I am trying to write an algorithm in python for knapsack problem. I did quite a few iterations and came to the following solution. It seems perfect for me. When I ran it on test sets,
it does not output optimal value
and sometimes gives maximum recursion depth error.
after changing the maxValues function it is outputting the optimal value, But it takes very very long time for datasets having more points. how to refine it
For the second problem, I have inspected the data for which it gives the error. The data is like huge and only just couple of them exceeds and the knapsack capacity. So it unnecessarily goes through the entire list.
So what I planned to do is at the start of running my recursive function, I tried to see the entire weights list where each weight is less than the current capacity and prune the rest. The following is the code I am planning to implement.
#~ weights_jump = find_indices(temp_w, lambda e: e < capacity)
#~ if(len(weights_jump)>0):
#~ temp_w[0:weights_jump[0]-1] = []
#~ temp_v[0:weights_jump[0]-1] = []
My main problem remains that why it is not outputting the optimal value. Please help me in this regards and also to integrate the above code into the current algorithm
The following is the main function. the input for this function is as follows,
A knapsack input contains n + 1 lines. The first line contains two integers, the first is the number
of items in the problem, n. The second number is the capacity of the knapsack, K. The remaining
lines present the data for each of the items. Each line, i ∈ 0 . . . n − 1 contains two integers, the
item’s value vi followed by its weight wi
eg input:
n K
v_0 w_0
v_1 w_1
...
v_n-1 w_n-1
def solveIt(inputData):
# parse the input
lines = inputData.split('\n')
firstLine = lines[0].split()
items = int(firstLine[0])
capacity = int(firstLine[1])
K = capacity
values = []
weights = []
for i in range(1, items+1):
line = lines[i]
parts = line.split()
values.append(int(parts[0]))
weights.append(int(parts[1]))
items = len(values)
#end of parsing
value = 0
weight = 0
print(weights)
print(values)
v = node(value,weights,values,K,0,taken);
# prepare the solution in the specified output format
outputData = str(v[0]) + ' ' + str(0) + '\n'
outputData += ' '.join(map(str, v[1]))
return outputData
The following is the recursive function
I'will try to explain this recursive function. Let's say I 'm starting off with root node and now I ill have two decisions to make either to take the first element or not.
before this I will call maxValue function to see the maximum value that can be obtained following this branch. If it is less than existing_max no need to search, so prune.
i will follow left branch if the weight of the first element is less than capacity. so append(1).
updating values,weights list etc and again call node function.
so it first transverses entire left branch and then transverses right branch.
in the right im just updating the values,weights lists and calling node function.
For this function inputs are
value -- The current value of the problem, It is initially set to zero and is it goes it gets increased
weights list
values list
current capacity
current max value found by algo. If this existing_max is greater than the maximum value that can be obtained by following a branch,
there is no need to search that branch. so entire branch is pruned
existing_nodes is the list which tells whether a particular item is taken (1) or not (0)
def node(value,weights,values,capacity,existing_max,existing_nodes):
v1=[];e1=[]; #values we get from left branch
v2=[];e2=[]; #values we get from right branch
e=[];
e = existing_nodes[:];
temp_w = weights[:]
temp_v = values[:];
#first check if the list is empty
if(len(values)==0):
r = [value,existing_nodes[:]]
return r;
#centre check if this entire branch could be pruned. it checks for max value that can be obtained is more than the max value inputted to this
max_value = value+maxValue(weights,values,capacity);
print('existing _max is '+str(existing_max))
print('weight in concern '+str(weights[0])+' value is '+str(value))
if(max_value<=existing_max):
return [0,[]];
#Transversing the left branch
#Transverse only if the weight does not exceed the capacity
print colored('leftbranch','red');
#search for indices of weights where weight < capacity
#~ weights_jump = find_indices(temp_w, lambda e: e < capacity)
#~ if(len(weights_jump)>0):
#~ temp_w[0:weights_jump[0]-1] = []
#~ temp_v[0:weights_jump[0]-1] = []
if(temp_w[0]<=capacity):
updated_value = temp_v[0]+value;
k = capacity-temp_w[0];
temp_w.pop(0);
temp_v.pop(0);
e1 =e[:]
e1.append(1);
print(str(updated_value)+' '+str(k)+' ')
raw_input('press ')
v1= node(updated_value,temp_w,temp_v,k,existing_max,e1);
#after transversing left node update existing_max
if(v1[0]>existing_max):
existing_max = v1[0];
else:
v1 = [0,[]]
#Transverse the right branch
#it implies we are not including the current value so remove that from weights and values.
print('rightbranch')
#~ print(str(value)+' '+str(capacity)+' ')
raw_input("Press Enter to continue...")
weights.pop(0);
values.pop(0);
e2 =e[:];
e2.append(0);
v2 = node(value,weights,values,capacity,existing_max,e2);
if(v1[0]>v2[0]):
return v1;
else:
return v2;
The following is the helper function maxValue which is called from recursive function
def maxValues(weights,values,K):
weights = weights;
values = values;
a=[];
l = 0;
#~ print('hello');
items = len(weights);
#~ print(items);
max = 0;k = K;
for i in range(0,items):
t = (i,float(values[i])/weights[i]);
a.append(t);
#~ print(i);
a = sorted(a,key=operator.itemgetter(1),reverse=True);
#~ print(a);
length = len(a);
for (i,v) in a:
#~ print('this is loop'+str(l)+'and k is '+str(k)+'weight is '+str(weights[i]) );
if weights[i]<=k:
max = max+values[i];
w = weights[i];
#~ print('this'+str(w));
k = k-w;
if(k==0):
break;
else:
max = max+ (float(k)/weights[i])*values[i];
w = k
k = k-w;
#~ print('this is w '+str(max));
if(k==0):
break;
l= l+1;
return max;
I spent days on this and could not do anything.
Related
I have an array with N rows and M columns.
I would like to run through all the columns, finding the index of the row in which contains the max value of the column. However, each row should be selected only once.
For instance, let's consider a matrix
1 1
2 2
The output should be [1, 0]. Because the row 1 (value of 2) is the max value of column 0, then we move to column 2, the row 1 is out of consideration, so the row 0 will be the highest cell.
Indeed, things can be solved easily with for a nested for loop, and something like:
removed_rows = []
for i in range (nb_columns):
index_max = 0
value_max = A[0,i]
for j in range (nb_rows):
if j in removed_rows:
continue
else:
if value_max < A[j,i]:
index_max = j
value_max = A[j,i]
removed_rows.append (index_max)
However, it seems slow for a huge matrix. Is there any method we can do it faster (with numpy?)?
Many thanks
This might not be very fast as it still loop through the columns, which I think is unavoidable due to the constrain, but should be faster than your solution as it finds the maximum's index with argmax:
out = []
mm = A.min() - 1
for j in range(A.shape[1]):
idx = np.argmax(A[:,j])
# replace the entire row with mm
# so next `argmax` will ignore this row
A[idx] = mm
out.append(idx)
The above takes about 640 us on 100 x 100 arrays, and 18ms on 1k x 1k arrays. Your code refuses to run on 1k x 1k array within reasonable time on my system.
I have to iterate an operation over several sets of partially randomized copies of an initial array of 0 and 1.
I would like the copies to be different, of course, but also the sets.
For now I use this code (I omitted certain parts that should not interfere in the problem):
def randomizer(b) :
"""randomizes a fraction 'rate' (global variable) of b"""
c = np.copy(b)
num_elem = len(c)
idx = np.random.choice(range(num_elem), int(num_elem*rate), replace=False)
c[idx] = f(c[idx])
return c
def randomizePatterns(pattern, randomizer) :
"""Return nbTrials partially randomized copies of the given input pattern"""
outputs = np.tile(pattern,(nbTrials,1))
for line in xrange(nbTrials) :
outputs[line] = randomizer(outputs[line,:])
return outputs
def test(pattern,randomizer) :
randomPatterns = randomizePatterns(pattern, randomizer)
"""test the dynamics of a neural network with a fixed but initially random
connection scheme, and returns a boolean corresponding to if
the original pattern that was randomized is retrieved from at least
90% of the randomized patterns"""
return boolean
def metaTest(pattern):
successNumber = 0
for plop in xrange(10):
if test(pattern, randomizer) :
successNumber += 1
return successNumber
The other input to test is a random matrix of floats in [0,4] that I visualize and that has the expected behavior.
When I run metaTest, I always get either 0 or 10, never an intermediate value.
Given the nature of test, I expect a result about 5. I get each result for approximately half of the inputs.
To be more precise, printing the random patterns after each incrementation of plop, I get the same thing ten times, and I would like that to change.
I have a piece of code which is a significant bottleneck:
do s = 1,ns
msum = 0.d0
do k = 1,ns
msum = msum + tm(k,s)*f(:,:,k)
end do
m(:,:,s) = msum
end do
This is a simple matrix-vector product m=tm*f (where f is length k) for every x,y.
I thought about using a BLAS routine but i am not sure if any allows multiplying along a specific dimension (k). Do any of you have any good advice?
Unfortunately you do not mention the actual shape of f, i.e. the number of x and y. Since you mention this piece of code to be a bottleneck, you can and should replace msum and use the memory m(:,:,s) and spare the first step in you loop, e.g.
do s = 1,ns
m = tm(k,1)*f(:,:,k)
do k = 2, ns
m(:,:,s) = m(:,:,s) + tm(k,s)*f(:,:,k)
end do
end do
Secondly, a more general appraoch
There are ns summations of nK 2D matrices f(:,:,1:nK) by means of scalar factors that are stored in tm(:,1:ns). The goal is to store these sums in m(:,:,1:ns). Why not sum up element-wise wrt x and y to exploit contiguuos memory sections by means of the result? You already mentioned that you can redesign such that k is the first dimension in f, i.e. f(k,:,:).
Considering only the desired outcome, you ought to have ns 2D matrices m(:,:,1:ns) that are independent of each other (outer loop remains at it is). Lets drop this dimension for a moment. The problem then becomes:
m(:,:) = \sum_{k=1}^{ns} tm_k * f_k(:,:)
We should thus sum over k, e.g. have f(k,:,:) to determine m(:,:) as follows (note that I am adding the outer loop for s again):
nK = size(f, 1) ! the "k"s
nX = size(f, 2) ! the "x"s
nY = size(f, 3) ! the "y"s
m = 0.d0
do s = 1, ns
do ii = 1, nY
call DGEMV('N', nK, nY, &
1.d0, f(:,:,nY), 1, tm(:,s), 1, &
1.d0, m(:,nY,s), 1)
end do !ii
end do !s
See the documentation of DGEMV for more details on its usage.
Of course, the above advice of excluding the first step of the loop to spare the initialization by means of zeros may be applied at well.
I am trying to follow the tutorial of using the optimization tool box in MATLAB. Specifically, I have a function
f = exp(x(1))*(4*x(1)^2+2*x(2)^2+4*x(1)*x(2)+2*x(2)+1)+b
subject to the constraint:
(x(1))^2+x(2)-1=0,
-x(1)*x(2)-10<=0.
and I want to minimize this function for a range of b=[0,20]. (That is, I want to minimize this function for b=0, b=1,b=2 ... and so on).
Below is the steps taken from the MATLAB's tutorial webpage(http://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/nonlinear-equality-and-inequality-constraints.html), how should I change the code so that, the optimization will run for 20 times, and save the optimal values for each b?
Step 1: Write a file objfun.m.
function f = objfun(x)
f = exp(x(1))*(4*x(1)^2+2*x(2)^2+4*x(1)*x(2)+2*x(2)+1)+b;
Step 2: Write a file confuneq.m for the nonlinear constraints.
function [c, ceq] = confuneq(x)
% Nonlinear inequality constraints
c = -x(1)*x(2) - 10;
% Nonlinear equality constraints
ceq = x(1)^2 + x(2) - 1;
Step 3: Invoke constrained optimization routine.
x0 = [-1,1]; % Make a starting guess at the solution
options = optimoptions(#fmincon,'Algorithm','sqp');
[x,fval] = fmincon(#objfun,x0,[],[],[],[],[],[],...
#confuneq,options);
After 21 function evaluations, the solution produced is
x, fval
x =
-0.7529 0.4332
fval =
1.5093
Update:
I tried your answer, but I am encountering problem with your step 2. Bascially, I just fill the my step 2 to your step 2 (below the comment "optimization just like before").
%initialize list of targets
b = 0:1:20;
%preallocate/initialize result vectors using zeros (increases speed)
opt_x = zeros(length(b));
opt_fval = zeros(length(b));
>> for idx = 1, length(b)
objfun = #(x)objfun_builder(x,b)
%optimization just like before
x0 = [-1,1]; % Make a starting guess at the solution
options = optimoptions(#fmincon,'Algorithm','sqp');
[x,fval] = fmincon(#objfun,x0,[],[],[],[],[],[],...
#confuneq,options);
%end the stuff I fill in
opt_x(idx) = x
opt_fval(idx) = fval
end
However, it gave me the output is:
Error: "objfun" was previously used as a variable, conflicting
with its use here as the name of a function or command.
See "How MATLAB Recognizes Command Syntax" in the MATLAB
documentation for details.
There are two things you need to change about your code:
Creation of the objective function.
Multiple optimizations using a loop.
1st Step
For more flexibility with regard to b, you need to set up another function that returns a handle to the desired objective function, e.g.
function h = objfun_builder(x, b)
h = #(x)(objfun(x));
function f = objfun(x)
f = exp(x(1))*(4*x(1)^2+2*x(2)^2+4*x(1)*x(2)+2*x(2)+1) + b;
end
end
A more elegant and shorter approach are anonymous functions, e.g.
objfun_builder = #(x,b)(exp(x(1))*(4*x(1)^2+2*x(2)^2+4*x(1)*x(2)+2*x(2)+1) + b);
After all, this works out to be the same as above. It might be less intuitive for a Matlab-beginner, though.
2nd Step
Instead of placing an .m-file objfun.m in your path, you will need to call
objfun = #(x)(objfun_builder(x,myB));
to create an objective function in your workspace. In order to loop over the interval b=[0,20], use the following loop
%initialize list of targets
b = 0:1:20;
%preallocate/initialize result vectors using zeros (increases speed)
opt_x = zeros(length(b))
opt_fval = zeros(length(b))
%start optimization of list of targets (`b`s)
for idx = 1, length(b)
objfun = #(x)objfun_builder(x,b)
%optimization just like before
opt_x(idx) = x
opt_fval(idx) = fval
end
I'm new to SPSS and I'm a bit stuck on a problem. I have about 200 variables and I want to loop through pairs of them looking for variables with correlation coefficients above 0.7. I know that I can use CORRELATIONS to get a matrix of coefficients but it would be huge and difficult to look through. Basically, in pseudocode, what I want to do is:
for (i = W1_1 to W1_200) {
for (j = i to W1_200) {
if CORRELATIONS(i,j)>0.7 {
print i, j, CORRELATIONS(i,j)
}
}
}
I can't for the life of me work out how to do any of this in SPSS. Help!
SPSS has a helper function on the CORRELATIONS command to export the correlation matrix. From there you can manipulate the data to give the correlation pairs that meet your criteria. So first, lets make some fake data to illustrate.
*Making fake data.
set seed 5.
input program.
loop i = 1 to 100.
end case.
end loop.
end file.
end input program.
dataset name test.
compute #base = RV.NORMAL(0,1).
vector X(20).
loop #i = 1 to 20.
compute X(#i) = #base*(#i/20) + RV.NORMAL(0,1).
end loop.
exe.
Now, we can run the CORRELATIONS command and export the table to a new dataset (which I named here Corrs).
DATASET DECLARE Corrs.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=X1 to X20
/MATRIX=OUT('Corrs').
Unfortunately SPSS returns the full matrix (plus other info on the sample size). We can only select the rows we are interested in (ones with "CORR" in the ROWTYPE_ column) and then use a DO REPEAT to set the upper or lower half of the matrix to system missing values.
DATASET ACTIVATE Corrs.
SELECT IF ROWTYPE_ = "CORR".
*Now only making lower half of matrix.
COMPUTE #iter = 0.
DO REPEAT X = X1 TO X20.
COMPUTE #iter = #iter + 1.
IF #iter > ($casenum-1) X = $SYSMIS.
END REPEAT.
I set them to system missing values because the next part I will reshape the data using VARSTOCASES. This by default drops missing values, so we won't end up having redundant correlation pairs.
VARSTOCASES
/MAKE Corr FROM X1 TO X20
/INDEX X2 (Corr)
/DROP ROWTYPE_.
RENAME VARIABLES (VARNAME_ = X1).
Now you have your correlation pairs list and can just select out the correlations that meet your criteria.
SELECT IF ABS(Corr) >= .5.
Making of the correlation pairs can be made into a MACRO function pretty easily to return the pair list. Below is that function, recreating the exact steps used here.
DEFINE !CorrPairs (!POSITIONAL !CMDEND)
DATASET DECLARE Corrs.
CORRELATIONS
/VARIABLES=!1
/MATRIX=OUT('Corrs').
DATASET ACTIVATE Corrs.
SELECT IF ROWTYPE_ = "CORR".
COMPUTE #iter = 0.
DO REPEAT X = !1.
COMPUTE #iter = #iter + 1.
IF #iter > ($casenum-1) X = $SYSMIS.
END REPEAT.
VARSTOCASES
/MAKE Corr FROM !1
/INDEX X2 (Corr)
/DROP ROWTYPE_.
RENAME VARIABLES (VARNAME_ = X1).
!ENDDEFINE.
The macro just takes a list of variables (in the active dataset) to grab the correlations, and returns a second dataset named Corrs with the correlation pairs and the variable names defined in the X1 and X2 columns. Then after the above macro is defined the above steps can be recreated simply by below.
!CorrPairs X1 to X20.
SELECT IF ABS(Corr) >= .5.
EXECUTE.
My suggestion is to use OMS to extract your correlation values from the output into a datafile. Use a macro to only run the correlations you need:
DATASET DECLARE Correlations.
OMS /SELECT TABLES /IF COMMANDS=['Correlations'] SUBTYPES=['Correlations']
/DESTINATION FORMAT=SAV NUMBERED=TableNumber_ OUTFILE='Correlations' VIEWER=YES.
define runCorrs ()
!do !i1=1 !to 200
!do !i2=!i1 !to 200
!if (!i2<>!i1) !then
corr !concat("W_",!i1) with !concat("W_",!i2).
!ifend
!doend !doend
!enddefine.
runCorrs.
OMSEND.
datas act Correlations.
select if var2="Pearson Correlation".
VARSTOCASES /make crlVal from W_2 to W_200/index=withvar(crlVal)
/drop TableNumber_ Command_ Subtype_ Label_ Var2.
now you have a nice list of all the correlations to work with:
select if crlVal>0.7.
exe.