I am aware that languages like Prolog allow you to write things like the following:
mortal(X) :- man(X). % All men are mortal
man(socrates). % Socrates is a man
?- mortal(socrates). % Is Socrates mortal?
yes
What I want is something like this, but backwards. Suppose I have this:
mortal(X) :- man(X).
man(socrates).
man(plato).
man(aristotle).
I then ask it to give me a random X for which mortal(X) is true (thus it should give me one of 'socrates', 'plato', or 'aristotle' according to some random seed).
My questions are:
Does this sort of reverse inference have a name?
Are there any languages or libraries that support it?
EDIT
As somebody below pointed out, you can simply ask mortal(X) and it will return all X, from which you can simply pick a random one from the list. What if, however, that list would be very large, perhaps in the billions? Obviously in that case it wouldn't do to generate every possible result before picking one.
To see how this would be a practical problem, imagine a simple grammar that generated a random sentence of the form "adjective1 noun1 adverb transitive_verb adjective2 noun2". If the lists of adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc. are very large, you can see how the combinatorial explosion is a problem. If each list had 1000 words, you'd have 1000^6 possible sentences.
Instead of the deep-first search of Prolog, a randomized deep-first search strategy could be easyly implemented. All that is required is to randomize the program flow at choice points so that every time a disjunction is reached a random pole on the search tree (= prolog program) is selected instead of the first.
Though, note that this approach does not guarantees that all the solutions will be equally probable. To guarantee that, it is required to known in advance how many solutions will be generated by every pole to weight the randomization accordingly.
I've never used Prolog or anything similar, but judging by what Wikipedia says on the subject, asking
?- mortal(X).
should list everything for which mortal is true. After that, just pick one of the results.
So to answer your questions,
I'd go with "a query with a variable in it"
From what I can tell, Prolog itself should support it quite fine.
I dont think that you can calculate the nth solution directly but you can calculate the n first solutions (n randomly picked) and pick the last. Of course this would be problematic if n=10^(big_number)...
You could also do something like
mortal(ID,X) :- man(ID,X).
man(X):- random(1,4,ID), man(ID,X).
man(1,socrates).
man(2,plato).
man(3,aristotle).
but the problem is that if not every man was mortal, for example if only 1 out of 1000000 was mortal you would have to search a lot. It would be like searching for solutions for an equation by trying random numbers till you find one.
You could develop some sort of heuristic to find a solution close to the number but that may affect (negatively) the randomness.
I suspect that there is no way to do it more efficiently: you either have to calculate the set of solutions and pick one or pick one member of the superset of all solutions till you find one solution. But don't take my word for it xd
Related
I am reading page 69 of Haskell School of Expression and I am not sure that I got the evalution of rev [1:2:3:4] right.
Hudak does not explain the evalution(rewriting) order in detail in his book for reverse.
Could someone please either confirm that my guess (shown in the attached picture) is correct or if not correct then point out what I got wrong. I believe that it is correct but I am not 100% sure, this is the reason for asking.
So the question is:
when I evaluate one step of reverse then aftes the evaluation (i.e. rewriting) the result should be surrounded by parenthesis, right?
If I understand correctly, these unlucky appearance of parentheseses is the reason for the poor (read quadratic) time complexity of reverse. In this example 6 steps are spent in total on list appending in order to reverse a 4 element list.
Yes, nested, left-associative calls to append (in Haskell, goes by the names (++) and (<>)) generates poor performance of singly-linked lists.
There are several solutions to this problem, since it's been known about for 30 or 40 years, at least. I believe the library version of reverse uses an accumulator to achieve linear complexity rather than quadratic, but it's still not something you want to call frequently on lists.
A group of amusing students write essays exclusively by plagiarising portions of the complete works of WIlliam Shakespere. At one end of the scale, an essay might exclusively consist a verbatim copy of a soliloquy... at the other, one might see work so novel that - while using a common alphabet - no two adjacent characters in the essay were used adjacently by Will.
Essays need to be graded. A score of 1 is assigned to any essay which can be found (character-by-character identical) in the plain-text of the complete works. A score of 2 is assigned to any work that can be successfully constructed from no fewer than two distinct (character-by-character identical) passages in the complete works, and so on... up to the limit - for an essay with N characters - which scores N if, and only if, no two adjacent characters in the essay were also placed adjacently in the complete works.
The challenge is to implement a program which can efficiently (and accurately) score essays. While any (practicable) data-structure to represent the complete works is acceptable - the essays are presented as ASCII strings.
Having considered this teasing question for a while, I came to the conclusion that it is much harder than it sounds. The naive solution, for an essay of length N, involves 2**(N-1) traversals of the complete works - which is far too inefficient to be practical.
While, obviously, I'm interested in suggested solutions - I'd also appreciate pointers to any literature that deals with this, or any similar, problem.
CLARIFICATIONS
Perhaps some examples (ranging over much shorter strings) will help clarify the 'score' for 'essays'?
Assume Shakespere's complete works are abridged to:
"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog."
Essays scoring 1 include "own fox jump" and "The quick brow". The essay "jogging" scores 6 (despite being short) because it can't be represented in fewer than 6 segments of the complete works... It can be segmented into six strings that are all substrings of the complete works as follows: "[j][og][g][i][n][g]". N.B. Establishing scores for this short example is trivial compared to the original problem - because, in this example "complete works" - there is very little repetition.
Hopefully, this example segmentation helps clarify the 2*(N-1) substring searches in the complete works. If we consider the segmentation, the (N-1) gaps between the N characters in the essay may either be a gap between segments, or not... resulting in ~ 2*(N-1) substring searches of the complete works to test each segmentation hypothesis.
An (N)DFA would be a wonderful solution - if it were practical. I can see how to construct something that solved 'substring matching' in this way - but not scoring. The state space for scoring, on the surface, at least, seems wildly too large (for any substantial complete works of Shakespere.) I'd welcome any explanation that undermines my assumptions that the (N)DFA would be too large to be practical to compute/store.
A general approach for plagiarism detection is to append the student's text to the source text separated by a character not occurring in either and then to build either a suffix tree or suffix array. This will allow you to find in linear time large substrings of the student's text which also appear in the source text.
I find it difficult to be more specific because I do not understand your explanation of the score - the method above would be good for finding the longest stretch in the students work which is an exact quote, but I don't understand your N - is it the number of distinct sections of source text needed to construct the student's text?
If so, there may be a dynamic programming approach. At step k, we work out the least number of distinct sections of source text needed to construct first k characters of the student's text. Using a suffix array built just from the source text or otherwise, we find the longest match between the source text and characters x..k of the student's text, where x is of course as small as possible. Then the least number of sections of source text needed to construct the first k characters of student text is the least needed to construct 1..x-1 (which we have already worked out) plus 1. By running this process for k=1..the length of the student text we find the least number of sections of source text needed to reconstruct the whole of it.
(Or you could just search StackOverflow for the student's text, on the grounds that students never do anything these days except post their question on StackOverflow :-)).
I claim that repeatedly moving along the target string from left to right, using a suffix array or tree to find the longest match at any time, will find the smallest number of different strings from the source text that produces the target string. I originally found this by looking for a dynamic programming recursion but, as pointed out by Evgeny Kluev, this is actually a greedy algorithm, so let's try and prove this with a typical greedy algorithm proof.
Suppose not. Then there is a solution better than the one you get by going for the longest match every time you run off the end of the current match. Compare the two proposed solutions from left to right and look for the first time when the non-greedy solution differs from the greedy solution. If there are multiple non-greedy solutions that do better than the greedy solution I am going to demand that we consider the one that differs from the greedy solution at the last possible instant.
If the non-greedy solution is going to do better than the greedy solution, and there isn't a non-greedy solution that does better and differs later, then the non-greedy solution must find that, in return for breaking off its first match earlier than the greedy solution, it can carry on its next match for longer than the greedy solution. If it can't, it might somehow do better than the greedy solution, but not in this section, which means there is a better non-greedy solution which sticks with the greedy solution until the end of our non-greedy solution's second matching section, which is against our requirement that we want the non-greedy better solution that sticks with the greedy one as long as possible. So we have to assume that, in return for breaking off the first match early, the non-greedy solution gets to carry on its second match longer. But this doesn't work, because, when the greedy solution finally has to finish using its first match, it can jump on to the same section of matching text that the non-greedy solution is using, just entering that section later than the non-greedy solution did, but carrying on for at least as long as the non-greedy solution. So there is no non-greedy solution that does better than the greedy solution and the greedy solution is optimal.
Have you considered using N-Grams to solve this problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-gram
First read the complete works of Shakespeare and build a trie. Then process the string left to right. We can greedily take the longest substring that matches one in the data because we want the minimum number of strings, so there is no factor of 2^N. The second part is dirt cheap O(N).
The depth of the trie is limited by the available space. With a gigabyte of ram you could reasonably expect to exhaustively cover Shakespearean English string of length at least 5 or 6. I would require that the leaf nodes are unique (which also gives a rule for constructing the trie) and keep a pointer to their place in the actual works, so you have access to the continuation.
This feels like a problem of partial matching a very large regular expression.
If so it can be solved by a very large non deterministic finite state automata or maybe more broadly put as a graph representing for every character in the works of Shakespeare, all the possible next characters.
If necessary for efficiency reasons the NDFA is guaranteed to be convertible to a DFA. But then this construction can give rise to 2^n states, maybe this is what you were alluding to?
This aspect of the complexity does not really worry me. The NDFA will have M + C states; one state for each character and C states where C = 26*2 + #punctuation to connect to each of the M states to allow the algorithm to (re)start when there are 0 matched characters. The question is would the corresponding DFA have O(2^M) states and if so is it necessary to make that DFA, theoretically it's not necessary. However, consider that in the construction, each state will have one and only one transition to exactly one other state (the next state corresponding to the next character in that work). We would expect that each one of the start states will be connected to on average M/C states, but in the worst case M meaning the NDFA will have to track at most M simultaneous states. That's a large number but not an impossibly large number for computers these days.
The score would be derived by initializing to 1 and then it would incremented every time a non-accepting state is reached.
It's true that one of the approaches to string searching is building a DFA. In fact, for the majority of the string search algorithms, it looks like a small modification on failure to match (increment counter) and success (keep going) can serve as a general strategy.
I think the best way to form this question is with an example...so, the actual reason I decided to ask about this is because of because of Problem 55 on Project Euler. In the problem, it asks to find the number of Lychrel numbers below 10,000. In an imperative language, I would get the list of numbers leading up to the final palindrome, and push those numbers to a list outside of my function. I would then check each incoming number to see if it was a part of that list, and if so, simply stop the test and conclude that the number is NOT a Lychrel number. I would do the same thing with non-lychrel numbers and their preceding numbers.
I've done this before and it has worked out nicely. However, it seems like a big hassle to actually implement this in Haskell without adding a bunch of extra arguments to my functions to hold the predecessors, and an absolute parent function to hold all of the numbers that I need to store.
I'm just wondering if there is some kind of tool that I'm missing here, or if there are any standards as a way to do this? I've read that Haskell kind of "naturally caches" (for example, if I wanted to define odd numbers as odds = filter odd [1..], I could refer to that whenever I wanted to, but it seems to get complicated when I need to dynamically add elements to a list.
Any suggestions on how to tackle this?
Thanks.
PS: I'm not asking for an answer to the Project Euler problem, I just want to get to know Haskell a bit better!
I believe you're looking for memoizing. There are a number of ways to do this. One fairly simple way is with the MemoTrie package. Alternatively if you know your input domain is a bounded set of numbers (e.g. [0,10000)) you can create an Array where the values are the results of your computation, and then you can just index into the array with your input. The Array approach won't work for you though because, even though your input numbers are below 10,000, subsequent iterations can trivially grow larger than 10,000.
That said, when I solved Problem 55 in Haskell, I didn't bother doing any memoization whatsoever. It turned out to just be fast enough to run (up to) 50 iterations on all input numbers. In fact, running that right now takes 0.2s to complete on my machine.
This is a problem appeared in today's Pacific NW Region Programming Contest during which no one solved it. It is problem B and the complete problem set is here: http://www.acmicpc-pacnw.org/icpc-statements-2011.zip. There is a well-known O(n^2) algorithm for LCS of two strings using Dynamic Programming. But when these strings are extended to rings I have no idea...
P.S. note that it is subsequence rather than substring, so the elements do not need to be adjacent to each other
P.S. It might not be O(n^2) but O(n^2lgn) or something that can give the result in 5 seconds on a common computer.
Searching the web, this appears to be covered by section 4.3 of the paper "Incremental String Comparison", by Landau, Myers, and Schmidt at cost O(ne) < O(n^2), where I think e is the edit distance. This paper also references a previous paper by Maes giving cost O(mn log m) with more general edit costs - "On a cyclic string to string correcting problem". Expecting a contestant to reproduce either of these papers seems pretty demanding to me - but as far as I can see the question does ask for the longest common subsequence on cyclic strings.
You can double the first and second string and then use the ordinary method, and later wrap the positions around.
It is a good idea to "double" the strings and apply the standard dynamic programing algorithm. The problem with it is that to get the optimal cyclic LCS one then has to "start the algorithm from multiple initial conditions". Just one initial condition (e.g. setting all Lij variables to 0 at the boundaries) will not do in general. In practice it turns out that the number of initial states that are needed are O(N) in number (they span a diagonal), so one gets back to an O(N^3) algorithm.
However, the approach does has some virtue as it can be used to design efficient O(N^2) heuristics (not exact but near exact) for CLCS.
I do not know if a true O(N^2) exist, and would be very interested if someone knows one.
The CLCS problem has quite interesting properties of "periodicity": the length of a CLCS of
p-times reapeated strings is p times the CLCS of the strings. This can be proved by adopting a geometric view off the problem.
Also, there are some additional benefits of the problem: it can be shown that if Lc(N) denotes the averaged value of the CLCS length of two random strings of length N, then
|Lc(N)-CN| is O(\sqrt{N}) where C is Chvatal-Sankoff's constant. For the averaged length L(N) of the standard LCS, the only rate result of which I know says that |L(N)-CN| is O(sqrt(Nlog N)). There could be a nice way to compare Lc(N) with L(N) but I don't know it.
Another question: it is clear that the CLCS length is not superadditive contrary to the LCS length. By this I mean it is not true that CLCS(X1X2,Y1Y2) is always greater than CLCS(X1,Y1)+CLCS(X2,Y2) (it is very easy to find counter examples with a computer).
But it seems possible that the averaged length Lc(N) is superadditive (Lc(N1+N2) greater than Lc(N1)+Lc(N2)) - though if there is a proof I don't know it.
One modest interest in this question is that the values Lc(N)/N for the first few values of N would then provide good bounds to the Chvatal-Sankoff constant (much better than L(N)/N).
As a followup to mcdowella's answer, I'd like to point out that the O(n^2 lg n) solution presented in Maes' paper is the intended solution to the contest problem (check http://www.acmicpc-pacnw.org/ProblemSet/2011/solutions.zip). The O(ne) solution in Landau et al's paper does NOT apply to this problem, as that paper is targeted at edit distance, not LCS. In particular, the solution to cyclic edit distance only applies if the edit operations (add, delete, replace) all have unit (1, 1, 1) cost. LCS, on the other hand, is equivalent to edit distances with (add, delete, replace) costs (1, 1, 2). These are not equivalent to each other; for example, consider the input strings "ABC" and "CXY" (for the acyclic case; you can construct cyclic counterexamples similarly). The LCS of the two strings is "C", but the minimum unit-cost edit is to replace each character in turn.
At 110 lines but no complex data structures, Maes' solution falls towards the upper end of what is reasonable to implement in a contest setting. Even if Landau et al's solution could be adapted to handle cyclic LCS, the complexity of the data structure makes it infeasible in a contest setting.
Last but not least, I'd like to point out that an O(n^2) solution DOES exist for CLCS, described here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0396 At 60 lines, no complex data structures, and only 2 arrays, this solution is quite reasonable to implement in a contest setting. Arriving at the solution might be a different matter, though.
My company maintains a domain-specific language that syntactically resembles the Excel formula language. We're considering adding new builtins to the language. One way to do this is to identify verbose commands that are repeatedly used in our codebase. For example, if we see people always write the same 100-character command to trim whitespace from the beginning and end of a string, that suggests we should add a trim function.
Seeing a list of frequent substrings in the codebase would be a good start (though sometimes the frequently used commands differ by a few characters because of different variable names used).
I know there are well-established algorithms for doing this, but first I want to see if I can avoid reinventing the wheel. For example, I know this concept is the basis of many compression algorithms, so is there a compression module that lets me retrieve the dictionary of frequent substrings? Any other ideas would be appreciated.
The string matching is just the low hanging fruit, the obvious cases. The harder cases are where you're doing similar things but in different order. For example suppose you have:
X+Y
Y+X
Your string matching approach won't realize that those are effectively the same. If you want to go a bit deeper I think you need to parse the formulas into an AST and actually compare the AST's. If you did that you could see that the tree's are actually the same since the binary operator '+' is commutative.
You could also apply reduction rules so you could evaluate complex functions into simpler ones, for example:
(X * A) + ( X * B)
X * ( A + B )
Those are also the same! String matching won't help you there.
Parse into AST
Reduce and Optimize the functions
Compare the resulting AST to other ASTs
If you find a match then replace them with a call to a shared function.
I would think you could use an existing full-text indexer like Lucene, and implement your own Analyzer and Tokenizer that is specific to your formula language.
You then would be able to run queries, and be able to see the most used formulas, which ones appear next to each other, etc.
Here's a quick article to get you started:
Lucene Analyzer, Tokenizer and TokenFilter
You might want to look into tag-cloud generators. I couldn't find any source in the minute that I spent looking, but here's an online one:
http://tagcloud.oclc.org/tagcloud/TagCloudDemo which probably won't work since it uses spaces as delimiters.