A lumber company ships pine flooring from its three mills, A 1 ,
A 2 and A 3 , to three building suppliers, B 1 , B 2 and B 3 . The
table below shows the demand, availabilities and unit costs of
transportation. Starting with the north-west corner solution
and using the stepping-stone method, determine the
transportation pattern that minimises the total cost.
The distribution matrix with nothes-west corner method give the following matrix :
{ [25,0,0] , [5,30,5] , [0,0,31] }
then i compute the improvements indices for unused cells , and check for optimal. it's not optimal sol cell (3,1) is negative 1 .
I cannot apply stepping stone method on this distribution matrix because the second row has three consecutive basic cell . What is the optimal solution ?
The Optimal distribution Matrix is { [0,0,25],[0,30,10],[30,0,1] }.
The Optimal cost = 25*(2)+30*(2)+10*(3)+30*(3)+1*(3) = 233
the answer obtained after three iterations.
Related
I have a dataset with parallel time series. The column 'A' depends on columns 'B' and 'C'. The order (and the number) of dependent columns can change. For example:
A B C
2022-07-23 1 10 100
2022-07-24 2 20 200
2022-07-25 3 30 300
How should I transform this data, or how should I build the model so the order of columns 'B' and 'C' ('A', 'B', 'C' vs 'A', C', 'B'`) doesn't change the result? I know about GCN, but I don't know how to implement it. Maybe there are other ways to achieve it.
UPDATE:
I want to generalize my question and make one more example. Let's say we have a matrix as a singe observation (no time series data):
col1 col2 target
0 1 a 20
1 2 a 30
2 3 b 30
3 4 b 40
I would like to predict one value 'target' per each row/instance. Each instance depends on other instances. The order of rows is irrelevant, and the number of rows in each observation can change.
You are looking for a permutation invariant operation on the columns.
One way of achieving this would be to apply column-wise operation, followed by a global pooling operation.
How that achieves your goal:
column-wise operations are permutation equivariant; that is, applying the operation on the columns and permuting the output, is the same as permuting the columns and then applying the operation.
A global pooling operation (e.g., max-pool, avg-pool) across the columns is permutation invariant: the result of an average pool does not depend on the order of the columns.
Applying a permutation invariant operation on top of a permutation equivariant one results in an overall permutation invariant function.
Additionally, you should look at self-attention layers, which are also permutation equivariant.
What I would try is:
Learn a representation (RNN/Transformer) for a single time series. Apply this representation to A, B and C.
Learn a transformer between the representation of A to those of B and C: that is, use the representation of A as "query" and those of B and C as "keys" and "values".
This will give you a representation of A that is permutation invariant in B and C.
Update (Aug 3rd, 2022):
For the case of "observations" with varying number of rows, and fixed number of columns:
I think you can treat each row as a "token" (with a fixed dimension = number of columns), and apply a Transformer encoder to predict the target for each "token", from the encoded tokens.
PS: I am a student of Data Science, I was wondering the impact of correlation on categorical data.
Let say I have 2 features such as Ticket Class with 1,2,3 (class 3 is lower than class 1) as a category and Seat Numbers as A,B,C,D,E,F & N (where N represents missing data) another category.
It looks like this :
Tclass Seat
1 A
2 C
3 E
2 D
3 N
1 A
1 N
Steps I perform is :
I one hot encode the seat no
Then I check the correlation of resultant data frame by using df.corr()
The result of Correlation is :
Tclass 1.000000
Seat_N 0.713857
Seat_F 0.013122
Seat_C -0.042750
Seat_A -0.202143
Seat_E -0.225649
Seat_D -0.265341
Seat_B -0.353414
My questions are :
In this case the conclusion drawn is that missing data (N) is highly correlated to lower class. WHY was this conclusion made from the correlation data?
Conclusion made was Seat_B related to higher class while seat_N related to lower class tickets.
Is this the answer : Since, Seat_N have a +ve correlation it should mean it yields higher value of Tclass, which is numeric value of 3. In other terms Lower class
If we correlate categorical data, how can we get -ve results? (can someone share some reading material on this?)
How to interpret the result of correlation of one categorical data on another categorical data? (this question leads on question 2)
Would it be possible for me to perform correlation if the Tclass was non-numerical/label encoded ?
Reference : https://www.kaggle.com/ccastleberry/titanic-cabin-features/comments
I have some activities with weights, and I would like to select non overlapping activities by maximizing the total weight. This is known problem and solution exists.
In my case, I am allowed to shift the start time of activities in some extend while duration remains same. This will give me some flexibility and I might increase my utilization.
Example scenario is something like the following where all activities are supposed to be in interval (0-200):
(start, end, profit)
a1: 10 12 120
a2: 10 13 100
a3: 14 18 150
a4: 14 20 100
a5: 120 125 100
a6: 120 140 150
a7: 126 130 100
Without shifting flexibility, I would choose (a1, a3, a6) and that is it. On the other hand I have shifting flexibility to the left/right by at most t units for any task where t is given. In that case I might come up with this schedule and all tasks can be selected except a7 since conflict cannot be avoided by shift .
t: 5
a1: 8 10 120 (shifted -2 to left)
a2: 10 13 100
a3: 14 18 150
a4: 18 24 100 (shifted +4 to right)
a5: 115 120 100 (shifted -5 to left)
a6: 120 140 150
In my problem, total time I have is very big with respect to activity duration. While activities are like 10sec on average, total time I have would even be 10000sec. However that does not mean all of activities can be selected since shifting flexibility would not be enough for some activities to non-overlap.
Also in my problem, there are clusters of activities which overlaps and very big empty space where no activities and there comes another cluster of overlapping activities i.e a1, a2, a3 and a4 are let say cluster1 and a5, a6 and a7 is cluster2. Each cluster can be expanded in time by shifting some of them to left and right. By doing that, I can select more activities than the original activity selection problem. However, I do not know how to decide which tasks to be shifted to left or right.
My expectation is to find an near-optimal solution where total profit would be somehow local optima. I do not need global optimum value. Also I do not have any criteria about cluster utilization., i.e I do not have a guarantee about a minimum number of activity per cluster etc. Actually, these clusters something I visually describe. There is not defined cluster. However, in time domain, activities are separated as clusters somehow.
Also activity start and end times are all integers since I can dismiss fractions. I would have around 50 activities whose duration would be 10 on average. And time window is like 10000.
Are there any feasible solution to this problem?
You mentioned that you can partition the activities into clusters that don't overlap even if activities within them are shifted to the extent. Each of these clusters can be considered independently, and the optimal results computed for each cluster simply summed up for the final answer. So the first step of the algorithm could be a trial run that extends all activities in both directions, finds which ones form clusters, and process each cluster independently. In the worst case, all of the activities might form a single cluster.
Depending on the maximum size of the remaining clusters, there are several approaches. If it's under 20 (or even 30, depending on whether you want your program to run in seconds or minutes), you could combine search over all subsets of activities in the given cluster with a greedy approach. In other words: if you are processing a subset of N elements, try every one of its 2^N possible subsets (okay, 2^N-1 if we forget the empty subset), check whether the activities in this specific subset can be scheduled in non-overlapping manner, and pick the subset that is eligible and has maximum sum.
How do we check that a given subset of activities can be scheduled in non-overlapping manner? Let's sort them in ascending order of their end and process them from left to right. For every activity, we try to schedule it as early as possible, making sure it does no intersect with activities we already considered. So, the first activity in the cluster is always started time t earlier than originally planned, the second one is started either when the first one ends, or t earlier than originally planned, whichever is larger, and so on. If at any point we can't schedule the next activity in a way that it does not overlap with previous one, then there is no way to schedule the activities in this subset in a non-overlapping manner. This algorithm takes O(NlogN) time, and overall each cluster is processed in O(2^N * NlogN). Once again, note that this function grows very quickly, so if you are dealing with large enough clusters, this approach goes out the window.
===
Another approach is specific to the additional restrictions you provided. If the activities' starts and ends and parameter t are all measured in integer number of seconds, and t is about 2 minutes, then the problem for each cluster is set in a small discrete space. Even though you could position a task to start at a non-integer second value, there always is an optimal solution that uses only integers. (To prove it, consider an optimal solution that does not use integers - since t is integer, you can always shift tasks, starting from the leftmost, to the left a bit so that it starts at an integer value.)
Knowing that the start and end times are discrete, you can build a DP solution: process the activities in the ascending order of their end*, and memoize the maximum possible sum of weights you can obtain from the first 1, 2, ..., N activities for each x from activity_start - t to activity_start + t if a given activity ends at time x. If we denote this memoized function as f[activity][end_time], then the recurrence relation is f[a][e] = weight[a] + max(f[i][j] over all i < a, j <= e - (end[a] - start[a]), which roughly translates to "if activity a ended at time e, the previous activity must have ended at or before start of a - so let's pick the maximum total weight over previous activities and their ends, and add the current activity's weight".
*Again, we can prove that there is at least one optimal answer where this ordering is preserved, even though there might be other optimal answers which do not possess this property
We could go further and eliminate the iteration over previous activities, instead encoding this information in f. Its definition would then change to "f[a][e] is the maximum possible total weight of the first a activities if none of them ends after e", and recurrence relation would become f[a][e] = max(f[a-1][e], weight[a] + max(f[a-1][i] over i <= e - (end[a] - start[a])])), and its computational complexity would be O(X * N), where X is the total span of the discrete space where task starts/ends are placed.
I assume you need to compute not just the maximum possible weight, but also the activities you need to select to obtain it, and possibly even the exact time each of them needs to be started. Thankfully, we can derive all of this from the values of f, or compute it at the same time as we compute f. The latter is easier to reason about, so let's introduce a second function g[activity][end]. g[activity][end] returns a pair (last_activity, last_activity_end), essentially pointing us to the exact activity and its timing that the optimal weight in f[activity][end] uses.
Let's go through the example you provided to illustrate how this works:
(start, end, profit)
a1: 10 12 120
a2: 10 13 100
a3: 14 18 150
a4: 14 20 100
a5: 120 125 100
a6: 120 140 150
a7: 126 130 100
We order the activities by their end time, thereby swapping a7 and a6.
We initialize the values of f and g for the first activity:
f[1][7] = 120, f[1][8] = 120, ..., f[1][17] = 120, meaning that the first activity could end anywhere from 7 to 17, and costs 120. f[1][i] for all other i should be set to 0.
g[1][7] = (1, 7), g[1][8] = (1, 8), ..., g[1][17] = (1, 17), meaning that the last activity that was included in f[1][i] values was a1, and it ended at i. g[1][i] for all i outside [7, 17] is undefined/irrelevant.
That's where something interesting begins. For each i such that a2 cannot end at time i, let's assign f[2][i] = f[1][i], g[2][i] = g[1][i], which essentially means that we wouldn't be using activity a2 in those answers. For all other i, namely, in [8..18] interval, we have:
f[2][8] = max(f[1][8], 100 + max(f[1][0..5])) = f[1][8]
f[2][9] = max(f[1][9], 100 + max(f[1][0..6])) = f[1][9]
f[2][10] = max(f[1][10], 100 + max(f[1][0..7])). This is the first time when the second clause is not just plain 100, as f[1][7]>0. It is, in fact, 100+f[1][7]=220, meaning that we can take activity a2, shift it in a way that puts its end at time 10, and get a total weight of 220. We continue computing f[2][i] this way for all i <= 18.
The values of g are: g[2][8]=g[1][8]=(1, 8), g[2][9]=g[1][9]=(1, 9), g[2][10]=(2, 10), because it was optimal to take activity a2 and end it at time 10 in this case.
I hope the pattern of how this continues is visible - we compute all the values of f and g through the end, and then pick the maximum f[N][e] over all possible end times e of the last activity. Armed with the auxiliary function g, we can traverse the values backwards to figure out the exact activities and times. Namely, the last activity we use and its timing is in g[N][e]. Let's call them A and T. We know that A began at T-(end[A]-start[A]). Then, the previous activity must have ended at that point or before - so let's look at g[A-1][T-(end[A]-start[A]) for it, and so on.
Note that this approach works even if you don't partition anything into clusters, but with the partitioning, the size of the space in which tasks can be scheduled is reduced, and with it the runtime.
You might notice that neither of these solutions is polynomial in the size of input. I have a feeling that your problem doesn't have a general polynomial solution, but I was unable to prove it by reducing another NP-complete problem to it. Would be really curious to read a reduction / better general solution!
This seems to be a 2 step problem I'm trying to solve.
Let's say we have N records, and we are trying to distribute as evenly as possible into K groups.
The second problem - each group in K can only accept an M amount of records.
For example, if we have 5 records, and 3 groups, then we would distribute 2 into Group K1, 2 into Group K2 and 1 record into Group K3. However, if say in group 1, it only accepts at most 1 record. Then the arrangement would need to be 1 into Group K1, 2 into Group K2, and 2 into Group K3.
I'm not necessary after the solution but what algorithm I might need to use to solve this? Apparently for the distribution, I need to use the Greedy algorithm? But for the second step, this seems to be a bit more complicated
Edit:
The example I'm looking at is:
Number of records: 23
Groups: 10
Max records for each group
G1 = 4
G2 = 1
G3 = 0
G4 = 5
G5 = 0
G6 = 0
G7 = 2
G8 = 4
G9 = 2
G10 = 2
if N=12 and K=3 then in normal situation,you just split it V=12/3=4 for each group. but since you have M limitation, and for example K3 can only accept 1 then the distribution can be 6-5-1 which is not evenly distributed.
So i guess you need to sort K based on the M limitation, so for the example above the groups order become K3-K1-K2.
then if the distributed value V is bigger than the accepted amount M for that group, you need to take the remainder and distribute it again to the remaining group (K3=1, then 4-1=3 must be distributed to K1 and K2).
the implementation might be complicated, i hope you can find more simple solution for this
From what I understood, you need to separate all groups which allows a fixed number of values first and then equally distribute records among remaining groups. Let's take an example, let's say we have 15 records which needs to be distributed among 5 groups (G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5). Also let's assume that G2 and G4 allows max records of 2 and 4 respectively. Now algorithm should go like this:
Get average(ceiling integer) of records based on number of groups (In this example we'll get 3).
Add all max allowed records which are smaller than our average (In this example it's G2 only who's max limit(i.e. 2) is less than our average hence the number comes as 2).
Now subtract our number from step 2 from total records and also subtract the number of groups involved in step 2 from total groups. (remaining total records: 13, remaining total groups 4).
Get the new average(ceiling integer) using remaining records and groups. (New average 4).
Get average (Integer) (i.e. 3) and allot equal number of records to remaining groups - 1.
Get Mod (i.e. 1) and allot that number to the last group.
Now what we finally will have here:
G1(No limit): 4
G2(Limit 2): 2
G3(No limit): 4
G4(Limit 4): 4
G5(No limit): 1
Let me know if you think that this algo might fail for some scenarios.
Formula to get ceiling integer average
floor((#total_records + #total_groups-1) / #total_groups)
I basically need the answer to this SO question that provides a power-law distribution, translated to T-SQL for me.
I want to pull a last name, one at a time, from a census provided table of names. I want to get roughly the same distribution as occurs in the population. The table has 88,799 names ranked by frequency. "Smith" is rank 1 with 1.006% frequency, "Alderink" is rank 88,799 with frequency of 1.7 x 10^-6. "Sanders" is rank 75 with a frequency of 0.100%.
The curve doesn't have to fit precisely at all. Just give me about 1% "Smith" and about 1 in a million "Alderink"
Here's what I have so far.
SELECT [LastName]
FROM [LastNames] as LN
WHERE LN.[Rank] = ROUND(88799 * RAND(), 0)
But this of course yields a uniform distribution.
I promise I'll still be trying to figure this out myself by the time a smarter person responds.
Why settle for the power-law distribution when you can draw from the actual distribution ?
I suggest you alter the LastNames table to include a numeric column which would contain a numeric value representing the actual number of indivuduals with a name that is more common. You'll probably want a number on a smaller but proportional scale, say, maybe 10,000 for each percent of representation.
The list would then look something like:
(other than the 3 names mentioned in the question, I'm guessing about White, Johnson et al)
Smith 0
White 10,060
Johnson 19,123
Williams 28,456
...
Sanders 200,987
..
Alderink 999,997
And the name selection would be
SELECT TOP 1 [LastName]
FROM [LastNames] as LN
WHERE LN.[number_described_above] < ROUND(100000 * RAND(), 0)
ORDER BY [number_described_above] DESC
That's picking the first name which number does not exceed the [uniform distribution] random number. Note how the query, uses less than and ordering in desc-ending order; this will guaranty that the very first entry (Smith) gets picked. The alternative would be to start the series with Smith at 10,060 rather than zero and to discard the random draws smaller than this value.
Aside from the matter of boundary management (starting at zero rather than 10,060) mentioned above, this solution, along with the two other responses so far, are the same as the one suggested in dmckee's answer to the question referenced in this question. Essentially the idea is to use the CDF (Cumulative Distribution function).
Edit:
If you insist on using a mathematical function rather than the actual distribution, the following should provide a power law function which would somehow convey the "long tail" shape of the real distribution. You may wan to tweak the #PwrCoef value (which BTW needn't be a integer), essentially the bigger the coeficient, the more skewed to the beginning of the list the function is.
DECLARE #PwrCoef INT
SET #PwrCoef = 2
SELECT 88799 - ROUND(POWER(POWER(88799.0, #PwrCoef) * RAND(), 1.0/#PwrCoef), 0)
Notes:
- the extra ".0" in the function above are important to force SQL to perform float operations rather than integer operations.
- the reason why we subtract the power calculation from 88799 is that the calculation's distribution is such that the closer a number is closer to the end of our scale, the more likely it is to be drawn. The List of family names being sorted in the reverse order (most likely names first), we need this substraction.
Assuming a power of, say, 3 the query would then look something like
SELECT [LastName]
FROM [LastNames] as LN
WHERE LN.[Rank]
= 88799 - ROUND(POWER(POWER(88799.0, 3) * RAND(), 1.0/3), 0)
Which is the query from the question except for the last line.
Re-Edit:
In looking at the actual distribution, as apparent in the Census data, the curve is extremely steep and would require a very big power coefficient, which in turn would cause overflows and/or extreme rounding errors in the naive formula shown above.
A more sensible approach may be to operate in several tiers i.e. to perform an equal number of draws in each of the, say, three thirds (or four quarters or...) of the cumulative distribution; within each of these parts list, we would draw using a power law function, possibly with the same coeficient, but with different ranges.
For example
Assuming thirds, the list divides as follow:
First third = 425 names, from Smith to Alvarado
Second third = 6,277 names, from to Gainer
Last third = 82,097 names, from Frisby to the end
If we were to need, say, 1,000 names, we'd draw 334 from the top third of the list, 333 from the second third and 333 from the last third.
For each of the thirds we'd use a similar formula, maybe with a bigger power coeficient for the first third (were were are really interested in favoring the earlier names in the list, and also where the relative frequencies are more statistically relevant). The three selection queries could look like the following:
-- Random Drawing of a single Name in top third
-- Power Coef = 12
SELECT [LastName]
FROM [LastNames] as LN
WHERE LN.[Rank]
= 425 - ROUND(POWER(POWER(425.0, 12) * RAND(), 1.0/12), 0)
-- Second third; Power Coef = 7
...
WHERE LN.[Rank]
= (425 + 6277) - ROUND(POWER(POWER(6277.0, 7) * RAND(), 1.0/7), 0)
-- Bottom third; Power Coef = 4
...
WHERE LN.[Rank]
= (425 + 6277 + 82097) - ROUND(POWER(POWER(82097.0, 4) * RAND(), 1.0/4), 0)
Instead of storing the pdf as rank, store the CDF (the sum of all frequencies until that name, starting from Aldekirk).
Then modify your select to retrieve the first LN with rank greater than your formula result.
I read the question as "I need to get a stream of names which will mirror the frequency of last names from the 1990 US Census"
I might have read the question a bit differently than the other suggestions and although an answer has been accepted, and a very through answer it is, I will contribute my experience with the Census last names.
I had downloaded the same data from the 1990 census. My goal was to produce a large number of names to be submitted for search testing during performance testing of a medical record app. I inserted the last names and the percentage of frequency into a table. I added a column and filled it with a integer which was the product of the "total names required * frequency". The frequency data from the census did not add up to exactly 100% so my total number of names was also a bit short of the requirement. I was able to correct the number by selecting random names from the list and increasing their count until I had exactly the required number, the randomly added count never ammounted to more than .05% of the total of 10 million.
I generated 10 million random numbers in the range of 1 to 88799. With each random number I would pick that name from the list and decrement the counter for that name. My approach was to simulate dealing a deck of cards except my deck had many more distinct cards and a varing number of each card.
Do you store the actual frequencies with the ranks?
Converting the algebra from that accepted answer to MySQL is no bother, if you know what values to use for n. y would be what you currently have ROUND(88799 * RAND(), 0) and x0,x1 = 1,88799 I think, though I might misunderstand it. The only non-standard maths operator involved from a T-SQL perspective is ^ which is just POWER(x,y) == x^y.