This question is an extension to the following one. The difference is that now our function to optimize will have higher order relations between elements:
We have an array of elements a1,a2,...aN from an alphabet E. Assuming |N| >> |E|.
For each symbol of the alphabet we define an unique integer priority = V(sym). Let's define V{i} := V(symbol(ai)) for the simplicity.
The task is to find a priority function V for which:
Count(i)->MIN | V{i} > V{i+1} <= V{i+2}
In other words, I need to find the priorities / permutation of the alphabet for which the number of positions i, satisfying the condition V{i}>V{i+1}<=V{i+2}, is minimum.
Maximum required abstraction (low priority for me). I guess once the solution model for the initial question is extended to cover the first part of this one, extending it farther (see below) will be easier.
Given a matrix of signs B of size MxK (basically B[i,j] is from the set {<,>,<=,>=}), find the priority function V for which:
Sum(for all j in range [1,M]) {Count(i)}->EXTREMUM | V{i} B[j,1] V{i+1} B[j,2] ... B[j,K] V{i+K}
As an example, find the priority function V, for which the number of i, satisfying V{i}<V{i+1}<V{i+2} or V{i}>V{i+1}>V{i+2}, is minimum.
My intuition is that all variations on this problem will prove to be NP-hard. So I'd begin looking for heuristics that produce reasonable answers. This may involve some trial and error.
A simplistic approach is to write down a possible permutation. And then try possible swaps until you've arrived at a local minimum. Try several times, and pick the best answer.
Simulated annealing provides a more sophisticated version of this approach, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing for a description. It may take some experimentation to find a set of parameters that seems to converge relatively well.
Another idea is to look for a genetic algorithm. Based on a quick Google search it looks like the standard way to do this is to try to turn an NP-complete problem into a SAT problem, and then use a genetic algorithm on that problem. This approach would require turning this into a SAT problem in some reasonable way. Unfortunately it is not obvious to me how one would go about doing this reduction. Indeed in the first version that you had, your problem was closely connected to a classic NP-hard problem. The fact that it is labeled NP-hard rather than NP-complete is evidence that people haven't found a good way to transform it into a SAT problem. So if it isn't obvious how to turn the simple version into a SAT problem, then you are unlikely to convert the hard problem either.
But you could still try some variation on genetic algorithms. Mutation is pretty simple, just swap some elements around. One way to combine elements would be to take 3 permutations and use quicksort to find the combination as follows: take a random pivot, and then use "majority wins" to bucket elements into bigger and smaller. Sort each half in the same way.
I'm sorry that I can't just give you an approach and say, "This should work." You've got what looks like an open-ended research project, and the best I can do is give you some ideas about things you can try that might work reasonably well.
Related
I have a list L of lists l[i] of elements e. I am looking for an algorithm that finds a minimum set S_min of elements such that at least one member of S_min occurs in each l.
I am not only curious to find a simple algorithm that does this for me, but also to learn what problems of this sort are actually called. I am sure there is something out there
I have implemented brute force algorithms that start with adding all those elements to S_min which occur in sets of len(l[i])=1. The rest is simple trial and error.
The problem you describe ist the vertex cover problem in hypergraphs, an optimization problem which is NP-hard in the general case but admits approximation algorithms for suitably bounded instances.
The "simple/naive backtracking brute force algorithm", "Straightforward Depth-First Search" for sudoku is commonly known and implemented.
and no different implementation seems to exist.
(when i first wrote this question.. i wanted to mean we could completely standardize it, but the wording is bad..)
This guy has described the algorithm well i think: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2075498/3547717
Edit: So let me have it more specified with pseudo code...
var field[9][9]
set the givens in 'field'
if brute (first empty grid) = true then
output solution
else
output no solution
end if
function brute (cx, cy)
for n = 1 to 9
if (n doesn't present in row cy) and (n doesn't present in column cx) and (n doesn't present in block (cx div 3, cy div 3)) then
let field[cx][cy] = n
if (cx, cy) this is the last empty grid then
return true
elseif brute (next empty grid) = true then
return true
end if
let field[cx][cy] = empty
end if
next n
end function
I want to find the puzzle that requires most time. We may call it "hardest" for this particular "standardized" algorithm, but this one is not like those questions asking for "Hardest sudoku".
In fact, a "hard" puzzle under this definition may turn super easy when simply rotated or flipped.
According to the rule "for each grid try number 1 to 9", it tries from 1 on, so we may somehow let it try more by using proper number, by the way there won't be permutation problem.
The sudoku puzzle must be valid, i.e. it should have exactly 1 solution. Some guy got a puzzle requiring 1439 seconds, but it's not valid because of having no solution.
I define the time required (or say time complexity) equivalent to how many times the recursive function is entered. (in my implementation, it's slightly different from the pseudo code above, because of the last entrance, and ensuring unique solution, etc.)
Is there any good way to construct it, or we have to use approximate ones like heuristic algorithms to find inexact solutions?
I've implemented a backtracking with both naive strategy (that I referred to as "simple" above, it's unique) and Peter Norvig's "Least Candidates First" strategy (my implementation is deterministic, but not unique. As Peter has also mentioned, the order of python dict changes the result a lot, in case of a tie on the number of candidates).
https://github.com/farteryhr/labs/blob/master/sudoku.c
The no-solution one:
.....5.8....6.1.43..........1.5........1.6...3.......553.....61........4.........
takes 60 seconds on my laptop to get the no-solution conclusion, entering the recursion function 2549798781 times (called "cycles" later). With my implementation of LCF, 78308087 cycles in 30 seconds to conclude. It's because finding the grid with least candidates needs more operations, a single cycle of LCF strategy uses about 16x more time.
The topmost one on the Hardest list:
4.....8.5.3..........7......2.....6.....8.4......1.......6.3.7.5..2.....1.4......
takes 3.0s, found the solution at cycle 9727397, and 142738236 cycles for ensuring unique solution. (my LCF: 981/7216 in 0.004s)
Many in the "hard" list are still easy for naive, though a larger portion of them needs 10^7 to 10^9 cycles.
On Wikipedia: Sudoku solving algorithms (Original) it's stated that such puzzles against backtracking algorithm can be constructed, by making as many empty grids at the beginning as possible and the permutation of the top row 987654321.
Well the test..
..............3.85..1.2.......5.7.....4...1...9.......5......73..2.1........4...9
takes 1.4s, 69175317 cycles for finding solution, 69207227 cycles ensuring unique solution. Not as good as the hard one provided by Peter, but OK, and it's almost right after finding the solution, the search ends. That's probably how the first row works by being lexicographically large. (my LCF: 29206/46160 in 0.023s)
Yes these are obvious, I'm just asking for better ways...
There are also other ways of measuring the difficulty of Sudoku (through solving)
Sudoku Analyst will get stuck with the multiple-solution puzzle given by Peter (naive 419195/419256, LCF 2529478/2529482, yes, there are some puzzles that make LCF do worse):
.....6....59.....82....8....45........3........6..3.54...325..6..................
This one is easy for both naive backtracking (10008/76703) and LCF backtracking (313/1144), but also gets Sudoku Analyst stuck.
..53.....8......2..7..1.5..4....53...1..7...6..32...8..6.5....9..4....3......97..
Another update:
The most difficult Sudoku puzzles are quickly solved by a straightforward depth-first search algorithm
Ha, finally someone also looking for it, and a super tough one is given! The following valid puzzle:
9..8...........5............2..1...3.1.....6....4...7.7.86.........3.1..4.....2..
In this paper, the algorithm is named SDFS, Straightforward Depth-First Search. The number of cycles stated by the author is 1553023932/1884424814, and with my implementation, it's 1305263522/1584688020. Yes, there will be some difference on precisely where to pop the counter, but the basic behavior matches. On repl.it 's server, it took 97s to find the answer and 119s to finish the search.
You can easily generate the worst case by recording the time taken / no. of operations taken by your code to solve hard sudoku puzzles. You can either use a random generator that generates valid sudoku puzzles (or) you can take hard sudoku puzzles from the internet and run your code against it to measure the time/number of operations. Once you run your code against 10000 such cases the slowest 5 (and the unsolved ones) would be the worst cases for your solution.
Given a sequence of operations:
a*b*a*b*a*a*b*a*b
is there a way to get the optimal subdivision to enable reusage of substring.
making
a*b*a*b*a*a*b*a*b => c*a*c, where c = a*b*a*b
and then seeing that
a*b*a*b => d*d, where d = a*b
all in all reducing the 8 initial operations into the 4 described here?
(c = (d = a*b)*d)*a*c
The goal of course is to minimize the number of operations
I'm considering a suffixtree of sorts.
I'm especially interested in linear time heuristics or solutions.
The '*' operations are actually matrix multiplications.
This whole problem is known as "Common Subexpression Elimination" or CSE. It is a slightly smaller version of the problem called "Graph Reduction" faced by the implementer of compilers for functional programming languages. Googling "Common Subexpression elimination algorithm" gives lots of solutions, though none that I can see especially for the constraints given by matrix multiplication.
The pages linked to give a lot of references.
My old answer is below. However, having researched a bit more, the solution is simply building a suffix tree. This can be done in O(N) time (lots of references on the wikipedia page). Having done this, the sub-expressions (c, d etc. in your question) are just nodes in the suffix tree - just pull them out.
However, I think MarcoS is on to something with the suggestion of Longest repeating Substring, as graph reduction precedence might not allow optimisations that can be allowed here.
sketch of algorithm:
optimise(s):
let sub = longestRepeatingSubstring(s).
optimisedSub = optimise(sub)
return s with sub replaced by optimisedSub
Each run of longest repeating substring takes time N. You can probably re-use the suffix tree you build to solve the whole thing in time N.
edit: The orders-of-growth in this answer are needed in addition to the accepted answer in order to run CSE or matrix-chain multiplication
Interestingly, a compression algorithm may be what you want: a compression algorithm seeks to reduce the size of what it's compressing, and if the only way it can do that is substitution, you can trace it and obtain the necessary subcomponents for your algorithm. This may not give nice results though for small inputs.
What subsets of your operations are commutative will be an important consideration in choosing such an algorithm. [edit: OP says no operations are commutative in his/her situation]
We can also define an optimal solution, if we ignore effects such as caching:
input: [some product of matrices to compute]
given that multiplying two NxN matrices is O(N^2.376)
given we can visualize the product as follows:
[[AxB][BxC][CxD][DxE]...]
we must for example perform O(max(A,B,C)^2.376) or so operations in order to combine
[AxB][BxC] -> [AxC]
The max(...) is an estimate based on how fast it is to multiply two square matrices;
a better estimate of cost(A,B,C) for multiplying an AxB * BxC matrix can be gotten
from actually looking at the algorithm, or running benchmarks if you don't know the
algorithm used.
However note that multiplying the same matrix with itself, i.e. calculating
a power, can be much more efficient, and we also need to take that into account.
At worst, it takes log_2(power) multiplies each of O(N^2.376), but this could be
made more efficient by diagonalizing the matrix first.
There is the question about whether a greedy approach is feasible for not: whether one SHOULD compress repeating substrings at each step. This may not be the case, e.g.
aaaaabaab
compressing 'aa' results in ccabcb and compressing 'aab' is now impossible
However I have a hunch that, if we try all orders of compressing substrings, we will probably not run into this issue too often.
Thus having written down what we want (the costs) and considered possibly issues, we already have a brute-force algorithm which can do this, and it will run for very small numbers of matrices:
# pseudocode
def compress(problem, substring)
x = new Problem(problem)
x.string.replaceall(substring, newsymbol)
x.subcomputations += Subcomputation(newsymbol=substring)
def bestCompression(problem)
candidateCompressions = [compress(problem,substring) for each substring in problem.string]
# etc., recursively return problem with minimum cost
# dynamic programming may help make this more efficient, but one must watch
# out for the note above, how it may be hard to be greedy
Note: according to another answer by Asgeir, this is known as the Matrix Chain Multiplication optimization problem. Nick Fortescue notes this is also known more generally as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_subexpression_elimination -- thus one could find any generic CSE or Matrix-Chain-Multiplication algorithm/library from the literature, and plug in the cost orders-of-magnitude I mentioned earlier (you will need those nomatter which solution you use). Note that the cost of the above calculations (multiplication, exponentiation, etc.) assume that they are being done efficiently with state-of-the-art algorithms; if this is not the case, replace the exponents with appropriate values which correspond to the way the operations will be carried out.
If you want to use the fewest arithmetic operations then you should have a look at matrix chain multiplication which can be reduced to O(n log n)
From the top of the head the problem seems in NP for me. Depending on the substitutions you are doing other substitions will be possible or impossible for example for the string
d*e*a*b*c*d*e*a*b*c*d*e*a there are several possibilities.
If you take the longest common string it will be:
f = d*e*a*b*c and you could substitute f*f*e*a leaving you with three multiplications in the end and four intermediate ones (total seven).
If you instead substitute the following way:
f = d*e*a you get f*b*c*f*b*c*f which you can further substitute using g = f*b*c to
g*g*f for a total of six multiplication.
There are other possible substitutions in this problem, but I do not have the time to count them all right now.
I am guessing for a complete minimal substitution it is not only necessary to figure out the longest common substring but also the number of times each substring repeats, which probably means you have to track all substitutions so far and do backtracking. Still it might be faster than the actual multiplications.
Isn't this the Longest repeated substring problem?
Can someone provide me with a backtracking algorithm to solve the "set cover" problem to find the minimum number of sets that cover all the elements in the universe?
The greedy approach almost always selects more sets than the optimal number of sets.
This paper uses Linear Programming Relaxation to solve covering problems.
Basically, the LP relaxation yields good bounds, and can be used to identify solutions that are optimum in many cases. Incidentally, when I last looked at open source LP solvers (~2003) I wasn't impressed (some gave incorrect results), but there seem to be some decent open source LP solvers now.
Your problem needs a little more clarification - it seems that you are given a family of subsets $$S_1,\ldots,S_n$$ of a set A, such that the union of the subsets equals A, and you want a minimum number of subsets whose union is still A.
The basic approach is branch and bound with some heuristics. E.g., if a particular element of A is in only one subset $$S_i$$, then you must select $$S_i$$. Similarly, if $$S_k$$ is a subset of $$S_j$$, then there's no reason to consider $$S_k$$; if element $$a_i$$ is in every subset that $$a_j$$ is in, then you can not bother considering $$a_i$$.
For branch and bound you need good bounding heuristics. Lower bounds can come from independent sets (if there are k elements $$i_1,\ldots,i_L$$ in A such that each if $$i_p$$ is contained in $$A_p$$ and $$i_q$$ is contained in $$A_q$$ then $$A_p$$ and $$A_q$$ are disjoint). Better lower bounds come from the LP relaxation described above.
The Espresso logic minimization system from Berkeley has a very high quality set covering engine.
My best shot so far:
A delivery vehicle needs to make a series of deliveries (d1,d2,...dn), and can do so in any order--in other words, all the possible permutations of the set D = {d1,d2,...dn} are valid solutions--but the particular solution needs to be determined before it leaves the base station at one end of the route (imagine that the packages need to be loaded in the vehicle LIFO, for example).
Further, the cost of the various permutations is not the same. It can be computed as the sum of the squares of distance traveled between di -1 and di, where d0 is taken to be the base station, with the caveat that any segment that involves a change of direction costs 3 times as much (imagine this is going on on a railroad or a pneumatic tube, and backing up disrupts other traffic).
Given the set of deliveries D represented as their distance from the base station (so abs(di-dj) is the distance between two deliveries) and an iterator permutations(D) which will produce each permutation in succession, find a permutation which has a cost less than or equal to that of any other permutation.
Now, a direct implementation from this description might lead to code like this:
function Cost(D) ...
function Best_order(D)
for D1 in permutations(D)
Found = true
for D2 in permutations(D)
Found = false if cost(D2) > cost(D1)
return D1 if Found
Which is O(n*n!^2), e.g. pretty awful--especially compared to the O(n log(n)) someone with insight would find, by simply sorting D.
My question: can you come up with a plausible problem description which would naturally lead the unwary into a worse (or differently awful) implementation of a sorting algorithm?
I assume you're using this question for an interview to see if the applicant can notice a simple solution in a seemingly complex question.
[This assumption is incorrect -- MarkusQ]
You give too much information.
The key to solving this is realizing that the points are in one dimension and that a sort is all that is required. To make this question more difficult hide this fact as much as possible.
The biggest clue is the distance formula. It introduces a penalty for changing directions. The first thing an that comes to my mind is minimizing this penalty. To remove the penalty I have to order them in a certain direction, this ordering is the natural sort order.
I would remove the penalty for changing directions, it's too much of a give away.
Another major clue is the input values to the algorithm: a list of integers. Give them a list of permutations, or even all permutations. That sets them up to thinking that a O(n!) algorithm might actually be expected.
I would phrase it as:
Given a list of all possible
permutations of n delivery locations,
where each permutation of deliveries
(d1, d2, ...,
dn) has a cost defined by:
Return permutation P such that the
cost of P is less than or equal to any
other permutation.
All that really needs to be done is read in the first permutation and sort it.
If they construct a single loop to compare the costs ask them what the big-o runtime of their algorithm is where n is the number of delivery locations (Another trap).
This isn't a direct answer, but I think more clarification is needed.
Is di allowed to be negative? If so, sorting alone is not enough, as far as I can see.
For example:
d0 = 0
deliveries = (-1,1,1,2)
It seems the optimal path in this case would be 1 > 2 > 1 > -1.
Edit: This might not actually be the optimal path, but it illustrates the point.
YOu could rephrase it, having first found the optimal solution, as
"Give me a proof that the following convination is the most optimal for the following set of rules, where optimal means the smallest number results from the sum of all stage costs, taking into account that all stages (A..Z) need to be present once and once only.
Convination:
A->C->D->Y->P->...->N
Stage costs:
A->B = 5,
B->A = 3,
A->C = 2,
C->A = 4,
...
...
...
Y->Z = 7,
Z->Y = 24."
That ought to keep someone busy for a while.
This reminds me of the Knapsack problem, more than the Traveling Salesman. But the Knapsack is also an NP-Hard problem, so you might be able to fool people to think up an over complex solution using dynamic programming if they correlate your problem with the Knapsack. Where the basic problem is:
can a value of at least V be achieved
without exceeding the weight W?
Now the problem is a fairly good solution can be found when V is unique, your distances, as such:
The knapsack problem with each type of
item j having a distinct value per
unit of weight (vj = pj/wj) is
considered one of the easiest
NP-complete problems. Indeed empirical
complexity is of the order of O((log
n)2) and very large problems can be
solved very quickly, e.g. in 2003 the
average time required to solve
instances with n = 10,000 was below 14
milliseconds using commodity personal
computers1.
So you might want to state that several stops/packages might share the same vj, inviting people to think about the really hard solution to:
However in the
degenerate case of multiple items
sharing the same value vj it becomes
much more difficult with the extreme
case where vj = constant being the
subset sum problem with a complexity
of O(2N/2N).
So if you replace the weight per value to distance per value, and state that several distances might actually share the same values, degenerate, some folk might fall in this trap.
Isn't this just the (NP-Hard) Travelling Salesman Problem? It doesn't seem likely that you're going to make it much harder.
Maybe phrasing the problem so that the actual algorithm is unclear - e.g. by describing the paths as single-rail railway lines so the person would have to infer from domain knowledge that backtracking is more costly.
What about describing the question in such a way that someone is tempted to do recursive comparisions - e.g. "can you speed up the algorithm by using the optimum max subset of your best (so far) results"?
BTW, what's the purpose of this - it sounds like the intent is to torture interviewees.
You need to be clearer on whether the delivery truck has to return to base (making it a round trip), or not. If the truck does return, then a simple sort does not produce the shortest route, because the square of the return from the furthest point to base costs so much. Missing some hops on the way 'out' and using them on the way back turns out to be cheaper.
If you trick someone into a bad answer (for example, by not giving them all the information) then is it their foolishness or your deception that has caused it?
How great is the wisdom of the wise, if they heed not their ego's lies?