Minimizing time in transit - algorithm
[Updates at bottom (including solution source code)]
I have a challenging business problem that a computer can help solve.
Along a mountainous region flows a long winding river with strong currents. Along certain parts of the river are plots of environmentally sensitive land suitable for growing a particular type of rare fruit that is in very high demand. Once field laborers harvest the fruit, the clock starts ticking to get the fruit to a processing plant. It's very costly to try and send the fruits upstream or over land or air. By far the most cost effective mechanism to ship them to the plant is downstream in containers powered solely by the river's constant current. We have the capacity to build 10 processing plants and need to locate these along the river to minimize the total time the fruits spend in transit. The fruits can take however long before reaching the nearest downstream plant but that time directly hurts the price at which they can be sold. Effectively, we want to minimize the sum of the distances to the nearest respective downstream plant. A plant can be located as little as 0 meters downstream from a fruit access point.
The question is: In order to maximize profits, how far up the river should we build the 10 processing plants if we have found 32 fruit growing regions, where the regions' distances upstream from the base of the river are (in meters):
10, 40, 90, 160, 250, 360, 490, ... (n^2)*10 ... 9000, 9610, 10320?
[It is hoped that all work going towards solving this problem and towards creating similar problems and usage scenarios can help raise awareness about and generate popular resistance towards the damaging and stifling nature of software/business method patents (to whatever degree those patents might be believed to be legal within a locality).]
UPDATES
Update1: Forgot to add: I believe this question is a special case of this one.
Update2: One algorithm I wrote gives an answer in a fraction of a second, and I believe is rather good (but it's not yet stable across sample values). I'll give more details later, but the short is as follows. Place the plants at equal spacings. Cycle over all the inner plants where at each plant you recalculate its position by testing every location between its two neighbors until the problem is solved within that space (greedy algorithm). So you optimize plant 2 holding 1 and 3 fixed. Then plant 3 holding 2 and 4 fixed... When you reach the end, you cycle back and repeat until you go a full cycle where every processing plant's recalculated position stops varying.. also at the end of each cycle, you try to move processing plants that are crowded next to each other and are all near each others' fruit dumps into a region that has fruit dumps far away. There are many ways to vary the details and hence the exact answer produced. I have other candidate algorithms, but all have glitches. [I'll post code later.] Just as Mike Dunlavey mentioned below, we likely just want "good enough".
To give an idea of what might be a "good enough" result:
10010 total length of travel from 32 locations to plants at
{10,490,1210,1960,2890,4000,5290,6760,8410,9610}
Update3: mhum gave the correct exact solution first but did not (yet) post a program or algorithm, so I wrote one up that yields the same values.
/************************************************************
This program can be compiled and run (eg, on Linux):
$ gcc -std=c99 processing-plants.c -o processing-plants
$ ./processing-plants
************************************************************/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
//a: Data set of values. Add extra large number at the end
int a[]={
10,40,90,160,250,360,490,640,810,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240,99999
};
//numofa: size of data set
int numofa=sizeof(a)/sizeof(int);
//a2: will hold (pt to) unique data from a and in sorted order.
int *a2;
//max: size of a2
int max;
//num_fixed_loc: at 10 gives the solution for 10 plants
int num_fixed_loc;
//xx: holds index values of a2 from the lowest error winner of each cycle memoized. accessed via memoized offset value. Winner is based off lowest error sum from left boundary upto right ending boundary.
//FIX: to be dynamically sized.
int xx[1000000];
//xx_last: how much of xx has been used up
int xx_last=0;
//SavedBundle: data type to "hold" memoized values needed (total traval distance and plant locations)
typedef struct _SavedBundle {
long e;
int xx_offset;
} SavedBundle;
//sb: (pts to) lookup table of all calculated values memoized
SavedBundle *sb; //holds winning values being memoized
//Sort in increasing order.
int sortfunc (const void *a, const void *b) {
return (*(int *)a - *(int *)b);
}
/****************************
Most interesting code in here
****************************/
long full_memh(int l, int n) {
long e;
long e_min=-1;
int ti;
if (sb[l*max+n].e) {
return sb[l*max+n].e; //convenience passing
}
for (int i=l+1; i<max-1; i++) {
e=0;
//sum first part
for (int j=l+1; j<i; j++) {
e+=a2[j]-a2[l];
}
//sum second part
if (n!=1) //general case, recursively
e+=full_memh(i, n-1);
else //base case, iteratively
for (int j=i+1; j<max-1; j++) {
e+=a2[j]-a2[i];
}
if (e_min==-1) {
e_min=e;
ti=i;
}
if (e<e_min) {
e_min=e;
ti=i;
}
}
sb[l*max+n].e=e_min;
sb[l*max+n].xx_offset=xx_last;
xx[xx_last]=ti; //later add a test or a realloc, etc, if approp
for (int i=0; i<n-1; i++) {
xx[xx_last+(i+1)]=xx[sb[ti*max+(n-1)].xx_offset+i];
}
xx_last+=n;
return e_min;
}
/*************************************************************
Call to calculate and print results for given number of plants
*************************************************************/
int full_memoization(int num_fixed_loc) {
char *str;
long errorsum; //for convenience
//Call recursive workhorse
errorsum=full_memh(0, num_fixed_loc-2);
//Now print
str=(char *) malloc(num_fixed_loc*20+100);
sprintf (str,"\n%4d %6d {%d,",num_fixed_loc-1,errorsum,a2[0]);
for (int i=0; i<num_fixed_loc-2; i++)
sprintf (str+strlen(str),"%d%c",a2[ xx[ sb[0*max+(num_fixed_loc-2)].xx_offset+i ] ], (i<num_fixed_loc-3)?',':'}');
printf ("%s",str);
return 0;
}
/**************************************************
Initialize and call for plant numbers of many sizes
**************************************************/
int main (int x, char **y) {
int t;
int i2;
qsort(a,numofa,sizeof(int),sortfunc);
t=1;
for (int i=1; i<numofa; i++)
if (a[i]!=a[i-1])
t++;
max=t;
i2=1;
a2=(int *)malloc(sizeof(int)*t);
a2[0]=a[0];
for (int i=1; i<numofa; i++)
if (a[i]!=a[i-1]) {
a2[i2++]=a[i];
}
sb = (SavedBundle *)calloc(sizeof(SavedBundle),max*max);
for (int i=3; i<=max; i++) {
full_memoization(i);
}
free(sb);
return 0;
}
Let me give you a simple example of a Metropolis-Hastings algorithm.
Suppose you have a state vector x, and a goodness-of-fit function P(x), which can be any function you care to write.
Suppose you have a random distribution Q that you can use to modify the vector, such as x' = x + N(0, 1) * sigma, where N is a simple normal distribution about 0, and sigma is a standard deviation of your choosing.
p = P(x);
for (/* a lot of iterations */){
// add x to a sample array
// get the next sample
x' = x + N(0,1) * sigma;
p' = P(x');
// if it is better, accept it
if (p' > p){
x = x';
p = p';
}
// if it is not better
else {
// maybe accept it anyway
if (Uniform(0,1) < (p' / p)){
x = x';
p = p';
}
}
}
Usually it is done with a burn-in time of maybe 1000 cycles, after which you start collecting samples. After another maybe 10,000 cycles, the average of the samples is what you take as an answer.
It requires diagnostics and tuning. Typically the samples are plotted, and what you are looking for is a "fuzzy caterpilar" plot that is stable (doesn't move around much) and has a high acceptance rate (very fuzzy). The main parameter you can play with is sigma.
If sigma is too small, the plot will be fuzzy but it will wander around.
If it is too large, the plot will not be fuzzy - it will have horizontal segments.
Often the starting vector x is chosen at random, and often multiple starting vectors are chosen, to see if they end up in the same place.
It is not necessary to vary all components of the state vector x at the same time. You can cycle through them, varying one at a time, or some such method.
Also, if you don't need the diagnostic plot, it may not be necessary to save the samples, but just calculate the average and variance on the fly.
In the applications I'm familiar with, P(x) is a measure of probability, and it is typically in log-space, so it can vary from 0 to negative infinity.
Then to do the "maybe accept" step it is (exp(logp' - logp))
Unless I've made an error, here are exact solutions (obtained through a dynamic programming approach):
N Dist Sites
2 60950 {10,4840}
3 40910 {10,2890,6760}
4 30270 {10,2250,4840,7840}
5 23650 {10,1690,3610,5760,8410}
6 19170 {10,1210,2560,4410,6250,8410}
7 15840 {10,1000,2250,3610,5290,7290,9000}
8 13330 {10,810,1960,3240,4410,5760,7290,9000}
9 11460 {10,810,1690,2890,4000,5290,6760,8410,9610}
10 9850 {10,640,1440,2250,3240,4410,5760,7290,8410,9610}
11 8460 {10,640,1440,2250,3240,4410,5290,6250,7290,8410,9610}
12 7350 {10,490,1210,1960,2890,3610,4410,5290,6250,7290,8410,9610}
13 6470 {10,490,1000,1690,2250,2890,3610,4410,5290,6250,7290,8410,9610}
14 5800 {10,360,810,1440,1960,2560,3240,4000,4840,5760,6760,7840,9000,10240}
15 5190 {10,360,810,1440,1960,2560,3240,4000,4840,5760,6760,7840,9000,9610,10240}
16 4610 {10,360,810,1210,1690,2250,2890,3610,4410,5290,6250,7290,8410,9000,9610,10240}
17 4060 {10,360,810,1210,1690,2250,2890,3610,4410,5290,6250,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
18 3550 {10,360,810,1210,1690,2250,2890,3610,4410,5290,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
19 3080 {10,360,810,1210,1690,2250,2890,3610,4410,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
20 2640 {10,250,640,1000,1440,1960,2560,3240,4000,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
21 2230 {10,250,640,1000,1440,1960,2560,3240,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
22 1860 {10,250,640,1000,1440,1960,2560,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
23 1520 {10,250,490,810,1210,1690,2250,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
24 1210 {10,250,490,810,1210,1690,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
25 940 {10,250,490,810,1210,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
26 710 {10,160,360,640,1000,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
27 500 {10,160,360,640,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
28 330 {10,160,360,640,810,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
29 200 {10,160,360,490,640,810,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
30 100 {10,90,250,360,490,640,810,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
31 30 {10,90,160,250,360,490,640,810,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
32 0 {10,40,90,160,250,360,490,640,810,1000,1210,1440,1690,1960,2250,2560,2890,3240,3610,4000,4410,4840,5290,5760,6250,6760,7290,7840,8410,9000,9610,10240}
Related
What is the best nearest neighbor algorithm for my case?
I have a predefined list of gps positions which basically makes a predefined car track. There are around 15000 points in the list. The whole list is known in prior, no points are needed to insert afterwards. Then I get around 1 milion extra sampled gps positions for which I need to find the nearest neighbor in the predefined list. I need to process all 1 milion items in single iteration and I need to do it as quickly as possible. What would be the best nearest neighbor algorithm for this case? I can preprocess the predefined list as much as I need, but the processing 1 milion items then should be as quick as possible. I have tested a KDTree c# implementation but the performance seemed to be poor, maybe there exists a more appropriate algorithm for my 2D data. (the gps altitude is ignored in my case) Thank you for any suggestions!
CGAL has a 2d point library for nearest neighbour and range searches based on a Delaunay triangulation data structure. Here is a benchmark of their library for your use case: // file: cgal_benchmark_2dnn.cpp #include <CGAL/Exact_predicates_inexact_constructions_kernel.h> #include <CGAL/Point_set_2.h> #include <chrono> #include <list> #include <random> typedef CGAL::Exact_predicates_inexact_constructions_kernel K; typedef CGAL::Point_set_2<K>::Vertex_handle Vertex_handle; typedef K::Point_2 Point_2; /** * #brief Time a lambda function. * * #param lambda - the function to execute and time * * #return the number of microseconds elapsed while executing lambda */ template <typename Lambda> std::chrono::microseconds time_lambda(Lambda lambda) { auto start_time = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); lambda(); auto end_time = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now(); return std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::microseconds>(end_time - start_time); } int main() { const int num_index_points = 15000; const int num_trials = 1000000; std::random_device rd; // Will be used to obtain a seed for the random number engine std::mt19937 gen(rd()); // Standard mersenne_twister_engine seeded with rd() std::uniform_real_distribution<> dis(-1, 1.); std::list<Point_2> index_point_list; { auto elapsed_microseconds = time_lambda([&] { for (int i = 0; i < num_index_points; ++i) { index_point_list.emplace_back(dis(gen), dis(gen)); } }); std::cout << " Generating " << num_index_points << " random points took " << elapsed_microseconds.count() << " microseconds.\n"; } CGAL::Point_set_2<K> point_set; { auto elapsed_microseconds = time_lambda([&] { point_set.insert(index_point_list.begin(), index_point_list.end()); }); std::cout << " Building point set took " << elapsed_microseconds.count() << " microseconds.\n"; } { auto elapsed_microseconds = time_lambda([&] { for (int j = 0; j < num_trials; ++j) { Point_2 query_point(dis(gen), dis(gen)); Vertex_handle v = point_set.nearest_neighbor(query_point); } }); auto rate = elapsed_microseconds.count() / static_cast<double>(num_trials); std::cout << " Querying " << num_trials << " random points took " << elapsed_microseconds.count() << " microseconds.\n >> Microseconds / query :" << rate << "\n"; } } On my system (Ubuntu 18.04) this can be compiled with g++ cgal_benchmark_2dnn.cpp -lCGAL -lgmp -O3 and when run yields the performance: Generating 15000 random points took 1131 microseconds. Building point set took 11469 microseconds. Querying 1000000 random points took 2971201 microseconds. >> Microseconds / query :2.9712 Which is pretty fast. Note, with N processors you could speed this up roughly N times. Fastest possible implementation If two or more of the following are true: You have a small bounding box for the 150000 index points You only care of a precision up to a few decimal points (note that for lat & long coordinates going much more than 6 decimal points yields centimeter/millimeter scale precision) You have copious amounts of memory on your system Then cache everything! You can pre-compute a grid of desired precision over your bounding box of index points. Map each grid cell to a unique address that can be indexed knowing the 2D coordinate of a query point. Then simply use any nearest neighbour algorithm (such as the one I supplied) to map each grid cell to the nearest index point. Note this step only has to be done once to initialize the grid cells within the grid. To run a query, this would require one 2D coordinate to grid cell coordinate calculation followed by one memory access, meaning you can't really hope for a faster approach (probably would be 2-3 CPU cycles per query.) I suspect (with some insight) this is how a giant corporation like Google or Facebook would approach the problem (since #3 is not a problem for them even for the entire world.) Even smaller non-profit organizations use schemes like this (like NASA.) Albeit, the scheme NASA uses is far more sophisticated with multiple scales of resolution/precision. Clarification From the comment below, its clear the last section was not well understood, so I will include some more details. Suppose your set of points is given by two vectors x and y which contain the x & y coordinates of your data (or lat & long or whatever you are using.) Then the bounding box of your data is defined with dimension width = max(x)-min(x) & height=max(y)-min(y). Now create a fine mesh grid to represent the entire bounding box using NxM points using the mapping of a set of test points (x_t,y_t) u(x_t) = round((x_t - min(x)) / double(width) * N) v(y_t) = round((y_t - min(y)) / double(height) * M) Then simply use indices = grid[u(x_t),v(y_t)], where indices are the indices of the closest index points to [x_t,y_t] and grid is a precomputed lookup table that maps each item in the grid to the closest index point [x,y]. For example, suppose that your index points are [0,0] and [2,2] (in that order.) You can create the grid as grid[0,0] = 0 grid[0,1] = 0 grid[0,2] = 0 // this is a tie grid[1,0] = 0 grid[1,1] = 0 // this is a tie grid[1,2] = 1 grid[2,0] = 1 // this is a tie grid[2,1] = 1 grid[2,2] = 1 where the right hand side above is either index 0 (which maps to the point [0,0]) or 1 (which maps to the point [2,2]). Note: due to the discrete nature of this approach you will have ties where distance from one point is exactly equal to the distance to another index point, you will have to come up with some means to determine how to break these ties. Note, the number of entries in the grid determine the degree of precision you are trying to reach. Obviously in the example I gave above the precision is terrible.
K-D trees are indeed well suited to the problem. You should first try again with known-good implementations, and if performance is not good enough, you can easily parallelize queries -- since each query is completely independent of others, you can achieve a speedup of N by working on N queries in parallel, if you have enough hardware. I recommend OpenCV's implementation, as mentioned in this answer Performance-wise, the ordering of the points that you insert can have a bearing on query times, since implementations may choose whether or not to rebalance unbalanced trees (and, for example, OpenCV's does not do so). A simple safeguard is to insert points in a random order: shuffle the list first, and then insert all points in the shuffled order. While not optimal, this ensures that, with overwhelming probability, the resulting order will not be pathological.
Memory-constrained coin changing for numbers up to one billion
I faced this problem on one training. Namely we have given N different values (N<= 100). Let's name this array A[N], for this array A we are sure that we have 1 in the array and A[i] ≤ 109. Secondly we have given number S where S ≤ 109. Now we have to solve classic coin problem with this values. Actually we need to find minimum number of element which will sum to exactly S. Every element from A can be used infinite number of times. Time limit: 1 sec Memory limit: 256 MB Example: S = 1000, N = 10 A[] = {1,12,123,4,5,678,7,8,9,10}. The result is 10. 1000 = 678 + 123 + 123 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 12 + 4 What I have tried I tried to solve this with classic dynamic programming coin problem technique but it uses too much memory and it gives memory limit exceeded. I can't figure out what should we keep about those values. Thanks in advance. Here are the couple test cases that cannot be solved with the classic dp coin problem. S = 1000000000 N = 100 1 373241370 973754081 826685384 491500595 765099032 823328348 462385937 251930295 819055757 641895809 106173894 898709067 513260292 548326059 741996520 959257789 328409680 411542100 329874568 352458265 609729300 389721366 313699758 383922849 104342783 224127933 99215674 37629322 230018005 33875545 767937253 763298440 781853694 420819727 794366283 178777428 881069368 595934934 321543015 27436140 280556657 851680043 318369090 364177373 431592761 487380596 428235724 134037293 372264778 267891476 218390453 550035096 220099490 71718497 860530411 175542466 548997466 884701071 774620807 118472853 432325205 795739616 266609698 242622150 433332316 150791955 691702017 803277687 323953978 521256141 174108096 412366100 813501388 642963957 415051728 740653706 68239387 982329783 619220557 861659596 303476058 85512863 72420422 645130771 228736228 367259743 400311288 105258339 628254036 495010223 40223395 110232856 856929227 25543992 957121494 359385967 533951841 449476607 134830774 OUTPUT FOR THIS TEST CASE: 5 S = 999865497 N = 7 1 267062069 637323855 219276511 404376890 528753603 199747292 OUTPUT FOR THIS TEST CASE: 1129042 S = 1000000000 N = 40 1 12 123 4 5 678 7 8 9 10 400 25 23 1000 67 98 33 46 79 896 11 112 1223 412 532 6781 17 18 19 170 1400 925 723 11000 607 983 313 486 739 896 OUTPUT FOR THIS TEST CASE: 90910
(NOTE: Updated and edited for clarity. Complexity Analysis added at the end.) OK, here is my solution, including my fixes to the performance issues found by #PeterdeRivaz. I have tested this against all of the test cases provided in the question and the comments and it finishes all in under a second (well, 1.5s in one case), using primarily only the memory for the partial results cache (I'd guess about 16MB). Rather than using the traditional DP solution (which is both too slow and requires too much memory), I use a Depth-First, Greedy-First combinatorial search with pruning using current best results. I was surprised (very) that this works as well as it does, but I still suspect that you could construct test sets that would take a worst-case exponential amount of time. First there is a master function that is the only thing that calling code needs to call. It handles all of the setup and initialization and calls everything else. (all code is C#) // Find the min# of coins for a specified sum int CountChange(int targetSum, int[] coins) { // init the cache for (partial) memoization PrevResultCache = new PartialResult[1048576]; // make sure the coins are sorted lowest to highest Array.Sort(coins); int curBest = targetSum; int result = CountChange_r(targetSum, coins, coins.GetLength(0)-1, 0, ref curBest); return result; } Because of the problem test-cases raised by #PeterdeRivaz I have also added a partial results cache to handle when there are large numbers in N[] that are close together. Here is the code for the cache: // implement a very simple cache for previous results of remainder counts struct PartialResult { public int PartialSum; public int CoinVal; public int RemainingCount; } PartialResult[] PrevResultCache; // checks the partial count cache for already calculated results int PrevAddlCount(int currSum, int currCoinVal) { int cacheAddr = currSum & 1048575; // AND with (2^20-1) to get only the first 20 bits PartialResult prev = PrevResultCache[cacheAddr]; // use it, as long as it's actually the same partial sum // and the coin value is at least as large as the current coin if ((prev.PartialSum == currSum) && (prev.CoinVal >= currCoinVal)) { return prev.RemainingCount; } // otherwise flag as empty return 0; } // add or overwrite a new value to the cache void AddPartialCount(int currSum, int currCoinVal, int remainingCount) { int cacheAddr = currSum & 1048575; // AND with (2^20-1) to get only the first 20 bits PartialResult prev = PrevResultCache[cacheAddr]; // only add if the Sum is different or the result is better if ((prev.PartialSum != currSum) || (prev.CoinVal <= currCoinVal) || (prev.RemainingCount == 0) || (prev.RemainingCount >= remainingCount) ) { prev.PartialSum = currSum; prev.CoinVal = currCoinVal; prev.RemainingCount = remainingCount; PrevResultCache[cacheAddr] = prev; } } And here is the code for the recursive function that does the actual counting: /* * Find the minimum number of coins required totaling to a specifuc sum * using a list of coin denominations passed. * * Memory Requirements: O(N) where N is the number of coin denominations * (primarily for the stack) * * CPU requirements: O(Sqrt(S)*N) where S is the target Sum * (Average, estimated. This is very hard to figure out.) */ int CountChange_r(int targetSum, int[] coins, int coinIdx, int curCount, ref int curBest) { int coinVal = coins[coinIdx]; int newCount = 0; // check to see if we are at the end of the search tree (curIdx=0, coinVal=1) // or we have reached the targetSum if ((coinVal == 1) || (targetSum == 0)) { // just use math get the final total for this path/combination newCount = curCount + targetSum; // update, if we have a new curBest if (newCount < curBest) curBest = newCount; return newCount; } // prune this whole branch, if it cannot possibly improve the curBest int bestPossible = curCount + (targetSum / coinVal); if (bestPossible >= curBest) return bestPossible; //NOTE: this is a false answer, but it shouldnt matter // because we should never use it. // check the cache to see if a remainder-count for this partial sum // already exists (and used coins at least as large as ours) int prevRemCount = PrevAddlCount(targetSum, coinVal); if (prevRemCount > 0) { // it exists, so use it newCount = prevRemCount + targetSum; // update, if we have a new curBest if (newCount < curBest) curBest = newCount; return newCount; } // always try the largest remaining coin first, starting with the // maximum possible number of that coin (greedy-first searching) newCount = curCount + targetSum; for (int cnt = targetSum / coinVal; cnt >= 0; cnt--) { int tmpCount = CountChange_r(targetSum - (cnt * coinVal), coins, coinIdx - 1, curCount + cnt, ref curBest); if (tmpCount < newCount) newCount = tmpCount; } // Add our new partial result to the cache AddPartialCount(targetSum, coinVal, newCount - curCount); return newCount; } Analysis: Memory: Memory usage is pretty easy to determine for this algorithm. Basiclly there's only the partial results cache and the stack. The cache is fixed at appx. 1 million entries times the size of each entry (3*4 bytes), so about 12MB. The stack is limited to O(N), so together, memory is clearly not a problem. CPU: The run-time complexity of this algorithm starts out hard to determine and then gets harder, so please excuse me because there's a lot of hand-waving here. I tried to search for an analysis of just the brute-force problem (combinatorial search of sums of N*kn base values summing to S) but not much turned up. What little there was tended to say it was O(N^S), which is clearly too high. I think that a fairer estimate is O(N^(S/N)) or possibly O(N^(S/AVG(N)) or even O(N^(S/(Gmean(N))) where Gmean(N) is the geometric mean of the elements of N[]. This solution starts out with the brute-force combinatorial search and then improves it with two significant optimizations. The first is the pruning of branches based on estimates of the best possible results for that branch versus what the best result it has already found. If the best-case estimators were perfectly accurate and the work for branches was perfectly distributed, this would mean that if we find a result that is better than 90% of the other possible cases, then pruning would effectively eliminate 90% of the work from that point on. To make a long story short here, this should work out that the amount of work still remaining after pruning should shrink harmonically as it progress. Assuming that some kind of summing/integration should be applied to get a work total, this appears to me to work out to a logarithm of the original work. So let's call it O(Log(N^(S/N)), or O(N*Log(S/N)) which is pretty darn good. (Though O(N*Log(S/Gmean(N))) is probably more accurate). However, there are two obvious holes with this. First, it is true that the best-case estimators are not perfectly accurate and thus they will not prune as effectively as assumed above, but, this is somewhat counter-balanced by the Greedy-First ordering of the branches which gives the best chances for finding better solutions early in the search which increase the effectiveness of pruning. The second problem is that the best-case estimator works better when the different values of N are far apart. Specifically, if |(S/n2 - S/n1)| > 1 for any 2 values in N, then it becomes almost perfectly effective. For values of N less than SQRT(S), then even two adjacent values (k, k+1) are far enough apart that that this rule applies. However for increasing values above SQRT(S) a window opens up so that any number of N-values within that window will not be able to effectively prune each other. The size of this window is approximately K/SQRT(S). So if S=10^9, when K is around 10^6 this window will be almost 30 numbers wide. This means that N[] could contain 1 plus every number from 1000001 to 1000029 and the pruning optimization would provide almost no benefit. To address this, I added the partial results cache which allows memoization of the most recent partial sums up to the target S. This takes advantage of the fact that when the N-values are close together, they will tend to have an extremely high number of duplicates in their sums. As best as I can figure, this effectiveness is approximately the N times the J-th root of the problem size where J = S/K and K is some measure of the average size of the N-values (Gmean(N) is probably the best estimate). If we apply this to the brute-force combinatorial search, assuming that pruning is ineffective, we get O((N^(S/Gmean(N)))^(1/Gmean(N))), which I think is also O(N^(S/(Gmean(N)^2))). So, at this point take your pick. I know this is really sketchy, and even if it is correct, it is still very sensitive to the distribution of the N-values, so lots of variance.
[I've replaced the previous idea about bit operations because it seems to be too time consuming] A bit crazy idea and incomplete but may work. Let's start with introducing f(n,s) which returns number of combinations in which s can be composed from n coins. Now, how f(n+1,s) is related to f(n)? One of possible ways to calculate it is: f(n+1,s)=sum[coin:coins]f(n,s-coin) For example, if we have coins 1 and 3, f(0,)=[1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0] - with zero coins we can have only zero sum f(1,)=[0,1,0,1,0,0,0,0] - what we can have with one coin f(2,)=[0,0,1,0,2,0,1,0] - what we can have with two coins We can rewrite it a bit differently: f(n+1,s)=sum[i=0..max]f(n,s-i)*a(i) a(i)=1 if we have coin i and 0 otherwise What we have here is convolution: f(n+1,)=conv(f(n,),a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution Computing it as definition suggests gives O(n^2) But we can use Fourier transform to reduce it to O(n*log n). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution#Convolution_theorem So now we have more-or-less cheap way to find out what numbers are possible with n coins without going incrementally - just calculate n-th power of F(a) and apply inverse Fourier transform. This allows us to make a kind of binary search which can help handling cases when the answer is big. As I said the idea is incomplete - for now I have no idea how to combine bit representation with Fourier transforms (to satisfy memory constraint) and whether we will fit into 1 second on any "regular" CPU...
Generating Random Numbers for RPG games
I'm wondering if there is an algorithm to generate random numbers that most likely will be low in a range from min to max. For instance if you generate a random number between 1 and 100 it should most of the time be below 30 if you call the function with f(min: 1, max: 100, avg: 30), but if you call it with f(min: 1, max: 200, avg: 10) the most the average should be 10. A lot of games does this, but I simply can't find a way to do this with formula. Most of the examples I have seen uses a "drop table" or something like that. I have come up with a fairly simple way to weight the outcome of a roll, but it is not very efficient and you don't have a lot of control over it var pseudoRand = function(min, max, n) { if (n > 0) { return pseudoRand(min, Math.random() * (max - min) + min, n - 1) } return max; } rands = [] for (var i = 0; i < 20000; i++) { rands.push(pseudoRand(0, 100, 1)) } avg = rands.reduce(function(x, y) { return x + y } ) / rands.length console.log(avg); // ~50 The function simply picks a random number between min and max N times, where it for every iteration updates the max with the last roll. So if you call it with N = 2, and max = 100 then it must roll 100 two times in a row in order to return 100 I have looked at some distributions on wikipedia, but I don't quite understand them enough to know how I can control the min and max outputs etc. Any help is very much welcomed
A simple way to generate a random number with a given distribution is to pick a random number from a list where the numbers that should occur more often are repeated according with the desired distribution. For example if you create a list [1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4] and pick a random index from 0 to 9 to select an element from that list you will get a number <4 with 90% probability. Alternatively, using the distribution from the example above, generate an array [2,5,8,9] and pick a random integer from 0 to 9, if it's ≤2 (this will occur with 30% probability) then return 1, if it's >2 and ≤5 (this will also occur with 30% probability) return 2, etc. Explained here: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/150618
A probability distribution function is just a function that, when you put in a value X, will return the probability of getting that value X. A cumulative distribution function is the probability of getting a number less than or equal to X. A CDF is the integral of a PDF. A CDF is almost always a one-to-one function, so it almost always has an inverse. To generate a PDF, plot the value on the x-axis and the probability on the y-axis. The sum (discrete) or integral (continuous) of all the probabilities should add up to 1. Find some function that models that equation correctly. To do this, you may have to look up some PDFs. Basic Algorithm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_transform_sampling This algorithm is based off of Inverse Transform Sampling. The idea behind ITS is that you are randomly picking a value on the y-axis of the CDF and finding the x-value it corresponds to. This makes sense because the more likely a value is to be randomly selected, the more "space" it will take up on the y-axis of the CDF. Come up with some probability distribution formula. For instance, if you want it so that as the numbers get higher the odds of them being chosen increases, you could use something like f(x)=x or f(x)=x^2. If you want something that bulges in the middle, you could use the Gaussian Distribution or 1/(1+x^2). If you want a bounded formula, you can use the Beta Distribution or the Kumaraswamy Distribution. Integrate the PDF to get the Cumulative Distribution Function. Find the inverse of the CDF. Generate a random number and plug it into the inverse of the CDF. Multiply that result by (max-min) and then add min Round the result to the nearest integer. Steps 1 to 3 are things you have to hard code into the game. The only way around it for any PDF is to solve for the shape parameters of that correspond to its mean and holds to the constraints on what you want the shape parameters to be. If you want to use the Kumaraswamy Distribution, you will set it so that the shape parameters a and b are always greater than one. I would suggest using the Kumaraswamy Distribution because it is bounded and it has a very nice closed form and closed form inverse. It only has two parameters, a and b, and it is extremely flexible, as it can model many different scenarios, including polynomial behavior, bell curve behavior, and a basin-like behavior that has a peak at both edges. Also, modeling isn't too hard with this function. The higher the shape parameter b is, the more tilted it will be to the left, and the higher the shape parameter a is, the more tilted it will be to the right. If a and b are both less than one, the distribution will look like a trough or basin. If a or b is equal to one, the distribution will be a polynomial that does not change concavity from 0 to 1. If both a and b equal one, the distribution is a straight line. If a and b are greater than one, than the function will look like a bell curve. The best thing you can do to learn this is to actually graph these functions or just run the Inverse Transform Sampling algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumaraswamy_distribution For instance, if I want to have a probability distribution shaped like this with a=2 and b=5 going from 0 to 100: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*5*x%5E(2-1)*(1-x%5E2)%5E(5-1)+from+x%3D0+to+x%3D1 Its CDF would be: CDF(x)=1-(1-x^2)^5 Its inverse would be: CDF^-1(x)=(1-(1-x)^(1/5))^(1/2) The General Inverse of the Kumaraswamy Distribution is: CDF^-1(x)=(1-(1-x)^(1/b))^(1/a) I would then generate a number from 0 to 1, put it into the CDF^-1(x), and multiply the result by 100. Pros Very accurate Continuous, not discreet Uses one formula and very little space Gives you a lot of control over exactly how the randomness is spread out Many of these formulas have CDFs with inverses of some sort There are ways to bound the functions on both ends. For instance, the Kumaraswamy Distribution is bounded from 0 to 1, so you just input a float between zero and one, then multiply the result by (max-min) and add min. The Beta Distribution is bounded differently based on what values you pass into it. For something like PDF(x)=x, the CDF(x)=(x^2)/2, so you can generate a random value from CDF(0) to CDF(max-min). Cons You need to come up with the exact distributions and their shapes you plan on using Every single general formula you plan on using needs to be hard coded into the game. In other words, you can program the general Kumaraswamy Distribution into the game and have a function that generates random numbers based on the distribution and its parameters, a and b, but not a function that generates a distribution for you based on the average. If you wanted to use Distribution x, you would have to find out what values of a and b best fit the data you want to see and hard code those values into the game.
I would use a simple mathematical function for that. From what you describe, you need an exponential progression like y = x^2. at average (average is at x=0.5 since rand gets you a number from 0 to 1) you would get 0.25. If you want a lower average number, you can use a higher exponent like y = x^3 what would result in y = 0.125 at x = 0.5 Example: http://www.meta-calculator.com/online/?panel-102-graph&data-bounds-xMin=-2&data-bounds-xMax=2&data-bounds-yMin=-2&data-bounds-yMax=2&data-equations-0=%22y%3Dx%5E2%22&data-rand=undefined&data-hideGrid=false PS: I adjusted the function to calculate the needed exponent to get the average result. Code example: function expRand (min, max, exponent) { return Math.round( Math.pow( Math.random(), exponent) * (max - min) + min); } function averageRand (min, max, average) { var exponent = Math.log(((average - min) / (max - min))) / Math.log(0.5); return expRand(min, max, exponent); } alert(averageRand(1, 100, 10));
You may combine 2 random processes. For example: first rand R1 = f(min: 1, max: 20, avg: 10); second rand R2 = f(min:1, max : 10, avg : 1); and then multiply R1*R2 to have a result between [1-200] and average around 10 (the average will be shifted a bit) Another option is to find the inverse of the random function you want to use. This option has to be initialized when your program starts but doesn't need to be recomputed. The math used here can be found in a lot of Math libraries. I will explain point by point by taking the example of an unknown random function where only four points are known: First, fit the four point curve with a polynomial function of order 3 or higher. You should then have a parametrized function of type : ax+bx^2+cx^3+d. Find the indefinite integral of the function (the form of the integral is of type a/2x^2+b/3x^3+c/4x^4+dx, which we will call quarticEq). Compute the integral of the polynomial from your min to your max. Take a uniform random number between 0-1, then multiply by the value of the integral computed in Step 5. (we name the result "R") Now solve the equation R = quarticEq for x. Hopefully the last part is well known, and you should be able to find a library that can do this computation (see wiki). If the inverse of the integrated function does not have a closed form solution (like in any general polynomial with degree five or higher), you can use a root finding method such as Newton's Method. This kind of computation may be use to create any kind of random distribution. Edit : You may find the Inverse Transform Sampling described above in wikipedia and I found this implementation (I haven't tried it.)
You can keep a running average of what you have returned from the function so far and based on that in a while loop get the next random number that fulfills the average, adjust running average and return the number
Using a drop table permit a very fast roll, that in a real time game matter. In fact it is only one random generation of a number from a range, then according to a table of probabilities (a Gauss distribution for that range) a if statement with multiple choice. Something like that: num = random.randint(1,100) if num<10 : case 1 if num<20 and num>10 : case 2 ... It is not very clean but when you have a finite number of choices it can be very fast.
There are lots of ways to do so, all of which basically boil down to generating from a right-skewed (a.k.a. positive-skewed) distribution. You didn't make it clear whether you want integer or floating point outcomes, but there are both discrete and continuous distributions that fit the bill. One of the simplest choices would be a discrete or continuous right-triangular distribution, but while that will give you the tapering off you desire for larger values, it won't give you independent control of the mean. Another choice would be a truncated exponential (for continuous) or geometric (for discrete) distribution. You'd need to truncate because the raw exponential or geometric distribution has a range from zero to infinity, so you'd have to lop off the upper tail. That would in turn require you to do some calculus to find a rate λ which yields the desired mean after truncation. A third choice would be to use a mixture of distributions, for instance choose a number uniformly in a lower range with some probability p, and in an upper range with probability (1-p). The overall mean is then p times the mean of the lower range + (1-p) times the mean of the upper range, and you can dial in the desired overall mean by adjusting the ranges and the value of p. This approach will also work if you use non-uniform distribution choices for the sub-ranges. It all boils down to how much work you're willing to put into deriving the appropriate parameter choices.
One method would not be the most precise method, but could be considered "good enough" depending on your needs. The algorithm would be to pick a number between a min and a sliding max. There would be a guaranteed max g_max and a potential max p_max. Your true max would slide depending on the results of another random call. This will give you a skewed distribution you are looking for. Below is the solution in Python. import random def get_roll(min, g_max, p_max) max = g_max + (random.random() * (p_max - g_max)) return random.randint(min, int(max)) get_roll(1, 10, 20) Below is a histogram of the function ran 100,000 times with (1, 10, 20).
private int roll(int minRoll, int avgRoll, int maxRoll) { // Generating random number #1 int firstRoll = ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextInt(minRoll, maxRoll + 1); // Iterating 3 times will result in the roll being relatively close to // the average roll. if (firstRoll > avgRoll) { // If the first roll is higher than the (set) average roll: for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { int verificationRoll = ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextInt(minRoll, maxRoll + 1); if (firstRoll > verificationRoll && verificationRoll >= avgRoll) { // If the following condition is met: // The iteration-roll is closer to 30 than the first roll firstRoll = verificationRoll; } } } else if (firstRoll < avgRoll) { // If the first roll is lower than the (set) average roll: for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { int verificationRoll = ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextInt(minRoll, maxRoll + 1); if (firstRoll < verificationRoll && verificationRoll <= avgRoll) { // If the following condition is met: // The iteration-roll is closer to 30 than the first roll firstRoll = verificationRoll; } } } return firstRoll; } Explanation: roll check if the roll is above, below or exactly 30 if above, reroll 3 times & set the roll according to the new roll, if lower but >= 30 if below, reroll 3 times & set the roll according to the new roll, if higher but <= 30 if exactly 30, don't set the roll anew return the roll Pros: simple effective performs well Cons: You'll naturally have more results that are in the range of 30-40 than you'll have in the range of 20-30, simple due to the 30-70 relation. Testing: You can test this by using the following method in conjunction with the roll()-method. The data is saved in a hashmap (to map the number to the number of occurences). public void rollTheD100() { int maxNr = 100; int minNr = 1; int avgNr = 30; Map<Integer, Integer> numberOccurenceMap = new HashMap<>(); // "Initialization" of the map (please don't hit me for calling it initialization) for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { numberOccurenceMap.put(i, 0); } // Rolling (100k times) for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { int dummy = roll(minNr, avgNr, maxNr); numberOccurenceMap.put(dummy, numberOccurenceMap.get(dummy) + 1); } int numberPack = 0; for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { numberPack = numberPack + numberOccurenceMap.get(i); if (i % 10 == 0) { System.out.println("<" + i + ": " + numberPack); numberPack = 0; } } } The results (100.000 rolls): These were as expected. Note that you can always fine-tune the results, simply by modifying the iteration-count in the roll()-method (the closer to 30 the average should be, the more iterations should be included (note that this could hurt the performance to a certain degree)). Also note that 30 was (as expected) the number with the highest number of occurences, by far. <10: 4994 <20: 9425 <30: 18184 <40: 29640 <50: 18283 <60: 10426 <70: 5396 <80: 2532 <90: 897 <100: 223
Try this, generate a random number for the range of numbers below the average and generate a second random number for the range of numbers above the average. Then randomly select one of those, each range will be selected 50% of the time. var psuedoRand = function(min, max, avg) { var upperRand = (int)(Math.random() * (max - avg) + avg); var lowerRand = (int)(Math.random() * (avg - min) + min); if (math.random() < 0.5) return lowerRand; else return upperRand; }
Having seen much good explanations and some good ideas, I still think this could help you: You can take any distribution function f around 0, and substitute your interval of interest to your desired interval [1,100]: f -> f'. Then feed the C++ discrete_distribution with the results of f'. I've got an example with the normal distribution below, but I can't get my result into this function :-S #include <iostream> #include <random> #include <chrono> #include <cmath> using namespace std; double p1(double x, double mean, double sigma); // p(x|x_avg,sigma) double p2(int x, int x_min, int x_max, double x_avg, double z_min, double z_max); // transform ("stretch") it to the interval int plot_ps(int x_avg, int x_min, int x_max, double sigma); int main() { int x_min = 1; int x_max = 20; int x_avg = 6; double sigma = 5; /* int p[]={2,1,3,1,2,5,1,1,1,1}; default_random_engine generator (chrono::system_clock::now().time_since_epoch().count()); discrete_distribution<int> distribution {p*}; for (int i=0; i< 10; i++) cout << i << "\t" << distribution(generator) << endl; */ plot_ps(x_avg, x_min, x_max, sigma); return 0; //*/ } // Normal distribution function double p1(double x, double mean, double sigma) { return 1/(sigma*sqrt(2*M_PI)) * exp(-(x-mean)*(x-mean) / (2*sigma*sigma)); } // Transforms intervals to your wishes ;) // z_min and z_max are the desired values f'(x_min) and f'(x_max) double p2(int x, int x_min, int x_max, double x_avg, double z_min, double z_max) { double y; double sigma = 1.0; double y_min = -sigma*sqrt(-2*log(z_min)); double y_max = sigma*sqrt(-2*log(z_max)); if(x < x_avg) y = -(x-x_avg)/(x_avg-x_min)*y_min; else y = -(x-x_avg)/(x_avg-x_max)*y_max; return p1(y, 0.0, sigma); } //plots both distribution functions int plot_ps(int x_avg, int x_min, int x_max, double sigma) { double z = (1.0+x_max-x_min); // plot p1 for (int i=1; i<=20; i++) { cout << i << "\t" << string(int(p1(i, x_avg, sigma)*(sigma*sqrt(2*M_PI)*20.0)+0.5), '*') << endl; } cout << endl; // plot p2 for (int i=1; i<=20; i++) { cout << i << "\t" << string(int(p2(i, x_min, x_max, x_avg, 1.0/z, 1.0/z)*(20.0*sqrt(2*M_PI))+0.5), '*') << endl; } } With the following result if I let them plot: 1 ************ 2 *************** 3 ***************** 4 ****************** 5 ******************** 6 ******************** 7 ******************** 8 ****************** 9 ***************** 10 *************** 11 ************ 12 ********** 13 ******** 14 ****** 15 **** 16 *** 17 ** 18 * 19 * 20 1 * 2 *** 3 ******* 4 ************ 5 ****************** 6 ******************** 7 ******************** 8 ******************* 9 ***************** 10 **************** 11 ************** 12 ************ 13 ********* 14 ******** 15 ****** 16 **** 17 *** 18 ** 19 ** 20 * So - if you could give this result to the discrete_distribution<int> distribution {}, you got everything you want...
Well, from what I can see of your problem, I would want for the solution to meet these criteria: a) Belong to a single distribution: If we need to "roll" (call math.Random) more than once per function call and then aggregate or discard some results, it stops being truly distributed according to the given function. b) Not be computationally intensive: Some of the solutions use Integrals, (Gamma distribution, Gaussian Distribution), and those are computationally intensive. In your description, you mention that you want to be able to "calculate it with a formula", which fits this description (basically, you want an O(1) function). c) Be relatively "well distributed", e.g. not have peaks and valleys, but instead have most results cluster around the mean, and have nice predictable slopes downwards towards the ends, and yet have the probability of the min and the max to be not zero. d) Not to require to store a large array in memory, as in drop tables. I think this function meets the requirements: var pseudoRand = function(min, max, avg ) { var randomFraction = Math.random(); var head = (avg - min); var tail = (max - avg); var skewdness = tail / (head + tail); if (randomFraction < skewdness) return min + (randomFraction / skewdness) * head; else return avg + (1 - randomFraction) / (1 - skewdness) * tail; } This will return floats, but you can easily turn them to ints by calling (int) Math.round(pseudoRand(...)) It returned the correct average in all of my tests, and it is also nicely distributed towards the ends. Hope this helps. Good luck.
Selecting evenly distributed points algorithm
Suppose there are 25 points in a line segment, and these points may be unevenly distributed (spatially) as the following figure shows: My question is how we can select 10 points among these 25 points so that these 10 points can be as spatially evenly distributed as possible. In the idea situation, the selected points should be something like this: EDIT: It is true that this question can become more elegant if I can tell the criterion that justify the "even distribution". What I know is my expection for the selected points: if I divide the line segment into 10 equal line segments. I expect there should be one point on each small line segment. Of course it may happen that in some small line segments we cannot find representative points. In that case I will resort to its neighboring small line segment that has representative point. In the next step I will further divide the selected neighboring segment into two parts: if each part has representative points, then the empty representative point problem will be solved. If we cannot find representative point in one of the small line segments, we can further divide it into smaller parts. Or we can resort to the next neighboring line segment. EDIT: Using dynamic programming, a possible solution is implemented as follows: #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; struct Note { int previous_node; double cost; }; typedef struct Note Note; int main() { double dis[25] = {0.0344460805029088, 0.118997681558377, 0.162611735194631, 0.186872604554379, 0.223811939491137, 0.276025076998578, 0.317099480060861, 0.340385726666133, 0.381558457093008, 0.438744359656398, 0.445586200710900, 0.489764395788231, 0.498364051982143, 0.585267750979777, 0.646313010111265, 0.655098003973841, 0.679702676853675, 0.694828622975817, 0.709364830858073, 0.754686681982361, 0.765516788149002, 0.795199901137063, 0.823457828327293, 0.950222048838355, 0.959743958516081}; Note solutions[25]; for(int i=0; i<25; i++) { solutions[i].cost = 1000000; } solutions[0].cost = 0; solutions[0].previous_node = 0; for(int i=0; i<25; i++) { for(int j= i-1; j>=0; j--) { double tempcost = solutions[j].cost + std::abs(dis[i]-dis[j]-0.1); if (tempcost<solutions[i].cost) { solutions[i].previous_node = j; solutions[i].cost = tempcost; } } } vector<int> selected_points_index; int i= 24; selected_points_index.push_back(i); while (solutions[i].previous_node != 0) { i = solutions[i].previous_node; selected_points_index.push_back(i); } selected_points_index.push_back(0); std::reverse(selected_points_index.begin(),selected_points_index.end()); for(int i=0; i<selected_points_index.size(); i++) cout<<selected_points_index[i]<<endl; return 0; } The result are shown in the following figure, where the selected points are denoted as green:
Until a good, and probably O(n^2) solution comes along, use this approximation: Divide the range into 10 equal-sized bins. Choose the point in each bin closest to the centre of each bin. Job done. If you find that any of the bins is empty choose a smaller number of bins and try again. Without information about the scientific model that you are trying to implement it is difficult (a) to suggest a more appropriate algorithm and/or (b) to justify the computational effort of a more complicated algorithm.
Let {x[i]} be your set of ordered points. I guess what you need to do is to find the subset of 10 points {y[i]} that minimizes \sum{|y[i]-y[i-1]-0.1|} with y[-1] = 0. Now, if you see the configuration as a strongly connected directed graph, where each node is one of the 25 doubles and the cost for every edge is |y[i]-y[i-1]-0.1|, you should be able to solve the problem in O(n^2 +nlogn) time with the Dijkstra's algorithm. Another idea, that will probably lead to a better result, is using dynamic programming : if the element x[i] is part of our soltion, the total minimum is the sum of the minimum to get to the x[i] point plus the minimum to get the final point, so you could write a minimum solution for each point, starting from the smallest one, and using for the next one the minimum between his predecessors. Note that you'll probably have to do some additional work to pick, from the solutions set, the subset of those with 10 points. EDIT I've written this in c#: for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) { for (int j = i-1; j > 0; j--) { double tmpcost = solution[j].cost + Math.Abs(arr[i] - arr[j] - 0.1); if (tmpcost < solution[i].cost) { solution[i].previousNode = j; solution[i].cost = tmpcost; } } } I've not done a lot of testing, and there may be some problem if the "holes" in the 25 elements are quite wide, leading to solutions that are shorter than 10 elements ... but it's just to give you some ideas to work on :)
You can find approximate solution with Adaptive Non-maximal Suppression (ANMS) algorithm provided the points are weighted. The algorithm selects n best points while keeping them spatially well distributed (most spread across the space). I guess you can assign point weights based on your distribution criterion - e.g. a distance from uniform lattice of your choice. I think the lattice should have n-1 bins for optimal result. You can look up following papers discussing the 2D case (the algorithm can be easily realized in 1D): Turk, Steffen Gauglitz Luca Foschini Matthew, and Tobias Höllerer. "EFFICIENTLY SELECTING SPATIALLY DISTRIBUTED KEYPOINTS FOR VISUAL TRACKING." Brown, Matthew, Richard Szeliski, and Simon Winder. "Multi-image matching using multi-scale oriented patches." Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005. CVPR 2005. IEEE Computer Society Conference on. Vol. 1. IEEE, 2005. The second paper is less related to your problem but it describes basic ANMS algorithm. The first papers provides faster solution. I guess both will do in 1D for a moderate amount of points (~10K).
mob picking - random selection of multiple items, each with a cost, given a range to spend
I am considering a random mode for a real-time strategy game. In this mode, the computer opponent needs to generate a random group of attackers (the mob) which will come at the player. Each possible attacker has an associated creation cost, and each turn there is a certain maximum amount to spend. To avoid making it uninteresting, the opponent should always spend at least half of that amount. The amount to spend is highly dynamic, while creation costs are dynamic but change slower. I am seeking a routine of the form: void randomchoice( int N, int * selections, int * costs, int minimum, int maximum ) Such that given: N = 5 (for example, I expect it to be around 20 or so) selections is an empty array of 5 positions costs is the array {11, 13, 17, 19, 23} minimum and maximum are 83 and 166 Would return: 83 <= selection[0]*11 + selection[1]*13 + selection[2]*17 + selection[3]*19 + selection[4]*23 <= 166 Most importantly, I want an uniformly random selection - all approaches I've tried result mostly in a few of the largest attackers, and "zergs" of the small ones are too rare. While I would prefer solutions in the C/C++ family, any algorithmic hints would be welcome.
Firstly I suggest you create a random number r between your min and max number, and we'll try to approach that number in cost, to simplify this a bit., so min <= r <= max. Next create a scheme that is uniform to your liking in dispatching your units. If I understand correctly, it would be something like this: If a unit A has a cost c, then m_a = r / c is the rough number of such units you can maximally buy. Now we have units of other types - B, C, with their own costs, and own number m_b, m_c, etc. Let S = m_a + m_b + .... Generate a random number U between 0 and S. Find the smallest i, such that S = m_a + ... m_i is larger than U. Then create a unit of type i, and subtract the units cost from r. Repeat while r > 0. It seems intuitively clear, that there should be a more efficient method without recomputations, but for a given meaning of the word uniform, this is passable.
Truly uniform? If the number of types of units (N=20?) and cost to max spend ratio is relatively small, the search space for valid possibilities is fairly small and you can probably just brute force this one. Java-esque, sorry (more natural for me, should be easy to port. List<Integer> choose(int[] costs, int min, int max) { List<List<Integer>> choices = enumerate(costs, min, max); return choices.get(new Random().nextInt(choices.size())); } // Recursively computes the valid possibilities. List<List<Integer>> enumerate(int[] costs, int min, int max) { List<List<Integer>> possibilities = new ArrayList<List<List<Integer>>(); // Base case if (costs.length == 1) { for (int i = min / costs[0]; i < max / costs[0]; i++) { List<Integer> p = new ArrayList<Integer>(); p.add(i); possibilities.add(p); } return possibilities; } // Recursive case - iterate through all possible options for this unit, recursively find // all remaining solutions. for (int i = 0; i < max / costs[0]; i++) { // Pythonism because I'm lazy - your recursive call should be a subarray of the // cost array from 1-end, since we handled the costs[0] case here. List<List<Integer>> partial = enumerate(costs[1:], min - (costs[0] * i), max - (costs[0] * i)); for (List<Integer> li : partial) { possibilities.add(li.add(0, i)); } } return possibilities; }