I'm searching for an algorithm to find pairs of adjacent nodes on a hexagonal (honeycomb) graph that minimizes a cost function.
each node is connected to three adjacent nodes
each node "i" should be paired with exactly one neighbor node "j".
each pair of nodes defines a cost function
c = pairCost( i, j )
The total cost is then computed as
totalCost = 1/2 sum_{i=1:N} ( pairCost(i, pair(i) ) )
Where pair(i) returns the index of the node that "i" is paired with. (The sum is divided by two because the sum counts each node twice). My question is, how do I find node pairs that minimize the totalCost?
The linked image should make it clearer what a solution would look like (thick red line indicates a pairing):
Some further notes:
I don't really care about the outmost nodes
My cost function is something like || v(i) - v(j) || (distance between vectors associated with the nodes)
I'm guessing the problem might be NP-hard, but I don't really need the truly optimal solution, a good one would suffice.
Naive algos tend to get nodes that are "locked in", i.e. all their neighbors are taken.
Note: I'm not familiar with the usual nomenclature in this field (is it graph theory?). If you could help with that, then maybe that could enable me to search for a solution in the literature.
This is an instance of the maximum weight matching problem in a general graph - of course you'll have to negate your weights to make it a minimum weight matching problem. Edmonds's paths, trees and flowers algorithm (Wikipedia link) solves this for you (there is also a public Python implementation). The naive implementation is O(n4) for n vertices, but it can be pushed down to O(n1/2m) for n vertices and m edges using the algorithm of Micali and Vazirani (sorry, couldn't find a PDF for that).
This seems related to the minimum edge cover problem, with the additional constraint that there can only be one edge per node, and that you're trying to minimize the cost rather than the number of edges. Maybe you can find some answers by searching for that phrase.
Failing that, your problem can be phrased as an integer linear programming problem, which is NP-complete, which means that you might get dreadful performance for even medium-sized problems. (This does not necessarily mean that the problem itself is NP-complete, though.)
Related
I am given a weighted graph and want to find a set of edges such that every node is only incident to one edge and such that the sum of the selected edge weights is maximized. As far as I know this problem is generally referred to as maximum weight matching and there exist fast approximations for it: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~pettie/papers/ApproxMWM-JACM.pdf
However, for my application it would be better if only a certain ratio of nodes is paired. It's more important for my application that the nodes that get paired have a high weight between them. Leaving some nodes unpaired is no big problem.
Currently, I sort the weights between nodes in descending order and always select the edge with the highest weight until I have paired a certain number of nodes. Of course I ensure that pairs of nodes are mutually exclusive. This is only a 1/2 approximation to the original problem and it's probably even worse for the modified problem.
Could you please suggest an algorithm for this issue or tell me how this problem is called?
Some thoughts.
The greedy algorithm for this problem is a 2-approximation. Imagine that, during the execution of the greedy algorithm, we keep score versus an optimal solution in the following manner. Every time we add an edge to the greedy solution, we delete the incident edges in the optimal solution, which I claim must have weight no greater than the greedy edge. If no edge would be deleted from the optimal solution, we delete the two heaviest edges instead, which also I claim must have weight no greater than the greedy edge. Since the greedy solution must have at least half as many edges as the optimal solution, I claim that there are no optimal edges left at the end, and hence greedy is a 2-approximation because we never deleted more than 2x weight with each greedy edge.
A complete 20,000-vertex graph is right on that line where I don't know whether integer programming would be a good idea. I think it's still worth a try because it's easy enough.
There are polynomial-time algorithms for computing the maximum-weight independent set in the intersection of two matroids (for this problem, the matching matroid and the uniform matroid whose bases have size equal to the size of the desired matching). I don't know if they would be practical.
I have a problem similar to the basic TSP but not quite the same.
I have a starting position for a player character, and he has to pick up n objects in the shortest time possible. He doesn't need to return to the original position and the order in which he picks up the objects does not matter.
In other words, the problem is to find the minimum-weight (distance) Hamiltonian path with a given (fixed) start vertex.
What I have currently, is an algorithm like this:
best_total_weight_so_far = Inf
foreach possible end vertex:
add a vertex with 0-weight edges to the start and end vertices
current_solution = solve TSP for this graph
remove the 0 vertex
total_weight = Weight (current_solution)
if total_weight < best_total_weight_so_far
best_solution = current_solution
best_total_weight_so_far = total_weight
However this algorithm seems to be somewhat time-consuming, since it has to solve the TSP n-1 times. Is there a better approach to solving the original problem?
It is a rather minor variation of TSP and clearly NP-hard. Any heuristic algorithm (and you really shouldn't try to do anything better than heuristic for a game IMHO) for TSP should be easily modifiable for your situation. Even the nearest neighbor probably wouldn't be bad -- in fact for your situation it would probably be better that when used in TSP since in Nearest Neighbor the return edge is often the worst. Perhaps you can use NN + 2-Opt to eliminate edge crossings.
On edit: Your problem can easily be reduced to the TSP problem for directed graphs. Double all of the existing edges so that each is replaced by a pair of arrows. The costs for all arrows is simply the existing cost for the corresponding edges except for the arrows that go into the start node. Make those edges cost 0 (no cost in returning at the end of the day). If you have code that solves the TSP for directed graphs you could thus use it in your case as well.
At the risk of it getting slow (20 points should be fine), you can use the good old exact TSP algorithms in the way John describes. 20 points is really easy for TSP - instances with thousands of points are routinely solved and instances with tens of thousands of points have been solved.
For example, use linear programming and branch & bound.
Make an LP problem with one variable per edge (there are more edges now because it's directed), the variables will be between 0 and 1 where 0 means "don't take this edge in the solution", 1 means "take it" and fractional values sort of mean "take it .. a bit" (whatever that means).
The costs are obviously the distances, except for returning to the start. See John's answer.
Then you need constraints, namely that for each node the sum of its incoming edges is 1, and the sum of its outgoing edges is one. Also the sum of a pair of edges that was previously one edge must be smaller or equal to one. The solution now will consist of disconnected triangles, which is the smallest way to connect the nodes such that they all have both an incoming edge and an outgoing edge, and those edges are not both "the same edge". So the sub-tours must be eliminated. The simplest way to do that (probably strong enough for 20 points) is to decompose the solution into connected components, and then for each connected component say that the sum of incoming edges to it must be at least 1 (it can be more than 1), same thing with the outgoing edges. Solve the LP problem again and repeat this until there is only one component. There are more cuts you can do, such as the obvious Gomory cuts, but also fancy special TSP cuts (comb cuts, blossom cuts, crown cuts.. there are whole books about this), but you won't need any of this for 20 points.
What this gives you is, sometimes, directly the solution. Usually to begin with it will contain fractional edges. In that case it still gives you a good underestimation of how long the tour will be, and you can use that in the framework of branch & bound to determine the actual best tour. The idea there is to pick an edge that was fractional in the result, and pick it either 0 or 1 (this often turns edges that were previously 0/1 fractional, so you have to keep all "chosen edges" fixed in the whole sub-tree in order to guarantee termination). Now you have two sub-problems, solve each recursively. Whenever the estimation from the LP solution becomes longer than the best path you have found so far, you can prune the sub-tree (since it's an underestimation, all integral solutions in this part of the tree can only be even worse). You can initialize the "best so far solution" with a heuristic solution but for 20 points it doesn't really matter, the techniques I described here are already enough to solve 100-point problems.
I'd like to solve a harder version of the minimum spanning tree problem.
There are N vertices. Also there are 2M edges numbered by 1, 2, .., 2M. The graph is connected, undirected, and weighted. I'd like to choose some edges to make the graph still connected and make the total cost as small as possible. There is one restriction: an edge numbered by 2k and an edge numbered by 2k-1 are tied, so both should be chosen or both should not be chosen. So, if I want to choose edge 3, I must choose edge 4 too.
So, what is the minimum total cost to make the graph connected?
My thoughts:
Let's call two edges 2k and 2k+1 a edge set.
Let's call an edge valid if it merges two different components.
Let's call an edge set good if both of the edges are valid.
First add exactly m edge sets which are good in increasing order of cost. Then iterate all the edge sets in increasing order of cost, and add the set if at least one edge is valid. m should be iterated from 0 to M.
Run an kruskal algorithm with some variation: The cost of an edge e varies.
If an edge set which contains e is good, the cost is: (the cost of the edge set) / 2.
Otherwise, the cost is: (the cost of the edge set).
I cannot prove whether kruskal algorithm is correct even if the cost changes.
Sorry for the poor English, but I'd like to solve this problem. Is it NP-hard or something, or is there a good solution? :D Thanks to you in advance!
As I speculated earlier, this problem is NP-hard. I'm not sure about inapproximability; there's a very simple 2-approximation (split each pair in half, retaining the whole cost for both halves, and run your favorite vanilla MST algorithm).
Given an algorithm for this problem, we can solve the NP-hard Hamilton cycle problem as follows.
Let G = (V, E) be the instance of Hamilton cycle. Clone all of the other vertices, denoting the clone of vi by vi'. We duplicate each edge e = {vi, vj} (making a multigraph; we can do this reduction with simple graphs at the cost of clarity), and, letting v0 be an arbitrary original vertex, we pair one copy with {v0, vi'} and the other with {v0, vj'}.
No MST can use fewer than n pairs, one to connect each cloned vertex to v0. The interesting thing is that the other halves of the pairs of a candidate with n pairs like this can be interpreted as an oriented subgraph of G where each vertex has out-degree 1 (use the index in the cloned bit as the tail). This graph connects the original vertices if and only if it's a Hamilton cycle on them.
There are various ways to apply integer programming. Here's a simple one and a more complicated one. First we formulate a binary variable x_i for each i that is 1 if edge pair 2i-1, 2i is chosen. The problem template looks like
minimize sum_i w_i x_i (drop the w_i if the problem is unweighted)
subject to
<connectivity>
for all i, x_i in {0, 1}.
Of course I have left out the interesting constraints :). One way to enforce connectivity is to solve this formulation with no constraints at first, then examine the solution. If it's connected, then great -- we're done. Otherwise, find a set of vertices S such that there are no edges between S and its complement, and add a constraint
sum_{i such that x_i connects S with its complement} x_i >= 1
and repeat.
Another way is to generate constraints like this inside of the solver working on the linear relaxation of the integer program. Usually MIP libraries have a feature that allows this. The fractional problem has fractional connectivity, however, which means finding min cuts to check feasibility. I would expect this approach to be faster, but I must apologize as I don't have the energy to describe it detail.
I'm not sure if it's the best solution, but my first approach would be a search using backtracking:
Of all edge pairs, mark those that could be removed without disconnecting the graph.
Remove one of these sets and find the optimal solution for the remaining graph.
Put the pair back and remove the next one instead, find the best solution for that.
This works, but is slow and unelegant. It might be possible to rescue this approach though with a few adjustments that avoid unnecessary branches.
Firstly, the edge pairs that could still be removed is a set that only shrinks when going deeper. So, in the next recursion, you only need to check for those in the previous set of possibly removable edge pairs. Also, since the order in which you remove the edge pairs doesn't matter, you shouldn't consider any edge pairs that were already considered before.
Then, checking if two nodes are connected is expensive. If you cache the alternative route for an edge, you can check relatively quick whether that route still exists. If it doesn't, you have to run the expensive check, because even though that one route ceased to exist, there might still be others.
Then, some more pruning of the tree: Your set of removable edge pairs gives a lower bound to the weight that the optimal solution has. Further, any existing solution gives an upper bound to the optimal solution. If a set of removable edges doesn't even have a chance to find a better solution than the best one you had before, you can stop there and backtrack.
Lastly, be greedy. Using a regular greedy algorithm will not give you an optimal solution, but it will quickly raise the bar for any solution, making pruning more effective. Therefore, attempt to remove the edge pairs in the order of their weight loss.
I have Graph with N nodes and edges with cost. (graph may be Complete but also can contain zero edges).
I want to find K trees in the graph (K < N) to ensure every node is visited and cost is the lowest possible.
Any recommendations what the best approach could be?
I tried to modify the problem to finding just single minimal spanning tree, but didn't succeeded.
Thank you for any hint!
EDIT
little detail, which can be significant. To cost is not related to crossing the edge. The cost is the price to BUILD such edge. Once edge is built, you can traverse it forward and backwards with no cost. The problem is not to "ride along all nodes", the problem is about "creating a net among all nodes". I am sorry for previous explanation
The story
Here is the story i have heard and trying to solve.
There is a city, without connection to electricity. Electrical company is able to connect just K houses with electricity. The other houses can be connected by dropping cables from already connected houses. But dropping this cable cost something. The goal is to choose which K houses will be connected directly to power plant and which houses will be connected with separate cables to ensure minimal cable cost and all houses coverage :)
As others have mentioned, this is NP hard. However, if you're willing to accept a good solution, you could use simulated annealing. For example, the traveling salesman problem is NP hard, yet near-optimal solutions can be found using simulated annealing, e.g. http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/26758/Simulated-Annealing-Solving-the-Travelling-Salesma
You are describing something like a cardinality constrained path cover. It's in the Traveling Salesman/ Vehicle routing family of problems and is NP-Hard. To create an algorithm you should ask
Are you only going to run it on small graphs.
Are you only going to run it on special cases of graphs which do have exact algorithms.
Can you live with a heuristic that solves the problem approximately.
Assume you can find a minimum spanning tree in O(V^2) using prim's algorithm.
For each vertex, find the minimum spanning tree with that vertex as the root.
This will be O(V^3) as you run the algorithm V times.
Sort these by total mass (sum of weights of their vertices) of the graph. This is O(V^2 lg V) which is consumed by the O(V^3) so essentially free in terms of order complexity.
Take the X least massive graphs - the roots of these are your "anchors" that are connected directly to the grid, as they are mostly likely to have the shortest paths. To determine which route it takes, you simply follow the path to root in each node in each tree and wire up whatever is the shortest. (This may be further optimized by sorting all paths to root and using only the shortest ones first. This will allow for optimizations on the next iterations. Finding path to root is O(V). Finding it for all V X times is O(V^2 * X). Because you would be doing this for every V, you're looking at O(V^3 * X). This is more than your biggest complexity, but I think the average case on these will be small, even if their worst case is large).
I cannot prove that this is the optimal solution. In fact, I am certain it is not. But when you consider an electrical grid of 100,000 homes, you can not consider (with any practical application) an NP hard solution. This gives you a very good solution in O(V^3 * X), which I imagine is going to give you a solution very close to optimal.
Looking at your story, I think that what you call a path can be a tree, which means that we don't have to worry about Hamiltonian circuits.
Looking at the proof of correctness of Prim's algorithm at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prim%27s_algorithm, consider taking a minimum spanning tree and removing the most expensive X-1 links. I think the proof there shows that the result has the same cost as the best possible answer to your problem: the only difference is that when you compare edges, you may find that the new edge join two separated components, but in this case you can maintain the number of separated components by removing an edge with cost at most that of the new edge.
So I think an answer for your problem is to take a minimum spanning tree and remove the X-1 most expensive links. This is certainly the case for X=1!
Here is attempt at solving this...
For X=1 I can calculate minimal spanning tree (MST) with Prim's algorithm from each node (this node is the only one connected to the grid) and select the one with the lowest overall cost
For X=2 I create extra node (Power plant node) beside my graph. I connect it with random node (eg. N0) by edge with cost of 0. I am now sure I have one power plant plug right (the random node will definitely be in one of the tree, so whole tree will be connected). Now the iterative part. I take other node (eg. N1) and again connected with PP with 0 cost edge. Now I calculate MST. Then repeat this process with replacing N1 with N2, N3 ...
So I will test every pair [N0, NX]. The lowest cost MST wins.
For X>2 is it really the same as for X=2, but I have to test connect to PP every (x-1)-tuple and calculate MST
with x^2 for MST I have complexity about (N over X-1) * x^2... Pretty complex, but I think it will give me THE OPTIMAL solution
what do you think?
edit by random node I mean random but FIXED node
attempt to visualize for x=2 (each description belongs to image above it)
Let this be our city, nodes A - F are houses, edges are candidates to future cables (each has some cost to build)
Just for image, this could be the solution
Let the green one be the power plant, this is how can look connection to one tree
But this different connection is really the same (connection to power plant(pp) cost the same, cables remains untouched). That is why we can set one of the nodes as fixed point of contact to the pp. We can be sure, that the node will be in one of the trees, and it does not matter where in the tree is.
So let this be our fixed situation with G as PP. Edge (B,G) with zero cost is added.
Now I am trying to connect second connection with PP (A,G, cost 0)
Now I calculate MST from the PP. Because red edges are the cheapest (the can actually have even negative cost), is it sure, that both of them will be in MST.
So when running MST I get something like this. Imagine detaching PP and two MINIMAL COST trees left. This is the best solution for A and B are the connections to PP. I store the cost and move on.
Now I do the same for B and C connections
I could get something like this, so compare cost to previous one and choose the better one.
This way I have to try all the connection pairs (B,A) (B,C) (B,D) (B,E) (B,F) and the cheapest one is the winner.
For X=3 I would just test other tuples with one fixed again. (A,B,C) (A,B,D) ... (A,C,D) ... (A,E,F)
I just came up with the easy solution as follows:
N - node count
C - direct connections to the grid
E - available edges
1, Sort all edges by cost
2, Repeat (N-C) times:
Take the cheapest edge available
Check if adding this edge will not caused circles in already added edge
If not, add this edge
3, That is all... You will end up with C disjoint sets of edges, connect every set to the grid
Sounds like the famous Traveling Salesman problem. The problem known to be NP-hard. Take a look at the Wikipedia as your starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem
I have a undirected graph with about 100 nodes and about 200 edges. One node is labelled 'start', one is 'end', and there's about a dozen labelled 'mustpass'.
I need to find the shortest path through this graph that starts at 'start', ends at 'end', and passes through all of the 'mustpass' nodes (in any order).
( http://3e.org/local/maize-graph.png / http://3e.org/local/maize-graph.dot.txt is the graph in question - it represents a corn maze in Lancaster, PA)
Everyone else comparing this to the Travelling Salesman Problem probably hasn't read your question carefully. In TSP, the objective is to find the shortest cycle that visits all the vertices (a Hamiltonian cycle) -- it corresponds to having every node labelled 'mustpass'.
In your case, given that you have only about a dozen labelled 'mustpass', and given that 12! is rather small (479001600), you can simply try all permutations of only the 'mustpass' nodes, and look at the shortest path from 'start' to 'end' that visits the 'mustpass' nodes in that order -- it will simply be the concatenation of the shortest paths between every two consecutive nodes in that list.
In other words, first find the shortest distance between each pair of vertices (you can use Dijkstra's algorithm or others, but with those small numbers (100 nodes), even the simplest-to-code Floyd-Warshall algorithm will run in time). Then, once you have this in a table, try all permutations of your 'mustpass' nodes, and the rest.
Something like this:
//Precomputation: Find all pairs shortest paths, e.g. using Floyd-Warshall
n = number of nodes
for i=1 to n: for j=1 to n: d[i][j]=INF
for k=1 to n:
for i=1 to n:
for j=1 to n:
d[i][j] = min(d[i][j], d[i][k] + d[k][j])
//That *really* gives the shortest distance between every pair of nodes! :-)
//Now try all permutations
shortest = INF
for each permutation a[1],a[2],...a[k] of the 'mustpass' nodes:
shortest = min(shortest, d['start'][a[1]]+d[a[1]][a[2]]+...+d[a[k]]['end'])
print shortest
(Of course that's not real code, and if you want the actual path you'll have to keep track of which permutation gives the shortest distance, and also what the all-pairs shortest paths are, but you get the idea.)
It will run in at most a few seconds on any reasonable language :)
[If you have n nodes and k 'mustpass' nodes, its running time is O(n3) for the Floyd-Warshall part, and O(k!n) for the all permutations part, and 100^3+(12!)(100) is practically peanuts unless you have some really restrictive constraints.]
run Djikstra's Algorithm to find the shortest paths between all of the critical nodes (start, end, and must-pass), then a depth-first traversal should tell you the shortest path through the resulting subgraph that touches all of the nodes start ... mustpasses ... end
This is two problems... Steven Lowe pointed this out, but didn't give enough respect to the second half of the problem.
You should first discover the shortest paths between all of your critical nodes (start, end, mustpass). Once these paths are discovered, you can construct a simplified graph, where each edge in the new graph is a path from one critical node to another in the original graph. There are many pathfinding algorithms that you can use to find the shortest path here.
Once you have this new graph, though, you have exactly the Traveling Salesperson problem (well, almost... No need to return to your starting point). Any of the posts concerning this, mentioned above, will apply.
Actually, the problem you posted is similar to the traveling salesman, but I think closer to a simple pathfinding problem. Rather than needing to visit each and every node, you simply need to visit a particular set of nodes in the shortest time (distance) possible.
The reason for this is that, unlike the traveling salesman problem, a corn maze will not allow you to travel directly from any one point to any other point on the map without needing to pass through other nodes to get there.
I would actually recommend A* pathfinding as a technique to consider. You set this up by deciding which nodes have access to which other nodes directly, and what the "cost" of each hop from a particular node is. In this case, it looks like each "hop" could be of equal cost, since your nodes seem relatively closely spaced. A* can use this information to find the lowest cost path between any two points. Since you need to get from point A to point B and visit about 12 inbetween, even a brute force approach using pathfinding wouldn't hurt at all.
Just an alternative to consider. It does look remarkably like the traveling salesman problem, and those are good papers to read up on, but look closer and you'll see that its only overcomplicating things. ^_^ This coming from the mind of a video game programmer who's dealt with these kinds of things before.
This is not a TSP problem and not NP-hard because the original question does not require that must-pass nodes are visited only once. This makes the answer much, much simpler to just brute-force after compiling a list of shortest paths between all must-pass nodes via Dijkstra's algorithm. There may be a better way to go but a simple one would be to simply work a binary tree backwards. Imagine a list of nodes [start,a,b,c,end]. Sum the simple distances [start->a->b->c->end] this is your new target distance to beat. Now try [start->a->c->b->end] and if that's better set that as the target (and remember that it came from that pattern of nodes). Work backwards over the permutations:
[start->a->b->c->end]
[start->a->c->b->end]
[start->b->a->c->end]
[start->b->c->a->end]
[start->c->a->b->end]
[start->c->b->a->end]
One of those will be shortest.
(where are the 'visited multiple times' nodes, if any? They're just hidden in the shortest-path initialization step. The shortest path between a and b may contain c or even the end point. You don't need to care)
Andrew Top has the right idea:
1) Djikstra's Algorithm
2) Some TSP heuristic.
I recommend the Lin-Kernighan heuristic: it's one of the best known for any NP Complete problem. The only other thing to remember is that after you expanded out the graph again after step 2, you may have loops in your expanded path, so you should go around short-circuiting those (look at the degree of vertices along your path).
I'm actually not sure how good this solution will be relative to the optimum. There are probably some pathological cases to do with short circuiting. After all, this problem looks a LOT like Steiner Tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steiner_tree and you definitely can't approximate Steiner Tree by just contracting your graph and running Kruskal's for example.
Considering the amount of nodes and edges is relatively finite, you can probably calculate every possible path and take the shortest one.
Generally this known as the travelling salesman problem, and has a non-deterministic polynomial runtime, no matter what the algorithm you use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_salesman_problem
The question talks about must-pass in ANY order. I have been trying to search for a solution about the defined order of must-pass nodes. I found my answer but since no question on StackOverflow had a similar question I'm posting here to let maximum people benefit from it.
If the order or must-pass is defined then you could run dijkstra's algorithm multiple times. For instance let's assume you have to start from s pass through k1, k2 and k3 (in respective order) and stop at e. Then what you could do is run dijkstra's algorithm between each consecutive pair of nodes. The cost and path would be given by:
dijkstras(s, k1) + dijkstras(k1, k2) + dijkstras(k2, k3) + dijkstras(k3, 3)
How about using brute force on the dozen 'must visit' nodes. You can cover all the possible combinations of 12 nodes easily enough, and this leaves you with an optimal circuit you can follow to cover them.
Now your problem is simplified to one of finding optimal routes from the start node to the circuit, which you then follow around until you've covered them, and then find the route from that to the end.
Final path is composed of :
start -> path to circuit* -> circuit of must visit nodes -> path to end* -> end
You find the paths I marked with * like this
Do an A* search from the start node to every point on the circuit
for each of these do an A* search from the next and previous node on the circuit to the end (because you can follow the circuit round in either direction)
What you end up with is a lot of search paths, and you can choose the one with the lowest cost.
There's lots of room for optimization by caching the searches, but I think this will generate good solutions.
It doesn't go anywhere near looking for an optimal solution though, because that could involve leaving the must visit circuit within the search.
One thing that is not mentioned anywhere, is whether it is ok for the same vertex to be visited more than once in the path. Most of the answers here assume that it's ok to visit the same edge multiple times, but my take given the question (a path should not visit the same vertex more than once!) is that it is not ok to visit the same vertex twice.
So a brute force approach would still apply, but you'd have to remove vertices already used when you attempt to calculate each subset of the path.