in one day without visiting the same stop twice?
I assume a bus schedule gives you the full list of leaving and arriving times for every bus stop.
A slow and naive method would be as follows.
You can of course make a graph from the bus schedule with multiple directed edges between bus stops. You could then do a depth first search remembering the arrival time of the edge you took to get to each node and only taking edges from that stop that leave after the one that you took to get there. If you go to a node you have been to before you would only carry on from there if the current time in your traversal is before the earliest time you had ever visited that node before. You could record the furthest you can get from each node and then you could check each node to find the furthest you can travel overall.
This seems very inefficient however and it really isn't a normal graph problem. The problem is that in a normal directed graph if you can get from A to B and from B to C then you can get from A to C. This isn't true here.
What is the fastest you can solve this problem?
I think your original algorithm is pretty good.
You can think of your approach as being a version of Dijkstra's algorithm, in attempting to find the shortest path to each node.
Note that it is best at this stage to weight edges in the graph in terms of time. The idea is to use your Dijkstra-like algorithm to compute all nodes reachable within 1 days worth of time, and then pick whichever of these nodes is furthest in space from the start point.
Implementations of Dijkstra can use a heap to retrieve the next node to explore in O(logn), and I think this would be a good enhancement to your approach as well. If you always choose the node that you can reach earliest, you never need to repeat the calculation for that node.
Overall the approach is:
For each starting point
Use a modified Dijkstra to compute all nodes reachable in 1 day
Find the furthest in space of all these nodes.
So for n starting points and e bus routes, the complexity is about O(n(n+e)log(n)) to get the optimal answer.
You should be able to get improved performance by using an appropriate heuristic in an A* search. The heuristic needs to underestimate the max distance possible from a point, so you could use the maximum speed of a bus multiplied by the remaining time.
Instead of making multiple edges for each departure from a location, you can make multiple nodes per location / time.
Create one node per location per departure time.
Create one node per location per arrival time.
Create edges to connect departures to arrivals.
Create edges to connect a given node to the node belonging to the same location at the nearest future time.
By doing this, any path you can traverse through the graph is "valid" (meaning a traveler would be able to achieve this by a combination of bus trips or choosing to sit at a location and wait for a future bus).
Sorry to say, but as described this problem has a pretty high complexity. Misread the problem originally and thought it was np-hard, but it is not. It does however have a pretty high complexity that I personally would not want to deal with. This algorithm is a pretty good approximation that give a considerable complexity savings that I personally think it worth it.
However, if all you want is an answer that is "pretty good" there are are lot of fairly efficient algorithms out there that will get close very quickly.
Personally I would suggest using a simple greedy algorithm here.
I've done this on a few (granted, small and contrived) examples and it's worked pretty well and has an nlog(n) efficiency.
Associate a velocity with each node, velocity being the fastest you can move away from a given node. In my examples this velocity was distance_travelled/(wait_time + travel_time). I used the maximum velocity of all trips leaving a node as the velocity score for that node.
From your node/time calculate the velocities of all neighboring nodes and travel to the "fastest" node.
This algorithm is pretty good for the complexity as it basically transforms the problem into a static search, but there are a couple potential pitfalls that could be adjusted for depending on your data set.
The biggest issue with this algorithm is the possibility of a really fast bus going into the middle of nowhere. You could get around that by adding a "popularity" term to the velocity calculation (make more popular stops effectively faster) but depending on your data set that could easily make things either better or worse.
The simplistic graph representation will not work. I. e. each city is a node and the edges represent time. That's because the "edge" is not always active -- it is only active at certain times of the day.
The second thing that comes to mind is Edward Tufte's Paris Train Schedule which is a different kind of graph. But that does not quite fit the problem either. With the train schedule, the stations have a sequential relationship between stations, but that's not the case in general with cities and bus schedules.
But Tufte motivates the following way to model it as a graph. You could write code only to construct the graph and use a standard graph library that includes the shortest path algorithm.
Each bus trip is an edge with weight = distance covered
Each (city, departure) and (city, arrival) is a node
All nodes for a given city are connected by zero-weight edges in a time-ordered sequence, ignoring whether it is an arrival or a departure. This subgraph will look like a chain.
(it is a directed graph)
Linear Time Solution: Note that the graph will be a directed, acyclic graph. Finding the longest path in such a graph is linear. "A longest path between two given vertices s and t in a weighted graph G is the same thing as a shortest path in a graph −G derived from G by changing every weight to its negation. Therefore, if shortest paths can be found in −G, then longest paths can also be found in G."
Hope this helps! If somebody can post a visualization of the graph, it would be nice. If I can do so myself, I will do 1 more edit.
Naive is the best you'll get -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_path_problem
EDIT:
So the problem is two fold.
Create a list of graphs where its possible to travel from pointA to pointB. Possible is in terms of times available for busA to travel from pointA to pointB.
Find longest path from all the possible generated path above.
Another approach would be to reevaluate the graph upon each node traversal and find the longest path.
It still reduces to finding longest possible path, which is NP-Hard.
I've been tasked to write an implementation of the A* algorithm (heuristics provided) that will solve the travelling salesman problem. I understand the algorithm, it's simple enough, but I just can't see the code that implements it. I mean, I get it. Priority queue for the nodes, sorted by distance + heuristic(node), add the closest node on to the path. The question is, like, what happens if the closest node can't be reached from the previous closest node? How does one actually take a "graph" as a function argument? I just can't see how the algorithm actually functions, as code.
I read the Wikipedia page before posting the question. Repeatedly. It doesn't really answer the question- searching the graph is way, way different to solving the TSP. For example, you could construct a graph where the shortest node at any given time always results in a backtrack, since two paths of the same length aren't equal, whereas if you're just trying to go from A to B then two paths of the same length are equal.
You could derive a graph by which some nodes are never reached by always going closest first.
I don't really see how A* applies to the TSP. I mean, finding a route from A to B, sure, I get that. But the TSP? I don't see the connection.
I found a solution here
Use minimum spanning tree as a heuristic.
Set
Initial State: Agent in the start city and has not visited any other city
Goal State: Agent has visited all the cities and reached the start city again
Successor Function: Generates all cities that have not yet visited
Edge-cost: distance between the cities represented by the nodes, use this cost to calculate g(n).
h(n): distance to the nearest unvisited city from the current city + estimated distance to travel all the unvisited cities (MST heuristic used here) + nearest distance from an unvisited city to the start city. Note that this is an admissible heuristic function.
You may consider maintaining a list of visited cities and a list of unvisited cities to facilitate computations.
The confusion here is that the graph on which you are trying to solve the TSP is not the graph you are performing an A* search on.
See related: Sudoku solving algorithm C++
To solve this problem you need to:
Define your:
TSP states
TSP initial state
TSP goal state(s)
TSP state successor function
TSP state heuristic
Apply a generic A* solver to this TSP state graph
A quick example I can think up:
TSP states: list of nodes (cities) currently in the TSP cycle
TSP initial state: the list containing a single node, the travelling salesman's home town
TSP goal state(s): a state is a goal if it contains every node in the graph of cities
TSP successor function: can add any node (city) that isn't in the current cycle to the end of the list of nodes in the cycle to get a new state
The cost of the transition is equal to the cost of the edge you're adding to the cycle
TSP state heuristic: you decide
If it's just a problem of understanding the algorithm and how it works you might want to consider drawing a graph on paper, assigning weights to it and drawing it out. Also you can probably find some animations that show Dijkstra's shortest path, Wikipedia has a good one. The only difference between Dijkstra and A* is the addition of the heuristic, and you stop the search as soon as you reach the target node. As far as using it to solve the TSP, good luck with that!
Think about this a little more abstractly. Forget about A* for a moment, it's just dijkstra's with a heuristic anyway. Before, you wanted to get from A to B. What was your goal? To get to B. The goal was to get to B with the least cost. At any given point, what was your current "state"? Probably just your location on the graph.
Now, you want to start at A, then go to both B and C. What is your goal now? To pass over both B and C, maintaining least cost. You can generalize this with more nodes: D, E, F, ... or just N nodes. Now, at any given point, what is your current "state"? This is critical: it ISN'T just your location in the graph--it's also which of B or C or whatever nodes you have visited so far in the search.
Implement your original algorithm so that it calls some function asking if it has reached "the goal state" after making X move. Before, the function would have just said "yes, you're at state B, therefore you are at the goal". But now, let that function return "yes, you're at the goal state" if the search's path has passed over each of the points of interest. It'll know whether or not the search has passed over all points of interest because that's included in the current state.
After you get that, improve the search with some heuristic, and A* it up.
To answer one of your questions...
To pass a graph as a function argument, you have several options. You could pass a pointer to an array containing all the nodes. You could pass just the one starting node and work from there, if it's a fully connected graph. And finally, you could write a graph class with whatever data structures you need inside it, and pass a reference to an instance of that class.
As for your other question about closest nodes, isn't part of A* search that it will backtrack as needed? Or you could implement your own sort of backtracking to handle that kind of situation.
The question is, like, what happens if the closest node can't be reached from the previous closest node?
This step isn't necessary. As in, you aren't computing a path from the previous closest to the current closest, you are trying to get to your goal node, and the current closest is the only thing that matters (e.g. the algorithm doesn't care that last iteration you were 100km away, because this iteration you are only 96km away).
As a broad introduction, A* doesn't directly construct a path: it explores until it definitely knows that the path is contained within the region it has explored, and then constructs the path based on the information recorded during the exploration.
(I'm going to use the code in the Wikipedia article as a reference implementation to aid my explanation.)
You have a two sets of nodes: closedset and openset
closedset holds nodes that have been fully evaluated, that is, you know exactly how far they are from start and all their neighbours are in one of the two sets. This there is no more computation you can do with them and so we can (sort of) ignore them. (Basically these are completely contained within the border.)
openset holds "border" nodes, you know how far these are from start, but you haven't touched their neighbours yet, so they are on the edge of your search so far.
(Implicitly, there is a third set: completely untouched nodes. But you don't really touch them until they are in openset so they don't matter.)
At a given iteration, if you've got nodes to explore (that is, nodes in openset), you need to work out which one to explore. This is the job of the heuristic, it basically gives you a hint about which point on the border will be the best to explore next by telling you which node it thinks will have the shortest path to goal.
The previous closest node is irrelevant, it just expanded the border a bit, adding new nodes to openset. These new nodes are now candidates for the closest node in this iteration.
At first, openset only contains start, but then you iterate and at each step the border is expanded a little (in the most promising direction), until you eventually reach goal.
When A* is actually doing the exploration, it doesn't worry about which nodes came from where. It doesn't need to, because it knows their distance from start and the heuristic function and that's all it needs.
However to reconstruct the path later, you need to have some record of the path, this is what camefrom is. For a given node, camefrom links it to the node that is closest to start, so you can reconstruct the shortest path by following the links backwards from goal.
How does one actually take a "graph" as a function argument?
By passing one of the representations of a graph.
I don't really see how A* applies to the TSP. I mean, finding a route from A to B, sure, I get that. But the TSP? I don't see the connection.
You need a different heuristic and a different end condition: goal is no longer a single node any more, but the state of having everything connected; and your heuristic is some estimate of the length of the shortest path connecting the remaining nodes.
I have an graph with the following attributes:
Undirected
Not weighted
Each vertex has a minimum of 2 and maximum of 6 edges connected to it.
Vertex count will be < 100
Graph is static and no vertices/edges can be added/removed or edited.
I'm looking for paths between a random subset of the vertices (at least 2). The paths should simple paths that only go through any vertex once.
My end goal is to have a set of routes so that you can start at one of the subset vertices and reach any of the other subset vertices. Its not necessary to pass through all the subset nodes when following a route.
All of the algorithms I've found (Dijkstra,Depth first search etc.) seem to be dealing with paths between two vertices and shortest paths.
Is there a known algorithm that will give me all the paths (I suppose these are subgraphs) that connect these subset of vertices?
edit:
I've created a (warning! programmer art) animated gif to illustrate what i'm trying to achieve: http://imgur.com/mGVlX.gif
There are two stages pre-process and runtime.
pre-process
I have a graph and a subset of the vertices (blue nodes)
I generate all the possible routes that connect all the blue nodes
runtime
I can start at any blue node select any of the generated routes and travel along it to reach my destination blue node.
So my task is more about creating all of the subgraphs (routes) that connect all blue nodes, rather than creating a path from A->B.
There are so many ways to approach this and in order not confuse things, here's a separate answer that's addressing the description of your core problem:
Finding ALL possible subgraphs that connect your blue vertices is probably overkill if you're only going to use one at a time anyway. I would rather use an algorithm that finds a single one, but randomly (so not any shortest path algorithm or such, since it will always be the same).
If you want to save one of these subgraphs, you simply have to save the seed you used for the random number generator and you'll be able to produce the same subgraph again.
Also, if you really want to find a bunch of subgraphs, a randomized algorithm is still a good choice since you can run it several times with different seeds.
The only real downside is that you will never know if you've found every single one of the possible subgraphs, but it doesn't really sound like that's a requirement for your application.
So, on to the algorithm: Depending on the properties of your graph(s), the optimal algorithm might vary, but you could always start of with a simple random walk, starting from one blue node, walking to another blue one (while making sure you're not walking in your own old footsteps). Then choose a random node on that path and start walking to the next blue from there, and so on.
For certain graphs, this has very bad worst-case complexity but might suffice for your case. There are of course more intelligent ways to find random paths, but I'd start out easy and see if it's good enough. As they say, premature optimization is evil ;)
A simple breadth-first search will give you the shortest paths from one source vertex to all other vertices. So you can perform a BFS starting from each vertex in the subset you're interested in, to get the distances to all other vertices.
Note that in some places, BFS will be described as giving the path between a pair of vertices, but this is not necessary: You can keep running it until it has visited all nodes in the graph.
This algorithm is similar to Johnson's algorithm, but greatly simplified thanks to the fact that your graph is unweighted.
Time complexity: Since there is a constant number of edges per vertex, each BFS will take O(n), and the total will take O(kn), where n is the number of vertices and k is the size of the subset. As a comparison, the Floyd-Warshall algorithm will take O(n^3).
What you're searching for is (if I understand it correctly) not really all paths, but rather all spanning trees. Read the wikipedia article about spanning trees here to determine if those are what you're looking for. If it is, there is a paper you would probably want to read:
Gabow, Harold N.; Myers, Eugene W. (1978). "Finding All Spanning Trees of Directed and Undirected Graphs". SIAM J. Comput. 7 (280).