so I've been working on a program in Python that finds the minimum weight triangulation of a convex polygon. This means that it finds the weight(The sum of all the triangle perimeters), as well as the list of chords(lines going through the polygon that break it up into triangles, not the boundaries).
I was under the impression that I'm using the dynamic programming algorithm, however when I tried using a somewhat more complex polygon it takes forever(I'm not sure how long it takes because I haven't gotten it to finish).
It works fine with a 10 sided polygon, however I'm trying 25 and that's what is making it stall. My teacher gave me the polygons so I assume that the 25 one is supposed to work as well.
Since this algorithm is supposed to be O(n^3), the 25 sided polygon should take roughly 15.625 times longer to calculate, however it's taking way longer seeing that the 10 sided seems instantaneous.
Am I doing some sort of n operation in there that I'm not realizing? I can't see anything I'm doing, except maybe the last part where I get rid of the duplicates by turning the list into a set, however in my program I put a trace after the decomp before the conversion happens, and it's not even reaching that point.
Here's my code, if you guys need anymore info just please ask. Something in there is making it take longer than O(n^3) and I need to find it so I can trim it out.
#!/usr/bin/python
import math
def cost(v):
ab = math.sqrt(((v[0][0] - v[1][0])**2) + ((v[0][1] - v[1][1])**2))
bc = math.sqrt(((v[1][0] - v[2][0])**2) + ((v[1][1] - v[2][1])**2))
ac = math.sqrt(((v[0][0] - v[2][0])**2) + ((v[0][1] - v[2][1])**2))
return ab + bc + ac
def triang_to_chord(t, n):
if t[1] == t[0] + 1:
# a and b
if t[2] == t[1] + 1:
# single
# b and c
return ((t[0], t[2]), )
elif t[2] == n-1 and t[0] == 0:
# single
# c and a
return ((t[1], t[2]), )
else:
# double
return ((t[0], t[2]), (t[1], t[2]))
elif t[2] == t[1] + 1:
# b and c
if t[0] == 0 and t[2] == n-1:
#single
# c and a
return ((t[0], t[1]), )
else:
#double
return ((t[0], t[1]), (t[0], t[2]))
elif t[0] == 0 and t[2] == n-1:
# c and a
# double
return ((t[0], t[1]), (t[1], t[2]))
else:
# triple
return ((t[0], t[1]), (t[1], t[2]), (t[0], t[2]))
file_name = raw_input("Enter the polygon file name: ").rstrip()
file_obj = open(file_name)
vertices_raw = file_obj.read().split()
file_obj.close()
vertices = []
for i in range(len(vertices_raw)):
if i % 2 == 0:
vertices.append((float(vertices_raw[i]), float(vertices_raw[i+1])))
n = len(vertices)
def decomp(i, j):
if j <= i: return (0, [])
elif j == i+1: return (0, [])
cheap_chord = [float("infinity"), []]
old_cost = cheap_chord[0]
smallest_k = None
for k in range(i+1, j):
old_cost = cheap_chord[0]
itok = decomp(i, k)
ktoj = decomp(k, j)
cheap_chord[0] = min(cheap_chord[0], cost((vertices[i], vertices[j], vertices[k])) + itok[0] + ktoj[0])
if cheap_chord[0] < old_cost:
smallest_k = k
cheap_chord[1] = itok[1] + ktoj[1]
temp_chords = triang_to_chord(sorted((i, j, smallest_k)), n)
for c in temp_chords:
cheap_chord[1].append(c)
return cheap_chord
results = decomp(0, len(vertices) - 1)
chords = set(results[1])
print "Minimum sum of triangle perimeters = ", results[0]
print len(chords), "chords are:"
for c in chords:
print " ", c[0], " ", c[1]
I'll add the polygons I'm using, again the first one is solved right away, while the second one has been running for about 10 minutes so far.
FIRST ONE:
202.1177 93.5606
177.3577 159.5286
138.2164 194.8717
73.9028 189.3758
17.8465 165.4303
2.4919 92.5714
21.9581 45.3453
72.9884 3.1700
133.3893 -0.3667
184.0190 38.2951
SECOND ONE:
397.2494 204.0564
399.0927 245.7974
375.8121 295.3134
340.3170 338.5171
313.5651 369.6730
260.6411 384.6494
208.5188 398.7632
163.0483 394.1319
119.2140 387.0723
76.2607 352.6056
39.8635 319.8147
8.0842 273.5640
-1.4554 226.3238
8.6748 173.7644
20.8444 124.1080
34.3564 87.0327
72.7005 46.8978
117.8008 12.5129
162.9027 5.9481
210.7204 2.7835
266.0091 10.9997
309.2761 27.5857
351.2311 61.9199
377.3673 108.9847
390.0396 148.6748
It looks like you have an issue with the inefficient recurision here.
...
def decomp(i, j):
...
for k in range(i+1, j):
...
itok = decomp(i, k)
ktoj = decomp(k, j)
...
...
You've ran into the same kind of issue as a naive recursive implementation of the Fibonacci Numbers, but the way this algorithm works, it'll probably be much worst on the run time. Assuming that is the only issue with you're algorithm, then you just need to use memorization to ensure that the decomp is only calculated once for each unique input.
The way to spot this issue is to print out the values of i, j and k as the triple (i,j,k). In order to obtain a runtime of O(N^3), you shouldn't see the same exact triple twice. However, the triple (22, 24, 23), appears at least twice (in the 25), and is the first such duplicate. That shows the algorithm is calculating the same thing multiple times, which is inefficient, and is bumping up the performance well past O(N^3). I'll leave figuring out what the algorithms actual performance is to you as an exercise. Assuming there isn't something else wrong with the algorithm the algorithm should eventually stop.
Related
My code is as follows:
gekko = GEKKO(remote=True)
# create variable, each variable is a vector, each element
# of the vector is a binary
s = []
for i in range(N):
s.append(gekko.Array(gekko.Var, s_len[i], value=0, lb=0, ub=1, integer=True))
# some constants used in the objective/constraint function
c, d, r, m, L = create_c_d_r_m_L() # they are all numpy ndarry
# define the objective function
def objective():
obj = 0
for i in range(N):
obj += np.dot(s[i], c[i]) + np.dot(s[i], d[i])
for idx, (i, j) in enumerate(E):
obj += np.dot(np.dot(s[i], r[idx].reshape(s_len[i], s_len[j])),\
s[j]) # s[i] * r[i, j] * s[j]
return obj
# add constraints
# (a) each vector can only have and must have one 1
for i in range(N):
gekko.Equation(gekko.sum(s[i]) == 1)
# (b)
for t in range(N):
peak_mem = gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
gekko.Equation(peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM)
# DEVICE_MEM is a predefined big int
# solve
gekko.Obj(objective())
gekko.solve(disp=True)
I found that when removing constraint (b), the solver can output the optimal solution for s. However, if we add (b) and set DEVICE_MEM to a very large number (which should not affect the solution), the s is not optimal anymore. I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong here because I tried both APOPT(solvertype=1) and IPOPT (solvertype=3) and they give the same nonoptimal results.
To give more context to the problem: this is an optimization over the graph. N represents the number of nodes in the graph. E is the set that contains all edges in the graph. c, d, m are three types of cost of a node. r is the cost of edges. Each node has multiple strategies (represented by the vector s[i]), and we need to select the best strategy for each node so that the overall cost is minimal.
Detailed constants:
# s_len: record the length of each vector
# (the # of strategies for each node,
# here we assume the length are all 10)
s_len = np.ones(N) * 10
# c, d, m are the costs of each node
# let's assume the c/d/m cost for i node is just i
c, d, m = [], [], []
for i in range(N):
c[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
d[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
m[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
# r is the edge cost, let's assume the cost for
# each edge is just i * j
r = []
for (i,j) in E: # E records all edges
cur_r = s_len[i] * s_len[j] * [i*j]
r.append(cur_r)
# L contains the node ids, we just randomly generate 10 integers here
L = []
for i in range(N):
cur_L = [randrange(N) for _ in range(10)]
L.append(cur_L)
I've been stuck on this for a while and any comments/answers are highly appreciated! Thanks!
Try reframing the inequality constraint:
for t in range(N):
peak_mem = gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
gekko.Equation(peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM)
as a variable with an upper bound:
peak_mem = m.Array(m.Var,N,ub=DEVICE_MEM)
for t in range(N):
m.Equation(peak_mem[t]==\
gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
The N inequality constraints peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM are converted to equality constraints with slack variables as s[i] = DEVICE_MEM - peak_mem with a simple inequality constraint on the slack s[i]>=0. If the inequality constraint far from the bound, then the slack variable can be very large. Formulating the equation as a variable may help.
I tried using the information in the question to pose a minimal problem that could reproduce the error and the potential solution. If you need more specific suggestions, please modify the code to be a complete and minimal example that reproduces the error. This helps with verifying the solution.
I am new to Linear Algebra and learning about triangular systems implemented in Julia lang. I have a col_bs() function I will show here that I need to do a mathematical flop count of. It doesn't have to be super technical this is for learning purposes. I tried to break the function down into it's inner i loop and outer j loop. In between is a count of each FLOP , which I assume is useless since the constants are usually dropped anyway.
I also know the answer should be N^2 since its a reversed version of the forward substitution algorithm which is N^2 flops. I tried my best to derive this N^2 count but when I tried I ended up with a weird Nj count. I will try to provide all work I have done! Thank you to anyone who helps.
function col_bs(U, b)
n = length(b)
x = copy(b)
for j = n:-1:2
if U[j,j] == 0
error("Error: Matrix U is singular.")
end
x[j] = x[j]/U[j,j]
for i=1:j-1
x[i] = x[i] - x[j] * U[i , j ]
end
end
x[1] = x[1]/U[1,1]
return x
end
1: To start 2 flops for the addition and multiplication x[i] - x[j] * U[i , j ]
The $i$ loop does: $$ \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2$$
2: 1 flop for the division $$ x[j] / = U[j,j] $$
3: Inside the for $j$ loop in total does: $$ 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2$$
4:The $j$ loop itself does:$$\sum_{j=2}^n ( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2)) $$
5: Then one final flop for $$ x[1] = x[1]/U[1,1].$$
6: Finally we have
$$\\ 1 + (\sum_{j=2}^n ( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2))) .$$
Which we can now break down.
If we distribute and simplify
$$\\ 1 + (\sum_{j=2}^n + \sum_{j=2}^n \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2) .$$
We can look at only the significant variables and ignore constants,
$$\\
\\ 1 + (n + n(j-1))
\\ n + nj - n
\\ nj
$$
Which then means that if we ignore constants the highest possibility of flops for this formula would be $n$ ( which may be a hint to whats wrong with my function since it should be $n^2$ just like the rest of our triangular systems I believe)
Reduce your code to this form:
for j = n:-1:2
...
for i = 1:j-1
... do k FLOPs
end
end
The inner loop takes k*(j-1) flops. The cost of the outer loop is thus
Since you know that j <= n, you know that this sum is less than (n-1)^2 which is enough for big O.
In fact, however, you should also be able to figure out that
Problem: There are R red marbles, G green marbles and B blue marbles (R≤G≤B) Count the number of ways to arrange them in a straight line so that the two marbles next to each other are of different colors.
For example, R=G=B=2, the answer is 30.
I have tried using recursion and of course TLE:
Define r(R,B,G) to be the number of ways of arranging them where the first marble is red. Define b(R,B,G),g(R,B,G) respectively.
Then r(R, B, G) = b(R-1,B,G) + g(R-1,B,G)
And the answer is r(R,B,G) + b(R,B,G) + g(R,B,G)
But we can see that r(R, B, G) = b(B, R, G) ...
So, we just need a function f(x,y,z)=f(y,x−1,z)+f(z,x−1,y)
And the answer is f(x,y,z) + f(y,z,x) + f(z,x,y).
The time limit is 2 seconds.
I don't think dynamic is not TLE because R, G, B <= 2e5
Some things to limit the recursion:
If R>G+B+1, then there is no way to avoid having 2 adjacent reds. (Similar argument for G>R+B+1 & B>R+G+1.)
If R=G+B+1, then you alternate reds with non-reds, and your problem is reduced to how many ways you can arrange G greens and B blacks w/o worrying about adjacency (and should thus have a closed-form solution). (Again, similar argument for G=R+B+1 and B=R+G+1.)
You can use symmetry to cut down the number of recursions.
For example, if (R, G, B) = (30, 20, 10) and the last marble was red, the number of permutations from this position is exactly the same as if the last marble was blue and (R, G, B) = (10, 20, 30).
Given that R ≤ G ≤ B is set as a starting condition, I would suggest keeping this relationship true by swapping the three values when necessary.
Here's some Python code I came up with:
memo = {}
def marble_seq(r, g, b, last):
# last = colour of last marble placed (-1:nothing, 0:red, 1:green, 2:blue)
if r == g == b == 0:
# All the marbles have been placed, so we found a solution
return 1
# Enforce r <= g <= b
if r > g:
r, g = g, r
last = (0x201 >> last * 4) & 0x0f # [1, 0, 2][last]
if r > b:
r, b = b, r
last = (0x012 >> last * 4) & 0x0f # [2, 1, 0][last]
if g > b:
g, b = b, g
last = (0x120 >> last * 4) & 0x0f # [0, 2, 1][last]
# Abort if there are too many marbles of one colour
if b>r+g+1:
return 0
# Fetch value from memo if available
if (r,g,b,last) in memo:
return memo[(r,g,b,last)]
# Otherwise check remaining permutations by recursion
result = 0
if last != 0 and r > 0:
result += marble_seq(r-1,g,b,0)
if last != 1 and g > 0:
result += marble_seq(r,g-1,b,1)
if last != 2 and b > 0:
result += marble_seq(r,g,b-1,2)
memo[(r,g,b,last)] = result
return result
marble_seq(50,60,70,-1) # Call with `last` set to -1 initially
(Result: 205435997562313431685415150793926465693838980981664)
This probably still won't work fast enough for values up to 2×105, but even with values in the hundreds, the results are quite enormous. Are you sure you stated the problem correctly? Perhaps you're supposed to give the results modulo some prime number?
Problem Statement: The Fibonacci word sequence of bit strings is defined as:
F(0) = 0, F(1) = 1
F(n − 1) + F(n − 2) if n ≥ 2
For example : F(2) = F(1) + F(0) = 10, F(3) = F(2) + F(1) = 101, etc.
Given a bit pattern p and a number n, how often does p occur in F(n)?
Input:
The first line of each test case contains the integer n (0 ≤ n ≤ 100). The second line contains the bit
pattern p. The pattern p is nonempty and has a length of at most 100 000 characters.
Output:
For each test case, display its case number followed by the number of occurrences of the bit pattern p in
F(n). Occurrences may overlap. The number of occurrences will be less than 2^63.
Sample input: 6 10 Sample output: Case 1: 5
I implemented a divide and conquer algorithm to solve this problem, based on the hints that I found on the internet: We can think of the process of going from F(n-1) to F(n) as a string replacement rule: every '1' becomes '10' and '0' becomes '1'. Here is my code:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#define LL long long int
LL count = 0;
string F[40];
void find(LL n, char ch1,char ch2 ){//Find occurences of eiher "11" / "01" / "10" in F[n]
LL n1 = F[n].length();
for (int i = 0;i+1 <n1;++i){
if (F[n].at(i)==ch1&&F[n].at(i+1)==ch2) ++ count;
}
}
void find(char ch, LL n){
LL n1 = F[n].length();
for (int i = 0;i<n1;++i){
if (F[n].at(i)==ch) ++count;
}
}
void solve(string p, LL n){//Recursion
// cout << p << endl;
LL n1 = p.length();
if (n<=1&&n1>=2) return;//return if string pattern p's size is larger than F(n)
//When p's size is reduced to 2 or 1, it's small enough now that we can search for p directly in F(n)
if (n1<=2){
if (n1 == 2){
if (p=="00") return;//Return since there can't be two subsequent '0' in F(n) for any n
else find(n,p.at(0),p.at(1));
return;
}
if (n1 == 1){
if (p=="1") find('1',n);
else find('0',n);
return;
}
}
string p1, p2;//if the last character in p is 1, we can replace it with either '1' or '0'
//p1 stores the substring ending in '1' and p2 stores the substring ending in '0'
for (LL i = 0;i<n1;++i){//We replace every "10" with 1, "1" with 0.
if (p[i]=='1'){
if (p[i+1]=='0'&&(i+1)!= n1){
if (p[i+2]=='0'&&(i+2)!= n1) return;//Return if there are two subsequent '0'
p1.append("1");//Replace "10" with "1"
++i;
}
else {
p1.append("0");//Replace "1" with "0"
}
}
else {
if (p[i+1]=='0'&&(i+1)!= n1){//Return if there are two subsequent '0'
return;
}
p1.append("1");
}
}
solve(p1,n-1);
if (p[n1-1]=='1'){
p2 = p1;
p2.back() = '1';
solve(p2,n-1);
}
}
main(){
F[0] = "0";F[1] = "1";
for (int i = 2;i<38;++i){
F[i].append(F[i-1]);
F[i].append(F[i-2]);
}//precalculate F(0) to F(37)
LL t = 0;//NumofTestcases
int n; string p;
while (cin >> n >> p) {
count = 0;
solve(p,n);
cout << "Case " << ++t << ": " << count << endl;
}
}
The above program works fine, but with small inputs only. When i submitted the above program to codeforces i got an answer wrong because although i shortened the pattern string p and reduces n to n', the size of F[n'] is still very large (n'>=50). How can i modify my code to make it works in this case, or is there another approach (such as dynamic programming?). Many thanks for any advice.
More details about the problem can be found here: https://codeforces.com/group/Ir5CI6f3FD/contest/273369/problem/B
I don't have time now to try to code this up myself, but I have a suggested approach.
First, I should note, that while that hint you used is certainly accurate, I don't see any straightforward way to solve the problem. Perhaps the correct follow-up to that would be simpler than what I'm suggesting.
My approach:
Find the first two ns such that length(F(n)) >= length(pattern). Calculating these is a simple recursion. The important insight is that every subsequent value will start with one of these two values, and will also end with one of them. (This is true for all adjacent values -- for any m > n, F(m) will begin either with F(n) or with F(n - 1). It's not hard to see why.)
Calculate and cache the number of occurrences of the pattern in this these two Fs, but whatever index shifting technique makes sense.
For F(n+1) (and all subsequent values) calculate by adding together
The count for F(n)
The count for F(n - 1)
The count for those spanning both F(n) and F(n - 1). We can achieve that by testing every breakdown of pattern into (nonempty) prefix and suffix values (i.e., splitting at every internal index) and counting those where F(n) ends in prefix and F(n - 1) starts with suffix. But we don't have to have all of F(n) and F(n - 1) to do this. We just need the tail of F(n) and the head of F(n - 1) of the length of the pattern. So we don't need to calculate all of F(n). We just need to know which of those two initial values our current one ends with. But the start is always the predecessor, and the end oscillates between the previous two. It should be easy to keep track.
The time complexity then should be proportional to the product of n and the length of the pattern.
If I find time tomorrow, I'll see if I can code this up. But it won't be in C -- those years were short and long gone.
Collecting the list of prefix/suffix pairs can be done once ahead of time
I have a graph where each node has coordinates in 2D (it's actually a geographic graph, with latitude and longitude.)
I need to verify that if the distance between two edges is less than MAX_DIST then they share a node. Of course, if they intersect, then the distance between them is zero.
The brute force algorithm is trivial, is there a more efficient algorithm?
I was thinking of trying to adapt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closest_pair_of_points_problem to graph edges (and ignoring pairs of edges with a shared node), but it is not trivial to do so.
I was curios to see how the rtree index idea would perform so I created a small script to test it using two really cool libraries for Python: Rtree and shapely
The snippet generates 1000 segments with 1 < length < 5 and coordinates in the [0, 100] interval, populates the index and then counts the pairs that are closer than MAX_DIST==0.1 (using the classic and the index-based method).
In my tests the index method was around 25x faster using the conditions above; this might vary greatly for your data set but the result is encouraging:
found 532 pairs of close segments using classic method
7.47 seconds for classic count
found 532 pairs of close segments using index method
0.28 seconds for index count
The performance and correctness of the index method depends on how your segments are distributed (how many are close, if you have very long segments, the parameters used).
import time
import random
from rtree import Rtree
from shapely.geometry import LineString
def generate_segments(number):
segments = {}
for i in range(number):
while True:
x1 = random.randint(0, 100)
y1 = random.randint(0, 100)
x2 = random.randint(0, 100)
y2 = random.randint(0, 100)
segment = LineString([(x1, y1), (x2, y2)])
if 1 < segment.length < 5: # only add relatively small segments
segments[i] = segment
break
return segments
def populate_index(segments):
idx = Rtree()
for index, segment in segments.items():
idx.add(index, segment.bounds)
return idx
def count_close_segments(segments, max_distance):
count = 0
for i in range(len(segments)-1):
s1 = segments[i]
for j in range(i+1, len(segments)):
s2 = segments[j]
if s1.distance(s2) < max_distance:
count += 1
return count
def count_close_segments_index(segments, idx, max_distance):
count = 0
for index, segment in segments.items():
close_indexes = idx.nearest(segment.bounds, 10)
for close_index in close_indexes:
if index >= close_index: # do not count duplicates
continue
close_segment = segments[close_index]
if segment.distance(close_segment) < max_distance:
count += 1
return count
if __name__ == "__main__":
MAX_DIST = 0.1
s = generate_segments(1000)
r_idx = populate_index(s)
t = time.time()
print("found %d pairs of close segments using classic method" % count_close_segments(s, MAX_DIST))
print("%.2f seconds for classic count" % (time.time() - t))
t = time.time()
print("found %d pairs of close segments using index method" % count_close_segments_index(s, r_idx, MAX_DIST))
print("%.2f seconds for index count" % (time.time() - t))