Related
I understand that there are mainly two approaches to dynamic programming solutions:
Fixed optimal order of evaluation (lets call it Foo approach): Foo approach usually goes from subproblems to bigger problems thus using results obtained earlier for subproblems to solve bigger problems, thus avoiding "revisiting" subproblem. CLRS also seems to call this "Bottom Up" approach.
Without fixed optimal order of evaluation (lets call it Non-Foo approach): In this approach evaluation proceeds from problems to their sub-problems . It ensures that sub problems are not "re-evaluated" (thus ensuring optimality) by maintaining results of their past evaluations in some data structure and then first checking if the result of the problem at hand exists in this data structure before starting its evaluation. CLRS seem to call this as "Top Down" approach
This is what is roughly conveyed as one of the main points by this answer.
I have following doubts:
Q1. Memoization or not?
CLRS uses terms "top down with memoization" approach and "bottom up" approach. I feel both approaches require memory to cache results of sub problems. But, then, why CLRS use term "memoization" only for top down approach and not for bottom up approach? After solving some problems by DP approach, I feel that solutions by top down approach for all problems require memory to caches results of "all" subproblems. However, that is not the case with bottom up approach. Solutions by bottom up approach for some problems does not need to cache results of "all" sub problems. Q1. Am I correct with this?
For example consider this problem:
Given cost[i] being the cost of ith step on a staircase, give the minimum cost of reaching the top of the floor if:
you can climb either one or two steps
you can start from the step with index 0, or the step with index 1
The top down approach solution is as follows:
class Solution:
def minCostAux(self, curStep, cost):
if self.minCosts[curStep] > -1:
return self.minCosts[curStep]
if curStep == -1:
return 0
elif curStep == 0:
self.minCosts[curStep] = cost[0]
else:
self.minCosts[curStep] = min(self.minCostAux(curStep-2, cost) + cost[curStep]
, self.minCostAux(curStep-1, cost) + cost[curStep])
return self.minCosts[curStep]
def minCostClimbingStairs(self, cost) -> int:
cost.append(0)
self.minCosts = [-1] * len(cost)
return self.minCostAux(len(cost)-1, cost)
The bottom up approach solution is as follows:
class Solution:
def minCostClimbingStairs(self, cost) -> int:
cost.append(0)
secondLastMinCost = cost[0]
lastMinCost = min(cost[0]+cost[1], cost[1])
minCost = lastMinCost
for i in range(2,len(cost)):
minCost = min(lastMinCost, secondLastMinCost) + cost[i]
secondLastMinCost = lastMinCost
lastMinCost = minCost
return minCost
Note that the top down approach caches result of all steps in self.minCosts while bottom up approach caches result of only last two steps in variables lastMinCost and secondLastMinCost.
Q2. Does all problems have solutions by both approaches?
I feel no. I came to this opinion after solving this problem:
Find the probability that the knight will not go out of n x n chessboard after k moves, if the knight was initially kept in the cell at index (row, column).
I feel the only way to solve this problem is to find successive probabilities in increasing number of steps starting from cell (row, column), that is probability that the knight will not go out of chessboard after step 1, then after step 2, then after step 3 and so on. This is bottom up approach. We cannot do it top down, for example, we cannot start with kth step and go to k-1th step, then k-2th step and so on, because:
We cannot know which cells will be reached in kth step to start with
We cannot ensure that all paths from kth step will lead to initial knight cell position (row,column).
Even one of the top voted answer gives dp solution as follows:
class Solution {
private int[][]dir = new int[][]{{-2,-1},{-1,-2},{1,-2},{2,-1},{2,1},{1,2},{-1,2},{-2,1}};
private double[][][] dp;
public double knightProbability(int N, int K, int r, int c) {
dp = new double[N][N][K + 1];
return find(N,K,r,c);
}
public double find(int N,int K,int r,int c){
if(r < 0 || r > N - 1 || c < 0 || c > N - 1) return 0;
if(K == 0) return 1;
if(dp[r][c][K] != 0) return dp[r][c][K];
double rate = 0;
for(int i = 0;i < dir.length;i++) rate += 0.125 * find(N,K - 1,r + dir[i][0],c + dir[i][1]);
dp[r][c][K] = rate;
return rate;
}
}
I feel this is still a bottom up approach since it starts with initial knight cell position (r,c) (and hence starts from 0th or no step to Kth step) despite the fact that it counts K downwads to 0. So, this is bottom up approach done recursively and not top down approach. To be precise, this solution does NOT first find:
probability of knight not going out of chessboard after K steps starting at cell (r,c)
and then find:
probability of knight not going out of chessboard after K-1 steps starting at cell (r,c)
but it finds in reverse / bottom up order: first for K-1 steps and then for K steps.
Also, I did not find any solutions in of top voted discussions in leetcode doing it in truly top down manner, starting from Kth step to 0th step ending in (row,column) cell, instead of starting with (row,column) cell.
Similarly we cannot solve the following problem with the bottom up approach but only with top down approach:
Find the probability that the Knight ends up in the cell at index (row,column) after K steps, starting at any initial cell.
Q2. So am I correct with my understanding that not all problems have solutions by both top down or bottom up approaches? Or am I just overthinking unnecessarily and both above problems can indeed be solved with both top down and bottom up approaches?
PS: I indeed seem to have done overthinking here: knightProbability() function above is indeed top down, and I ill-interpreted as explained in detailed above 😑. I have kept this explanation for reference as there are already some answers below and also as a hint of how confusion / mis-interpretaions might happen, so that I will be more cautious in future. Sorry if this long explanation caused you some confusion / frustrations. Regardless, the main question still holds: does every problem have bottom up and top down solutions?
Q3. Bottom up approach recursively?
I am pondering if bottom up solutions for all problems can also be implemented recursively. After trying to do so for other problems, I came to following conclusion:
We can implement bottom up solutions for such problems recursively, only that the recursion won't be meaningful, but kind of hacky.
For example, below is recursive bottom up solution for minimum cost climbing stairs problem mentioned in Q1:
class Solution:
def minCostAux(self, step_i, cost):
if self.minCosts[step_i] != -1:
return self.minCosts[step_i]
self.minCosts[step_i] = min(self.minCostAux(step_i-1, cost)
, self.minCostAux(step_i-2, cost)) + cost[step_i]
if step_i == len(cost)-1: # returning from non-base case, gives sense of
# not-so meaningful recursion.
# Also, base cases usually appear at the
# beginning, before recursive call.
# Or should we call it "ceil condition"?
return self.minCosts[step_i]
return self.minCostAux(step_i+1, cost)
def minCostClimbingStairs(self, cost: List[int]) -> int:
cost.append(0)
self.minCosts = [-1] * len(cost)
self.minCosts[0] = cost[0]
self.minCosts[1] = min(cost[0]+cost[1], cost[1])
return self.minCostAux(2, cost)
Is my quoted understanding correct?
First, context.
Every dynamic programming problem can be solved without dynamic programming using a recursive function. Generally this will take exponential time, but you can always do it. At least in principle. If the problem can't be written that way, then it really isn't a dynamic programming problem.
The idea of dynamic programming is that if I already did a calculation and have a saved result, I can just use that saved result instead of doing the calculation again.
The whole top-down vs bottom-up distinction refers to the naive recursive solution.
In a top-down approach your call stack looks like the naive version except that you make a "memo" of what the recursive result would have given. And then the next time you short-circuit the call and return the memo. This means you can always, always, always solve dynamic programming problems top down. There is always a solution that looks like recursion+memoization. And that solution by definition is top down.
In a bottom up approach you start with what some of the bottom levels would have been and build up from there. Because you know the structure of the data very clearly, frequently you are able to know when you are done with data and can throw it away, saving memory. Occasionally you can filter data on non-obvious conditions that are hard for memoization to duplicate, making bottom up faster as well. For a concrete example of the latter, see Sorting largest amounts to fit total delay.
Start with your summary.
I strongly disagree with your thinking about the distinction in terms of the optimal order of evaluations. I've encountered many cases with top down where optimizing the order of evaluations will cause memoization to start hitting sooner, making code run faster. Conversely while bottom up certainly picks a convenient order of operations, it is not always optimal.
Now to your questions.
Q1: Correct. Bottom up often knows when it is done with data, top down does not. Therefore bottom up gives you the opportunity to delete data when you are done with it. And you gave an example where this happens.
As for why only one is called memoization, it is because memoization is a specific technique for optimizing a function, and you get top down by memoizing recursion. While the data stored in dynamic programming may match up to specific memos in memoization, you aren't using the memoization technique.
Q2: I do not know.
I've personally found cases where I was solving a problem over some complex data structure and simply couldn't find a bottom up approach. Maybe I simply wasn't clever enough, but I don't believe that a bottom up approach always exists to be found.
But top down is always possible. Here is how to do it in Python for the example that you gave.
First the naive recursive solution looks like this:
def prob_in_board(n, i, j, k):
if i < 0 or j < 0 or n <= i or n <= j:
return 0
elif k <= 0:
return 1
else:
moves = [
(i+1, j+2), (i+1, j-2),
(i-1, j+2), (i-1, j-2),
(i+2, j+1), (i+2, j-1),
(i-2, j+1), (i-2, j-1),
]
answer = 0
for next_i, next_j in moves:
answer += prob_in_board(n, next_i, next_j, k-1) / len(moves)
return answer
print(prob_in_board(8, 3, 4, 7))
And now we just memoize.
def prob_in_board_memoized(n, i, j, k, cache=None):
if cache is None:
cache = {}
if i < 0 or j < 0 or n <= i or n <= j:
return 0
elif k <= 0:
return 1
elif (i, j, k) not in cache:
moves = [
(i+1, j+2), (i+1, j-2),
(i-1, j+2), (i-1, j-2),
(i+2, j+1), (i+2, j-1),
(i-2, j+1), (i-2, j-1),
]
answer = 0
for next_i, next_j in moves:
answer += prob_in_board_memoized(n, next_i, next_j, k-1, cache) / len(moves)
cache[(i, j, k)] = answer
return cache[(i, j, k)]
print(prob_in_board_memoized(8, 3, 4, 7))
This solution is top down. If it seems otherwise to you, then you do not correctly understand what is meant by top-down.
I found your question ( does every dynamic programming problem have bottom up and top down solutions ? ) very interesting. That's why I'm adding another answer to continue the discussion about it.
To answer the question in its generic form, I need to formulate it more precisely with math. First, I need to formulate precisely what is a dynamic programming problem. Then, I need to define precisely what is a bottom up solution and what is a top down solution.
I will try to put some definitions but I think they are not the most generic ones. I think a really generic definition would need more heavy math.
First, define a state space S of dimension d as a subset of Z^d (Z represents the integers set).
Let f: S -> R be a function that we are interested in calculate for a given point P of the state space S (R represents the real numbers set).
Let t: S -> S^k be a transition function (it associates points in the state space to sets of points in the state space).
Consider the problem of calculating f on a point P in S.
We can consider it as a dynamic programming problem if there is a function g: R^k -> R such that f(P) = g(f(t(P)[0]), f(t(P)[1]), ..., f(t(P)[k])) (a problem can be solved only by using sub problems) and t defines a directed graph that is not a tree (sub problems have some overlap).
Consider the graph defined by t. We know it has a source (the point P) and some sinks for which we know the value of f (the base cases). We can define a top down solution for the problem as a depth first search through this graph that starts in the source and calculate f for each vertex at its return time (when the depth first search of all its sub graph is completed) using the transition function. On the other hand, a bottom up solution for the problem can be defined as a multi source breadth first search through the transposed graph that starts in the sinks and finishes in the source vertex, calculating f at each visited vertex using the previous visited layer.
The problem is: to navigate through the transposed graph, for each point you visit you need to know what points transition to this point in the original graph. In math terms, for each point Q in the transition graph, you need to know the set J of points such that for each point Pi in J, t(Pi) contains Q and there is no other point Pr in the state space outside of J such that t(Pr) contains Q. Notice that a trivial way to know this is to visit all the state space for each point Q.
The conclusion is that a bottom up solution as defined here always exists but it only compensates if you have a way to navigate through the transposed graph at least as efficiently as navigating through the original graph. This depends essentially in the properties of the transition function.
In particular, for the leetcode problem you mentioned, the transition function is the function that, for each point in the chessboard, gives all the points to which the knight can go to. A very special property about this function is that it's symmetric: if the knight can go from A to B, then it can also go from B to A. So, given a certain point P, you can know to which points the knight can go as efficiently as you can know from which points the knight can come from. This is the property that guarantees you that there exists a bottom up approach as efficient as the top down approach for this problem.
For the leetcode question you mentioned, the top down approach is like the following:
Let P(x, y, k) be the probability that the knight is at the square (x, y) at the k-th step. Look at all squares that the knight could have come from (you can get them in O(1), just look at the board with a pen and paper and get the formulas from the different cases, like knight in the corner, knight in the border, knight in a central region etc). Let them be (x1, y1), ... (xj, yj). For each of these squares, what is the probability that the knight jumps to (x, y) ? Considering that it can go out of the border, it's always 1/8. So:
P(x, y, k) = (P(x1, y1, k-1) + ... + P(xj, yj, k-1))/8
The base case is k = 0:
P(x, y ,0) = 1 if (x, y) = (x_start, y_start) and P(x, y, 0) = 0 otherwise.
You iterate through all n^2 squares and use the recurrence formula to calculate P(x, y, k). Many times you will need solutions you already calculated for k-1 and so you can benefit a lot from memoization.
In the end, the final solution will be the sum of P(x, y, k) over all squares of the board.
This question already has answers here:
Dynamic programming - Largest square block
(7 answers)
Closed 1 year ago.
I would like to know the different algorithms to find the biggest square in a two dimensions map dotted with obstacles.
An example, where o would be obstacles:
...........................
....o......................
............o..............
...........................
....o......................
...............o...........
...........................
......o..............o.....
..o.......o................
The biggest square would be (if we choose the first one):
.....xxxxxxx...............
....oxxxxxxx...............
.....xxxxxxxo..............
.....xxxxxxx...............
....oxxxxxxx...............
.....xxxxxxx...o...........
.....xxxxxxx...............
......o..............o.....
..o.......o................
What would be the fastest algorithm to find it? The one with the smallest complexity?
EDIT: I know that people are interested on the algorithm explained in the accepted answer, so I made a document that explains it a bit more, you can find it here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19pHCD433tYsvAor0WObxa2qusAjKdx96kaf3z5I8XT8/edit?usp=sharing
Here is how to do this in the optimal amount of time, O(nm). This is built on top of #dukeling's insight that you never need to check a solution of size less than your current known best solution.
The key is to be able to build a data structure that can answer this query in O(1) time.
Is there an obstacle in the square whose top left corner is at r, c and has size k?
To solve that problem, we'll support answering a slightly harder question, also in O(1).
What is the count of items in the rectangle from r1, c1 to r2, c2?
It's easy to answer the square existence question with an answer from the rectangle count question.
To answer the rectangle count question, note that if you had pre-computed the answer for every rectangle that starts in the top left, then you could answer the general question for from r1, c1 to r2, c2 by a kind of clever/inclusion exclusion tactic using only rectangles that start in the top left
c1 c2
-----------------------
| | | |
| A | B | |
|_____________|____| | r1
| | | |
| C | D | |
|_____________|____| | r2
|_____________________|
We want the count of stuff inside D. In terms of our pre-computed counts from the top left.
Count(D) = Count(A ∪ B ∪ C ∪ D) - Count(A ∪ C) - Count(A ∪ B) + Count(A)
You can pre-compute all the top left rectangles in O(nm) by doing some clever row/column partial sums, but I'll leave that to you.
Then to answer the to the problem you want just involves checking possible solutions, starting with solutions that are at least as good as your known best. Your known best will only get better up to min(n, m) times total, so the best_possible increment will happen very rarely and almost all squares will be rejected in O(1) time.
best_possible = 0
for r in range(n):
for c in range(m):
while True:
# this looks O(min(n, m)), but it's amortized O(1) since best_possible
# rarely increased.
if possible(r, c, best_possible+1):
best_possible += 1
else:
break
One idea, making use of binary search.
The basic idea:
Start off in the top-left corner. See if a 1x1 square would work.
If it will work, increase the sides lengths of the square by 1 and repeat.
If it won't work, move right and repeat. If you've reached the right-most position, move to the next line.
The native approach:
We can simply check every possible cell of every square at each step, but this is fairly inefficient.
The optimized approach:
When increasing the square size, we can just do a binary search over the next row and column to see if that row / column contains an obstacle at any of those positions.
When moving to the right, we can do a binary search for each next column to determine if that column contains an obstacle at any of those positions.
When moving down, we can do a similar binary on each of the columns in the target position.
Implementation note:
To start off, we'd need to go through all the rows and columns and set up arrays containing the positions of the obstacles for each of them, which we can use for the binary searches.
Running time:
We do 2 binary searches to increase the square size, and the square size is maximum the size of the grid, so that is fairly small (O(min(m,n) log max(m,n))) and gets dominated by the below.
Beyond that, for each position, we do a single binary search on a column.
So, for a grid with m columns and n rows, the overall complexity is O(mn log m).
But note how little we're actually searching below when the grid is sparse.
Example:
For your example:
012345678901234567890123456
0...........................
1....o......................
2............o..............
3...........................
4....o......................
5...............o...........
6...........................
7......o..............o.....
8..o.......o................
We'd first try a 1x1 square in the top-left corner, which works.
Then a 2x2 square. For this, we do a binary search for the range [0,1] on the row 1, which can be represented simply by {4} - an array of a single position corresponding to where the obstacle is. And we also do a binary search for the range [0,1] on the column 1, which contains no obstacles, thus an empty array - {}.
Then a 3x3 square. For this, we do a binary search for [0,2] on the row 2, which contains 1 obstacles at position 12, thus {12}. And we also do a binary search for [0,2] on the column 2, which contains an obstacle at position 8, thus {8}.
Then a 4x4 square. For this, we do a binary search for [0,3] on the row 3 - {}. And for [0,3] on column 3 - {}.
Then a 5x5 square. For this, we do a binary search for [0,4] on the row 4 - {4}. And for [0,4] column 4 - {1,4}.
Here is the first one we actually find. In the range [0,4], we find 4 in both the row and the column (we only really need to find one of them). So this indicates a fail.
From here we do a binary search on column 4 (again - not really necessary) for [0,4]. Then binary search columns 5-8 for [0,4], none of them found, so a square starting at position 5,0 is the next possible candidate.
So from here we try to increase the square size to 5x5, which works, then 6x6 and 7x7, which works.
Then we try 8x8, which doesn't work.
And so on.
I know binary search, but how does yours work?
So we're basically doing a range search within a set of values. This is fairly easy to do. First search for the starting value of the range, then the end value. If we get to the same point, there are no values in the range.
We don't really care what values exist in the range, just whether or not there are any.
So here's one rough approach.
Store the x-y positions of all the obstacles.
For each obstacle O
find obstacle C that is nearest to it column-wise.
find obstacle R-top that is nearest to it row-wise from the top.
find obstacle R-bottom that is nearest to it row-wise from the bottom.
if (|R-top.y - R-bottom.y| != |O.x - C.x|) continue
Size of the square = Abs((R-top.y - R-bottom.y) * (O.x - C.x))
Keep track of the sizes and positions to find the largest square
Complexity is roughly O(k^2) where k is the number of obstacles. You could reduce it to O(k * log k) if you use binary search.
The following SO articles are identical/similar to the problem you're trying to solve. You may want to look over those answers as well as the responses to your question.
Dynamic programming - Largest square block
dynamic programming: finding largest non-overlapping squares
Dynamic programming: Find largest diamond (rhombus)
Here's the baseline case I'd use, written in simplified Python/pseudocode.
# obstacleMap is a list of list of MapElements, stored in row-major order
max([find_largest_rect(obstacleMap, element) for row in obstacleMap for element in row])
def find_largest_rect(obstacleMap, upper_left_elem):
size = 0
while not has_obstacles(obstacleMap, upper_left_elem, size+1):
size += 1
return size
def has_obstacles(obstacleMap, upper_left_elem, size):
#determines if there are obstacles on the on outside square layer
#for example, if U is the upper left element and size=3, then has_obstacles checks the elements marked p.
# .....
# ..U.p
# ....p
# ..ppp
periphery_row = obstacleMap[upper_left_elem.row][upper_left_elem.col:upper_left_elem.col+size]
periphery_col = [row[upper_left_elem.col+size] for row in obstacleMap[upper_left_elem.row:upper_left_elem.row+size]
return any(is_obstacle(elem) for elem in periphery_row + periphery_col)
def is_obstacle(elem):
return elem.value == 'o'
class MapElement(object):
def __init__(self, row, col, value):
self.row = row
self.col = col
self.value = value
here is an approach using recurrence relation :-
isSquare(R,C1,C2) = noObstacle(R,C1,R,C2) && noObstacle(R,C2,R-(C2-C1),C2) && isSquare(R-1,C1,C2-1)
isSquare(R,C1,C2) = square that has bottom side (R,C1) to (R,C2)
noObstacle(R1,C1,R2,C2) = checks whether there is no obstacle in line segment (R1,C1) to (R2,C2)
Find Max (C2-C1+1) which where isSquare(R,C1,C2) = true
You can use dynamic programming to solve this problem in polynomial time. Use suitable data structure for searching obstacle.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm trying to find a way to find similarities in two arrays of different points. I drew circles around points that have similar patterns and I would like to do some kind of auto comparison in intervals of let's say 100 points and tell what coefficient of similarity is for that interval. As you can see it might not be perfectly aligned also so point-to-point comparison would not be a good solution also (I suppose). Patterns that are slightly misaligned could also mean that they are matching the pattern (but obviously with a smaller coefficient)
What similarity could mean (1 coefficient is a perfect match, 0 or less - is not a match at all):
Points 640 to 660 - Very similar (coefficient is ~0.8)
Points 670 to 690 - Quite similar (coefficient is ~0.5-~0.6)
Points 720 to 780 - Let's say quite similar (coefficient is ~0.5-~0.6)
Points 790 to 810 - Perfectly similar (coefficient is 1)
Coefficient is just my thoughts of how a final calculated result of comparing function could look like with given data.
I read many posts on SO but it didn't seem to solve my problem. I would appreciate your help a lot. Thank you
P.S. Perfect answer would be the one that provides pseudo code for function which could accept two data arrays as arguments (intervals of data) and return coefficient of similarity.
Click here to see original size of image
I also think High Performance Mark has basically given you the answer (cross-correlation). In my opinion, most of the other answers are only giving you half of what you need (i.e., dot product plus compare against some threshold). However, this won't consider a signal to be similar to a shifted version of itself. You'll want to compute this dot product N + M - 1 times, where N, M are the sizes of the arrays. For each iteration, compute the dot product between array 1 and a shifted version of array 2. The amount you shift array 2 increases by one each iteration. You can think of array 2 as a window you are passing over array 1. You'll want to start the loop with the last element of array 2 only overlapping the first element in array 1.
This loop will generate numbers for different amounts of shift, and what you do with that number is up to you. Maybe you compare it (or the absolute value of it) against a threshold that you define to consider two signals "similar".
Lastly, in many contexts, a signal is considered similar to a scaled (in the amplitude sense, not time-scaling) version of itself, so there must be a normalization step prior to computing the cross-correlation. This is usually done by scaling the elements of the array so that the dot product with itself equals 1. Just be careful to ensure this makes sense for your application numerically, i.e., integers don't scale very well to values between 0 and 1 :-)
i think HighPerformanceMarks's suggestion is the standard way of doing the job.
a computationally lightweight alternative measure might be a dot product.
split both arrays into the same predefined index intervals.
consider the array elements in each intervals as vector coordinates in high-dimensional space.
compute the dot product of both vectors.
the dot product will not be negative. if the two vectors are perpendicular in their vector space, the dot product will be 0 (in fact that's how 'perpendicular' is usually defined in higher dimensions), and it will attain its maximum for identical vectors.
if you accept the geometric notion of perpendicularity as a (dis)similarity measure, here you go.
caveat:
this is an ad hoc heuristic chosen for computational efficiency. i cannot tell you about mathematical/statistical properties of the process and separation properties - if you need rigorous analysis, however, you'll probably fare better with correlation theory anyway and should perhaps forward your question to math.stackexchange.com.
My Attempt:
Total_sum=0
1. For each index i in the range (m,n)
2. sum=0
3. k=Array1[i]*Array2[i]; t1=magnitude(Array1[i]); t2=magnitude(Array2[i]);
4. k=k/(t1*t2)
5. sum=sum+k
6. Total_sum=Total_sum+sum
Coefficient=Total_sum/(m-n)
If all values are equal, then sum would return 1 in each case and total_sum would return (m-n)*(1). Hence, when the same is divided by (m-n) we get the value as 1. If the graphs are exact opposites, we get -1 and for other variations a value between -1 and 1 is returned.
This is not so efficient when the y range or the x range is huge. But, I just wanted to give you an idea.
Another option would be to perform an extensive xnor.
1. For each index i in the range (m,n)
2. sum=1
3. k=Array1[i] xnor Array2[i];
4. k=k/((pow(2,number_of_bits))-1) //This will scale k down to a value between 0 and 1
5. sum=(sum+k)/2
Coefficient=sum
Is this helpful ?
You can define a distance metric for two vectors A and B of length N containing numbers in the interval [-1, 1] e.g. as
sum = 0
for i in 0 to 99:
d = (A[i] - B[i])^2 // this is in range 0 .. 4
sum = (sum / 4) / N // now in range 0 .. 1
This now returns distance 1 for vectors that are completely opposite (one is all 1, another all -1), and 0 for identical vectors.
You can translate this into your coefficient by
coeff = 1 - sum
However, this is a crude approach because it does not take into account the fact that there could be horizontal distortion or shift between the signals you want to compare, so let's look at some approaches for coping with that.
You can sort both your arrays (e.g. in ascending order) and then calculate the distance / coefficient. This returns more similarity than the original metric, and is agnostic towards permutations / shifts of the signal.
You can also calculate the differentials and calculate distance / coefficient for those, and then you can do that sorted also. Using differentials has the benefit that it eliminates vertical shifts. Sorted differentials eliminate horizontal shift but still recognize different shapes better than sorted original data points.
You can then e.g. average the different coefficients. Here more complete code. The routine below calculates coefficient for arrays A and B of given size, and takes d many differentials (recursively) first. If sorted is true, the final (differentiated) array is sorted.
procedure calc(A, B, size, d, sorted):
if (d > 0):
A' = new array[size - 1]
B' = new array[size - 1]
for i in 0 to size - 2:
A'[i] = (A[i + 1] - A[i]) / 2 // keep in range -1..1 by dividing by 2
B'[i] = (B[i + 1] - B[i]) / 2
return calc(A', B', size - 1, d - 1, sorted)
else:
if (sorted):
A = sort(A)
B = sort(B)
sum = 0
for i in 0 to size - 1:
sum = sum + (A[i] - B[i]) * (A[i] - B[i])
sum = (sum / 4) / size
return 1 - sum // return the coefficient
procedure similarity(A, B, size):
sum a = 0
a = a + calc(A, B, size, 0, false)
a = a + calc(A, B, size, 0, true)
a = a + calc(A, B, size, 1, false)
a = a + calc(A, B, size, 1, true)
return a / 4 // take average
For something completely different, you could also run Fourier transform using FFT and then take a distance metric on the returning spectra.
I want to make a linear fit to few data points, as shown on the image. Since I know the intercept (in this case say 0.05), I want to fit only points which are in the linear region with this particular intercept. In this case it will be lets say points 5:22 (but not 22:30).
I'm looking for the simple algorithm to determine this optimal amount of points, based on... hmm, that's the question... R^2? Any Ideas how to do it?
I was thinking about probing R^2 for fits using points 1 to 2:30, 2 to 3:30, and so on, but I don't really know how to enclose it into clear and simple function. For fits with fixed intercept I'm using polyfit0 (http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/272-polyfit0-m) . Thanks for any suggestions!
EDIT:
sample data:
intercept = 0.043;
x = 0.01:0.01:0.3;
y = [0.0530642513911393,0.0600786706929529,0.0673485248329648,0.0794662409166333,0.0895915873196170,0.103837395346484,0.107224784565365,0.120300492775786,0.126318699218730,0.141508831492330,0.147135757370947,0.161734674733680,0.170982455701681,0.191799936622712,0.192312642057298,0.204771365716483,0.222689541632988,0.242582251060963,0.252582727297656,0.267390860166283,0.282890010610515,0.292381165948577,0.307990544720676,0.314264952297699,0.332344368808024,0.355781519885611,0.373277721489254,0.387722683944356,0.413648156978284,0.446500064130389;];
What you have here is a rather difficult problem to find a general solution of.
One approach would be to compute all the slopes/intersects between all consecutive pairs of points, and then do cluster analysis on the intersepts:
slopes = diff(y)./diff(x);
intersepts = y(1:end-1) - slopes.*x(1:end-1);
idx = kmeans(intersepts, 3);
x([idx; 3] == 2) % the points with the intersepts closest to the linear one.
This requires the statistics toolbox (for kmeans). This is the best of all methods I tried, although the range of points found this way might have a few small holes in it; e.g., when the slopes of two points in the start and end range lie close to the slope of the line, these points will be detected as belonging to the line. This (and other factors) will require a bit more post-processing of the solution found this way.
Another approach (which I failed to construct successfully) is to do a linear fit in a loop, each time increasing the range of points from some point in the middle towards both of the endpoints, and see if the sum of the squared error remains small. This I gave up very quickly, because defining what "small" is is very subjective and must be done in some heuristic way.
I tried a more systematic and robust approach of the above:
function test
%% example data
slope = 2;
intercept = 1.5;
x = linspace(0.1, 5, 100).';
y = slope*x + intercept;
y(1:12) = log(x(1:12)) + y(12)-log(x(12));
y(74:100) = y(74:100) + (x(74:100)-x(74)).^8;
y = y + 0.2*randn(size(y));
%% simple algorithm
[X,fn] = fminsearch(#(ii)P(ii, x,y,intercept), [0.5 0.5])
[~,inds] = P(X, y,x,intercept)
end
function [C, inds] = P(ii, x,y,intercept)
% ii represents fraction of range from center to end,
% So ii lies between 0 and 1.
N = numel(x);
n = round(N/2);
ii = round(ii*n);
inds = min(max(1, n+(-ii(1):ii(2))), N);
% Solve linear system with fixed intercept
A = x(inds);
b = y(inds) - intercept;
% and return the sum of squared errors, divided by
% the number of points included in the set. This
% last step is required to prevent fminsearch from
% reducing the set to 1 point (= minimum possible
% squared error).
C = sum(((A\b)*A - b).^2)/numel(inds);
end
which only finds a rough approximation to the desired indices (12 and 74 in this example).
When fminsearch is run a few dozen times with random starting values (really just rand(1,2)), it gets more reliable, but I still wouln't bet my life on it.
If you have the statistics toolbox, use the kmeans option.
Depending on the number of data values, I would split the data into a relative small number of overlapping segments, and for each segment calculate the linear fit, or rather the 1-st order coefficient, (remember you know the intercept, which will be same for all segments).
Then, for each coefficient calculate the MSE between this hypothetical line and entire dataset, choosing the coefficient which yields the smallest MSE.
This is going to be a long post and just for fun, so if you don't have much time better go help folks with more important questions instead :)
There is a game called "Tower Bloxx" recently released on xbox. One part of the game is to place different colored towers on a field in a most optimal way in order to maximize number of most valuable towers. I wrote an algorithm that would determine the most efficient tower placement but it is not very efficient and pretty much just brute forcing all possible combinations. For 4x4 field with 4 tower types it solves it in about 1 hr, 5 tower types would take about 40 hours which is too much.
Here are the rules:
There are 5 types of towers that could be placed on a field. There are several types of fields, the easiest one is just 4x4 matrix, others fields have some "blanks" where you can't build. Your aim is to put as many the most valuable towers on a field as possible to maximize total tower value on a field (lets assume that all towers are built at once, there is no turns).
Tower types (in order from less to most valuable):
Blue - can be placed anywhere, value = 10
Red - can be placed only besides blue, value = 20
Green - placed besides red and blue, value = 30
Yellow - besides green, red and blue, value = 40
White - besides yellow, green, red and blue, value = 100
Which means that for example green tower should have at least 1 red and 1 blue towers at either north, south, west or east neighbor cells (diagonals don't count). White tower should be surrounded with all other colors.
Here is my algorithm for 4 towers on 4x4 field:
Total number of combinations = 4^16
Loop through [1..4^16] and convert every number to base4 string in order to encode tower placement, so 4^16 = "3333 3333 3333 3333" which would represent our tower types (0=blue,...,3=yellow)
Convert tower placement string into matrix.
For every tower in a matrix check its neighbors and if any of requirements fails this whole combination fails.
Put all correct combinations into an array and then sort this array as strings in lexicographic order to find best possible combination (first need to sort characters in a string).
The only optimization I came up with is to skip combinations that don't contain any most valuable towers. It skips some processing but I still loop through all 4^16 combinations.
Any thought how this can be improved? Code samples would be helpful if in java or php.
-------Update--------
After adding more illegal states (yellow cannot be built in the corners, white cannot be built in corners and on the edges, field should contain at least one tower of each type), realizing that only 1 white tower could be possibly built on 4x4 field and optimizing java code the total time was brought down from 40 to ~16 hours. Maybe threading would bring it down to 10 hrs but that's probably brute forcing limit.
I found this question intriguing, and since I'm teaching myself Haskell, I decided to try my hand at implementing a solution in that language.
I thought about branch-and-bound, but couldn't come up with a good way to bound the solutions, so I just did some pruning by discarding boards that violate the rules.
My algorithm works by starting with an "empty" board. It places each possible color of tower in the first empty slot and in each case (each color) then recursively calls itself. The recursed calls try each color in the second slot, recursing again, until the board is full.
As each tower is placed, I check the just-placed tower and all of it's neighbors to verify that they're obeying the rules, treating any empty neighbors as wild cards. So if a white tower has four empty neighbors, I consider it valid. If a placement is invalid, I do not recurse on that placement, effectively pruning the entire tree of possibilities under it.
The way the code is written, I generate a list of all possible solutions, then look through the list to find the best one. In actuality, thanks to Haskell's lazy evaluation, the list elements are generated as the search function needs them, and since they're never referred to again they become available for garbage collection right away, so even for a 5x5 board memory usage is fairly small (2 MB).
Performance is pretty good. On my 2.1 GHz laptop, the compiled version of the program solves the 4x4 case in ~50 seconds, using one core. I'm running a 5x5 example right now to see how long it will take. Since functional code is quite easy to parallelize, I'm also going to experiment with parallel processing. There's a parallelized Haskell compiler that will not only spread the work across multiple cores, but across multiple machines as well, and this is a very parallelizable problem.
Here's my code so far. I realize that you specified Java or PHP, and Haskell is quite different. If you want to play with it, you can modify the definition of the variable "bnd" just above the bottom to set the board size. Just set it to ((1,1),(x, y)), where x and y are the number of columns and rows, respectively.
import Array
import Data.List
-- Enumeration of Tower types. "Empty" isn't really a tower color,
-- but it allows boards to have empty cells
data Tower = Empty | Blue | Red | Green | Yellow | White
deriving(Eq, Ord, Enum, Show)
type Location = (Int, Int)
type Board = Array Location Tower
-- towerScore omputes the score of a single tower
towerScore :: Tower -> Int
towerScore White = 100
towerScore t = (fromEnum t) * 10
-- towerUpper computes the upper bound for a single tower
towerUpper :: Tower -> Int
towerUpper Empty = 100
towerUpper t = towerScore t
-- boardScore computes the score of a board
boardScore :: Board -> Int
boardScore b = sum [ towerScore (b!loc) | loc <- range (bounds b) ]
-- boardUpper computes the upper bound of the score of a board
boardUpper :: Board -> Int
boardUpper b = sum [ bestScore loc | loc <- range (bounds b) ]
where
bestScore l | tower == Empty =
towerScore (head [ t | t <- colors, canPlace b l t ])
| otherwise = towerScore tower
where
tower = b!l
colors = reverse (enumFromTo Empty White)
-- Compute the neighbor locations of the specified location
neighborLoc :: ((Int,Int),(Int,Int)) -> (Int,Int) -> [(Int,Int)]
neighborLoc bounds (col, row) = filter valid neighborLoc'
where
valid loc = inRange bounds loc
neighborLoc' = [(col-1,row),(col+1,row),(col,row-1),(col,row+1)]
-- Array to store all of the neighbors of each location, so we don't
-- have to recalculate them repeatedly.
neighborArr = array bnd [(loc, neighborLoc bnd loc) | loc <- range bnd]
-- Get the contents of neighboring cells
neighborTowers :: Board -> Location -> [Tower]
neighborTowers board loc = [ board!l | l <- (neighborArr!loc) ]
-- The tower placement rule. Yields a list of tower colors that must
-- be adjacent to a tower of the specified color.
requiredTowers :: Tower -> [Tower]
requiredTowers Empty = []
requiredTowers Blue = []
requiredTowers Red = [Blue]
requiredTowers Green = [Red, Blue]
requiredTowers Yellow = [Green, Red, Blue]
requiredTowers White = [Yellow, Green, Red, Blue]
-- cellValid determines if a cell satisfies the rule.
cellValid :: Board -> Location -> Bool
cellValid board loc = null required ||
null needed ||
(length needed <= length empties)
where
neighbors = neighborTowers board loc
required = requiredTowers (board!loc)
needed = required \\ neighbors
empties = filter (==Empty) neighbors
-- canPlace determines if 'tower' can be placed in 'cell' without
-- violating the rule.
canPlace :: Board -> Location -> Tower -> Bool
canPlace board loc tower =
let b' = board // [(loc,tower)]
in cellValid b' loc && and [ cellValid b' l | l <- neighborArr!loc ]
-- Generate a board full of empty cells
cleanBoard :: Array Location Tower
cleanBoard = listArray bnd (replicate 80 Empty)
-- The heart of the algorithm, this function takes a partial board
-- (and a list of empty locations, just to avoid having to search for
-- them) and a score and returns the best board obtainable by filling
-- in the partial board
solutions :: Board -> [Location] -> Int -> Board
solutions b empties best | null empties = b
solutions b empties best =
fst (foldl' f (cleanBoard, best) [ b // [(l,t)] | t <- colors, canPlace b l t ])
where
f :: (Board, Int) -> Board -> (Board, Int)
f (b1, best) b2 | boardUpper b2 <= best = (b1, best)
| otherwise = if newScore > lstScore
then (new, max newScore best)
else (b1, best)
where
lstScore = boardScore b1
new = solutions b2 e' best
newScore = boardScore new
l = head empties
e' = tail empties
colors = reverse (enumFromTo Blue White)
-- showBoard converts a board to a printable string representation
showBoard :: Board -> String
showBoard board = unlines [ printRow row | row <- [minrow..maxrow] ]
where
((mincol, minrow), (maxcol, maxrow)) = bounds board
printRow row = unwords [ printCell col row | col <- [mincol..maxcol] ]
printCell col row = take 1 (show (board!(col,row)))
-- Set 'bnd' to the size of the desired board.
bnd = ((1,1),(4,4))
-- Main function generates the solutions, finds the best and prints
-- it out, along with its score
main = do putStrLn (showBoard best); putStrLn (show (boardScore best))
where
s = solutions cleanBoard (range (bounds cleanBoard)) 0
best = s
Also, please remember this is my first non-trivial Haskell program. I'm sure it can be done much more elegantly and succinctly.
Update: Since it was still very time-consuming to do a 5x5 with 5 colors (I waited 12 hours and it hadn't finished), I took another look at how to use bounding to prune more of the search tree.
My first approach was to estimate the upper bound of a partially-filled board by assuming every empty cell is filled with a white tower. I then modified the 'solution' function to track the best score seen and to ignore any board whose upper bound is less than than that best score.
That helped some, reducing a 4x4x5 board from 23s to 15s. To improve it further, I modified the upper bound function to assume that each Empty is filled with the best tower possible, consistent with the existing non-empty cell contents. That helped a great deal, reducing the 4x4x5 time to 2s.
Running it on 5x5x5 took 2600s, giving the following board:
G B G R B
R B W Y G
Y G R B R
B W Y G Y
G R B R B
with a score of 730.
I may make another modification and have it find all of the maximal-scoring boards, rather than just one.
If you don't want to do A*, use a branch and bound approach. The problem should be relatively easy to code up because your value functions are well defined. I imagine you should be able to prune off huge sections of the search space with relative ease. However because your search space is pretty large it may still take some time. Only one way to find out :)
The wiki article isn't the best in the world. Google can find you a ton of nice examples and trees and stuff to further illustrate the approach.
One easy way to improve the brute force method is to explore only legal states. For example, if you are trying all possible states, you will be testing many states where the top right corner is a white tower. All of these states will be illegal. It doesn't make sense to generate and test all of those states. So you want to generate your states one block at a time, and only go deeper into the tree when you are actually at a potentially valid state. This will cut down your search tree by many orders of magnitude.
There may be further fancy things you can do, but this is an easy to understand (hopefully) improvement to your current solution.
I think you will want to use a branch-and-bound algorithm because I think coming up with a good heuristic for an A* implementation will be hard (but, that's just my intuitition).
The pseudo-code for a branch-and-bound implementation is:
board = initial board with nothing on it, probably a 2D array
bestBoard = {}
function findBest(board)
if no more pieces can be added to board then
if score(board) > score(bestBoard) then
bestBoard = board
return
else
for each piece P we can legally add to board
newBoard = board with piece P added
//loose upper bound, could be improved
if score(newBoard) + 100*number of blanks in newBoard > score(bestBoard)
findBestHelper(newBoard)
The idea is that we search all possible boards, in order, but we keep track of the best one we have found so far (this is the bound). Then, if we find a partial board which we know will never be better than the best one so far then we stop looking working on that partial board: we trim that branch of the search tree.
In the code above I am doing the check by assuming that all the blanks would be filled by the white pieces, as we can't do better than that. I am sure that with a little bit of thought you can come up with a tighter bound than that.
Another place where you can try to optimize is in the order of the for-each loop. You want to try pieces in the order correct order. That is, optimally you want the first solution found to be the best one, or at least one with a really high score.
It seems like a good approach would be to start with a white tower and then build a set of towers around it based on the requirements, trying to find the smallest possible colored set of shapes which can act as interlocking tiles.
I wanted to advocate linear programming with integer unknowns, but it turns out that it's NP-hard even in the binary case. However, you can still get great success at optimizing a problem like yours, where there are many valid solutions and you simply want the best one.
Linear programming, for this kind of problem, essentially amounts to having a lot of variables (for example, the number of red towers present in cell (M, N)) and relationships among the variables (for example, the number of white towers in cell (M, N) must be less than or equal to the number of towers of the non-white color that has the smallest such number, among all its neighbors). It's kind of a pain to write up a linear program, but if you want a solution that runs in seconds, it's probably your best bet.
You've received a lot of good advice on the algorithmic side of things, so I don't have a lot to add. But, assuming Java as the language, here are a few fairly obvious suggestions for performance improvement.
Make sure you're not instantiating any objects inside that 4^16 loop. It's much, much cheaper for the JVM to re-initialize an existing object than to create a new one. Even cheaper to use arrays of primitives. :)
If you can help it, step away from the collection classes. They'll add a lot of overhead that you probably don't need.
Make sure you're not concatenating any strings. Use StringBuilder.
And lastly, consider re-writing the whole thing in C.