Design and Analysis of Algorithms_part2_part1
Design and Analysis of Algorithms_part2_part1
Dynamic Programming
In the all pairs shortest path problem, we are to find a shortest path between every pair of
vertices in a directed graph G. That is, for every pair of vertices (i, j), we are to find a
shortest path from i to j as well as one from j to i. These two paths are the same when G is
undirected.
When no edge has a negative length, the all-pairs shortest path problem may be solved
by using Dijkstra’s greedy single source algorithm n times, once with each of the n vertices
as the source vertex.
The all pairs shortest path problem is to determine a matrix A such that A (i, j) is the lengthof a
shortest path from i to j. The matrix A can be obtained by solving n single-source problems
using the algorithm shortest Paths. Since each application of this procedure requires O (n2) time,
the matrix A can be obtained in O (n3) time.
The dynamic programming solution, called Floyd’s algorithm, runs in O (n3) time. Floyd’s
algorithm works even when the graph has negative length edges (provided there are no
negative length cycles).
Ak (i, j) = {min {min {Ak-1 (i, k) + Ak-1 (k, j)}, c (i, j)}
1<k<n
1 2
3 4
g (2, T) = C21 = 5
g (3, T) = C31 = 6
g (4, ~) = C41 = 8
Using equation – (2) we obtain:
g (1,{2, 3, 4}) = min {c12 + g (2, {3,
4}, c13 + g (3, {2, 4}), c14 + g (4, {2, 3})}
g (2, {3, 4}) = min {c23 + g (3, {4}), c24 + g (4, {3})}
= min {9 + g (3, {4}), 10 + g (4, {3})}
g (3, {4}) = min {c34 + g (4, T)} = 12 + 8 = 20
g (4, {3}) = min {c43 + g (3, ~)} = 9 + 6 = 15
Therefore, g (2, {3, 4}) = min {9 + 20, 10 + 15} = min {29, 25} = 25
g (3, {2, 4}) = min {(c32 + g (2, {4}), (c34 + g (4, {2})}
Therefore, g (3, {2, 4}) = min {13 + 18, 12 + 13} = min {41, 25} = 25
g (4, {2, 3}) = min {c42 + g (2, {3}), c43 + g (3, {2})}
g (2, {3}) = min {c23 + g (3, ~} = 9 + 6 = 15
g (3, {2}) = min {c32 + g (2, T} = 13 + 5 = 18
g (1, {2, 3, 4}) = min {c12 + g (2, {3, 4}), c13 + g (3, {2, 4}), c14 + g (4, {2, 3})} = min
{10 + 25, 15 + 25, 20 + 23} = min {35, 40, 43} = 35
Let P (i) be the probability with which we shall be searching for 'ai'. Let Q (i) be the
probability of an un-successful search. Every internal node represents a point where a
successful search may terminate. Every external node represents a point where an
unsuccessful search may terminate.
The expected cost contribution for the internal node for 'ai' is:
Unsuccessful search terminate with I= 0 (i.e at an external node). Hence the costcontribution
for this node is:
Given a fixed set of identifiers, we wish to create a binary search tree organization. We
may expect different binary search trees for the same identifier set to have different
performance characteristics.
The computation of each of these c(i, j)’s requires us to find the minimum of m
quantities. Hence, each such c(i, j) can be computed in time O(m). The total time for all
c(i, j)’s with j – i = m is therefore O(nm – m2).
The total time to evaluate all the c(i, j)’s and r(i, j)’s is therefore:
Example 1:
Let n = 4, and (a1, a2, a3, a4) = (do, if, need, while) Let P (1: 4) = (3, 3, 1, 1) and Q (0:
4) = (2, 3, 1, 1, 1)
Solution:
Table for recording W (i, j), C (i, j) and R (i, j):
Column
Row 0 1 2 3 4
0 2, 0, 0 3, 0, 0 1, 0, 0 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
1 8, 8, 1 7, 7, 2 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 4
2 12, 19, 1 9, 12, 2 5, 8, 3
3 14, 25, 2 11, 19, 2
4 16, 32, 2
This computation is carried out row-wise from row 0 to row 4. Initially, W (i, i) = Q
(i) and C (i, i) = 0 and R (i, i) = 0, 0 < i < 4.
Solving for C (0, n):
First, computing all C (i, j) such that j - i = 1; j = i + 1 and as 0 < i < 4; i = 0, 1, 2 and
3; i < k ≤ J. Start with i = 0; so j = 1; as i < k ≤ j, so the possible value for k = 1
Second, Computing all C (i, j) such that j - i = 2; j = i + 2 and as 0 < i < 3; i = 0, 1, 2; i <
k ≤ J. Start with i = 0; so j = 2; as i < k ≤ J, so the possible values for k = 1 and 2.
W (0, 2) = P (2) + Q (2) + W (0, 1) = 3 + 1 + 8 = 12
C (0, 2) = W (0, 2) + min {(C (0, 0) + C (1, 2)), (C (0, 1) + C (2, 2))} = 12
+ min {(0 + 7, 8 + 0)} = 19
ft (0, 2) = 1
Next, with i = 1; so j = 3; as i < k ≤ j, so the possible value for k = 2 and 3.
W(1, 3) = P (3) + Q (3) + W (1, 2) = 1 + 1+ 7 = 9
C (1, 3) = W (1, 3) + min {[C (1, 1) + C (2, 3)], [C (1, 3) 2) + C (3, 3)]}
= W(1, + min {(0 + 3), (7 + 0)} = 9 + 3 = 12
ft (1, 3) = 2
Next, with i = 2; so j = 4; as i < k ≤ j, so the possible value for k = 3 and 4.
Fourth, Computing all C (i, j) such that j - i = 4; j = i + 4 and as 0 < i < 1; i = 0; i < k ≤
J.
Start with i = 0; so j = 4; as i < k ≤ j, so the possible values for k = 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Hence the left sub tree is 'T01' and right sub tree is T24. The root of 'T01' is 'a1' and the
root of 'T24' is a3.
The left and right sub trees for 'T01' are 'T00' and 'T11' respectively. The root of T01 is
'a1'
The left and right sub trees for T24 are T22 and T34 respectively.
a1 a3
T 01 T 24 do read
a4
T 00 T 11 T 22 T 34 while
We are given n objects and a knapsack. Each object i has a positive weight wi and a positive
value Vi. The knapsack can carry a weight not exceeding W. Fill the knapsack so that the value
of objects in the knapsack is optimized.
A solution to the knapsack problem can be obtained by making a sequence of decisions on
the variables x1, x2, . . . . , xn. A decision on variable xi involves determining which of the
values 0 or 1 is to be assigned to it. Let us assume that
decisions on the xi are made in the order xn, xn-1,......... x1. Following a decision on xn,
we may be in one of two possible states: the capacity remaining in m – wn and a profit
of pn has accrued. It is clear that the remaining decisions xn-1, ........ , x1 must be optimal
with respect to the problem state resulting from the decision on xn. Otherwise, xn,. .
. . , x1 will not be optimal. Hence, the principal of optimality holds.
Fn (m) = max {fn-1 (m), fn-1 (m - wn) + pn} -- 1
Equation-2 can be solved for fn (m) by beginning with the knowledge fo (y) = 0 for all y
and fi (y) = - ~, y < 0. Then f1, f2, . . . fn can be successively computed using
equation–2.
When the wi’s are integer, we need to compute fi (y) for integer y, 0 < y < m. Since fi (y)
= - ~ for y < 0, these function values need not be computed explicitly. Since each fi
can be computed from fi - 1 in Θ (m) time, it takes Θ (m n) time to compute fn. When
the wi’s are real numbers, fi (y) is needed for real numbers y such that 0 < y < m. So, fi
cannot be explicitly computed for all y in this range. Even when the wi’s are integer, the
explicit Θ (m n) computation of fn may not be the most efficient computation. So, we
explore an alternative method for both cases.
The fi (y) is an ascending step function; i.e., there are a finite number of y’s, 0 = y1 < y2
< . . . . < yk, such that fi (y1) < fi (y2) < ............ < fi (yk); fi (y) = - ~ , y < y1; fi (y) = f
(yk), y > yk; and fi (y) = fi (yj), yj < y < yj+1. So, we need to compute only fi (yj), 1 < j
< k. We use the ordered set Si = {(f (yj), yj) | 1 < j < k} to represent fi (y). Each number
of Si is a pair (P, W), where P = fi (yj) and W = yj. Notice that S 0 = {(0, 0)}. We can
compute Si+1 from Si by first computing:
Now, Si+1 can be computed by merging the pairs in Si and Si 1 together. Note that if Si+1
contains two pairs (Pj, Wj) and (Pk, Wk) with the property that Pj < Pk and Wj > Wk,
then the pair (Pj, Wj) can be discarded because of equation-2. Discarding or purging
rules such as this one are also known as dominance rules. Dominated tuples get purged. In
the above, (Pk, Wk) dominates (Pj, Wj).
The problem is to design a system that is composed of several devices connected in series.
Let ri be the reliability of device Di (that is ri is the probability that device i will
function properly) then the reliability of the entire system is fT ri. Even if the individual
devices are very reliable (the ri’s are very close to one), the reliability of the system may
not be very good. For example, if n = 10 and ri = 0.99, i < i < 10, then fT ri = .904.
Hence, it is desirable to duplicate devices. Multiply copies of the same device type are
connected in parallel.
If stage i contains mi copies of device Di. Then the probability that all mi have a
malfunction is (1 - ri) mi. Hence the reliability of stage i becomes 1 – (1 - r )mi.
i
Backtracking is a methodical (Logical) way of trying out various sequences of decisions, until
you find one that “works”
Sorting the array of integers in a[1:n] is a problem whose solution is expressible by an n-tuple
xi is the index in ‘a’ of the ith smallest element.
The criterion function ‘P’ is the inequality a[xi]≤ a[xi+1] for 1≤ i ≤ n
Si is finite and includes the integers 1 through n.
mi size of set Si
m=m1m2m3---mn n tuples that possible candidates for satisfying the function P.
With brute force approach would be to form all these n-tuples, evaluate (judge) each one with P
and save those which yield the optimum.
By using backtrack algorithm; yield the same answer with far fewer than ‘m’ trails.
Many of the problems we solve using backtracking requires that all the solutions satisfy a
complex set of constraints.
For any problem these constraints can be divided into two categories:
Explicit constraints: Explicit constraints are rules that restrict each xi to take on values only
from a given set.
Example: xi ≥ 0 or si={all non negative real numbers}
Xi=0 or 1 or Si={0, 1}
li ≤ xi ≤ ui or si={a: li ≤ a ≤ ui }
The explicit constraint depends on the particular instance I of the problem being solved. All
tuples that satisfy the explicit constraints define a possible solution space for I.
Implicit Constraints:
The implicit constraints are rules that determine which of the tuples in the solution space of I
satisfy the criterion function. Thus implicit constraints describe the way in which the Xi must
relate to each other.
Applications of Backtracking:
N Queens Problem
Sum of subsets problem
Graph coloring
Hamiltonian cycles.
N-Queens Problem:
It is a classic combinatorial problem. The eight queen’s puzzle is the problem of placing eight
queens puzzle is the problem of placing eight queens on an 8×8 chessboard so that no two
queens attack each other. That is so that no two of them are on the same row, column, or
diagonal.
The 8-queens puzzle is an example of the more general n-queens problem of placing n queens on
an n×n chessboard.
For example:
If n=4 (w1, w2, w3, w4)=(11,13,24,7) and m=31.
Then desired subsets are (11, 13, 7) & (24, 7).
The two solutions are described by the vectors (1, 2, 4) and (3, 4).
In general all solution are k-tuples (x1, x2, x3---xk) 1 ≤ k ≤ n, different solutions may have
different sized tuples.
Wi weight of item i
The above equation specify that x1, x2, x3, --- xk cannot lead to an answer node if this condition
is not satisfied.
X[k]=1
If(S+w[k]=m) then write(x[1: ]); // subset found.
Else if (S+w[k] + w{k+1] ≤ M)
Then SumOfSub(S+w[k], k+1, r-w[k]);
if ((S+r - w{k] ≥ M) and (S+w[k+1] ≤M) ) then
{
X[k]=0;
SumOfSub(S, k+1, r-w[k]);
}
}
o Example:
o
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ALGORITHMS Page 69
The above map requires 4 colors.
Many years, it was known that 5-colors were required to color this map.
After several hundred years, this problem was solved by a group of mathematicians with
the help of a computer. They show that 4-colors are sufficient.
Suppose we represent a graph by its adjacency matrix G[1:n, 1:n]
Ex:
Adjacency matrix is
g1
The above graph contains Hamiltonian cycle: 1,2,8,7,6,5,4,3,1
NP-Hard and NP-Complete Problems: Basic concepts, Non deterministic algorithms, NP-Hard
and NP Complete classes, NP-Hard problems, Cook’s theorem.
Branch & Bound
Branch & Bound (B & B) is general algorithm (or Systematic method) for finding optimal
solution of various optimization problems, especially in discrete and combinatorial
optimization.
The B&B strategy is very similar to backtracking in that a state space tree is used to solve
a problem.
The differences are that the B&B method
Does not limit us to any particular way of traversing the tree.
It is used only for optimization problem
It is applicable to a wide variety of discrete combinatorial problem.
B&B is rather general optimization technique that applies where the greedy method &
dynamic programming fail.
It is much slower, indeed (truly), it often (rapidly) leads to exponential time complexities
in the worst case.
The term B&B refers to all state space search methods in which all children of the “E-
node” are generated before any other “live node” can become the “E-node”
Live node is a node that has been generated but whose children have not yet been
generated.
E-node is a live node whose children are currently being explored.
Dead node is a generated node that is not to be expanded or explored any further. All
children of a dead node have already been expanded.
Two graph search strategies, BFS & D-search (DFS) in which the exploration of a new
node cannot begin until the node currently being explored is fully explored.
Both BFS & D-search (DFS) generalized to B&B strategies.
BFS like state space search will be called FIFO (First In First Out) search as the list of
live nodes is “First-in-first-out” list (or queue).
D-search (DFS) Like state space search will be called LIFO (Last In First Out) search
as the list of live nodes is a “last-in-first-out” list (or stack).
In backtracking, bounding function are used to help avoid the generation of sub-trees that
do not contain an answer node.
We will use 3-types of search strategies in branch and bound
1) FIFO (First In First Out) search
2) LIFO (Last In First Out) search