Related
Can some one help in solving the below problem using DP technique.
No need of code. Idea should be enough.
Marvel is coming up with a new superhero named Jumping Jack. The co-creator of this superhero is a mathematician, and he adds a mathematical touch to the character's powers.
So, one of Jumping Jack's most prominent powers is jumping distances. But, this superpower comes with certain restrictions.
Jumping Jack can only jump —
To the number that is one kilometre lesser than the current distance. For example, if he is 12 km away from the destination, he won't be able to jump directly to it since he can only jump to a location 11 km away.
To a distance that is half the current distance. For example, if Jumping Jack is 12 km away from the destination, again, he won't be able to jump directly to it since he can only jump to a location 6 km away.
To a distance that is ⅓rd the current distance. For example, if Jumping Jack is 12 km away from the destination, once more, he won't be able to jump directly to it since he can only jump to a location 4 km away.
So, you need to help the superhero develop an algorithm to reach the destination in the minimum number of steps. The destination is defined as the place where the distance becomes 1. Jumping Jack should cover the last 1 km running! Also, he can only jump to a destination that is an integer distance away from the main destination. For example, if he is at 10 km, by jumping 1/3rd the distance, he cannot reach 10/3rd the distance. He has to either jump to 5 or 9.
So, you have to find the minimum number of jumps required to reach a destination. For instance, if the destination is 10 km away, there are two ways to reach it:
10 -> 5 -> 4 -> 2 -> 1 (four jumps)
10 -> 9 -> 3 -> 1 (three jumps)
The minimum of these is three, so the superhero takes a minimum of three jumps to reach the point.
You should keep the following 2 points in mind for solving all the Dynamic programming problems:
Optimal Substructure (to find the minimum number of jumps)
Overlapping subproblems (If you encounter the same subproblem again, don't solve it, rather used the already computed result - yes, you'll have to store the computed result of sub-problems for future reference)
Always try to make a recursive solution to the problem at hand (now don't directly go ahead and look at the recursive solution, rather first try it yourself):
calCulateMinJumps(int currentDistance) {
if(currentDistance == 1) {
// return jumps - you don't need to recurse here
} else {
// find at what all places you can jump
jumps1 = calculateMinJumps(n-1) + 1
if(currentDistance % 2 == 0)
jumps2 = calculateMinJumps(n/2) + 1
if(currentDistance % 3 == 0)
jumps3 = calculateMinJumps(n/3) + 1
return minimum(jumps1, jumps2, jumps3) // takes jump2 and jump3 only if they are valid
}
}
Now you know that we have devised a recursive solution. The next step is to go and store the solution in an array so that you can use it in future and avoid re-computation. You can simply take a 1-D integer array and keep on storing it.
Keep in mind that if you go by top-down approach - it will be called memoization, and if you go by bottom-up approach - it will be called Dynamic programming. Have a look at this to see the exact difference between the two approaches.
Once you have a recursive solution in your mind, you can now think of constructing a bottom-up solution, or a top-down solution.
In Bottom-up solution strategy - you fill out the base cases first (Jumping Jack should cover the last 1 km running!) and then build upon it to reach to the final required solution.
Now, I'm not giving you the complete strategy, as it will be a task for you to carry out. And you will indeed find the solution. :) - As requested by you - Idea should be enough.
Firstly, think about this coin changing problem may help you understand yours, which are much the same:
Coin change - DP
Secondly, usually if you know that your problem has a DP solution, you can do 4 steps to solve it. Of cause you can ommit one or all of the first 3 steps.
Find a backtrack solution.(omitted here)
Find the recursion formula for your problem, based on the backtrack solution. (describe later)
Write a recursion code based on the recursion formula.(Omitted)
Write a iterating code based on step 3.(Omitted)
Finaly, for your question, the formula is not hard to figure out:
minStepFor(distance_N)=Math.min(minStepFor(distance_N-1)+1),
minStepFor(distance_N/2)+1,
minStepFor(distance_N/3)+1)
Just imagine jack is standing at the distance N point, and he has at most three options for his first go: go to N-1 point, or N/2 point, or N/3 point(if N/2 or N/3 is not integer, his choice will be reduced).
For each of his choice, the minimum steps is minStepFor(left distance)+1, since he has made 1 move, and surely he will try to make a minimum steps in his left moving. And the left distance for each choice is distance_N-1,distance_N/2 and distance_N/3.
So that's the way to understand the formula. With it it is not hard to write a recursion solution.
Consider f[1]=0 as the number of jumps required when JumpingJack is 1km away is none.
Using this base value solve F[2]...f[n] in below manner
for(int i=2; i<=n; i++) {
if(i%2==0 && i%3==0) {
f[i] = Math.min(Math.min(f[i-1]+1, f[i/2]+1), f[i/3] + 1);
}
if(i%2==0) {
f[i] = Math.min(f[i-1]+1, f[i/2]+1);
}else if(i%3==0) {
f[i] = Math.min(f[i-1]+1, f[i/3] + 1);
}else{
f[i] = f[i-1]+1;
}
}
return f[n];
You don't need to recursively solve the subproblem more than once!
I've been self-studying the Expectation Maximization lately, and grabbed myself some simple examples in the process:
http://cs.dartmouth.edu/~cs104/CS104_11.04.22.pdf
There are 3 coins 0, 1 and 2 with P0, P1 and P2 probability landing on Head when tossed. Toss coin 0, if the result is Head, toss coin 1 three times else toss coin 2 three times. The observed data produced by coin 1 and 2 is like this: HHH, TTT, HHH, TTT, HHH. The hidden data is coin 0's result. Estimate P0, P1 and P2.
http://ai.stanford.edu/~chuongdo/papers/em_tutorial.pdf
There are two coins A and B with PA and PB being the probability landing on Head when tossed. Each round, select one coin at random and toss it 10 times then record the results. The observed data is the toss results provided by these two coins. However, we don't know which coin was selected for a particular round. Estimate PA and PB.
While I can get the calculations, I can't relate the ways they are solved to the original EM theory. Specifically, during the M-Step of both examples, I don't see how they're maximizing anything. It just seems they are recalculating the parameters and somehow, the new parameters are better than the old ones. Moreover, the two E-Steps don't even look similar to each other, not to mention the original theory's E-Step.
So how exactly do these example work?
The second PDF won't download for me, but I also visited the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation%E2%80%93maximization_algorithm which has more information. http://melodi.ee.washington.edu/people/bilmes/mypapers/em.pdf (which claims to be a gentle introduction) might be worth a look too.
The whole point of the EM algorithm is to find parameters which maximize the likelihood of the observed data. This is the only bullet point on page 8 of the first PDF, the equation for capital Theta subscript ML.
The EM algorithm comes in handy where there is hidden data which would make the problem easy if you knew it. In the three coins example this is the result of tossing coin 0. If you knew the outcome of that you could (of course) produce an estimate for the probability of coin 0 turning up heads. You would also know whether coin 1 or coin 2 was tossed three times in the next stage, which would allow you to make estimates for the probabilities of coin 1 and coin 2 turning up heads. These estimates would be justified by saying that they maximized the likelihood of the observed data, which would include not only the results that you are given, but also the hidden data that you are not - the results from coin 0. For a coin that gets A heads and B tails you find that the maximum likelihood for the probability of A heads is A/(A+B) - it might be worth you working this out in detail, because it is the building block for the M step.
In the EM algorithm you say that although you don't know the hidden data, you come in with probability estimates which allow you to write down a probability distribution for it. For each possible value of the hidden data you could find the parameter values which would optimize the log likelihood of the data including the hidden data, and this almost always turns out to mean calculating some sort of weighted average (if it doesn't the EM step may be too difficult to be practical).
What the EM algorithm asks you to do is to find the parameters maximizing the weighted sum of log likelihoods given by all the possible hidden data values, where the weights are given by the probability of the associated hidden data given the observations using the parameters at the start of the EM step. This is what almost everybody, including the Wikipedia algorithm, calls the Q-function. The proof behind the EM algorithm, given in the Wikipedia article, says that if you change the parameters so as to increase the Q-function (which is only a means to an end), you will also have changed them so as to increase the likelihood of the observed data (which you do care about). What you tend to find in practice is that you can maximize the Q-function using a variation of what you would do if you know the hidden data, but using the probabilities of the hidden data, given the estimates at the start of the EM-step, to weight the observations in some way.
In your example it means totting up the number of heads and tails produced by each coin. In the PDF they work out P(Y=H|X=) = 0.6967. This means that you use weight 0.6967 for the case Y=H, which means that you increment the counts for Y=H by 0.6967 and increment the counts for X=H in coin 1 by 3*0.6967, and you increment the counts for Y=T by 0.3033 and increment the counts for X=H in coin 2 by 3*0.3033. If you have a detailed justification for why A/(A+B) is a maximum likelihood of coin probabilities in the standard case, you should be ready to turn it into a justification for why this weighted updating scheme maximizes the Q-function.
Finally, the log likelihood of the observed data (the thing you are maximizing) gives you a very useful check. It should increase with every EM step, at least until you get so close to convergence that rounding error comes in, in which case you may have a very small decrease, signalling convergence. If it decreases dramatically, you have a bug in your program or your maths.
As luck would have it, I have been struggling with this material recently as well. Here is how I have come to think of it:
Consider a related, but distinct algorithm called the classify-maximize algorithm, which we might use as a solution technique for a mixture model problem. A mixture model problem is one where we have a sequence of data that may be produced by any of N different processes, of which we know the general form (e.g., Gaussian) but we do not know the parameters of the processes (e.g., the means and/or variances) and may not even know the relative likelihood of the processes. (Typically we do at least know the number of the processes. Without that, we are into so-called "non-parametric" territory.) In a sense, the process which generates each data is the "missing" or "hidden" data of the problem.
Now, what this related classify-maximize algorithm does is start with some arbitrary guesses at the process parameters. Each data point is evaluated according to each one of those parameter processes, and a set of probabilities is generated-- the probability that the data point was generated by the first process, the second process, etc, up to the final Nth process. Then each data point is classified according to the most likely process.
At this point, we have our data separated into N different classes. So, for each class of data, we can, with some relatively simple calculus, optimize the parameters of that cluster with a maximum likelihood technique. (If we tried to do this on the whole data set prior to classifying, it is usually analytically intractable.)
Then we update our parameter guesses, re-classify, update our parameters, re-classify, etc, until convergence.
What the expectation-maximization algorithm does is similar, but more general: Instead of a hard classification of data points into class 1, class 2, ... through class N, we are now using a soft classification, where each data point belongs to each process with some probability. (Obviously, the probabilities for each point need to sum to one, so there is some normalization going on.) I think we might also think of this as each process/guess having a certain amount of "explanatory power" for each of the data points.
So now, instead of optimizing the guesses with respect to points that absolutely belong to each class (ignoring the points that absolutely do not), we re-optimize the guesses in the context of those soft classifications, or those explanatory powers. And it so happens that, if you write the expressions in the correct way, what you're maximizing is a function that is an expectation in its form.
With that said, there are some caveats:
1) This sounds easy. It is not, at least to me. The literature is littered with a hodge-podge of special tricks and techniques-- using likelihood expressions instead of probability expressions, transforming to log-likelihoods, using indicator variables, putting them in basis vector form and putting them in the exponents, etc.
These are probably more helpful once you have the general idea, but they can also obfuscate the core ideas.
2) Whatever constraints you have on the problem can be tricky to incorporate into the framework. In particular, if you know the probabilities of each of the processes, you're probably in good shape. If not, you're also estimating those, and the sum of the probabilities of the processes must be one; they must live on a probability simplex. It is not always obvious how to keep those constraints intact.
3) This is a sufficiently general technique that I don't know how I would go about writing code that is general. The applications go far beyond simple clustering and extend to many situations where you are actually missing data, or where the assumption of missing data may help you. There is a fiendish ingenuity at work here, for many applications.
4) This technique is proven to converge, but the convergence is not necessarily to the global maximum; be wary.
I found the following link helpful in coming up with the interpretation above: Statistical learning slides
And the following write-up goes into great detail of some painful mathematical details: Michael Collins' write-up
I wrote the below code in Python which explains the example given in your second example paper by Do and Batzoglou.
I recommend that you read this link first for a clear explanation of how and why the 'weightA' and 'weightB' in the code below are obtained.
Disclaimer : The code does work but I am certain that it is not coded optimally. I am not a Python coder normally and have started using it two weeks ago.
import numpy as np
import math
#### E-M Coin Toss Example as given in the EM tutorial paper by Do and Batzoglou* ####
def get_mn_log_likelihood(obs,probs):
""" Return the (log)likelihood of obs, given the probs"""
# Multinomial Distribution Log PMF
# ln (pdf) = multinomial coeff * product of probabilities
# ln[f(x|n, p)] = [ln(n!) - (ln(x1!)+ln(x2!)+...+ln(xk!))] + [x1*ln(p1)+x2*ln(p2)+...+xk*ln(pk)]
multinomial_coeff_denom= 0
prod_probs = 0
for x in range(0,len(obs)): # loop through state counts in each observation
multinomial_coeff_denom = multinomial_coeff_denom + math.log(math.factorial(obs[x]))
prod_probs = prod_probs + obs[x]*math.log(probs[x])
multinomial_coeff = math.log(math.factorial(sum(obs))) - multinomial_coeff_denom
likelihood = multinomial_coeff + prod_probs
return likelihood
# 1st: Coin B, {HTTTHHTHTH}, 5H,5T
# 2nd: Coin A, {HHHHTHHHHH}, 9H,1T
# 3rd: Coin A, {HTHHHHHTHH}, 8H,2T
# 4th: Coin B, {HTHTTTHHTT}, 4H,6T
# 5th: Coin A, {THHHTHHHTH}, 7H,3T
# so, from MLE: pA(heads) = 0.80 and pB(heads)=0.45
# represent the experiments
head_counts = np.array([5,9,8,4,7])
tail_counts = 10-head_counts
experiments = zip(head_counts,tail_counts)
# initialise the pA(heads) and pB(heads)
pA_heads = np.zeros(100); pA_heads[0] = 0.60
pB_heads = np.zeros(100); pB_heads[0] = 0.50
# E-M begins!
delta = 0.001
j = 0 # iteration counter
improvement = float('inf')
while (improvement>delta):
expectation_A = np.zeros((5,2), dtype=float)
expectation_B = np.zeros((5,2), dtype=float)
for i in range(0,len(experiments)):
e = experiments[i] # i'th experiment
ll_A = get_mn_log_likelihood(e,np.array([pA_heads[j],1-pA_heads[j]])) # loglikelihood of e given coin A
ll_B = get_mn_log_likelihood(e,np.array([pB_heads[j],1-pB_heads[j]])) # loglikelihood of e given coin B
weightA = math.exp(ll_A) / ( math.exp(ll_A) + math.exp(ll_B) ) # corresponding weight of A proportional to likelihood of A
weightB = math.exp(ll_B) / ( math.exp(ll_A) + math.exp(ll_B) ) # corresponding weight of B proportional to likelihood of B
expectation_A[i] = np.dot(weightA, e)
expectation_B[i] = np.dot(weightB, e)
pA_heads[j+1] = sum(expectation_A)[0] / sum(sum(expectation_A));
pB_heads[j+1] = sum(expectation_B)[0] / sum(sum(expectation_B));
improvement = max( abs(np.array([pA_heads[j+1],pB_heads[j+1]]) - np.array([pA_heads[j],pB_heads[j]]) ))
j = j+1
The key to understanding this is knowing what the auxiliary variables are that make estimation trivial. I will explain the first example quickly, the second follows a similar pattern.
Augment each sequence of heads/tails with two binary variables, which indicate whether coin 1 was used or coin 2. Now our data looks like the following:
c_11 c_12
c_21 c_22
c_31 c_32
...
For each i, either c_i1=1 or c_i2=1, with the other being 0. If we knew the values these variables took in our sample, estimation of parameters would be trivial: p1 would be the proportion of heads in samples where c_i1=1, likewise for c_i2, and \lambda would be the mean of the c_i1s.
However, we don't know the values of these binary variables. So, what we basically do is guess them (in reality, take their expectation), and then update the parameters in our model assuming our guesses were correct. So the E step is to take the expectation of the c_i1s and c_i2s. The M step is to take maximum likelihood estimates of p_1, p_2 and \lambda given these cs.
Does that make a bit more sense? I can write out the updates for the E and M step if you prefer. EM then just guarantees that by following this procedure, likelihood will never decrease as iterations increase.
I need some advice. I'm developing a game similar to Flow Free wherein the gameboard is composed of a grid and colored dots, and the user has to connect the same colored dots together without overlapping other lines, and using up ALL the free spaces in the board.
My question is about level-creation. I wish to make the levels generated randomly (and should at least be able to solve itself so that it can give players hints) and I am in a stump as to what algorithm to use. Any suggestions?
Note: image shows the objective of Flow Free, and it is the same objective of what I am developing.
Thanks for your help. :)
Consider solving your problem with a pair of simpler, more manageable algorithms: one algorithm that reliably creates simple, pre-solved boards and another that rearranges flows to make simple boards more complex.
The first part, building a simple pre-solved board, is trivial (if you want it to be) if you're using n flows on an nxn grid:
For each flow...
Place the head dot at the top of the first open column.
Place the tail dot at the bottom of that column.
Alternatively, you could provide your own hand-made starter boards to pass to the second part. The only goal of this stage is to get a valid board built, even if it's just trivial or predetermined, so it's worth keeping it simple.
The second part, rearranging the flows, involves looping over each flow, seeing which one can work with its neighboring flow to grow and shrink:
For some number of iterations...
Choose a random flow f.
If f is at the minimum length (say 3 squares long), skip to the next iteration because we can't shrink f right now.
If the head dot of f is next to a dot from another flow g (if more than one g to choose from, pick one at random)...
Move f's head dot one square along its flow (i.e., walk it one square towards the tail). f is now one square shorter and there's an empty square. (The puzzle is now unsolved.)
Move the neighboring dot from g into the empty square vacated by f. Now there's an empty square where g's dot moved from.
Fill in that empty spot with flow from g. Now g is one square longer than it was at the beginning of this iteration. (The puzzle is back to being solved as well.)
Repeat the previous step for f's tail dot.
The approach as it stands is limited (dots will always be neighbors) but it's easy to expand upon:
Add a step to loop through the body of flow f, looking for trickier ways to swap space with other flows...
Add a step that prevents a dot from moving to an old location...
Add any other ideas that you come up with.
The overall solution here is probably less than the ideal one that you're aiming for, but now you have two simple algorithms that you can flesh out further to serve the role of one large, all-encompassing algorithm. In the end, I think this approach is manageable, not cryptic, and easy to tweek, and, if nothing else, a good place to start.
Update: I coded a proof-of-concept based on the steps above. Starting with the first 5x5 grid below, the process produced the subsequent 5 different boards. Some are interesting, some are not, but they're always valid with one known solution.
Starting Point
5 Random Results (sorry for the misaligned screenshots)
And a random 8x8 for good measure. The starting point was the same simple columns approach as above.
Updated answer: I implemented a new generator using the idea of "dual puzzles". This allows much sparser and higher quality puzzles than any previous method I know of. The code is on github. I'll try to write more details about how it works, but here is an example puzzle:
Old answer:
I have implemented the following algorithm in my numberlink solver and generator. In enforces the rule, that a path can never touch itself, which is normal in most 'hardcore' numberlink apps and puzzles
First the board is tiled with 2x1 dominos in a simple, deterministic way.
If this is not possible (on an odd area paper), the bottom right corner is
left as a singleton.
Then the dominos are randomly shuffled by rotating random pairs of neighbours.
This is is not done in the case of width or height equal to 1.
Now, in the case of an odd area paper, the bottom right corner is attached to
one of its neighbour dominos. This will always be possible.
Finally, we can start finding random paths through the dominos, combining them
as we pass through. Special care is taken not to connect 'neighbour flows'
which would create puzzles that 'double back on themselves'.
Before the puzzle is printed we 'compact' the range of colours used, as much as possible.
The puzzle is printed by replacing all positions that aren't flow-heads with a .
My numberlink format uses ascii characters instead of numbers. Here is an example:
$ bin/numberlink --generate=35x20
Warning: Including non-standard characters in puzzle
35 20
....bcd.......efg...i......i......j
.kka........l....hm.n....n.o.......
.b...q..q...l..r.....h.....t..uvvu.
....w.....d.e..xx....m.yy..t.......
..z.w.A....A....r.s....BB.....p....
.D.........E.F..F.G...H.........IC.
.z.D...JKL.......g....G..N.j.......
P...a....L.QQ.RR...N....s.....S.T..
U........K......V...............T..
WW...X.......Z0..M.................
1....X...23..Z0..........M....44...
5.......Y..Y....6.........C.......p
5...P...2..3..6..VH.......O.S..99.I
........E.!!......o...."....O..$$.%
.U..&&..J.\\.(.)......8...*.......+
..1.......,..-...(/:.."...;;.%+....
..c<<.==........)./..8>>.*.?......#
.[..[....]........:..........?..^..
..._.._.f...,......-.`..`.7.^......
{{......].....|....|....7.......#..
And here I run it through my solver (same seed):
$ bin/numberlink --generate=35x20 | bin/numberlink --tubes
Found a solution!
┌──┐bcd───┐┌──efg┌─┐i──────i┌─────j
│kka│└───┐││l┌─┘│hm│n────n┌o│┌────┐
│b──┘q──q│││l│┌r└┐│└─h┌──┐│t││uvvu│
└──┐w┌───┘d└e││xx│└──m│yy││t││└──┘│
┌─z│w│A────A┌┘└─r│s───┘BB││┌┘└p┌─┐│
│D┐└┐│┌────E│F──F│G──┐H┐┌┘││┌──┘IC│
└z└D│││JKL┌─┘┌──┐g┌─┐└G││N│j│┌─┐└┐│
P──┐a││││L│QQ│RR└┐│N└──┘s││┌┘│S│T││
U─┐│┌┘││└K└─┐└─┐V││└─────┘││┌┘││T││
WW│││X││┌──┐│Z0││M│┌──────┘││┌┘└┐││
1┐│││X│││23││Z0│└┐││┌────M┌┘││44│││
5│││└┐││Y││Y│┌─┘6││││┌───┐C┌┘│┌─┘│p
5││└P│││2┘└3││6─┘VH│││┌─┐│O┘S┘│99└I
┌┘│┌─┘││E┐!!│└───┐o┘│││"│└─┐O─┘$$┌%
│U┘│&&│└J│\\│(┐)┐└──┘│8││┌*└┐┌───┘+
└─1└─┐└──┘,┐│-└┐│(/:┌┘"┘││;;│%+───┘
┌─c<<│==┌─┐││└┐│)│/││8>>│*┌?│┌───┐#
│[──[└─┐│]││└┐│└─┘:┘│└──┘┌┘┌┘?┌─^││
└─┐_──_│f││└,│└────-│`──`│7┘^─┘┌─┘│
{{└────┘]┘└──┘|────|└───7└─────┘#─┘
I've tested replacing step (4) with a function that iteratively, randomly merges two neighboring paths. However it game much denser puzzles, and I already think the above is nearly too dense to be difficult.
Here is a list of problems I've generated of different size: https://github.com/thomasahle/numberlink/blob/master/puzzles/inputs3
The most straightforward way to create such a level is to find a way to solve it. This way, you can basically generate any random starting configuration and determine if it is a valid level by trying to have it solved. This will generate the most diverse levels.
And even if you find a way to generate the levels some other way, you'll still want to apply this solving algorithm to prove that the generated level is any good ;)
Brute-force enumerating
If the board has a size of NxN cells, and there are also N colours available, brute-force enumerating all possible configurations (regardless of wether they form actual paths between start and end nodes) would take:
N^2 cells total
2N cells already occupied with start and end nodes
N^2 - 2N cells for which the color has yet to be determined
N colours available.
N^(N^2 - 2N) possible combinations.
So,
For N=5, this means 5^15 = 30517578125 combinations.
For N=6, this means 6^24 = 4738381338321616896 combinations.
In other words, the number of possible combinations is pretty high to start with, but also grows ridiculously fast once you start making the board larger.
Constraining the number of cells per color
Obviously, we should try to reduce the number of configurations as much as possible. One way of doing that is to consider the minimum distance ("dMin") between each color's start and end cell - we know that there should at least be this much cells with that color. Calculating the minimum distance can be done with a simple flood fill or Dijkstra's algorithm.
(N.B. Note that this entire next section only discusses the number of cells, but does not say anything about their locations)
In your example, this means (not counting the start and end cells)
dMin(orange) = 1
dMin(red) = 1
dMin(green) = 5
dMin(yellow) = 3
dMin(blue) = 5
This means that, of the 15 cells for which the color has yet to be determined, there have to be at least 1 orange, 1 red, 5 green, 3 yellow and 5 blue cells, also making a total of 15 cells.
For this particular example this means that connecting each color's start and end cell by (one of) the shortest paths fills the entire board - i.e. after filling the board with the shortest paths no uncoloured cells remain. (This should be considered "luck", not every starting configuration of the board will cause this to happen).
Usually, after this step, we have a number of cells that can be freely coloured, let's call this number U. For N=5,
U = 15 - (dMin(orange) + dMin(red) + dMin(green) + dMin(yellow) + dMin(blue))
Because these cells can take any colour, we can also determine the maximum number of cells that can have a particular colour:
dMax(orange) = dMin(orange) + U
dMax(red) = dMin(red) + U
dMax(green) = dMin(green) + U
dMax(yellow) = dMin(yellow) + U
dMax(blue) = dMin(blue) + U
(In this particular example, U=0, so the minimum number of cells per colour is also the maximum).
Path-finding using the distance constraints
If we were to brute force enumerate all possible combinations using these color constraints, we would have a lot less combinations to worry about. More specifically, in this particular example we would have:
15! / (1! * 1! * 5! * 3! * 5!)
= 1307674368000 / 86400
= 15135120 combinations left, about a factor 2000 less.
However, this still doesn't give us the actual paths. so a better idea would be to a backtracking search, where we process each colour in turn and attempt to find all paths that:
doesn't cross an already coloured cell
Is not shorter than dMin(colour) and not longer than dMax(colour).
The second criteria will reduce the number of paths reported per colour, which causes the total number of paths to be tried to be greatly reduced (due to the combinatorial effect).
In pseudo-code:
function SolveLevel(initialBoard of size NxN)
{
foreach(colour on initialBoard)
{
Find startCell(colour) and endCell(colour)
minDistance(colour) = Length(ShortestPath(initialBoard, startCell(colour), endCell(colour)))
}
//Determine the number of uncoloured cells remaining after all shortest paths have been applied.
U = N^(N^2 - 2N) - (Sum of all minDistances)
firstColour = GetFirstColour(initialBoard)
ExplorePathsForColour(
initialBoard,
firstColour,
startCell(firstColour),
endCell(firstColour),
minDistance(firstColour),
U)
}
}
function ExplorePathsForColour(board, colour, startCell, endCell, minDistance, nrOfUncolouredCells)
{
maxDistance = minDistance + nrOfUncolouredCells
paths = FindAllPaths(board, colour, startCell, endCell, minDistance, maxDistance)
foreach(path in paths)
{
//Render all cells in 'path' on a copy of the board
boardCopy = Copy(board)
boardCopy = ApplyPath(boardCopy, path)
uRemaining = nrOfUncolouredCells - (Length(path) - minDistance)
//Recursively explore all paths for the next colour.
nextColour = NextColour(board, colour)
if(nextColour exists)
{
ExplorePathsForColour(
boardCopy,
nextColour,
startCell(nextColour),
endCell(nextColour),
minDistance(nextColour),
uRemaining)
}
else
{
//No more colours remaining to draw
if(uRemaining == 0)
{
//No more uncoloured cells remaining
Report boardCopy as a result
}
}
}
}
FindAllPaths
This only leaves FindAllPaths(board, colour, startCell, endCell, minDistance, maxDistance) to be implemented. The tricky thing here is that we're not searching for the shortest paths, but for any paths that fall in the range determined by minDistance and maxDistance. Hence, we can't just use Dijkstra's or A*, because they will only record the shortest path to each cell, not any possible detours.
One way of finding these paths would be to use a multi-dimensional array for the board, where
each cell is capable of storing multiple waypoints, and a waypoint is defined as the pair (previous waypoint, distance to origin). The previous waypoint is needed to be able to reconstruct the entire path once we've reached the destination, and the distance to origin
prevents us from exceeding the maxDistance.
Finding all paths can then be done by using a flood-fill like exploration from the startCell outwards, where for a given cell, each uncoloured or same-as-the-current-color-coloured neigbour is recursively explored (except the ones that form our current path to the origin) until we reach either the endCell or exceed the maxDistance.
An improvement on this strategy is that we don't explore from the startCell outwards to the endCell, but that we explore from both the startCell and endCell outwards in parallel, using Floor(maxDistance / 2) and Ceil(maxDistance / 2) as the respective maximum distances. For large values of maxDistance, this should reduce the number of explored cells from 2 * maxDistance^2 to maxDistance^2.
I think you'll want to do this in two steps. Step 1) find a set of non-intersecting paths that connect all your points, then 2) Grow/shift those paths to fill the entire board
My thoughts on Step 1 are to essentially perform Dijkstra like algorithm on all points simultaneously, growing together the paths. Similar to Dijkstra, I think you'll want to flood-fill out from each of your points, chosing which node to search next using some heuristic (My hunch says chosing points with the least degrees of freedom first, then by distance, might be a good one). Very differently from Dijkstra though I think we might be stuck with having to backtrack when we have multiple paths attempting to grow into the same node. (This could of course be fairly problematic on bigger maps, but might not be a big deal on small maps like the one you have above.)
You may also solve for some of the easier paths before you start the above algorithm, mainly to cut down on the number of backtracks needed. In specific, if you can make a trace between points along the edge of the board, you can guarantee that connecting those two points in that fashion would never interfere with other paths, so you can simply fill those in and take those guys out of the equation. You could then further iterate on this until all of these "quick and easy" paths are found by tracing along the borders of the board, or borders of existing paths. That algorithm would actually completely solve the above example board, but would undoubtedly fail elsewhere .. still, it would be very cheap to perform and would reduce your search time for the previous algorithm.
Alternatively
You could simply do a real Dijkstra's algorithm between each set of points, pathing out the closest points first (or trying them in some random orders a few times). This would probably work for a fair number of cases, and when it fails simply throw out the map and generate a new one.
Once you have Step 1 solved, Step 2 should be easier, though not necessarily trivial. To grow your paths, I think you'll want to grow your paths outward (so paths closest to walls first, growing towards the walls, then other inner paths outwards, etc.). To grow, I think you'll have two basic operations, flipping corners, and expanding into into adjacent pairs of empty squares.. that is to say, if you have a line like
.v<<.
v<...
v....
v....
First you'll want to flip the corners to fill in your edge spaces
v<<<.
v....
v....
v....
Then you'll want to expand into neighboring pairs of open space
v<<v.
v.^<.
v....
v....
v<<v.
>v^<.
v<...
v....
etc..
Note that what I've outlined wont guarantee a solution if one exists, but I think you should be able to find one most of the time if one exists, and then in the cases where the map has no solution, or the algorithm fails to find one, just throw out the map and try a different one :)
You have two choices:
Write a custom solver
Brute force it.
I used option (2) to generate Boggle type boards and it is VERY successful. If you go with Option (2), this is how you do it:
Tools needed:
Write a A* solver.
Write a random board creator
To solve:
Generate a random board consisting of only endpoints
while board is not solved:
get two endpoints closest to each other that are not yet solved
run A* to generate path
update board so next A* knows new board layout with new path marked as un-traversable.
At exit of loop, check success/fail (is whole board used/etc) and run again if needed
The A* on a 10x10 should run in hundredths of a second. You can probably solve 1k+ boards/second. So a 10 second run should get you several 'usable' boards.
Bonus points:
When generating levels for a IAP (in app purchase) level pack, remember to check for mirrors/rotations/reflections/etc so you don't have one board a copy of another (which is just lame).
Come up with a metric that will figure out if two boards are 'similar' and if so, ditch one of them.
Lets say I have a parabola. Now I also have a bunch of sticks that are all of the same width (yes my drawing skills are amazing!). How can I stack these sticks within the parabola such that I am minimizing the space it uses as much as possible? I believe that this falls under the category of Knapsack problems, but this Wikipedia page doesn't appear to bring me closer to a real world solution. Is this a NP-Hard problem?
In this problem we are trying to minimize the amount of area consumed (eg: Integral), which includes vertical area.
I cooked up a solution in JavaScript using processing.js and HTML5 canvas.
This project should be a good starting point if you want to create your own solution. I added two algorithms. One that sorts the input blocks from largest to smallest and another that shuffles the list randomly. Each item is then attempted to be placed in the bucket starting from the bottom (smallest bucket) and moving up until it has enough space to fit.
Depending on the type of input the sort algorithm can give good results in O(n^2). Here's an example of the sorted output.
Here's the insert in order algorithm.
function solve(buckets, input) {
var buckets_length = buckets.length,
results = [];
for (var b = 0; b < buckets_length; b++) {
results[b] = [];
}
input.sort(function(a, b) {return b - a});
input.forEach(function(blockSize) {
var b = buckets_length - 1;
while (b > 0) {
if (blockSize <= buckets[b]) {
results[b].push(blockSize);
buckets[b] -= blockSize;
break;
}
b--;
}
});
return results;
}
Project on github - https://github.com/gradbot/Parabolic-Knapsack
It's a public repo so feel free to branch and add other algorithms. I'll probably add more in the future as it's an interesting problem.
Simplifying
First I want to simplify the problem, to do that:
I switch the axes and add them to each other, this results in x2 growth
I assume it is parabola on a closed interval [a, b], where a = 0 and for this example b = 3
Lets say you are given b (second part of interval) and w (width of a segment), then you can find total number of segments by n=Floor[b/w]. In this case there exists a trivial case to maximize Riemann sum and function to get i'th segment height is: f(b-(b*i)/(n+1))). Actually it is an assumption and I'm not 100% sure.
Max'ed example for 17 segments on closed interval [0, 3] for function Sqrt[x] real values:
And the segment heights function in this case is Re[Sqrt[3-3*Range[1,17]/18]], and values are:
Exact form:
{Sqrt[17/6], 2 Sqrt[2/3], Sqrt[5/2],
Sqrt[7/3], Sqrt[13/6], Sqrt[2],
Sqrt[11/6], Sqrt[5/3], Sqrt[3/2],
2/Sqrt[3], Sqrt[7/6], 1, Sqrt[5/6],
Sqrt[2/3], 1/Sqrt[2], 1/Sqrt[3],
1/Sqrt[6]}
Approximated form:
{1.6832508230603465,
1.632993161855452, 1.5811388300841898, 1.5275252316519468, 1.4719601443879744, 1.4142135623730951, 1.35400640077266, 1.2909944487358056, 1.224744871391589, 1.1547005383792517, 1.0801234497346435, 1, 0.9128709291752769, 0.816496580927726, 0.7071067811865475, 0.5773502691896258, 0.4082482904638631}
What you have archived is a Bin-Packing problem, with partially filled bin.
Finding b
If b is unknown or our task is to find smallest possible b under what all sticks form the initial bunch fit. Then we can limit at least b values to:
lower limit : if sum of segment heights = sum of stick heights
upper limit : number of segments = number of sticks longest stick < longest segment height
One of the simplest way to find b is to take a pivot at (higher limit-lower limit)/2 find if solution exists. Then it becomes new higher or lower limit and you repeat the process until required precision is met.
When you are looking for b you do not need exact result, but suboptimal and it would be much faster if you use efficient algorithm to find relatively close pivot point to actual b.
For example:
sort the stick by length: largest to smallest
start 'putting largest items' into first bin thy fit
This is equivalent to having multiple knapsacks (assuming these blocks are the same 'height', this means there's one knapsack for each 'line'), and is thus an instance of the bin packing problem.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing
How can I stack these sticks within the parabola such that I am minimizing the (vertical) space it uses as much as possible?
Just deal with it like any other Bin Packing problem. I'd throw meta-heuristics on it (such as tabu search, simulated annealing, ...) since those algorithms aren't problem specific.
For example, if I'd start from my Cloud Balance problem (= a form of Bin Packing) in Drools Planner. If all the sticks have the same height and there's no vertical space between 2 sticks on top of each other, there's not much I'd have to change:
Rename Computer to ParabolicRow. Remove it's properties (cpu, memory, bandwith). Give it a unique level (where 0 is the lowest row). Create a number of ParabolicRows.
Rename Process to Stick
Rename ProcessAssignement to StickAssignment
Rewrite the hard constraints so it checks if there's enough room for the sum of all Sticks assigned to a ParabolicRow.
Rewrite the soft constraints to minimize the highest level of all ParabolicRows.
I'm very sure it is equivalent to bin-packing:
informal reduction
Be x the width of the widest row, make the bins 2x big and create for every row a placeholder element which is 2x-rowWidth big. So two placeholder elements cannot be packed into one bin.
To reduce bin-packing on parabolic knapsack you just create placeholder elements for all rows that are bigger than the needed binsize with size width-binsize. Furthermore add placeholders for all rows that are smaller than binsize which fill the whole row.
This would obviously mean your problem is NP-hard.
For other ideas look here maybe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_stock_problem
Most likely this is the 1-0 Knapsack or a bin-packing problem. This is a NP hard problem and most likely this problem I don't understand and I can't explain to you but you can optimize with greedy algorithms. Here is a useful article about it http://www.developerfusion.com/article/5540/bin-packing that I use to make my php class bin-packing at phpclasses.org.
Props to those who mentioned the fact that the levels could be at varying heights (ex: assuming the sticks are 1 'thick' level 1 goes from 0.1 unit to 1.1 units, or it could go from 0.2 to 1.2 units instead)
You could of course expand the "multiple bin packing" methodology and test arbitrarily small increments. (Ex: run the multiple binpacking methodology with levels starting at 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, ... 0.9) and then choose the best result, but it seems like you would get stuck calulating for an infinite amount of time unless you had some methodlogy to verify that you had gotten it 'right' (or more precisely, that you had all the 'rows' correct as to what they contained, at which point you could shift them down until they met the edge of the parabola)
Also, the OP did not specify that the sticks had to be laid horizontally - although perhaps the OP implied it with those sweet drawings.
I have no idea how to optimally solve such an issue, but i bet there are certain cases where you could randomly place sticks and then test if they are 'inside' the parabola, and it would beat out any of the methodologies relying only on horizontal rows.
(Consider the case of a narrow parabola that we are trying to fill with 1 long stick.)
I say just throw them all in there and shake them ;)
This is a followup to my earlier question about deciding if a hand is ready.
Knowledge of mahjong rules would be excellent, but a poker- or romme-based background is also sufficient to understand this question.
In Mahjong 14 tiles (tiles are like
cards in Poker) are arranged to 4 sets
and a pair. A straight ("123") always
uses exactly 3 tiles, not more and not
less. A set of the same kind ("111")
consists of exactly 3 tiles, too. This
leads to a sum of 3 * 4 + 2 = 14
tiles.
There are various exceptions like Kan
or Thirteen Orphans that are not
relevant here. Colors and value ranges
(1-9) are also not important for the
algorithm.
A hand consists of 13 tiles, every time it's our turn we get to pick a new tile and have to discard any tile so we stay on 13 tiles - except if we can win using the newly picked tile.
A hand that can be arranged to form 4 sets and a pair is "ready". A hand that requires only 1 tile to be exchanged is said to be "tenpai", or "1 from ready". Any other hand has a shanten-number which expresses how many tiles need to be exchanged to be in tenpai. So a hand with a shanten number of 1 needs 1 tile to be tenpai (and 2 tiles to be ready, accordingly). A hand with a shanten number of 5 needs 5 tiles to be tenpai and so on.
I'm trying to calculate the shanten number of a hand. After googling around for hours and reading multiple articles and papers on this topic, this seems to be an unsolved problem (except for the brute force approach). The closest algorithm I could find relied on chance, i.e. it was not able to detect the correct shanten number 100% of the time.
Rules
I'll explain a bit on the actual rules (simplified) and then my idea how to tackle this task. In mahjong, there are 4 colors, 3 normal ones like in card games (ace, heart, ...) that are called "man", "pin" and "sou". These colors run from 1 to 9 each and can be used to form straights as well as groups of the same kind. The forth color is called "honors" and can be used for groups of the same kind only, but not for straights. The seven honors will be called "E, S, W, N, R, G, B".
Let's look at an example of a tenpai hand: 2p, 3p, 3p, 3p, 3p, 4p, 5m, 5m, 5m, W, W, W, E. Next we pick an E. This is a complete mahjong hand (ready) and consists of a 2-4 pin street (remember, pins can be used for straights), a 3 pin triple, a 5 man triple, a W triple and an E pair.
Changing our original hand slightly to 2p, 2p, 3p, 3p, 3p, 4p, 5m, 5m, 5m, W, W, W, E, we got a hand in 1-shanten, i.e. it requires an additional tile to be tenpai. In this case, exchanging a 2p for an 3p brings us back to tenpai so by drawing a 3p and an E we win.
1p, 1p, 5p, 5p, 9p, 9p, E, E, E, S, S, W, W is a hand in 2-shanten. There is 1 completed triplet and 5 pairs. We need one pair in the end, so once we pick one of 1p, 5p, 9p, S or W we need to discard one of the other pairs. Example: We pick a 1 pin and discard an W. The hand is in 1-shanten now and looks like this: 1p, 1p, 1p, 5p, 5p, 9p, 9p, E, E, E, S, S, W. Next, we wait for either an 5p, 9p or S. Assuming we pick a 5p and discard the leftover W, we get this: 1p, 1p, 1p, 5p, 5p, 5p, 9p, 9p, E, E, E, S, S. This hand is in tenpai in can complete on either a 9 pin or an S.
To avoid drawing this text in length even more, you can read up on more example at wikipedia or using one of the various search results at google. All of them are a bit more technical though, so I hope the above description suffices.
Algorithm
As stated, I'd like to calculate the shanten number of a hand. My idea was to split the tiles into 4 groups according to their color. Next, all tiles are sorted into sets within their respective groups to we end up with either triplets, pairs or single tiles in the honor group or, additionally, streights in the 3 normal groups. Completed sets are ignored. Pairs are counted, the final number is decremented (we need 1 pair in the end). Single tiles are added to this number. Finally, we divide the number by 2 (since every time we pick a good tile that brings us closer to tenpai, we can get rid of another unwanted tile).
However, I can not prove that this algorithm is correct, and I also have trouble incorporating straights for difficult groups that contain many tiles in a close range. Every kind of idea is appreciated. I'm developing in .NET, but pseudo code or any readable language is welcome, too.
I've thought about this problem a bit more. To see the final results, skip over to the last section.
First idea: Brute Force Approach
First of all, I wrote a brute force approach. It was able to identify 3-shanten within a minute, but it was not very reliable (sometimes too a lot longer, and enumerating the whole space is impossible even for just 3-shanten).
Improvement of Brute Force Approach
One thing that came to mind was to add some intelligence to the brute force approach. The naive way is to add any of the remaining tiles, see if it produced Mahjong, and if not try the next recursively until it was found. Assuming there are about 30 different tiles left and the maximum depth is 6 (I'm not sure if a 7+-shanten hand is even possible [Edit: according to the formula developed later, the maximum possible shanten number is (13-1)*2/3 = 8]), we get (13*30)^6 possibilities, which is large (10^15 range).
However, there is no need to put every leftover tile in every position in your hand. Since every color has to be complete in itself, we can add tiles to the respective color groups and note down if the group is complete in itself. Details like having exactly 1 pair overall are not difficult to add. This way, there are max around (13*9)^6 possibilities, that is around 10^12 and more feasible.
A better solution: Modification of the existing Mahjong Checker
My next idea was to use the code I wrote early to test for Mahjong and modify it in two ways:
don't stop when an invalid hand is found but note down a missing tile
if there are multiple possible ways to use a tile, try out all of them
This should be the optimal idea, and with some heuristic added it should be the optimal algorithm. However, I found it quite difficult to implement - it is definitely possible though. I'd prefer an easier to write and maintain solution first.
An advanced approach using domain knowledge
Talking to a more experienced player, it appears there are some laws that can be used. For instance, a set of 3 tiles does never need to be broken up, as that would never decrease the shanten number. It may, however, be used in different ways (say, either for a 111 or a 123 combination).
Enumerate all possible 3-set and create a new simulation for each of them. Remove the 3-set. Now create all 2-set in the resulting hand and simulate for every tile that improves them to a 3-set. At the same time, simulate for any of the 1-sets being removed. Keep doing this until all 3- and 2-sets are gone. There should be a 1-set (that is, a single tile) be left in the end.
Learnings from implementation and final algorithm
I implemented the above algorithm. For easier understanding I wrote it down in pseudocode:
Remove completed 3-sets
If removed, return (i.e. do not simulate NOT taking the 3-set later)
Remove 2-set by looping through discarding any other tile (this creates a number of branches in the simulation)
If removed, return (same as earlier)
Use the number of left-over single tiles to calculate the shanten number
By the way, this is actually very similar to the approach I take when calculating the number myself, and obviously never to yields too high a number.
This works very well for almost all cases. However, I found that sometimes the earlier assumption ("removing already completed 3-sets is NEVER a bad idea") is wrong. Counter-example: 23566M 25667P 159S. The important part is the 25667. By removing a 567 3-set we end up with a left-over 6 tile, leading to 5-shanten. It would be better to use two of the single tiles to form 56x and 67x, leading to 4-shanten overall.
To fix, we simple have to remove the wrong optimization, leading to this code:
Remove completed 3-sets
Remove 2-set by looping through discarding any other tile
Use the number of left-over single tiles to calculate the shanten number
I believe this always accurately finds the smallest shanten number, but I don't know how to prove that. The time taken is in a "reasonable" range (on my machine 10 seconds max, usually 0 seconds).
The final point is calculating the shanten out of the number of left-over single tiles. First of all, it is obvious that the number is in the form 3*n+1 (because we started out with 14 tiles and always subtracted 3 tiles).
If there is 1 tile left, we're shanten already (we're just waiting for the final pair). With 4 tiles left, we have to discard 2 of them to form a 3-set, leaving us with a single tile again. This leads to 2 additional discards. With 7 tiles, we have 2 times 2 discards, adding 4. And so on.
This leads to the simple formula shanten_added = (number_of_singles - 1) * (2/3).
The described algorithm works well and passed all my tests, so I'm assuming it is correct. As stated, I can't prove it though.
Since the algorithm removes the most likely tiles combinations first, it kind of has a built-in optimization. Adding a simple check if (current_depth > best_shanten) then return; it does very well even for high shanten numbers.
My best guess would be an A* inspired approach. You need to find some heuristic which never overestimates the shanten number and use it to search the brute-force tree only in the regions where it is possible to get into a ready state quickly enough.
Correct algorithm sample: syanten.cpp
Recursive cut forms from hand in order: sets, pairs, incomplete forms, - and count it. In all variations. And result is minimal Shanten value of all variants:
Shanten = Min(Shanten, 8 - * 2 - - )
C# sample (rewrited from c++) can be found here (in Russian).
I've done a little bit of thinking and came up with a slightly different formula than mafu's. First of all, consider a hand (a very terrible hand):
1s 4s 6s 1m 5m 8m 9m 9m 7p 8p West East North
By using mafu's algorithm all we can do is cast out a pair (9m,9m). Then we are left with 11 singles. Now if we apply mafu's formula we get (11-1)*2/3 which is not an integer and therefore cannot be a shanten number. This is where I came up with this:
N = ( (S + 1) / 3 ) - 1
N stands for shanten number and S for score sum.
What is score? It's a number of tiles you need to make an incomplete set complete. For example, if you have (4,5) in your hand you need either 3 or 6 to make it a complete 3-set, that is, only one tile. So this incomplete pair gets score 1. Accordingly, (1,1) needs only 1 to become a 3-set. Any single tile obviously needs 2 tiles to become a 3-set and gets score 2. Any complete set of course get score 0. Note that we ignore the possibility of singles becoming pairs. Now if we try to find all of the incomplete sets in the above hand we get:
(4s,6s) (8m,9m) (7p,8p) 1s 1m 5m 9m West East North
Then we count the sum of its scores = 1*3+2*7 = 17.
Now if we apply this number to the formula above we get (17+1)/3 - 1 = 5 which means this hand is 5-shanten. It's somewhat more complicated than Alexey's and I don't have a proof but so far it seems to work for me. Note that such a hand could be parsed in the other way. For example:
(4s,6s) (9m,9m) (7p,8p) 1s 1m 5m 8m West East North
However, it still gets score sum 17 and 5-shanten according to formula. I also can't proof this and this is a little bit more complicated than Alexey's formula but also introduces scores that could be applied(?) to something else.
Take a look here: ShantenNumberCalculator. Calculate shanten really fast. And some related stuff (in japanese, but with code examples) http://cmj3.web.fc2.com
The essence of the algorithm: cut out all pairs, sets and unfinished forms in ALL possible ways, and thereby find the minimum value of the number of shanten.
The maximum value of the shanten for an ordinary hand: 8.
That is, as it were, we have the beginnings for 4 sets and one pair, but only one tile from each (total 13 - 5 = 8).
Accordingly, a pair will reduce the number of shantens by one, two (isolated from the rest) neighboring tiles (preset) will decrease the number of shantens by one,
a complete set (3 identical or 3 consecutive tiles) will reduce the number of shantens by 2, since two suitable tiles came to an isolated tile.
Shanten = 8 - Sets * 2 - Pairs - Presets
Determining whether your hand is already in tenpai sounds like a multi-knapsack problem. Greedy algorithms won't work - as Dialecticus pointed out, you'll need to consider the entire problem space.