Ok, so here's the problem:
I need to find any number of intem groups from 50-100 item set that add up to 1000, 2000, ..., 10000.
Input: list of integers
Integer can be on one list only.
Any ideas on algorithm?
Googling for "Knapsack problem" should get you quite a few hits (though they're not likely to be very encouraging -- this is quite a well known NP-complete problem).
Edit: if you want to get technical, what you're describing seems to really be the subset sum problem -- which is a special case of the knapsack problem. Of course, that's assuming I'm understanding your description correctly, which I'll admit may be open to some question.
You might find Algorithm 3.94 in The Handbook of Applied Cryptography helpful.
I'm not 100% on what you are asking, but I've used backtracking searches for something like this before. This is a brute force algorithm that is the slowest possible solution, but it will work. The wiki article on Backtracking Search may help you. Basically, you can use a recursive algorithm to examine every possible combination.
This is the knapsack problem. Are there any constraints on the integers you can choose from? Are they divisible? Are they all less than some given value? There may be ways to solve the problem in polynomial time given such constraints - Google will provide you with answers.
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 have a problem that I have a number of questions about. First, I'm mostly looking for help describing and understanding the problem at hand. Solutions are always welcome, but most importantly I could use some advice from someone more experienced than I. Now, to the problem at hand:
I have a set of orders that each require some number of items. I also have several groupings of items that each contain some number of some items (call them groups). The goal is to find a subset of the orders that can be fulfilled using as few groups as possible and where the total number of items contained within the orders is between n and N.
Edit: The constraints on the number of items contained in the orders (n and N) are chosen independently.
To me at least, that's a really complicated way of saying the problem so I've been trying to re-phrase it as a knapsack problem (I suspect this might reduce to a subset-sum). To help my conceptual understanding of this I've started using the following definitions:
First, lets say that a dimension exists for each possible item, and somethings 'length' in that dimension is the number of that particular type of item it either has or requires.
From this, an order becomes an 'n-dimensional object' where its value in each dimension corresponds to the number of that item that it requires.
In addition, a group can be seen as an 'n-dimensional box' that has space in each dimension corresponding to the number of items it provides.
An objects value is equal to the sum of its length in all dimensions.
Boxes can be combined.
Given the above I've rephrased the problem to this:
What is the smallest combination of boxes that can hold a combination of items with value between n and N.
Question #1: Is this a correct/useful way to express the problem? Does it seem like I've missed anything obvious?
As I see it, since there are two combinations that I'm looking for I need to break the problem into two parts. So far I think breaking the problem up like this is a good step:
How many objects can box (or combination of boxes) X hold?
Check all (or preferably some small subset of) the possible combinations of boxes and pick the 'best'.
That makes it a little more manageable, but I'm still struggling with the details.
Question #2: Solved To solve the first part I think it's appropriate to say that the cost of an object is equal to the sum of its length in all dimensions, so is it's value. That places me into a subset-sum problem, right? Obviously it's a special case, but does this problem have a name?
Question #3: Solved I've been looking into subset-sum solutions a lot, but I don't understand how to apply them to something like this in multiple dimensions. I assume it's been done before, but I'm unsure where to start my research. Could someone either describe the principles at work or point me in a research direction?
Edit: After looking at everyone's feedback and digging into the terms I think I've found a good algorithm I can implement to solve part 1. Since I will have a very large number of dimensions compared to the number of items it looks like using a 'primal effective capacity heuristic (PECH)' will be a good fit. I'd be interested in hearing someones thoughts about it if they have experience with such an algorithm.
Question #4: For the second part, performance is a concern and I doubt it will be realistic to brute force it. So I intend to treat all combinations of boxes as a really big tree of solutions. The idea is to compute part 1 for all combinations of M-1 boxes where M is the total number of boxes. Somehow determine the 'best' couple box combinations from that set and do the same to their child nodes on the tree. Does this sound like it would help me arrive at something close to optimal? How would I choose the 'best' box combinations?
Thanks for reading! Suggestions for edits and clarifications are welcome.
I have 'n' number of amounts (non-negative integers). My requirement is to determine an optimal set of amounts so that the sum of the combination is less than or equal to a given fixed limit and the total is as large as possible. There is no limit to the number of amounts that can be included in the optimal set.
for sake of example: amounts are 143,2054,546,3564,1402 and the given limit is 5000.
As per my understanding the knapsack problem has 2 attributes for each item (weight and value). But the problem stated above has only one attribute (amount). I hope that would make things simpler? :)
Can someone please help me with the algorithm or source code for solving this?
this is still an NP-hard problem, but if you want to (or have to) to do something like that, maybe this topic helps you out a bit:
find two or more numbers from a list of numbers that add up towards a given amount
where i solved it like this and NikiC modified it to be faster. only difference: that one was about getting the exact amount, not "as close as possible", but that would be only some small changes in code (and you'll have to translate it into the language you're using).
take a look at the comments in my code to understand what i'm trying to do, wich is, in short form:
calculating all possible combinations of the given parts and sum them up
if the result is the amount i'm looking for, save the solution to an array
at least, sort all possible solutions to get the one using the least parts
so you'll have to change:
save a solution if it's lower than the amount you're looking for
sort solutions by total amount instead of number of used parts
The book "Knapsack Problems" By Hans Kellerer, Ulrich Pferschy and David Pisinger calls this The Subset Sum Problem and dedicates an entire chapter (Ch 4) to it. The chapter is very comprehensive and covers algorithms as well as computational results.
Even though this problem is a special case of the knapsack problem, it is still NP-hard.
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.
This problem came up in the real world, but I've translated it into a more generic "textbook-like" formulation. I suspect it is NP, but I'm particularly interested in knowing if it has a name or is well known since I think I can't be the first one to encounter it. ;-)
Imagine there is a potluck party with N guests. Each guest may bring his/her "signature dish" to the party, or bring nothing. Each guest either likes or hates each of the dishes that the other guests may bring (and this is known in advance since they are all old friends!), but they all like their own dishes.
Is there a deterministic algorithm that does not take exponential time to find the smallest set of dishes that satisfies the constraint that all guests will find at least one dish to their liking? I say "the" smallest, but actually there may be multiple solutions, and I'd like to know them all if possible.
Or, in a more abstract way, imagine a square matrix where all elements are either 0 or 1, and all diagonal elements are 1. What are the smallest sets of rows such that the sum (or the binary OR) of the rows in each set have no zeroes? (The rows would be the dishes, the columns would be the guests, 1 would mean that a guest likes a dish, and diagonal elements are 1 since everyone likes their own dish.)
This could be generalized to non-square matrices, or by removing diagonal=1 rule (although the latter guarantees that there will always be at least one solution). But I don't care about those cases for now...
I already have a program that solves it through an exhaustive search and is fast enough for N around 20, but it takes exponential time. I'm thinking I may need to recur to stochastic algorithms to find good-enough solutions for larger values of N.
Added
Wow, thanks for the quick answer! "Set cover", that's the name I was looking for. :)
This is called the SET COVER problem and it is NP-complete.
The set cover problem, as described in the Wikipedia article which Antti Huima linked to, lacks the feature of each guest liking his own dish. Offhand, I don't know whether this makes any difference.