Problem description
There are different categories which contain an arbitrary amount of elements.
There are three different attributes A, B and C. Each element does have an other distribution of these attributes. This distribution is expressed through a positive integer value. For example, element 1 has the attributes A: 42 B: 1337 C: 18. The sum of these attributes is not consistent over the elements. Some elements have more than others.
Now the problem:
We want to choose exactly one element from each category so that
We hit a certain threshold on attributes A and B (going over it is also possible, but not necessary)
while getting a maximum amount of C.
Example: we want to hit at least 80 A and 150 B in sum over all chosen elements and want as many C as possible.
I've thought about this problem and cannot imagine an efficient solution. The sample sizes are about 15 categories from which each contains up to ~30 elements, so bruteforcing doesn't seem to be very effective since there are potentially 30^15 possibilities.
My model is that I think of it as a tree with depth number of categories. Each depth level represents a category and gives us the choice of choosing an element out of this category. When passing over a node, we add the attributes of the represented element to our sum which we want to optimize.
If we hit the same attribute combination multiple times on the same level, we merge them so that we can stripe away the multiple computation of already computed values. If we reach a level where one path has less value in all three attributes, we don't follow it anymore from there.
However, in the worst case this tree still has ~30^15 nodes in it.
Does anybody of you can think of an algorithm which may aid me to solve this problem? Or could you explain why you think that there doesn't exist an algorithm for this?
This question is very similar to a variation of the knapsack problem. I would start by looking at solutions for this problem and see how well you can apply it to your stated problem.
My first inclination to is try branch-and-bound. You can do it breadth-first or depth-first, and I prefer depth-first because I think it's cleaner.
To express it simply, you have a tree-walk procedure walk that can enumerate all possibilities (maybe it just has a 5-level nested loop). It is augmented with two things:
At every step of the way, it keeps track of the cost at that point, where the cost can only increase. (If the cost can also decrease, it becomes more like a minimax game tree search.)
The procedure has an argument budget, and it does not search any branches where the cost can exceed the budget.
Then you have an outer loop:
for (budget = 0; budget < ... ; budget++){
walk(budget);
// if walk finds a solution within the budget, halt
}
The amount of time it takes is exponential in the budget, so easier cases will take less time. The fact that you are re-doing the search doesn't matter much because each level of the budget takes as much or more time than all the previous levels combined.
Combine this with some sort of heuristic about the order in which you consider branches, and it may give you a workable solution for typical problems you give it.
IF that doesn't work, you can fall back on basic heuristic programming. That is, do some cases by hand, and pay attention to how you did it. Then program it the same way.
I hope that helps.
Related
Normally, at each node of the decision tree, we consider all features and all splitting points for each feature. We calculate the difference between the entropy of the entire node and the weighted avg of the entropies of potential left and right branches, and the feature + splitting feature_value that gives us the greatest entropy drop is chosen as the splitting criterion for that particular node.
Can someone explain why the above process, which requires (2^m -2)/2 tries for each feature at each node, where m is the number of distinct feature_values at the node, is the same as trying ONLY m-1 splits:
sort the m distinct feature_values by the percentage of 1's of the samples within the node that takes that feature_value for that feature.
Only try the m-1 ways of splitting the sorted list.
This 'trying only m-1 splits' method is mentioned as a 'shortcut' in the article below, which (by definition of 'shortcut') means the results of the two methods which differ drastically in runtime are exactly the same.
The quote:"For regression and binary classification problems, with K = 2 response classes, there is a computational shortcut [1]. The tree can order the categories by mean response (for regression) or class probability for one of the classes (for classification). Then, the optimal split is one of the L – 1 splits for the ordered list. "
The article:
http://www.mathworks.com/help/stats/splitting-categorical-predictors-for-multiclass-classification.html?s_tid=gn_loc_drop&requestedDomain=uk.mathworks.com
Note that I'm talking only about categorical variables.
Can someone explain why the above process, which requires (2^m -2)/2 tries for each feature at each node, where m is the number of distinct feature_values at the node, is the same as trying ONLY m-1 splits:
The answer is simple: both procedures just aren't the same. As you noticed, splitting in the exact way is an NP-hard problem and thus hardly feasible for any problem in practice. Moreover, due to overfitting that would usually be not the optimal result in terms of generaluzation.
Instead, the exhaustive search is replaced by some kind of greedy procedure which goes like: sort first, then try all ordered splits. In general this leads to different results than the exact splitting.
In order to improve on the greedy result, one further often applies pruning (which can be seen as another greedy and heuristic method). And never methods like random forests or BART deal with this problem effectively by averaging over several trees -- so that the deviation of a single tree becomes less important.
I'm trying to come up with a fast and reasonably optimal algorithm to solve the following TSP/hamiltonian-path-like problem:
A delivery vehicle has a number of pickups and dropoffs it needs to
perform:
For each delivery, the pickup needs to come before the
dropoff.
The vehicle is quite small and the packages vary in size.
The total carriage cannot exceed some upper bound (e.g. 1 cubic
metre). Each delivery has a deadline.
The planner can run mid-route, so the vehicle will begin with a number of jobs already picked up and some capacity already taken up.
A near-optimal solution should minimise the total cost (for simplicity, distance) between each waypoint. If a solution does not exist because of the time constraints, I need to find a solution that has the fewest number of late deliveries. Some illustrations of an example problem and a non-optimal, but valid solution:
I am currently using a greedy best first search with backtracking bounded to 100 branches. If it fails to find a solution with on-time deliveries, I randomly generate as many as I can in one second (the most computational time I can spare) and pick the one with the fewest number of late deliveries. I have looked into linear programming but can't get my head around it - plus I would think it would be inappropriate given it needs to be run very frequently. I've also tried algorithms that require mutating the tour, but the issue is mutating a tour nearly always makes it invalid due to capacity constraints and precedence. Can anyone think of a better heuristic approach to solving this problem? Many thanks!
Safe Moves
Here are some ideas for safely mutating an existing feasible solution:
Any two consecutive stops can always be swapped if they are both pickups, or both deliveries. This is obviously true for the "both deliveries" case; for the "both pickups" case: if you had room to pick up A, then pick up B without delivering anything in between, then you have room to pick up B first, then pick up A. (In fact a more general rule is possible: In any pure-delivery or pure-pickup sequence of consecutive stops, the stops can be rearranged arbitrarily. But enumerating all the possibilities might become prohibitive for long sequences, and you should be able to get most of the benefit by considering just pairs.)
A pickup of A can be swapped with any later delivery of something else B, provided that A's original pickup comes after B was picked up, and A's own delivery comes after B's original delivery. In the special case where the pickup of A is immediately followed by the delivery of B, they can always be swapped.
If there is a delivery of an item of size d followed by a pickup of an item of size p, then they can be swapped provided that there is enough extra room: specifically, provided that f >= p, where f is the free space available before the delivery. (We already know that f + d >= p, otherwise the original schedule wouldn't be feasible -- this is a hint to look for small deliveries to apply this rule to.)
If you are starting from purely randomly generated schedules, then simply trying all possible moves, greedily choosing the best, applying it and then repeating until no more moves yield an improvement should give you a big quality boost!
Scoring Solutions
It's very useful to have a way to score a solution, so that they can be ordered. The nice thing about a score is that it's easy to incorporate levels of importance: just as the first digit of a two-digit number is more important than the second digit, you can design the score so that more important things (e.g. deadline violations) receive a much greater weight than less important things (e.g. total travel time or distance). I would suggest something like 1000 * num_deadline_violations + total_travel_time. (This assumes of course that total_travel_time is in units that will stay beneath 1000.) We would then try to minimise this.
Managing Solutions
Instead of taking one solution and trying all the above possible moves on it, I would instead suggest using a pool of k solutions (say, k = 10000) stored in a min-heap. This allows you to extract the best solution in the pool in O(log k) time, and to insert new solutions in the same time.
You could initially populate the pool with randomly generated feasible solutions; then on each step, you would extract the best solution in the pool, try all possible moves on it to generate child solutions, and insert any child solutions that are better than their parent back into the pool. Whenever the pool doubles in size, pull out the first (i.e. best) k solutions and make a new min-heap with them, discarding the old one. (Performing this step after the heap grows to a constant multiple of its original size like this has the nice property of leaving the amortised time complexity unchanged.)
It can happen that some move on solution X produces a child solution Y that is already in the pool. This wastes memory, which is unfortunate, but one nice property of the min-heap approach is that you can at least handle these duplicates cheaply when they arrive at the front of the heap: all duplicates will have identical scores, so they will all appear consecutively when extracting solutions from the top of the heap. Thus to avoid having duplicate solutions generate duplicate children "down through the generations", it suffices to check that the new top of the heap is different from the just-extracted solution, and keep extracting and discarding solutions until this holds.
A note on keeping worse solutions: It might seem that it could be worthwhile keeping child solutions even if they are slightly worse than their parent, and indeed this may be useful (or even necessary to find the absolute optimal solution), but doing so has a nasty consequence: it means that it's possible to cycle from one solution to its child and back again (or possibly a longer cycle). This wastes CPU time on solutions we have already visited.
You are basically combining the Knapsack Problem with the Travelling Salesman Problem.
Your main problem here seems to be actually the Knapsack Problem, rather then the Travelling Salesman Problem, since it has the one hard restriction (maximum delivery volume). Maybe try to combine the solutions for the Knapsack Problem with the Travelling Salesman.
If you really only have one second max for calculations a greedy algorithm with backtracking might actually be one of the best solutions that you can get.
Ok this is an abstract algorithmic challenge and it will remain abstract since it is a top secret where I am going to use it.
Suppose we have a set of objects O = {o_1, ..., o_N} and a symmetric similarity matrix S where s_ij is the pairwise correlation of objects o_i and o_j.
Assume also that we have an one-dimensional space with discrete positions where objects may be put (like having N boxes in a row or chairs for people).
Having a certain placement, we may measure the cost of moving from the position of one object to that of another object as the number of boxes we need to pass by until we reach our target multiplied with their pairwise object similarity. Moving from a position to the box right after or before that position has zero cost.
Imagine an example where for three objects we have the following similarity matrix:
1.0 0.5 0.8
S = 0.5 1.0 0.1
0.8 0.1 1.0
Then, the best ordering of objects in the tree boxes is obviously:
[o_3] [o_1] [o_2]
The cost of this ordering is the sum of costs (counting boxes) for moving from one object to all others. So here we have cost only for the distance between o_2 and o_3 equal to 1box * 0.1sim = 0.1, the same as:
[o_3] [o_1] [o_2]
On the other hand:
[o_1] [o_2] [o_3]
would have cost = cost(o_1-->o_3) = 1box * 0.8sim = 0.8.
The target is to determine a placement of the N objects in the available positions in a way that we minimize the above mentioned overall cost for all possible pairs of objects!
An analogue is to imagine that we have a table and chairs side by side in one row only (like the boxes) and you need to put N people to sit on the chairs. Now those ppl have some relations that is -lets say- how probable is one of them to want to speak to another. This is to stand up pass by a number of chairs and speak to the guy there. When the people sit on two successive chairs then they don't need to move in order to talk to each other.
So how can we put those ppl down so that every distance-cost between two ppl are minimized. This means that during the night the overall number of distances walked by the guests are close to minimum.
Greedy search is... ok forget it!
I am interested in hearing if there is a standard formulation of such problem for which I could find some literature, and also different searching approaches (e.g. dynamic programming, tabu search, simulated annealing etc from combinatorial optimization field).
Looking forward to hear your ideas.
PS. My question has something in common with this thread Algorithm for ordering a list of Objects, but I think here it is better posed as problem and probably slightly different.
That sounds like an instance of the Quadratic Assignment Problem. The speciality is due to the fact that the locations are placed on one line only, but I don't think this will make it easier to solve. The QAP in general is NP hard. Unless I misinterpreted your problem you can't find an optimal algorithm that solves the problem in polynomial time without proving P=NP at the same time.
If the instances are small you can use exact methods such as branch and bound. You can also use tabu search or other metaheuristics if the problem is more difficult. We have an implementation of the QAP and some metaheuristics in HeuristicLab. You can configure the problem in the GUI, just paste the similarity and the distance matrix into the appropriate parameters. Try starting with the robust Taboo Search. It's an older, but still quite well working algorithm. Taillard also has the C code for it on his website if you want to implement it for yourself. Our implementation is based on that code.
There has been a lot of publications done on the QAP. More modern algorithms combine genetic search abilities with local search heuristics (e. g. Genetic Local Search from Stützle IIRC).
Here's a variation of the already posted method. I don't think this one is optimal, but it may be a start.
Create a list of all the pairs in descending cost order.
While list not empty:
Pop the head item from the list.
If neither element is in an existing group, create a new group containing
the pair.
If one element is in an existing group, add the other element to whichever
end puts it closer to the group member.
If both elements are in existing groups, combine them so as to minimize
the distance between the pair.
Group combining may require reversal of order in a group, and the data structure should
be designed to support that.
Let me help the thread (of my own) with a simplistic ordering approach.
1. Order the upper half of the similarity matrix.
2. Start with the pair of objects having the highest similarity weight and place them in the center positions.
3. The next object may be put on the left or the right side of them. So each time you may select the object that when put to left or right
has the highest cost to the pre-placed objects. Goto Step 2.
The selection of Step 3 is because if you left this object and place it later this cost will be again the greatest of the remaining, and even more (farther to the pre-placed objects). So the costly placements should be done as earlier as it can be.
This is too simple and of course does not discover a good solution.
Another approach is to
1. start with a complete ordering generated somehow (random or from another algorithm)
2. try to improve it using "swaps" of object pairs.
I believe local minima would be a huge deterrent.
I want to sort items where the comparison is performed by humans:
Pictures
Priority of work items
...
For these tasks the number of comparisons is the limiting factor for performance.
What is the minimum number of comparisons needed (I assume > N for N items)?
Which algorithm guarantees this minimum number?
To answer this, we need to make a lot of assumptions.
Let's assume we are sorting pictures by cuteness. The goal is to get the maximum usable information from the human in the least amount of time. This interaction will dominate all other computation, so it's the only one that counts.
As someone else mentioned, humans can deal well with ordering several items in one interaction. Let's say we can get eight items in relative order per round.
Each round introduces seven edges into a directed graph where the nodes are the pictures. If node A is reachable from node B, then node A is cuter than node B. Keep this graph in mind.
Now, let me tell you about a problem the Navy and the Air Force solve differently. They both want to get a group of people in height order and quickly. The Navy tells people to get in line, then if you're shorter than the guy in front of you, switch places, and repeat until done. In the worst case, it's N*N comparison.
The Air Force tells people to stand in a square grid. They shuffle front-to-back on sqrt(N) people, which means worst case sqrt(N)*sqrt(N) == N comparisons. However, the people are only sorted along one dimension. So therefore, the people face left, then do the same shuffle again. Now we're up to 2*N comparisons, and the sort is still imperfect but it's good enough for government work. There's a short corner, a tall corner opposite, and a clear diagonal height gradient.
You can see how the Air Force method gets results in less time if you don't care about perfection. You can also see how to get the perfection effectively. You already know that the very shortest and very longest men are in two corners. The second-shortest might be behind or beside the shortest, the third shortest might be behind or beside him. In general, someone's height rank is also his maximum possible Manhattan distance from the short corner.
Looking back at the graph analogy, the eight nodes to present each round are eight of those with the currently most common length of longest inbound path. The length of the longest inbound path also represents the node's minimum possible sorted rank.
You'll use a lot of CPU following this plan, but you will make the best possible use of your human resources.
From an assignment I once did on this very subject ...
The comparison counts are for various sorting algorithms operating on data in a random order
Size QkSort HpSort MrgSort ModQk InsrtSort
2500 31388 48792 25105 27646 1554230
5000 67818 107632 55216 65706 6082243
10000 153838 235641 120394 141623 25430257
20000 320535 510824 260995 300319 100361684
40000 759202 1101835 561676 685937
80000 1561245 2363171 1203335 1438017
160000 3295500 5045861 2567554 3047186
These comparison counts are for various sorting algorithms operating on data that is started 'nearly sorted'. Amongst other things it shows a the pathological case of quicksort.
Size QkSort HpSort MrgSort ModQk InsrtSort
2500 72029 46428 16001 70618 76050
5000 181370 102934 34503 190391 3016042
10000 383228 226223 74006 303128 12793735
20000 940771 491648 158015 744557 50456526
40000 2208720 1065689 336031 1634659
80000 4669465 2289350 712062 3820384
160000 11748287 4878598 1504127 10173850
From this we can see that merge sort is the best by number of comparisons.
I can't remember what the modifications to the quick sort algorithm were, but I believe it was something that used insertion sorts once the individual chunks got down to a certain size. This sort of thing is commonly done to optimise quicksort.
You might also want to look up Tadao Takaoka's 'Minimal Merge Sort', which is a more efficient version of the merge sort.
Pigeon hole sorting is order N and works well with humans if the data can be pigeon holed. A good example would be counting votes in an election.
You should consider that humans might make non-transitive comparisons, e.g. they favor A over B, B over C but also C over A. So when choosing your sort algorithm, make sure it doesn't completely break when that happens.
People are really good at ordering 5-10 things from best to worst and come up with more consistent results when doing so. I think trying to apply a classical sorting algo might not work here because of the typically human multi-compare approach.
I'd argue that you should have a round robin type approach and try to bucket things into their most consistent groups each time. Each iteration would only make the result more certain.
It'd be interesting to write too :)
If comparisons are expensive relative to book-keeping costs, you might try the following algorithm which I call "tournament sort". First, some definitions:
Every node has a numeric "score" property (which must be able to hold values from 1 to the number of nodes), and a "last-beat" and "fellow-loser" properties, which must be able to hold node references.
A node is "better" than another node if it should be output before the other.
An element is considered "eligible" if there are no elements known to be better than it which have been output, and "ineligible" if any element which has not been output is known to be better than it.
The "score" of a node is the number of nodes it's known to be better than, plus one.
To run the algorithm, initially assign every node a score of 1. Repeatedly compare the two lowest-scoring eligible nodes; after each comparison, mark the loser "ineligible", and add the loser's score to the winner's (the loser's score is unaltered). Set the loser's "fellow loser" property to the winner's "last-beat", and the winner's "last-beat" property to the loser. Iterate this until only one eligible node remains. Output that node, and make eligible all nodes the winner beat (using the winner's "last-beat" and the chain of "fellow-loser" properties). Then continue the algorithm on the remaining nodes.
The number of comparisons with 1,000,000 items was slightly lower than that of a stock library implementation of Quicksort; I'm not sure how the algorithm would compare against a more modern version of QuickSort. Bookkeeping costs are significant, but if comparisons are sufficiently expensive the savings could possibly be worth it. One interesting feature of this algorithm is that it will only perform comparisons relevant to determining the next node to be output; I know of no other algorithm with that feature.
I don't think you're likely to get a better answer than the Wikipedia page on sorting.
Summary:
For arbitrary comparisons (where you can't use something like radix sorting) the best you can achieve is O(n log n)
Various algorithms achieve this - see the "comparison of algorithms" section.
The commonly used QuickSort is O(n log n) in a typical case, but O(n^2) in the worst case; there are often ways to avoid this, but if you're really worried about the cost of comparisons, I'd go with something like MergeSort or a HeapSort. It partly depends on your existing data structures.
If humans are doing the comparisons, are they also doing the sorting? Do you have a fixed data structure you need to use, or could you effectively create a copy using a balanced binary tree insertion sort? What are the storage requirements?
Here is a comparison of algorithms. The two better candidates are Quick Sort and Merge Sort. Quick Sort is in general better, but has a worse worst case performance.
Merge sort is definately the way to go here as you can use a Map/Reduce type algorithm to have several humans doing the comparisons in parallel.
Quicksort is essentially a single threaded sort algorithm.
You could also tweak the merge sort algorithm so that instead of comparing two objects you present your human with a list of say five items and ask him or her to rank them.
Another possibility would be to use a ranking system as used by the famous "Hot or Not" web site. This requires many many more comparisons, but, the comparisons can happen in any sequence and in parallel, this would work faster than a classic sort provided you have enough huminoids at your disposal.
The questions raises more questions really.
Are we talking a single human performing the comparisons? It's a very different challenge if you are talking a group of humans trying to arrange objects in order.
What about the questions of trust and error? Not everyone can be trusted or to get everything right - certain sorts would go catastrophically wrong if at any given point you provided the wrong answer to a single comparison.
What about subjectivity? "Rank these pictures in order of cuteness". Once you get to this point, it could get really complex. As someone else mentions, something like "hot or not" is the simplest conceptually, but isn't very efficient. At it's most complex, I'd say that google is a way of sorting objects into an order, where the search engine is inferring the comparisons made by humans.
The best one would be the merge sort
The minimum run time is n*log(n) [Base 2]
The way it is implemented is
If the list is of length 0 or 1, then it is already sorted.
Otherwise:
Divide the unsorted list into two sublists of about half the size.
Sort each sublist recursively by re-applying merge sort.
Merge the two sublists back into one sorted list.
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?