I am well aware that there's another question about this, but my question is different.
I know for sure that searching using separate chaining will us O(N/M) and if we sort the lists we get O( log(N/M)).
However the running time of searching or deleting using linear probing is not clear to me. As far as I know it is the load factor but that's it.
Additionally, when we have cases like a full array (worst case), is it better to use separate chain or linear probing?
If we have a sparse array, which one is to choose as well?
I can't seem to figure out where the advantages of them over each other.
thank you
Related
I've been working on an implementation of SHA3, and I'm getting a bit muddled on this particular aspect of the algorithm. The addressing scheme of the state vector is given by the following diagram:
My issue with the above is: How does one go about addressing this in terms of actual code? I am using a 3 dimensional array to express the state vector, but this leads to obvious issues since the conventional mapping of an array (0 index is first) differs from the above convention used in SHA3.
For example, if I wanted to address the (0,0,0) bit in the SHA3 state array, the following expression would achieve this:
state_vector[2][2][0]
I find this highly cumbersome however because when implementing the actual round algorithms, the intended x and y values do not directly map to the array indices. Addressing state_vector[0][0][0] would return the very first index in the array instead of the (0,0,0) bit in the SHA3 state array.
Is there a way I can get around this in code?
Sorry, I know this is probably a stupid question.
The way this is customarily implemented is as a 5×5 array of 64-bit words, an array of 25 64-bit words or, if you believe your architecture (say, AArch64) will have a lot of registers, as 25 individual 64-bit words. (I prefer the second option because it's simpler to work with.) Typically they are indeed ordered in the typical order for arrays, and one simply rewrites things accordingly.
Usually this isn't a problem, because the operations are specified in terms of words in relation to each other, such as in the theta and chi steps. It's common to simply code rho and pi together such that it involves reading a word, rotating it, and storing it in the destination word, and in such a case you can simply just reorder the rotation constants as you need to.
If you want to get very fancy, you can write this as an SIMD implementation, but I think it's easier to see how it works in a practical implementation if you write it as a one- or two-dimensional array of words first.
Is it possible to invert an avgPool2d operation in PyTorch, like maxunpool2d for a maxpool2d operation, and if so, how could that be done?
I've already checked the documentation, and there isn't an option to return the indices, like in the maxpool2d operation, so I assume the unpooling won't be possible in a similar way.
EDIT:
I found a document by Intel which describes how the unpooling works. After checking the math regarding the avgpool2d function the unpooling seems to be pretty straight forward, basically mirroring every input element onto multiple output elements, and apply padding in order to get a correct output size.
I think you are looking for ConvTransposed2d, aka deconvolution: This function allows you to "upsample" the pooled layer.
Using fixed weights you can replicate the averged pooled values. You can also train this layer hopefully getting something better.
Matlab offers multiple algorithms for solving Linear Programs.
For example Matlab R2012b offers: 'active-set', 'trust-region-reflective', 'interior-point', 'interior-point-convex', 'levenberg-marquardt', 'trust-region-dogleg', 'lm-line-search', or 'sqp'.
But other versions of Matlab support different algorithms.
I would like to run a loop over all algorithms that are supported by the users Matlab-Version. And I would like them to be ordered like the recommendation order of Matlab.
I would like to implement something like this:
i=1;
x=[];
while (isempty(x))
options=optimset(options,'Algorithm',Here_I_need_a_list_of_Algorithms(i))
x = linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,x0,options);
end
In 99% this code should be equivalent to
x = linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,x0,options);
but sometimes the algorithm gives back an empty array because of numerical problems (exitflag -4). If there is a chance that one of the other algorithms can find a solution I would like to try them too.
So my question is:
Is there a possibility to automatically get a list of all linprog-algorithms that are supported by the installed Matlab-version ordered like Matlab recommends them.
I think looping through all algorithms can make sense in other scenarios too. For example when you need very precise data and have a lot of time, you could run them all and than evaluate which gives the best results.
Or one would like to loop through all algorithms, if one wants to find which algorithms is the best for LPs with a certain structure.
There's no automatic way to do this as far as I know. If you really want to do it, the easiest thing to do would be to go to the online documentation, and check through previous versions (online documentation is available for old versions, not just the most recent release), and construct some variables like this:
r2012balgos = {'active-set', 'trust-region-reflective', 'interior-point', 'interior-point-convex', 'levenberg-marquardt', 'trust-region-dogleg', 'lm-line-search', 'sqp'};
...
r2017aalgos = {...};
v = ver('matlab');
switch v.Release
case '(R2012b)'
algos = r2012balgos;
....
case '(R2017a)'
algos = r2017aalgos;
end
% loop through each of the algorithms
Seems boring, but it should only take you about 30 minutes.
There's a reason MathWorks aren't making this as easy as you might hope, though, because what you're asking for isn't a great idea.
It is possible to construct artificial problems where one algorithm finds a solution and the others don't. But in practice, typically if the recommended algorithm doesn't find a solution this doesn't indicate that you should switch algorithms, it indicates that your problem wasn't well-formulated, and you should consider modifying it, perhaps by modifying some constraints, or reformulating the objective function.
And after all, why stop with just looping through the alternative algorithms? Why not also loop through lots of values for other options such as constraint tolerances, optimality tolerances, maximum number of function evaluations, etc.? These may have just as much likelihood of affecting things as a choice of algorithm. And soon you're running an optimisation algorithm to search through the space of meta-parameters for your original optimisation.
That's not a great plan - probably better to just choose one of the recommended algorithms, stick to that, and if things don't work out then focus on improving your formulation of the problems rather than over-tweaking the optimisation itself.
I need to write a program where part of the TensorFlow nodes need to keep being there storing some global information(mainly variables and summaries) while the other part need to be changed/reorganized as program runs.
The way I do now is to reconstruct the whole graph in every iteration. But then, I have to store and load those information manually from/to checkpoint files or numpy arrays in every iteration, which makes my code really messy and error prone.
I wonder if there is a way to remove/modify part of my computation graph instead of reset the whole graph?
Changing the structure of TensorFlow graphs isn't really possible. Specifically, there isn't a clean way to remove nodes from a graph, so removing a subgraph and adding another isn't practical. (I've tried this, and it involves surgery on the internals. Ultimately, it's way more effort than it's worth, and you're asking for maintenance headaches.)
There are some workarounds.
Your reconstruction is one of them. You seem to have a pretty good handle on this method, so I won't harp on it, but for the benefit of anyone else who stumbles upon this, a very similar method is a filtered deep copy of the graph. That is, you iterate over the elements and add them in, predicated on some condition. This is most viable if the graph was given to you (i.e., you don't have the functions that built it in the first place) or if the changes are fairly minor. You still pay the price of rebuilding the graph, but sometimes loading and storing can be transparent. Given your scenario, though, this probably isn't a good match.
Another option is to recast the problem as a superset of all possible graphs you're trying to evaluate and rely on dataflow behavior. In other words, build a graph which includes every type of input you're feeding it and only ask for the outputs you need. Good signs this might work are: your network is parametric (perhaps you're just increasing/decreasing widths or layers), the changes are minor (maybe including/excluding inputs), and your operations can handle variable inputs (reductions across a dimension, for instance). In your case, if you have only a small, finite number of tree structures, this could work well. You'll probably just need to add some aggregation or renormalization for your global information.
A third option is to treat the networks as physically split. So instead of thinking of one network with mutable components, treat the boundaries between fixed and changing pieces are inputs and outputs of two separate networks. This does make some things harder: for instance, backprop across both is now ugly (which it sounds like might be a problem for you). But if you can avoid that, then two networks can work pretty well. It ends up feeling a lot like dealing with a separate pretraining phase, which you many already be comfortable with.
Most of these workarounds have a fairly narrow range of problems that they work for, so they might not help in your case. That said, you don't have to go all-or-nothing. If partially splitting the network or creating a supergraph for just some changes works, then it might be that you only have to worry about save/restore for a few cases, which may ease your troubles.
Hope this helps!
I'm currently writing an optimization algorithm in MATLAB, at which I completely suck, therefore I could really use your help. I'm really struggling to find a good way of representing a graph (or well more like a tree with several roots) which would look more or less like this:
alt text http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3232/graphe.png
Basically 11/12/13 are our roots (stage 0), 2x is stage1, 3x stage2 and 4x stage3. As you can see nodes from stageX are only connected to several nodes from stage(X+1) (so they don't have to be connected to all of them).
Important: each node has to hold several values (at least 3-4), one will be it's number and at least two other variables (which will be used to optimize the decisions).
I do have a simple representation using matrices but it's really hard to maintain, so I was wondering is there a good way to do it?
Second question: when I'm done with that representation I need to calculate how good each route (from roots to the end) is (like let's say I need to compare is 11-21-31-41 the best or is 11-21-31-42 better) to do that I will be using the variables that each node holds. But the values will have to be calculated recursively, let's say we start at 11 but to calcultate how good 11-21-31-41 is we first need to go to 41, do some calculations, go to 31, do some calculations, go to 21 do some calculations and then we can calculate 11 using all the previous calculations. Same with 11-21-31-42 (we start with 42 then 31->21->11). I need to check all the possible routes that way. And here's the question, how to do it? Maybe a BFS/DFS? But I'm not quite sure how to store all the results.
Those are some lengthy questions, but I hope I'm not asking you for doing my homework (as I got all the algorithms, it's just that I'm not really good at matlab and my teacher wouldn't let me to do it in java).
Granted, it may not be the most efficient solution, but if you have access to Matlab 2008+, you can define a node class to represent your graph.
The Matlab documentation has a nice example on linked lists, which you can use as a template.
Basically, a node would have a property 'linksTo', which points to the index of the node it links to, and a method to calculate the cost of each of the links (possibly with some additional property that describe each link). Then, all you need is a function that moves down each link, and brings the cost(s) with it when it moves back up.