Poisson cumulative distribution in GAMS - gams-math

Can anyone help me with this? I defined a Parameter N and then defined the chance of N being less than M(a variable), but it's not working, could you please take a look at this?
*Number of emergency patients arriving at time period t on day d
Parameter N(t,d);
file emp / '%emp.info%' /;put emp '* problem %gams.i%'/;
$onput
randvar N(t,d) poisson Ltotal
chance (N(t,d)<=M(t,d)) Re(t,d)
$offput

Related

Product of binary and integer constraint - Linear Programming

I am trying to formulate a linear program that will assign different number of employees to start in different days. Each group of employees starting on a day will get two days off during the week. However, the schedule is unknown. For example, employees starting Monday can be off any two days in the week. Since the number that will start on day (i) is unknown and whether they will have a day off or not is unknown, I will have the product of two decision variables - one is an integer xi (employees starting on day i) and a binary variable yij (whether the employees starting on day i have a day off on day j).
I am done with formulation and here it is:
Decision variables 1: xi (employees starting on day i)
Decision variables 2: yij (1 if employees starting on day i are working on day j, or 0 if employees starting on day i are off on day j)
Objective function:
Minimize total employees-- sum (i in 1..7) xi
Subject to:
xi*yij >= Requiredj (the number of available workers on day j have to satisfy the demand on day j)
I am trying to code this on CPLEX but i dont know how to make xi*yij linear and write the code....can anyone please help me?
Thank you.
In How to with OPL How to multiply a decision variable by a boolean decision variable in CPLEX ?
// suppose we want b * x <= 7
dvar int x in 2..10;
dvar boolean b;
dvar int bx;
maximize x;
subject to
{
// Linearization
bx<=7;
2*b<=bx;
bx<=10*b;
bx<=x-2*(1-b);
bx>=x-10*(1-b);
// if we use CP we could write directly
// b*x<=7
// or rely on logical constraints within CPLEX
// (b==1) => (bx==x);
// (b==0) => (bx==0);
}

Is this O(N) algorithm actually O(logN)?

I have an integer, N.
I denote f[i] = number of appearances of the digit i in N.
Now, I have the following algorithm.
FOR i = 0 TO 9
FOR j = 1 TO f[i]
k = k*10 + i;
My teacher said this is O(N). It seems to me more like a O(logN) algorithm.
Am I missing something?
I think that you and your teacher are saying the same thing but it gets confused because the integer you are using is named N but it is also common to refer to an algorithm that is linear in the size of its input as O(N). N is getting overloaded as the specific name and the generic figure of speech.
Suppose we say instead that your number is Z and its digits are counted in the array d and then their frequencies are in f. For example, we could have:
Z = 12321
d = [1,2,3,2,1]
f = [0,2,2,1,0,0,0,0,0,0]
Then the cost of going through all the digits in d and computing the count for each will be O( size(d) ) = O( log (Z) ). This is basically what your second loop is doing in reverse, it's executing one time for each occurence of each digits. So you are right that there is something logarithmic going on here -- the number of digits of Z is logarithmic in the size of Z. But your teacher is also right that there is something linear going on here -- counting those digits is linear in the number of digits.
The time complexity of an algorithm is generally measured as a function of the input size. Your algorithm doesn't take N as an input; the input seems to be the array f. There is another variable named k which your code doesn't declare, but I assume that's an oversight and you meant to initialise e.g. k = 0 before the first loop, so that k is not an input to the algorithm.
The outer loop runs 10 times, and the inner loop runs f[i] times for each i. Therefore the total number of iterations of the inner loop equals the sum of the numbers in the array f. So the complexity could be written as O(sum(f)) or O(Σf) where Σ is the mathematical symbol for summation.
Since you defined that N is an integer which f counts the digits of, it is in fact possible to prove that O(Σf) is the same thing as O(log N), so long as N must be a positive integer. This is because Σf equals how many digits the number N has, which is approximately (log N) / (log 10). So by your definition of N, you are correct.
My guess is that your teacher disagrees with you because they think N means something else. If your teacher defines N = Σf then the complexity would be O(N). Or perhaps your teacher made a genuine mistake; that is not impossible. But the first thing to do is make sure you agree on the meaning of N.
I find your explanation a bit confusing, but lets assume N = 9075936782959 is an integer. Then O(N) doesn't really make sense. O(length of N) makes more sense. I'll use n for the length of N.
Then f(i) = iterate over each number in N and sum to find how many times i is in N, that makes O(f(i)) = n (it's linear). I'm assuming f(i) is a function, not an array.
Your algorithm loops at most:
10 times (first loop)
0 to n times, but the total is n (the sum of f(i) for all digits must be n)
It's tempting to say that algorithm is then O(algo) = 10 + n*f(i) = n^2 (removing the constant), but f(i) is only calculated 10 times, each time the second loops is entered, so O(algo) = 10 + n + 10*f(i) = 10 + 11n = n. If f(i) is an array, it's constant time.
I'm sure I didn't see the problem the same way as you. I'm still a little confused about the definition in your question. How did you come up with log(n)?

why is branching factor(a) is not equal to size(b)?

Isn't it suppose to be same? because we are dividing n units in to n/b which is having b branches in order to keep total n. i know i am misunderstanding this can any give me insight why my thinking is wrong?

Reducing partition prob to decision prob

We have the related and well known problems:
1) PARTITION (decision problem):
Given a set S of n natural numbers. Is it possible to find a subset T of S such that the sum of the numbers of T is equal to the sum of the numbers of T\S?
2) PARTITION (general problem):
Given a set S of n natural numbers. Assuming the answer of the decision problem 1) to this set is 'yes' then find such a subset.
Simple question: How can we solve 2) in polynomial time if we have an algorithm that solves 1) in polynomial time?
Solution: Suppose we want to partition a set S of n natural numbers with the sum equal to a number b and we have a blackbox algorithm that solves the decision problem in polynomial time.
1: If the answer of the partition problem of S is no, then return.
2: Pick an element x of S.
3: If x is equal to b/2 return S\x (partition found).
4. Merge x with another element y of S (set x=x+y and set S=S\y) which is not processed yet.
5: Solve the decision problem for S.
6: If the answer is no then revert step 4, mark y as processed.
7: Go back to step 3.
Each time we repeat step 2 we have to solve a decision problem in polynomial time. Since we only have to repeat step 2 at most n-1 times, the overall time complexity is also polynomial.

How to calculate the time complexity?

Assume that function f is in the complexity class O(N (log N)2), and that for N = 1,000 the program runs in 8 seconds.
How to write a formula T(N) that can compute the approximate time that it takes to run f for any input of size N???
Here is the answer:
8 = c (1000 x 10)
c = 8x10^-4
T(N) = 8x10-4* (N log2 N)
I don't understand the first line where does the 10 come from?
Can anybody explain the answer to me please? Thanks!
I don't understand the first line where does the 10 come from? Can
anybody explain the answer to me please? Thanks!
T(N) is the maximum time complexity. c is the constant or O(1) time, which is the portion of the algorithm's speed which is not affected by the size of the input. The 10 comes from rounding to simplify the math. It's actually 9.965784, which is log2 of 1000, e.g.
N x log2 N is
1000 x 10 or
1000 x 9.965784
O(N (log N)^2) describes how the runtime scales with N, but it's not a formula for calculating runtime in seconds. In fact, Big-O notation doesn't generally give the exact scaling function itself, but an upper bound on it as N becomes large. See here (there's a nice picture showing this last point).
If you're interested in a function's runtime in practice (particularly in the non-asymptotic regime, i.e. small N), one option is to actually run the function and measure it. Do this for multiple values of N, chosen on some grid (possibly with nonlinear spacing). Then, you can interpolate between these points.
Define S(N)=N(log N)^2
If you can assume that S(N) bounds your program for all N >= 1000
Then you can bound your execution time by good'ol rule of three:
S(1000) - T(1000)
S(N) - T(N)
T(N) <= S(N)* T(1000)/S(1000) for all N >=1000
S(1000) approx 10E4
T(1000) = 8
T(N) <= N(log N)^2 * 8 / 10E4