I want to implement 2-SAT problem for 100000 literals. So there would be 200000 vertices. So I am stuck on having a array of all reachable vertices from each vertex, space complexity of O(200000^2) which is infeasible So please suggest a solution for this. And please throw some light on efficient implementation of 2-SAT problem.
From wikipedia:
... 2-satisfiability can be solved in polynomial time. As Aspvall, Plass & Tarjan (1979) observed, a 2-satisfiability instance is solvable if and only if every variable of the instance belongs to a different strongly connected component of the implication graph than the negation of the same variable. Since strongly connected components may be found in linear time by an algorithm based on depth first search, the same linear time bound applies as well to 2-satisfiability.
I won't pretend to understand most of that paragraph, but it would appear that there is an algorithm which can be used to solve the 2-SAT problem, and it is described within that referenced document (A linear-time algorithm for testing the truth of certain quantified boolean formulas). It can apparently be purchased online for about $20 USD. I'm Not sure if that's helpful or not, but there it is!
update: A free PDF of the same document can be found here. Credit goes to liori for the find.
This whole thread is a bit messed up. Yes, one can solve 2-sat in linear time, but no - you can not solve it for that many variables. The time to solve 2-sat is linear with respect to the number of the implication, which for 200 000 variables could reach up to (200000*199999)/2 and furthermore if you use this solution you will need about the same amount of memory. There is another solution(not using strongly connected components that is slower but doesn't need that much memory).
Related
Currently learning about the A* search algorithm and using it to find the quickest solution to the N-Puzzle. For some random seed of the initial starting state, the puzzle may be unsolvable which would result in extremely long wait times until the algorithm has search the entire search-space and determined there is not solution to the give start state.
I was wondering if there is a method of precalculating whether the A* algorithm will fail to avoid such a scenario. I've read a bit about how it is possible but can't find a direct answer as to a method in which to do it.
Any guidance or options are appreciated.
I think A* does not offer you a mechanism to know whether or not a problem is solvable. Specifically for N-Puzzle, I think this could help you to check if it can be solved or not:
http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/check-instance-8-puzzle-solvable/
It seems that if you are in a state where you have an odd amount inversion, you know for sure the problem for that permutation is infeasible.
For the N-puzzle specifically, there are only two possible parities, so you just need to check which parity the current puzzle is.
There is an in-depth explanation on how to do this on the math stackexchange
For general A* problems, no, there is no way to pre-compute if the graph is solvable.
I've seen online that one can write the travelling salesman problem as a linear expression and compute it using software such as CPLEX for java.
I have a 1000 towns and need to find a short distance. I plan on partitioning these 1000 towns into clusters of ~100 towns and performing some linear programming algorithm on these individual clusters.
The question I have is, how exactly do I represent this as a linear expression.
So I have 100 towns and I'm sure everyone's aware of how TSP works.
I literally have no clue how I can write linear constraints, objectives and variables which satisfy the TSP.
Could someone explain to me how this is done or send me a link which explains it clearly, because I've been researching a lot and can't seem to find anything.
EDIT:
A bit of extra information I found:
We label the cities with numbers 0 to n and define the matrix:
Would this yield the following matrix for 5 towns?
The constraints are:
i) Each city be arrived at from exactly one other city
ii) From each city there is a departure to exactly one other city
iii) The route isn't broken up into separate islands.
Again, this makes complete sense to me, but I'm still having trouble writing these constraints as a linear expression. Apparently it's a simple enough matrix.
Thanks for any help !
According to this Wikipedia article the travelling salesman problem can be modelled as an integer linear program, which I believe to be the key issue of the question. The idea is to have decision variables of permitted values in {0,1} which model selected edges in the graph. Suitable constraints must ensure that the selected edges cover every node, the selected edges form a collection of cycles and there is only one connected component (which in total means that there is exactly one cycle which contains every node). Note that the article also gives an explicit formulation and explains the interpretations of the constraints.
As the travelling salesman problem is NP-hard, it cannot be solved via (non-integral) linear programming unless P=NP.
The TSP problem is a rather complex integer programming problem due to its combinatorial nature.
There are several (exact and approximated) techniques to solve it. The model in Wikipedia is just one of them: it has constraints to ensure there is only one incoming and outgoing arc in each node and the constraints with u variables are for preventing sub-cycles in the solution. There is also several ways to write this sub-cycle preventing constraints, some of them can be found on section 4.1 of this article. The section presents some models for the TSP problem (all of them can be solved using CPLEX, Gurobi, MATLAB or other Integer/Linear Programming Software.
Hope I could be of any help. (=
What are concrete examples (e.g. Alpha-beta pruning, example:tic-tac-toe and how is it applicable there) of heuristics. I already saw an answered question about what heuristics is but I still don't get the thing where it uses estimation. Can you give me a concrete example of a heuristic and how it works?
Warnsdorff's rule is an heuristic, but the A* search algorithm isn't. It is, as its name implies, a search algorithm, which is not problem-dependent. The heuristic is. An example: you can use the A* (if correctly implemented) to solve the Fifteen puzzle and to find the shortest way out of a maze, but the heuristics used will be different. With the Fifteen puzzle your heuristic could be how many tiles are out of place: the number of moves needed to solve the puzzle will always be greater or equal to the heuristic.
To get out of the maze you could use the Manhattan Distance to a point you know is outside of the maze as your heuristic. Manhattan Distance is widely used in game-like problems as it is the number of "steps" in horizontal and in vertical needed to get to the goal.
Manhattan distance = abs(x2-x1) + abs(y2-y1)
It's easy to see that in the best case (there are no walls) that will be the exact distance to the goal, in the rest you will need more. This is important: your heuristic must be optimistic (admissible heuristic) so that your search algorithm is optimal. It must also be consistent. However, in some applications (such as games with very big maps) you use non-admissible heuristics because a suboptimal solution suffices.
A heuristic is just an approximation to the real cost, (always lower than the real cost if admissible). The better the approximation, the fewer states the search algorithm will have to explore. But better approximations usually mean more computing time, so you have to find a compromise solution.
Most demonstrative is the usage of heuristics in informed search algorithms, such as A-Star. For realistic problems you usually have large search space, making it infeasible to check every single part of it. To avoid this, i.e. to try the most promising parts of the search space first, you use a heuristic. A heuristic gives you an estimate of how good the available subsequent search steps are. You will choose the most promising next step, i.e. best-first. For example if you'd like to search the path between two cities (i.e. vertices, connected by a set of roads, i.e. edges, that form a graph) you may want to choose the straight-line distance to the goal as a heuristic to determine which city to visit first (and see if it's the target city).
Heuristics should have similar properties as metrics for the search space and they usually should be optimistic, but that's another story. The problem of providing a heuristic that works out to be effective and that is side-effect free is yet another problem...
For an application of different heuristics being used to find the path through a given maze also have a look at this answer.
Your question interests me as I've heard about heuristics too during my studies but never saw an application for it, I googled a bit and found this : http://www.predictia.es/blog/aco-search
This code simulate an "ant colony optimization" algorithm to search trough a website.
The "ants" are workers which will search through the site, some will search randomly, some others will follow the "best path" determined by the previous ones.
A concrete example: I've been doing a solver for the game JT's Block, which is roughly equivalent to the Same Game. The algorithm performs a breadth-first search on all possible hits, store the values, and performs to the next ply. Problem is the number of possible hits quickly grows out of control (10e30 estimated positions per game), so I need to prune the list of positions at each turn and only take the "best" of them.
Now, the definition of the "best" positions is quite fuzzy: they are the positions that are expected to lead to the best final scores, but nothing is sure. And here comes the heuristics. I've tried a few of them:
sort positions by score obtained so far
increase score by best score obtained with a x-depth search
increase score based on a complex formula using the number of tiles, their color and their proximity
improve the last heuristic by tweaking its parameters and seeing how they perform
etc...
The last of these heuristic could have lead to an ant-march optimization: there's half a dozen parameters that can be tweaked from 0 to 1, and an optimizer could find the optimal combination of these. For the moment I've just manually improved some of them.
The second of this heuristics is interesting: it could lead to the optimal score through a full depth-first search, but such a goal is impossible of course because it would take too much time. In general, increasing X leads to a better heuristic, but increases the computing time a lot.
So here it is, some examples of heuristics. Anything can be an heuristic as long as it helps your algorithm perform better, and it's what makes them so hard to grasp: they're not deterministic. Another point with heuristics: they're supposed to lead to quick and dirty results of the real stuff, so there's a trade-of between their execution time and their accuracy.
A couple of concrete examples: for solving the Knight's Tour problem, one can use Warnsdorff's rule - an heuristic. Or for solving the Fifteen puzzle, a possible heuristic is the A* search algorithm.
The original question asked for concrete examples for heuristics.
Some of these concrete examples were already given. Another one would be the number of misplaced tiles in the 15-puzzle or its improvement, the Manhattan distance, based on the misplaced tiles.
One of the previous answers also claimed that heuristics are always problem-dependent, whereas algorithms are problem-independent. While there are, of course, also problem-dependent algorithms (for instance, for every problem you can just give an algorithm that immediately solves that very problem, e.g. the optimal strategy for any tower-of-hanoi problem is known) there are also problem-independent heuristics!
Consequently, there are also different kinds of problem-independent heuristics. Thus, in a certain way, every such heuristic can be regarded a concrete heuristic example while not being tailored to a specific problem like 15-puzzle. (Examples for problem-independent heuristics taken from planning are the FF heuristic or the Add heuristic.)
These problem-independent heuristics base on a general description language and then they perform a problem relaxation. That is, the problem relaxation only bases on the syntax (and, of course, its underlying semantics) of the problem description without "knowing" what it represents. If you are interested in this, you should get familiar with "planning" and, more specifically, with "planning as heuristic search". I also want to mention that these heuristics, while being problem-independent, are dependent on the problem description language, of course. (E.g., my before-mentioned heuristics are specific to "planning problems" and even for planning there are various different sub problem classes with differing kinds of heuristics.)
I was wondering if anyone knows which kind of algorithm could be use in my case. I already have run the optimizer on my multivariate function and found a solution to my problem, assuming that my function is regular enough. I slightly perturbate the problem and would like to find the optimum solution which is close to my last solution. Is there any very fast algorithm in this case or should I just fallback to a regular one.
We probably need a bit more information about your problem; but since you know you're near the right solution, and if derivatives are easy to calculate, Newton-Raphson is a sensible choice, and if not, Conjugate-Gradient may make sense.
If you already have an iterative optimizer (for example, based on Powell's direction set method, or CG), why don't you use your initial solution as a starting point for the next run of your optimizer?
EDIT: due to your comment: if calculating the Jacobian or the Hessian matrix gives you performance problems, try BFGS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFGS_method), it avoids calculation of the Hessian completely; here
http://www.alglib.net/optimization/lbfgs.php you find a (free-for-non-commercial) implementation of BFGS. A good description of the details you will here.
And don't expect to get anything from finding your initial solution with a less sophisticated algorithm.
So this is all about unconstrained optimization. If you need information about constrained optimization, I suggest you google for "SQP".
there are a bunch of algorithms for finding the roots of equations. If you know approximately where the root is, there are algorithms that will get you arbitrarily close very quickly, in ln n time or better.
One is Newton's method
another is the Bisection Method
Note that these algorithms are for single variable functions, but can be expanded to multivariate functions.
Every minimization algorithm performs better (read: perform at all) if you have a good initial guess. The initial guess for the perturbed problem will be in your case the minimum point of the non perturbed problem.
Then, you have to specify your requirements: you want speed. What accuracy do you want ? Does space efficiency matters ? Most importantly: what information do you have: only the value of the function, or do you also have the derivatives (possibly second derivatives) ?
Some background on the problem would help too. Looking for a smooth function which has been discretized will be very different than looking for hundreds of unrelated parameters.
Global information (ie. is the function convex, is there a guaranteed global minimum or many local ones, etc) can be left aside for now. If you have trouble finding the minimum point of the perturbed problem, this is something you will have to investigate though.
Answering these questions will allow us to select a particular algorithm. There are many choices (and trade-offs) for multivariate optimization.
Also, which is quicker will very much depend on the problem (rather than on the algorithm), and should be determined by experimentation.
Thought I don't know much about using computers in this capacity, I remember an article that used neuroevolutionary techniques to find "best-fit" equations relatively efficiently, given a known function complexity (linear, Nth-polynomial, exponential, logarithmic, etc) and a set of point plots. As I recall it was one of the earliest uses of what we now know as computational neuroevolution; because the functional complexity (and thus the number of terms) of the equation is known and fixed, a static neural net can be used and seeded with your closest values, then "mutated" and tested for fitness, with heuristics to make new nets closer to existing nets with high fitness. Using multithreading, many nets can be created, tested and evaluated in parallel.
Given a list of cities and the cost to fly between each city, I am trying to find the cheapest itinerary that visits all of these cities. I am currently using a MATLAB solution to find the cheapest route, but I'd now like to modify the algorithm to allow the following:
repeat nodes - repeat nodes should be allowed, since travelling via hub cities can often result in a cheaper route
dynamic edge weights - return/round-trip flights have a different (usually lower) cost to two equivalent one-way flights
For now, I am ignoring the issue of flight dates and assuming that it is possible to travel from any city to any other city.
Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this problem? My first idea was to use an evolutionary optimisation method like GA or ACO to solve point 2, and simply adjust the edge weights when evaluating the objective function based on whether the itinerary contains return/round-trip flights, but perhaps somebody else has a better idea.
(Note: I am using MATLAB, but I am not specifically looking for coded solutions, more just high-level ideas about what algorithms can be used.)
Edit - after thinking about this some more, allowing "repeat nodes" seems to be too loose of a constraint. We could further constrain the problem so that, although nodes can be repeatedly visited, each directed edge can only be visited at most once. It seems reasonable to ignore any itineraries which include the same flight in the same direction more than once.
I haven't tested it myself; however, I have read that implementing Simulated Annealing to solve the TSP (or variants of it) can produce excellent results. The key point here is that Simulated Annealing is very easy to implement and requires minimal tweaking, while approximation algorithms can take much longer to implement and are probably more error prone. Skiena also has a page dedicated to specific TSP solvers.
If you want the cost of the solution produced by the algorithm is within 3/2 of the optimum then you want the Christofides algorithm. ACO and GA don't have a guaranteed cost.
Solving the TSP is a NP-hard problem for its subcycles elimination constraints, if you remove any of them (for your hub cities) you just make the problem easier.
But watch out: TSP has similarities with association problem in the meaning that you could obtain non-valid itineraries like:
Cities: New York, Boston, Dallas, Toronto
Path:
Boston - New York
New York - Boston
Dallas - Toronto
Toronto - Dallas
which is clearly wrong since we don't go across all cities.
The subcycle elimination constraints serve just to this purpose. Including a 'hub city' sounds like you need to add weights to the point and make an hybrid between flux problems and tsp problems. Sounds pretty hard but the first try may be: eliminate the subcycles constraints relative to your hub cities (and leave all the others). You can then link the subcycles obtained for the hub cities together.
Good luck
Firstly, what is approximate number of cities in your problem set? (Up to 100? More than 100?)
I have a fair bit of experience with GA (not ACO), and like epitaph says, it has a bit of gambling aspect. For some input, it might stop at a brutally inefficient solution. So, what I have done in the past is to use GA as the first option, compare the answer to some lower bound, and if that seems to be "way off", then run a second (usually a less efficient) algorithm.
Of course, I used plenty of terms that were not standard, so let us make sure that we agree what they would be in this context:
lower bound - of course, in this case, MST would be a lower bound.
"Way Off" - If triangle inequality holds, then an upper bound is UB = 2 * MST. A good "way off" in this context would be 2 * UB.
Second algorithm - In this case, both a linear programming based approach and Christofides would be good choices.
If you limit the problem to round-trips (i.e. the salesman can only buy round-trip tickets), then it can be represented by an undirected graph, and the problem boils down to finding the minimum spanning tree, which can be done efficiently.
In the general case I don't know of a clever way to use efficient algorithms; GA or similar might be a good way to go.
Do you want a near-optimal solution, or do you want the optimal solution?
For the optimal solution, there's still good ol' brute force. Due to requirement 1 involving repeat nodes, you'll have to make sure you search breadth-first, not dept-first. Otherwise you can end up in an infinite loop. You can slowly drop all routes that exceed your current minimum until all routes are exhausted and the minimal route is discovered.