Let's say I have N taxis, and N customers waiting to be picked up by the taxis. The initial positions of both customers and taxis are random/arbitrary.
Now I want to assign each taxi to exactly one customer.
The customers are all stationary, and the taxis all move at identical speed. For simplicity, let's assume there are no obstacles, and the taxis can move in straight lines to assigned customers.
I now want to minimize the time until the last customer enters his/her taxi.
Is there a standard algorithm to solve this? I have tens of thousands of taxis/customers. Solution doesn't have to be optimal, just ‘good’.
The problem can almost be modelled as the standard “Assignment Problem”, solvable using the Hungarian algorithm (the Kuhn–Munkres algorithm or Munkres assignment algorithm). However, I want to minimize the cost of the costliest assignment, not minimize the sum of costs of the assignments.
Since you mentioned Hungarian Algorithm, I guess one thing you could do is using some different measure of distance rather than the euclidean distance and then run t Hungarian Algorithm on it. For example, instead of using
d = sqrt((x0 - x1) ^ 2 + (y1 - y0) ^ 2)
use
d = ((x0 - x1) ^ 2 + (y1 - y0) ^ 2) ^ 10
that could cause the algorithm to penalize big numbers heavily, which could constrain the length of the max distance.
EDIT: This paper "Geometry Helps in Bottleneck Matching and Related
Problems" may contains a better algorithm. However, I am still in the process of reading it.
I'm not sure that the Hungarian algorithm will work for your problem here. According to the link, it runs in n ^ 3 time. Plugging in 25,000 as n would yield 25,000 ^ 3 = 15,625,000,000,000. That could take quite a while to run.
Since the solution does not need to be optimal, you might consider using simulated annealing or possibly a genetic algorithm instead. Either of these should be much faster and still produce close to optimal solutions.
If using a genetic algorithm, the fitness function can be designed to minimize the longest period of time that an individual would need to wait. But, you would have to be careful because if that is the sole criteria, then the solution won't work too well for cases when there is just one cab that is closest to the passenger that is furthest away. So, the fitness function would need to take into account the other waiting times as well. One idea to solve this would be to run the model iteratively and remove the longest cab trip (both cab & person) after each iteration. But, doing that for all 10,000+ cabs/people could be expensive time wise.
I don't think any cab owner or manager would even consider minimizing the waiting time for the last customer entering his cab over minimizing the sum of the waiting time for all cabs - simply because they make more money overall when minimizing the sum of the waiting times. At least Louie DePalma would never do that... So, I suspect that the real problem you have has little or nothing to do with cabs...
A "good" algorithm that would solve your problem is a Greedy Algorithm. Since taxis and people have a position, these positions can be related to a "central" spot. Sort the taxis and people needing to get picked up in order (in relation to the "centre"). Then start assigning taxis, in order, to pick up people in order. This greedy rule will ensure taxis closest to the centre will pick up people closest to the centre and taxis farthest away pick up people farthest away.
A better way might be to use Dynamic Programming however, I am not sure nor have the time to invest. A good tutorial for Dynamic Programming can be found here
For an optimal solution: construct a weighted bipartite graph with a vertex for each taxi and customer and an edge from each taxi to each customer whose weight is the travel time. Scan the edges in order of nondecreasing weight, maintaining a maximum matching of the subgraph containing the edges scanned so far. Stop when the matching is perfect.
Related
Problem: I need to drop (n) employees from office to their homes(co-ordinates available). I have (x) 7-seater & (y) 4-seater cabs available.
I have to design an algorithm to drop all the employees to their homes while travelling minimum distance.
Also, the algorithm must tell me how many 7-seater or/and 4-seater vehicles I must choose so as to travel minimum distance.
eg. If I have 15 employees then the algorithm may tell me to use 1 (7-seater) cab & 2 (4-seater) cab & have the employees in each cab as following:
[(E2, E4, E6, E8), (E1, E3, E5, E7, E9, E10, E12), (E11, E13, E14, E15)]
Approach: I'm thinking of this as a Travelling Salesman Problem with multiple salesmen with an upper limit on number of cities each can travel. Also salesmen do not need to come back to the origin. Ant's colony problem came to my mind, but I can't really choose wisely which algorithm to choose
Requirement: I really need the ALGORITHM. Either TSP or Ant's colony, doesn't matter. I'll welcome opinions, but I really need the ALGORITHM.
This is a cost minimization problem, not a travelling salesman problem. It is related to TSP in the sense that TSP is a very specific cost minimization problem.
The solution consists of three steps:
Generate a list of employee drop-off points (nodes)
Create distinct paths that do not intersect, nor branch. These will be your routes and help prevent wasteful route overlaps. Use cost(path) = distance(furthest node and origin) + taxi_cost(nodes) + sum(distance between nodes) to compare paths and/or brute-force all potential networks. Networks are layouts of paths. DO NOT BRANCH THE PATHS!!
Total distance is a line of defense against waste ensuring that routes are not too long.
Sum of distances helps the algorithm converge on neighbourhoods where many employees live (when possible).
Because this variation of the coin problem allows imperfect solutions, it reduces to a variant of the Knapsack Problem. The utility of each taxi is capacity. If you also wish to choose the cheapest way to transport your employees, utility(taxi) = capacity/cost. From this our simplest solution is to be greedy; who cares about empty space? If you really care about filling up taxis perfectly (as opposed to cost efficiently), you'll need a much more complex solution. You only specify the least distance as your metric (with each additional taxi multiplying cost). I assume this is a proxy to say 'I don't want to pay too much'.
Therefore: taxi_cost(nodes) = math.floor(amount(nodes)/max(utility(taxis)+1). This equation selects the cheapest, roomiest taxi, and figures out how many of them are required to fully service the route.
Be sure to calculate the cost of each network you examine as sum(cost(path))
Once you've found the cheapest network to service, for each path in the chosen network:
make a list of employees travelling to the furthest node
fill the preferred taxi with those employees
repeat with the next furthest node until you have a full taxi, then add the filled taxi to the list. If you run out of employees, you've finished assigning taxis to the route. (The benefit of furthest-first selection is that you can ask employees in unfilled taxis to walk if that part of the route is within blocks of the office).
The algorithm above is not perfect, but it will have many desirable tendencies.
routes will be as short as possible and cover the greatest possible area (by not looping or branching)
routes will tend to service neighbourhoods, rather than trying to overlap responsibilities. This part of the algorithm isn't optimal, but is effective. This makes it really easy to remove service routes without needing to recalculate the transportation network.
the taxis chosen will be cost-efficient, helping to avoid paying more than necessary.
routes will use as few taxis as possible, taking into account the relative cost of upgrading to roomier ones with higher capacity
because the taxis travelling furthest will be full, it has less of an impact on your employee's ability to get to work if you decide to cancel service to emptier taxis.
Every step closer to perfection costs you many times more than the previous step, so diminished returns are acceptable if the solution provide desirable features. Although the algorithm makes some potentially sub-optimal tradeoffs, they come with huge value; your network of taxi routes becomes much easier to modify.
If you'd like to make an optimal solution, the Knapsack Problem, Coin Problem, and Change-making Problem help determine the cost of taxis and routes.
Spanning Trees are the most effective way to determine routes. Center the spanning tree at the office and calculate the cost of each branch as the maximum distance from the office. Try to keep each branch servicing areas with high density to make it easier to add and remove taxi routes.
Studying pathfinding can help you learn how to determine good cost functions so that you can numerically compare different potential paths. Remember that your network consists of a set of paths, but will require its own cost function so that you can compare different layouts.
I've written an in-depth guide to pathfinding for this answer. Pathfinding articles are few and just don't go into enough depth for a lot of problem spaces. A good cost function can get you a nearly perfect solution if you have multiple priorities. Unfortunately, good cost functions are domain specific so you will need to identify them yourself. Feel free to message me if you aren't sure how to make a path with certain traits and I'll help you figure out a good cost function.
It's a constraint satisfaction problem, not really a TSP. If you're looking for a project that may be able to help you, you could look into cspdb, which is what I wrote some time ago:
https://github.com/gtoonstra/cspdb
You'd be using a database in the backend that maintains the state and write a couple of scripts in it's own grammar that manipulates that state. A couple of examples are included to solve nqueens and classroom scheduling with multiple constraints.
From a list d destinations you can make the array of pairwise travel costs c. where c[a,b] is the travel cost from a to b...
Now you have a start point p. add to the array c2 values for p to each point in d.
So you now have the concept of groups.
You can look at this as a greedy algorithm. Given the list c2 you can take the cheapest option given your state.
Your state is the vector all you cab vectors (the costs of getting from where ever they are to where ever they could go next) .* the assignment vector where k == 0 for k in the. You find the minimum option given your state (considering adding another onerous to a cab of 4 costs the difference between the 4 person cab and the 7 person cab and adding a person to a zero person cab or adding a new cab also has a cost. Once all your people have been assigned to their cabs you have an answer.
The Idea of a greedy algorithm is most often characterized by the backpack problem but it can also be implemented for statistical methods such as feature selection.
Like #Aaron3468 this approach is not perfect and does not guarantee the best solution.
If you want the best possible solutions you can iterate through all the combinations but this becomes impractical quickly.
From my point of view your algorithm should solve 2 problems: the number of cars of each type and the shortest distance (how you number your employees depends on you or you should give more details). Sorry I'm a using a phone and I don't have have all features of the site.
For the number of cars you can use below algorithm. To solve issues related to distances, you should give more info about the paths and their lengths. A graph algorithm may then be combined with this to do the trick. Here 11=7+4.
Begin
Integer temp:= n/11
Integer rem:= n mod 11
If rem=0
x:=temp
y:=temp
Else if rem<=4
x:=temp
y:=temp+1
Else if rem<=7
x:=temp+1
y:=temp
Else
x:=temp+1
y:=temp+1
Endif
End
I am prepping for a final and this was a practice problem. It is not a homework problem.
How do I go about attacking this? Also, more generally, how do I know when to use Greedy vs. Dynamic programming? Intuitively, I think this is a good place to use greedy. I'm also thinking that if I could somehow create an orthogonal line and "sweep" it, checking the #of intersections at each point and updating a global max, then I could just return the max at the end of the sweep. I'm not sure how to plane sweep algorithmically though.
a. We are given a set of activities I1 ... In: each activity Ii is represented by its left-point Li and its right-point Ri. Design a very efficient algorithm that finds the maximum number of mutually overlapping subset of activities (write your solution in English, bullet by bullet).
b. Analyze the time complexity of your algorithm.
Proposed solution:
Ex set: {(0,2) (3,7) (4,6) (7,8) (1,5)}
Max is 3 from interval 4-5
1) Split start and end points into two separate arrays and sort them in non-decreasing order
Start points: [0,1,3,4,7] (SP)
End points: [2,5,6,7,8] (EP)
I know that I can use two pointers to sort of simulate the plane sweep, but I'm not exactly sure how. I'm stuck here.
I'd say your idea of a sweep is good.
You don't need to worry about planar sweeping, just use the start/end points. Put the elements in a queue. In every step take the smaller element from the queue front. If it's a start point, increment current tasks count, otherwise decrement it.
Since you don't need to point which tasks are overlapping - just the count of them - you don't need to worry about specific tasks duration.
Regarding your greedy vs DP question, in my non-professional opinion greedy may not always provide valid answer, whereas DP only works for problem that can be divided into smaller subproblems well. In this case, I wouldn't call your sweep-solution either.
my professor gave me a simple task to program - at least i thought so. The basics are simple: I have a randomized maze out of n > 20.000 different rooms. I thought "hey great, let's use A* to calculate the optimal route". Now i am encountering the following problem:
The java-program from my professor randomizes the rooms into a large array saving all successor rooms from room X. Example:
Rooms[2427][{42},{289},{2833}] // Room 2427 is next to the rooms 42, 289 and 2833 - those 3 rooms can be entered from room 2427.
A* needs a good heuristic to measure the following costs for each room. Example:
TotalCosts for Room Successor = CompleteCosts for CurrentRoom + Costs from CurrentRoom to Successor + estimated rest costs.
The "estimated rest costs" are the problem. If i had a 2D array i could easily use the air distance from a to b as a basic heuristic cause there will be at least X costs (air distance from a to b). However i can't use that now, because i don't know where the rooms are! They are completely randomized and when i don't know where Room 23878 will be.
Are there any other kinds of heuristics i can use? I cannot just set the estimated rest costs for every open room to 0, can i? Are there better ways?
Thanks!
Using 0 for the heuristic should just work. The 0-heuristic is actually a special case of the A* algorithm, also called the Dijkstra algorithm.
I believe there is no admissible heuristic estimate in this case, i.e. h(x) = 0 in all cases.
However, it seems that the edges of the graph are not weighted. You can simply code BFS, which will run optimally fast (and easy to implement) in O(V+E).
Given a list of cities and the cost to fly between each city, I am trying to find the cheapest itinerary that visits all of these cities. I am currently using a MATLAB solution to find the cheapest route, but I'd now like to modify the algorithm to allow the following:
repeat nodes - repeat nodes should be allowed, since travelling via hub cities can often result in a cheaper route
dynamic edge weights - return/round-trip flights have a different (usually lower) cost to two equivalent one-way flights
For now, I am ignoring the issue of flight dates and assuming that it is possible to travel from any city to any other city.
Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this problem? My first idea was to use an evolutionary optimisation method like GA or ACO to solve point 2, and simply adjust the edge weights when evaluating the objective function based on whether the itinerary contains return/round-trip flights, but perhaps somebody else has a better idea.
(Note: I am using MATLAB, but I am not specifically looking for coded solutions, more just high-level ideas about what algorithms can be used.)
Edit - after thinking about this some more, allowing "repeat nodes" seems to be too loose of a constraint. We could further constrain the problem so that, although nodes can be repeatedly visited, each directed edge can only be visited at most once. It seems reasonable to ignore any itineraries which include the same flight in the same direction more than once.
I haven't tested it myself; however, I have read that implementing Simulated Annealing to solve the TSP (or variants of it) can produce excellent results. The key point here is that Simulated Annealing is very easy to implement and requires minimal tweaking, while approximation algorithms can take much longer to implement and are probably more error prone. Skiena also has a page dedicated to specific TSP solvers.
If you want the cost of the solution produced by the algorithm is within 3/2 of the optimum then you want the Christofides algorithm. ACO and GA don't have a guaranteed cost.
Solving the TSP is a NP-hard problem for its subcycles elimination constraints, if you remove any of them (for your hub cities) you just make the problem easier.
But watch out: TSP has similarities with association problem in the meaning that you could obtain non-valid itineraries like:
Cities: New York, Boston, Dallas, Toronto
Path:
Boston - New York
New York - Boston
Dallas - Toronto
Toronto - Dallas
which is clearly wrong since we don't go across all cities.
The subcycle elimination constraints serve just to this purpose. Including a 'hub city' sounds like you need to add weights to the point and make an hybrid between flux problems and tsp problems. Sounds pretty hard but the first try may be: eliminate the subcycles constraints relative to your hub cities (and leave all the others). You can then link the subcycles obtained for the hub cities together.
Good luck
Firstly, what is approximate number of cities in your problem set? (Up to 100? More than 100?)
I have a fair bit of experience with GA (not ACO), and like epitaph says, it has a bit of gambling aspect. For some input, it might stop at a brutally inefficient solution. So, what I have done in the past is to use GA as the first option, compare the answer to some lower bound, and if that seems to be "way off", then run a second (usually a less efficient) algorithm.
Of course, I used plenty of terms that were not standard, so let us make sure that we agree what they would be in this context:
lower bound - of course, in this case, MST would be a lower bound.
"Way Off" - If triangle inequality holds, then an upper bound is UB = 2 * MST. A good "way off" in this context would be 2 * UB.
Second algorithm - In this case, both a linear programming based approach and Christofides would be good choices.
If you limit the problem to round-trips (i.e. the salesman can only buy round-trip tickets), then it can be represented by an undirected graph, and the problem boils down to finding the minimum spanning tree, which can be done efficiently.
In the general case I don't know of a clever way to use efficient algorithms; GA or similar might be a good way to go.
Do you want a near-optimal solution, or do you want the optimal solution?
For the optimal solution, there's still good ol' brute force. Due to requirement 1 involving repeat nodes, you'll have to make sure you search breadth-first, not dept-first. Otherwise you can end up in an infinite loop. You can slowly drop all routes that exceed your current minimum until all routes are exhausted and the minimal route is discovered.
My best shot so far:
A delivery vehicle needs to make a series of deliveries (d1,d2,...dn), and can do so in any order--in other words, all the possible permutations of the set D = {d1,d2,...dn} are valid solutions--but the particular solution needs to be determined before it leaves the base station at one end of the route (imagine that the packages need to be loaded in the vehicle LIFO, for example).
Further, the cost of the various permutations is not the same. It can be computed as the sum of the squares of distance traveled between di -1 and di, where d0 is taken to be the base station, with the caveat that any segment that involves a change of direction costs 3 times as much (imagine this is going on on a railroad or a pneumatic tube, and backing up disrupts other traffic).
Given the set of deliveries D represented as their distance from the base station (so abs(di-dj) is the distance between two deliveries) and an iterator permutations(D) which will produce each permutation in succession, find a permutation which has a cost less than or equal to that of any other permutation.
Now, a direct implementation from this description might lead to code like this:
function Cost(D) ...
function Best_order(D)
for D1 in permutations(D)
Found = true
for D2 in permutations(D)
Found = false if cost(D2) > cost(D1)
return D1 if Found
Which is O(n*n!^2), e.g. pretty awful--especially compared to the O(n log(n)) someone with insight would find, by simply sorting D.
My question: can you come up with a plausible problem description which would naturally lead the unwary into a worse (or differently awful) implementation of a sorting algorithm?
I assume you're using this question for an interview to see if the applicant can notice a simple solution in a seemingly complex question.
[This assumption is incorrect -- MarkusQ]
You give too much information.
The key to solving this is realizing that the points are in one dimension and that a sort is all that is required. To make this question more difficult hide this fact as much as possible.
The biggest clue is the distance formula. It introduces a penalty for changing directions. The first thing an that comes to my mind is minimizing this penalty. To remove the penalty I have to order them in a certain direction, this ordering is the natural sort order.
I would remove the penalty for changing directions, it's too much of a give away.
Another major clue is the input values to the algorithm: a list of integers. Give them a list of permutations, or even all permutations. That sets them up to thinking that a O(n!) algorithm might actually be expected.
I would phrase it as:
Given a list of all possible
permutations of n delivery locations,
where each permutation of deliveries
(d1, d2, ...,
dn) has a cost defined by:
Return permutation P such that the
cost of P is less than or equal to any
other permutation.
All that really needs to be done is read in the first permutation and sort it.
If they construct a single loop to compare the costs ask them what the big-o runtime of their algorithm is where n is the number of delivery locations (Another trap).
This isn't a direct answer, but I think more clarification is needed.
Is di allowed to be negative? If so, sorting alone is not enough, as far as I can see.
For example:
d0 = 0
deliveries = (-1,1,1,2)
It seems the optimal path in this case would be 1 > 2 > 1 > -1.
Edit: This might not actually be the optimal path, but it illustrates the point.
YOu could rephrase it, having first found the optimal solution, as
"Give me a proof that the following convination is the most optimal for the following set of rules, where optimal means the smallest number results from the sum of all stage costs, taking into account that all stages (A..Z) need to be present once and once only.
Convination:
A->C->D->Y->P->...->N
Stage costs:
A->B = 5,
B->A = 3,
A->C = 2,
C->A = 4,
...
...
...
Y->Z = 7,
Z->Y = 24."
That ought to keep someone busy for a while.
This reminds me of the Knapsack problem, more than the Traveling Salesman. But the Knapsack is also an NP-Hard problem, so you might be able to fool people to think up an over complex solution using dynamic programming if they correlate your problem with the Knapsack. Where the basic problem is:
can a value of at least V be achieved
without exceeding the weight W?
Now the problem is a fairly good solution can be found when V is unique, your distances, as such:
The knapsack problem with each type of
item j having a distinct value per
unit of weight (vj = pj/wj) is
considered one of the easiest
NP-complete problems. Indeed empirical
complexity is of the order of O((log
n)2) and very large problems can be
solved very quickly, e.g. in 2003 the
average time required to solve
instances with n = 10,000 was below 14
milliseconds using commodity personal
computers1.
So you might want to state that several stops/packages might share the same vj, inviting people to think about the really hard solution to:
However in the
degenerate case of multiple items
sharing the same value vj it becomes
much more difficult with the extreme
case where vj = constant being the
subset sum problem with a complexity
of O(2N/2N).
So if you replace the weight per value to distance per value, and state that several distances might actually share the same values, degenerate, some folk might fall in this trap.
Isn't this just the (NP-Hard) Travelling Salesman Problem? It doesn't seem likely that you're going to make it much harder.
Maybe phrasing the problem so that the actual algorithm is unclear - e.g. by describing the paths as single-rail railway lines so the person would have to infer from domain knowledge that backtracking is more costly.
What about describing the question in such a way that someone is tempted to do recursive comparisions - e.g. "can you speed up the algorithm by using the optimum max subset of your best (so far) results"?
BTW, what's the purpose of this - it sounds like the intent is to torture interviewees.
You need to be clearer on whether the delivery truck has to return to base (making it a round trip), or not. If the truck does return, then a simple sort does not produce the shortest route, because the square of the return from the furthest point to base costs so much. Missing some hops on the way 'out' and using them on the way back turns out to be cheaper.
If you trick someone into a bad answer (for example, by not giving them all the information) then is it their foolishness or your deception that has caused it?
How great is the wisdom of the wise, if they heed not their ego's lies?