Menu
It would be great if someone could point me towards an algorithm that would allow me to :
Right now I manage to achieve points 1 and 2 doing the following : such a matrix can be transformed, using suitable permutations of rows and columns, into a diagonal block matrix with blocks of the form
1 1 0 0 ... 0
0 1 1 0 ... 0
0 0 1 1 ... 0
.............
1 0 0 0 ... 1
So I start from such a matrix using a partition of [0, ..., n-1] and scramble it by permuting rows and columns randomly. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to integrate the adjacency condition, and I am quite sure that my algorithm won't treat all the matrices equally.
Update
I have managed to achieve point 3. The answer was actually straight under my nose : the block matrix I am creating contains all the information needed to take into account the adjacency condition. First some properties and definitions:
[1, ..., n] that can be build like so: select a 1 in row 1. The column containing this entry contains exactly one other entry equal to 1 on a row a different from 1. Again, row a contains another entry 1 in a column which contains a second entry 1 on a row b, and so on. This starts a permutation 1 -> a -> b ....For instance, with the following matrix, starting with the marked entry
v
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 1
0 1 0 0 0 1 | 2
1 0 0 1 0 0 | 3
0 0 1 0 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 5
0 1 0 0 1 0 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
we get permutation 1 -> 3 -> 5 -> 2 -> 6 -> 4 -> 1.
But I was using any permutation, which led to some adjacent non-zero entries. To avoid that, I have to choose permutations that separate rows (and columns) that are adjacent in the block matrix. Actually, to be more precise, if two rows belong to a same block and are cyclically consecutive (the first and last rows of a block are considered consecutive too), then the permutation I want to apply has to move these rows into non-consecutive rows of the final matrix (I will call two rows incompatible in that case).
So the question becomes : How to build all such permutations ?
The simplest idea is to build a permutation progressively by randomly adding rows that are compatible with the previous one. As an example, consider the case n = 6 using partition 6 = 3 + 3 and the corresponding block matrix
1 1 0 0 0 0 | 1
0 1 1 0 0 0 | 2
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 3
0 0 0 1 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 0 1 1 | 5
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Here rows 1, 2 and 3 are mutually incompatible, as are 4, 5 and 6. Choose a random row, say 3.
We will write a permutation as an array: [2, 5, 6, 4, 3, 1] meaning 1 -> 2, 2 -> 5, 3 -> 6, ... This means that row 2 of the block matrix will become the first row of the final matrix, row 5 will become the second row, and so on.
Now let's build a suitable permutation by choosing randomly a row, say 3:
p = [3, ...]The next row will then be chosen randomly among the remaining rows that are compatible with 3 : 4, 5and 6. Say we choose 4:
p = [3, 4, ...]Next choice has to be made among 1 and 2, for instance 1:
p = [3, 4, 1, ...]And so on: p = [3, 4, 1, 5, 2, 6].
Applying this permutation to the block matrix, we get:
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 3
0 0 0 1 1 0 | 4
1 1 0 0 0 0 | 1
0 0 0 0 1 1 | 5
0 1 1 0 0 0 | 2
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 6
------------+--
1 2 3 4 5 6 |
Doing so, we manage to vertically isolate all non-zero entries. Same has to be done with the columns, for instance by using permutation p' = [6, 3, 5, 1, 4, 2] to finally get
0 1 0 1 0 0 | 3
0 0 1 0 1 0 | 4
0 0 0 1 0 1 | 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 | 5
0 1 0 0 0 1 | 2
1 0 0 0 1 0 | 6
------------+--
6 3 5 1 4 2 |
So this seems to work quite efficiently, but building these permutations needs to be done with caution, because one can easily be stuck: for instance, with n=6 and partition 6 = 2 + 2 + 2, following the construction rules set up earlier can lead to p = [1, 3, 2, 4, ...]. Unfortunately, 5 and 6 are incompatible, so choosing one or the other makes the last choice impossible. I think I've found all situations that lead to a dead end. I will denote by r the set of remaining choices:
p = [..., x, ?], r = {y} with x and y incompatiblep = [..., x, ?, ?], r = {y, z} with y and z being both incompatible with x (no choice can be made)p = [..., ?, ?], r = {x, y} with x and y incompatible (any choice would lead to situation 1)p = [..., ?, ?, ?], r = {x, y, z} with x, y and z being cyclically consecutive (choosing x or z would lead to situation 2, choosing y to situation 3)p = [..., w, ?, ?, ?], r = {x, y, z} with xwy being a 3-cycle (neither x nor y can be chosen, choosing z would lead to situation 3)p = [..., ?, ?, ?, ?], r = {w, x, y, z} with wxyz being a 4-cycle (any choice would lead to situation 4)p = [..., ?, ?, ?, ?], r = {w, x, y, z} with xyz being a 3-cycle (choosing w would lead to situation 4, choosing any other would lead to situation 4)Now it seems that the following algorithm gives all suitable permutations:
I am quite sure that this allows me to generate all suitable permutations and, hence, all suitable matrices.
Unfortunately, every matrix will be obtained several times, depending on the partition that was chosen.
322
Here is some prototype-approach, trying to solve the more general task of uniform combinatorial sampling, which for our approach here means: we can use this approach for everything which we can formulate as SAT-problem.
It's not exploiting your problem directly and takes a heavy detour. This detour to the SAT-problem can help in regards to theory (more powerful general theoretical results) and efficiency (SAT-solvers).
That being said, it's not an approach if you want to sample within seconds or less (in my experiments), at least while being concerned about uniformity.
The approach, based on results from complexity-theory, follows this work:
GOMES, Carla P.; SABHARWAL, Ashish; SELMAN, Bart. Near-uniform sampling of combinatorial spaces using XOR constraints. In: Advances In Neural Information Processing Systems. 2007. S. 481-488.
In practice, the parameters are:
N is important to reduce the number of possible solutions. Given N constant, the other variables of course also have some effect on that.
Theory says (if i interpret correctly), that we should use L = R = 0.5 * #dec-vars.
This is impossible in practice here, as xor-constraints hurt SAT-solvers a lot!
Here some more scientific slides about the impact of L and U.
They call xors of size 8-20 short-XORS, while we will need to use even shorter ones later!
Here is a pretty hacky implementation in python, using the XorSample scripts from here.
The underlying SAT-solver in use is Cryptominisat.
The code basically boils down to:
Code: (i hope i did warn you already about the code-quality)
from itertools import count
from time import time
import subprocess
import numpy as np
import os
import shelve
import uuid
import pickle
from random import SystemRandom
cryptogen = SystemRandom()
""" Helper functions """
# K-ARY CONSTRAINT GENERATION
# ###########################
# SINZ, Carsten. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints.
# CP, 2005, 3709. Jg., S. 827-831.
def next_var_index(start):
next_var = start
while(True):
yield next_var
next_var += 1
class s_index():
def __init__(self, start_index):
self.firstEnvVar = start_index
def next(self,i,j,k):
return self.firstEnvVar + i*k +j
def gen_seq_circuit(k, input_indices, next_var_index_gen):
cnf_string = ''
s_index_gen = s_index(next_var_index_gen.next())
# write clauses of first partial sum (i.e. i=0)
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[0]) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(0,0,k)) + ' 0\n')
for i in range(1, k):
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(0, i, k)) + ' 0\n')
# write clauses for general case (i.e. 0 < i < n-1)
for i in range(1, len(input_indices)-1):
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, 0, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, 0, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, 0, k)) + ' 0\n')
for u in range(1, k):
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, u-1, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, u, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, u, k)) + ' ' + str(s_index_gen.next(i, u, k)) + ' 0\n')
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[i]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(i-1, k-1, k)) + ' 0\n')
# last clause for last variable
cnf_string += (str(-input_indices[-1]) + ' ' + str(-s_index_gen.next(len(input_indices)-2, k-1, k)) + ' 0\n')
return (cnf_string, (len(input_indices)-1)*k, 2*len(input_indices)*k + len(input_indices) - 3*k - 1)
# K=2 clause GENERATION
# #####################
def gen_at_most_2_constraints(vars, start_var):
constraint_string = ''
used_clauses = 0
used_vars = 0
index_gen = next_var_index(start_var)
circuit = gen_seq_circuit(2, vars, index_gen)
constraint_string += circuit[0]
used_clauses += circuit[2]
used_vars += circuit[1]
start_var += circuit[1]
return [constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, start_var]
def gen_at_least_2_constraints(vars, start_var):
k = len(vars) - 2
vars = [-var for var in vars]
constraint_string = ''
used_clauses = 0
used_vars = 0
index_gen = next_var_index(start_var)
circuit = gen_seq_circuit(k, vars, index_gen)
constraint_string += circuit[0]
used_clauses += circuit[2]
used_vars += circuit[1]
start_var += circuit[1]
return [constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, start_var]
# Adjacency conflicts
# ###################
def get_all_adjacency_conflicts_4_neighborhood(N, X):
conflicts = set()
for x in range(N):
for y in range(N):
if x < (N-1):
conflicts.add(((x,y),(x+1,y)))
if y < (N-1):
conflicts.add(((x,y),(x,y+1)))
cnf = '' # slow string appends
for (var_a, var_b) in conflicts:
var_a_ = X[var_a]
var_b_ = X[var_b]
cnf += '-' + var_a_ + ' ' + '-' + var_b_ + ' 0 \n'
return cnf, len(conflicts)
# Build SAT-CNF
#############
def build_cnf(N, verbose=False):
var_counter = count(1)
N_CLAUSES = 0
X = np.zeros((N, N), dtype=object)
for a in range(N):
for b in range(N):
X[a,b] = str(next(var_counter))
# Adjacency constraints
CNF, N_CLAUSES = get_all_adjacency_conflicts_4_neighborhood(N, X)
# k=2 constraints
NEXT_VAR = N*N+1
for row in range(N):
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_most_2_constraints(X[row, :].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_least_2_constraints(X[row, :].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
for col in range(N):
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_most_2_constraints(X[:, col].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
constraint_string, used_clauses, used_vars, NEXT_VAR = gen_at_least_2_constraints(X[:, col].astype(int).tolist(), NEXT_VAR)
N_CLAUSES += used_clauses
CNF += constraint_string
# build final cnf
CNF = 'p cnf ' + str(NEXT_VAR-1) + ' ' + str(N_CLAUSES) + '\n' + CNF
return X, CNF, NEXT_VAR-1
# External tools
# ##############
def get_random_xor_problem(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_ALL_VARS, s, min_l, max_l):
# .cnf not part of arg!
p = subprocess.Popen(['./gen-wff', CNF_IN_fp,
str(N_DEC_VARS), str(N_ALL_VARS),
str(s), str(min_l), str(max_l), 'xored'],
stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE, stderr=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()
os.remove(CNF_IN_fp + '-str-xored.xor') # file not needed
return CNF_IN_fp + '-str-xored.cnf'
def solve(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS):
seed = cryptogen.randint(0, 2147483647) # actually no reason to do it; but can't hurt either
p = subprocess.Popen(["./cryptominisat5", '-t', '4', '-r', str(seed), CNF_IN_fp], stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()[0]
sat_line = result.find('s SATISFIABLE')
if sat_line != -1:
# solution found!
vars = parse_solution(result)[:N_DEC_VARS]
# forbid solution (DeMorgan)
negated_vars = list(map(lambda x: x*(-1), vars))
with open(CNF_IN_fp, 'a') as f:
f.write( (str(negated_vars)[1:-1] + ' 0\n').replace(',', ''))
# assume solve is treating last constraint despite not changing header!
# solve again
seed = cryptogen.randint(0, 2147483647)
p = subprocess.Popen(["./cryptominisat5", '-t', '4', '-r', str(seed), CNF_IN_fp], stdin=subprocess.PIPE, stdout=subprocess.PIPE)
result = p.communicate()[0]
sat_line = result.find('s SATISFIABLE')
if sat_line != -1:
os.remove(CNF_IN_fp) # not needed anymore
return True, False, None
else:
return True, True, vars
else:
return False, False, None
def parse_solution(output):
# assumes there is one
vars = []
for line in output.split("\n"):
if line:
if line[0] == 'v':
line_vars = list(map(lambda x: int(x), line.split()[1:]))
vars.extend(line_vars)
return vars
# Core-algorithm
# ##############
def xorsample(X, CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, s, min_l, max_l):
start_time = time()
while True:
# add s random XOR constraints to F
xored_cnf_fp = get_random_xor_problem(CNF_IN_fp, N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, s, min_l, max_l)
state_lvl1, state_lvl2, var_sol = solve(xored_cnf_fp, N_DEC_VARS)
print('------------')
if state_lvl1 and state_lvl2:
print('FOUND')
d = shelve.open('N_15_70_4_6_TO_PLOT')
d[str(uuid.uuid4())] = (pickle.dumps(var_sol), time() - start_time)
d.close()
return True
else:
if state_lvl1:
print('sol not unique')
else:
print('no sol found')
print('------------')
""" Run """
N = 15
N_DEC_VARS = N*N
X, CNF, N_VARS = build_cnf(N)
with open('my_problem.cnf', 'w') as f:
f.write(CNF)
counter = 0
while True:
print('sample: ', counter)
xorsample(X, 'my_problem', N_DEC_VARS, N_VARS, 70, 4, 6)
counter += 1
Output will look like (removed some warnings):
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
no sol found
------------
------------
sol not unique
------------
------------
FOUND
We introduce one variable for every cell of the matrix. N=20 means 400 binary-variables.
Adjancency:
Precalculate all symmetry-reduced conflicts and add conflict-clauses.
Basic theory:
a -> !b
<->
!a v !b (propositional logic)
Row/Col-wise Cardinality:
This is tough to express in CNF and naive approaches need an exponential number of constraints.
We use some adder-circuit based encoding (SINZ, Carsten. Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints) which introduces new auxiliary-variables.
Remark:
sum(var_set) <= k
<->
sum(negated(var_set)) >= len(var_set) - k
These SAT-encodings can be put into exact model-counters (for small N; e.g. < 9). The number of solutions equals Ante's results, which is a strong indication for a correct transformation!
There are also interesting approximate model-counters (also heavily based on xor-constraints) like approxMC which shows one more thing we can do with the SAT-formulation. But in practice i have not been able to use these (approxMC = autoconf; no comment).
I did also build a version using pblib, to use more powerful cardinality-formulations for the SAT-CNF formulation. I did not try to use the C++-based API, but only the reduced pbencoder, which automatically selects some best encoding, which was way worse than my encoding used above (which is best is still a research-problem; often even redundant-constraints can help).
For the sake of obtaining some sample-size (given my patience), i only computed samples for N=15. In this case we used:
I also computed some samples for N=20 with (100,3,6), but this takes a few mins and we reduced the lower bound!
Here some animation (strengthening my love-hate relationship with matplotlib):
Edit: And a (reduced) comparison to brute-force uniform-sampling with N=5 (NXOR,L,U = 4, 10, 30):
(I have not yet decided on the addition of the plotting-code. It's as ugly as the above one and people might look too much into my statistical shambles; normalizations and co.)
Statistical analysis is probably hard to do as the underlying problem is of such combinatoric nature. It's even not entirely obvious how that final cell-PDF should look like. In the case of N=odd, it's probably non-uniform and looks like a chess-board (i did brute-force check N=5 to observe this).
One thing we can be sure about (imho): symmetry!
Given a cell-PDF matrix, we should expect, that the matrix is symmetric (A = A.T). This is checked in the visualization and the euclidean-norm of differences over time is plotted.
We can do the same on some other observation: observed pairings.
For N=3, we can observe the following pairs:
Now we can do this per-row and per-column and should expect symmetry too!
Sadly, it's probably not easy to say something about the variance and therefore the needed samples to speak about confidence!
According to my simplified perception, current-samples and the cell-PDF look good, although convergence is not achieved yet (or we are far away from uniformity).
The more important aspect are probably the two norms, nicely decreasing towards 0. (yes; one could tune some algorithm for that by transposing with prob=0.5; but this is not done here as it would defeat it's purpose).
157
(Updated test results, example run-through and code snippets below.)
You can use dynamic programming to calculate the number of solutions resulting from every state (in a much more efficient way than a brute-force algorithm), and use those (pre-calculated) values to create equiprobable random solutions.
Consider the example of a 7x7 matrix; at the start, the state is:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0
meaning that there are seven adjacent unused columns. After adding two ones to the first row, the state could be e.g.:
0,1,0,0,1,0,0
with two columns that now have a one in them. After adding ones to the second row, the state could be e.g.:
0,1,1,0,1,0,1
After three rows are filled, there is a possibility that a column will have its maximum of two ones; this effectively splits the matrix into two independent zones:
1,1,1,0,2,0,1 -> 1,1,1,0 + 0,1
These zones are independent in the sense that the no-adjacent-ones rule has no effect when adding ones to different zones, and the order of the zones has no effect on the number of solutions.
In order to use these states as signatures for types of solutions, we have to transform them into a canonical notation. First, we have to take into account the fact that columns with only 1 one in them may be unusable in the next row, because they contain a one in the current row. So instead of a binary notation, we have to use a ternary notation, e.g.:
2,1,1,0 + 0,1
where the 2 means that this column was used in the current row (and not that there are 2 ones in the column). At the next step, we should then convert the twos back into ones.
Additionally, we can also mirror the seperate groups to put them into their lexicographically smallest notation:
2,1,1,0 + 0,1 -> 0,1,1,2 + 0,1
Lastly, we sort the seperate groups from small to large, and then lexicographically, so that a state in a larger matrix may be e.g.:
0,0 + 0,1 + 0,0,2 + 0,1,0 + 0,1,0,1
Then, when calculating the number of solutions resulting from each state, we can use memoization using the canonical notation of each state as a key.
Creating a dictionary of the states and the number of solutions for each of them only needs to be done once, and a table for larger matrices can probably be used for smaller matrices too.
Practically, you'd generate a random number between 0 and the total number of solutions, and then for every row, you'd look at the different states you could create from the current state, look at the number of unique solutions each one would generate, and see which option leads to the solution that corresponds with your randomly generated number.
Note that every state and the corresponding key can only occur in a particular row, so you can store the keys in seperate dictionaries per row.
TEST RESULTS
A first test using unoptimized JavaScript gave very promising results. With dynamic programming, calculating the number of solutions for a 10x10 matrix now takes a second, where a brute-force algorithm took several hours (and this is the part of the algorithm that only needs to be done once). The size of the dictionary with the signatures and numbers of solutions grows with a diminishing factor approaching 2.5 for each step in size; the time to generate it grows with a factor of around 3.
These are the number of solutions, states, signatures (total size of the dictionaries), and maximum number of signatures per row (largest dictionary per row) that are created:
size unique solutions states signatures max/row
4x4 2 9 6 2
5x5 16 73 26 8
6x6 722 514 107 40
7x7 33,988 2,870 411 152
8x8 2,215,764 13,485 1,411 596
9x9 179,431,924 56,375 4,510 1,983
10x10 17,849,077,140 218,038 13,453 5,672
11x11 2,138,979,146,276 801,266 38,314 14,491
12x12 304,243,884,374,412 2,847,885 104,764 35,803
13x13 50,702,643,217,809,908 9,901,431 278,561 96,414
14x14 9,789,567,606,147,948,364 33,911,578 723,306 238,359
15x15 2,168,538,331,223,656,364,084 114,897,838 1,845,861 548,409
16x16 546,386,962,452,256,865,969,596 ... 4,952,501 1,444,487
17x17 155,420,047,516,794,379,573,558,433 12,837,870 3,754,040
18x18 48,614,566,676,379,251,956,711,945,475 31,452,747 8,992,972
19x19 17,139,174,923,928,277,182,879,888,254,495 74,818,773 20,929,008
20x20 6,688,262,914,418,168,812,086,412,204,858,650 175,678,000 50,094,203
(Additional results obtained with C++, using a simple 128-bit integer implementation. To count the states, the code had to be run using each state as a seperate signature, which I was unable to do for the largest sizes. )
EXAMPLE
The dictionary for a 5x5 matrix looks like this:
row 0: 00000 -> 16 row 3: 101 -> 0
1112 -> 1
row 1: 20002 -> 2 1121 -> 1
00202 -> 4 1+01 -> 0
02002 -> 2 11+12 -> 2
02020 -> 2 1+121 -> 1
0+1+1 -> 0
row 2: 10212 -> 1 1+112 -> 1
12012 -> 1
12021 -> 2 row 4: 0 -> 0
12102 -> 1 11 -> 0
21012 -> 0 12 -> 0
02121 -> 3 1+1 -> 1
01212 -> 1 1+2 -> 0
The total number of solutions is 16; if we randomly pick a number from 0 to 15, e.g. 13, we can find the corresponding (i.e. the 14th) solution like this:
state: 00000
options: 10100 10010 10001 01010 01001 00101
signature: 00202 02002 20002 02020 02002 00202
solutions: 4 2 2 2 2 4
This tells us that the 14th solution is the 2nd solution of option 00101. The next step is:
state: 00101
options: 10010 01010
signature: 12102 02121
solutions: 1 3
This tells us that the 2nd solution is the 1st solution of option 01010. The next step is:
state: 01111
options: 10100 10001 00101
signature: 11+12 1112 1+01
solutions: 2 1 0
This tells us that the 1st solution is the 1st solution of option 10100. The next step is:
state: 11211
options: 01010 01001
signature: 1+1 1+1
solutions: 1 1
This tells us that the 1st solutions is the 1st solution of option 01010. The last step is:
state: 12221
options: 10001
And the 5x5 matrix corresponding to randomly chosen number 13 is:
0 0 1 0 1
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 1
And here's a quick'n'dirty code example; run the snippet to generate the signature and solution count dictionary, and generate a random 10x10 matrix (it takes a second to generate the dictionary; once that is done, it generates random solutions in half a millisecond):
function signature(state, prev) {
var zones = [], zone = [];
for (var i = 0; i < state.length; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2) {
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zone = [];
}
else if (prev[i]) zone.push(3);
else zone.push(state[i]);
}
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zones.sort(function(a,b) {return a.length - b.length || a - b;});
return zones.length ? zones.join("2") : "2";
function mirror(zone) {
var ltr = zone.join('');
zone.reverse();
var rtl = zone.join('');
return (ltr < rtl) ? ltr : rtl;
}
}
function memoize(n) {
var memo = [], empty = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= n; i++) memo[i] = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = 0;
memo[0][signature(empty, empty)] = next_row(empty, empty, 1);
return memo;
function next_row(state, prev, row) {
if (row > n) return 1;
var solutions = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var s = state.slice(), p = empty.slice();
++s[i]; ++s[j]; ++p[i]; ++p[j];
var sig = signature(s, p);
var sol = memo[row][sig];
if (sol == undefined)
memo[row][sig] = sol = next_row(s, p, row + 1);
solutions += sol;
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
function random_matrix(n, memo) {
var matrix = [], empty = [], state = [], prev = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = state[i] = prev[i] = 0;
var total = memo[0][signature(empty, empty)];
var pick = Math.floor(Math.random() * total);
document.write("solution " + pick.toLocaleString('en-US') +
" from a total of " + total.toLocaleString('en-US') + "<br>");
for (var row = 1; row <= n; row++) {
var options = find_options(state, prev);
for (var i in options) {
var state_copy = state.slice();
for (var j in state_copy) state_copy[j] += options[i][j];
var sig = signature(state_copy, options[i]);
var solutions = memo[row][sig];
if (pick < solutions) {
matrix.push(options[i].slice());
prev = options[i].slice();
state = state_copy.slice();
break;
}
else pick -= solutions;
}
}
return matrix;
function find_options(state, prev) {
var options = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var option = empty.slice();
++option[i]; ++option[j];
options.push(option);
}
}
return options;
}
}
var size = 10;
var memo = memoize(size);
var matrix = random_matrix(size, memo);
for (var row in matrix) document.write(matrix[row] + "<br>");The code snippet below shows the dictionary of signatures and solution counts for a matrix of size 10x10. I've used a slightly different signature format from the explanation above: the zones are delimited by a '2' instead of a plus sign, and a column which has a one in the previous row is marked with a '3' instead of a '2'. This shows how the keys could be stored in a file as integers with 2×N bits (padded with 2's).
function signature(state, prev) {
var zones = [], zone = [];
for (var i = 0; i < state.length; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2) {
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zone = [];
}
else if (prev[i]) zone.push(3);
else zone.push(state[i]);
}
if (zone.length) zones.push(mirror(zone));
zones.sort(function(a,b) {return a.length - b.length || a - b;});
return zones.length ? zones.join("2") : "2";
function mirror(zone) {
var ltr = zone.join('');
zone.reverse();
var rtl = zone.join('');
return (ltr < rtl) ? ltr : rtl;
}
}
function memoize(n) {
var memo = [], empty = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= n; i++) memo[i] = [];
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++) empty[i] = 0;
memo[0][signature(empty, empty)] = next_row(empty, empty, 1);
return memo;
function next_row(state, prev, row) {
if (row > n) return 1;
var solutions = 0;
for (var i = 0; i < n - 2; i++) {
if (state[i] == 2 || prev[i] == 1) continue;
for (var j = i + 2; j < n; j++) {
if (state[j] == 2 || prev[j] == 1) continue;
var s = state.slice(), p = empty.slice();
++s[i]; ++s[j]; ++p[i]; ++p[j];
var sig = signature(s, p);
var sol = memo[row][sig];
if (sol == undefined)
memo[row][sig] = sol = next_row(s, p, row + 1);
solutions += sol;
}
}
return solutions;
}
}
var memo = memoize(10);
for (var i in memo) {
document.write("row " + i + ":<br>");
for (var j in memo[i]) {
document.write(""" + j + "": " + memo[i][j] + "<br>");
}
}Just few thoughts. Number of matrices satisfying conditions for n <= 10:
3 0
4 2
5 16
6 722
7 33988
8 2215764
9 179431924
10 17849077140
Unfortunatelly there is no sequence with these numbers in OEIS.
There is one similar (A001499), without condition for neighbouring one's. Number of nxn matrices in this case is 'of order' as A001499's number of (n-1)x(n-1) matrices. That is to be expected since number of ways to fill one row in this case, position 2 one's in n places with at least one zero between them is ((n-1) choose 2). Same as to position 2 one's in (n-1) places without the restriction.
I don't think there is an easy connection between these matrix of order n and A001499 matrix of order n-1, meaning that if we have A001499 matrix than we can construct some of these matrices.
With this, for n=20, number of matrices is >10^30. Quite a lot :-/
3
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
