What I want to get is: the path which connect all the points in my graph, but without having to tell the algorithm where to start and where to finish.
It need to use the driving direction in google-maps api but without setting a start or end point.
It is not the TSP problem because I don't have a "start city" and I don't have to get back to the "start city" neither.
As expressed in this question: Find the shortest path in a graph which visits certain nodes,
I could just use permutation because I have a few nodes, but the problem is that I need to analyze several groups of this few nodes So I would like the function to be the less time consuming posible.
NOTE: Im not looking for a Minimum Spaning Tree as this one neither: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/130863/connecting-all-points-on-a-plane-with-shortest-path-possible
I want a path which tell me you will save gas if you go first here, then overthere, then overthere, and finally there.
Question: is there any library which can help me with that? Or is it a know problem that has already an exact answer? How could I solve it?
It sounds like you want an all pairs shortest path algorithm. This is the class of shortest path algorithms that attempt to compute the shortest path (or the length of the shortest path) between every pair of vertices in the graph.
These is a well-known problem, and solutions exist. Here's some reading material that describes other possible algorithms. There might be implementations of Johnson's algorithm for your chosen language and development environment.
Keep in mind, this is an expensive problem, computationally speaking.
If I understand you correctly, you want 1 route to visit all the nodes, without a predefined start/end and you want that to be minimal. A possible solution could be to modify your graph a bit to allow a travelling salesman algorithm to get a complete tour.
You start with your graph and add 1 extra node E. You connect that node to all other nodes in your graph and set the cost of all those edges to a very high constant M. You then unleash a travelling salesman algorithm on that graph which will give you a path P starting at E, passing all nodes and returning to E. If you remove the 2 edges in P that connected E to the rest of your path you will have what you were looking for.
A quick intuitive proof that it is indeed what you were looking for: Suppose it's not the cheapest way to connect all nodes. Let's call the supposedly better path Q. Q and P both connect all nodes in your original graph. The end points of Q would be A and B. Both of these would be connected to node E with an edge of cost M. If you would add those 2 edges to Q, you would get a better TSP solution than P, which is not possible as P was the best.
As you are using google map, your particular instance of TSP might satisfy the Triangle inequality.
Are you really speaking of distances or travel time ?
In the case of distances:
try Googling: "triangle traveling salesman problem"
IMPORTANT: The result is a very good approximation of the best result with guaranteed uper bound, not always the best.
One way to go would be using (self-organized) kohonen networks.
Assume you have n cities on a map (works the same in any dimension).
Take a chain of n connected "neurons" and place it randomly on the map.
Then you do several iterations, one iteration contains:
choose any city. (e.g. go through them in a ordered fashion)
determine the "closest" neuron, call it x. (e.g. euclidian distance)
Move this x closer to the city (e.g. take the direction vector from the neuron to the city and multiply it with a learning rate 0
Move neighbors of this neuron also towards this city (but less than in 3., dependend of distance from the neighbors to the "current closest" neuron x)
One can choose various functions in step 2, 3 and 4.
Notice also that this might not give the globally shortest path since it depends on where the start chain is located and different other things. For this on may consider doing several runs with different starting conditions or (depending of the problem) one can help a bit with pre-knowlege.
I hope this helps to complete this question for further readers...
Related
Below I have an image representation of a map with different regions labeled on it.
My problem is that I need to find out what region a randomly generated point on the map will be in.
I know the x_min, y_min, x_max, y_max of all the different regions meaning I have the coordinates for all the vertices of each rectangular region. I also know the coordinate of the point.
What you can do, and what I have done, is just go through a big condition statement checking through one by one if the x & y coordinate of the point is between the x_min and x_max and y_min and y_max of every region. However, I feel like there has to be a more scalable, generalizable, and efficient way to do this. I however cannot find a way to do so, at least not something that isn't in a library for a different programming language. I thought of maybe doing something where I split the map in half, find out which half the point lies in, count up all the regions in that half, check if there is one region left and if not, split the map in half again and go through the process again. I just don't have a good idea of how that can be implemented and whether that is feasible or better that the current method I have.
I am trying to get filtered velocity/spacial data from noisy position data from a tracked vehicle. I have a set of noisy position/time data = (x_i,y_i,t_i) and a known curve along which the vehicle is traveling, curve = (x(s),y(s)), where s is total distance along the curve. I can run a Kalman filter on the data, but I don't know how to constrain it to the 'road' without throwing out data that is too far from the road, which I don't want to do.
Alternately, I'm trying to estimate the value of s along the constrained path with position data that is noisy in x and y
Does anyone have an idea of how to merge the two types of data?
Thanks!
Do you understand what a Kalman filter does? Fundamentally, it assigns a probability to each possible state given just observables. In simple cases, this doesn't use a priori knowledge. But in your case, you can simply set the off-road estimates to zero and renormalizing the remaining probabilities.
Note: this isn't throwing out observables which are too far off the road, or even discarding outcomes which are too far off. It means that an apparent off-road position strongly increases the probabilities of an outcome on, but near the edge of the road.
If you want the model to allow small excursions away from the road, you can use a fast decaying function to model the low but non-zero probability of a car being off the road.
You could have as states the distance s along the path, and the rate of change of s. The position observations X and Y will then be non-linear functions of the state (assuming your track is not a line) so you'll need to use an extended or unscented filter.
I want to fit a curve to data obtained from an FFT. While working on this, I remembered that an FFT gives binned data, and therefore I wondered if I should treat this differently with curve-fitting.
If the bins are narrow compared to the structure, I think it should not be necessary to treat the data differently, but for me that is not the case.
I expect the right way to fit binned data is by minimizing not the difference between values of the bin and fit, but between bin area and the area beneath the fitted curve, for each bin, such that the energy in each bin matches the energy in the range of the bin as signified by the curve.
So my question is: am I thinking correctly about this? If not, how should I go about it?
Also, when looking around for information about this subject, I encountered the "Maximum log likelihood" for example, but did not find enough information about it to understand if and how it applied to my situation.
PS: I have no clue if this is the right site for this question, please let me know if there is a better place.
For an unwindowed FFT, the correct interpolation between bins is by using a Sinc (sin(x)/x) or periodic Sinc (Dirichlet) interpolation kernel. For an FFT of samples of a band-limited signal, thus will reconstruct the continuous spectrum.
A very simple and effective way of interpolating the spectrum (from an FFT) is to use zero-padding. It works both with and without windowing prior to the FFT.
Take your input vector of length N and extend it to length M*N, where M is an integer
Set all values beyond the original N values to zeros
Perform an FFT of length (N*M)
Calculate the magnitude of the ouput bins
What you get is the interpolated spectrum.
Best regards,
Jens
This can be done by using maximum log likelihood estimation. This is a method that finds the set of parameters that is most likely to have yielded the measured data - the technique originates in statistics.
I have finally found an understandable source for how to apply this to binned data. Sadly I cannot enter formulas here, so I refer to that source for a full explanation: slide 4 of this slide show.
EDIT:
For noisier signals this method did not seem to work very well. A method that was a bit more robust is a least squares fit, where the difference between the area is minimized, as suggested in the question.
I have not found any literature to defend this method, but it is similar to what happens in the maximum log likelihood estimation, and yields very similar results for noiseless test cases.
I'll find a route between two places, for example using google maps. I'd like to divide the route to kilometers (two following places will be at a distance of 1 km), and get GPS coordinations of these places. This is because then I'll be able to get exacly the coordinations of, for example, 5th kilometer on the route. Could you please advice me how to achieve it?
This is extremely nontrivial. Is say your best bet is to find an algorithm to load the bearing between two points, then one to load a coordinate given a start point, distance, and bearing. This could give you it, but only if the data contained only straight lines. Since I assume the Google Maps API only gives you the turns the user has to make, this approach will be inaccurate when there are bends in roads. You'd need GIS data for roads and what will undoubtedly turn into a complicated algorithm to find something like this. It's definitely doable, but that's l how I'd start. Look into the Census TIGER road data, it should help.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and the API does actually give enough points to cleanly map it, in which case those functions should be easy to find and implement.
This will only work if you have the polyline as a sequence of lat/lon (or other) coordinates, wherever you get that from.
Then you start at the beginning an iterate through the lines (point[i], point[i+1]).
THis distance you calculate with standard API.
while itersting you sum up the distance.
Once you exceed the 1000m, you know that the splitting point (the 1000m marker) is at line segment [i,i+1].
To calculate the exact position where on the line that is, you take the total summed meters from previous segment, and the value of this segment and do a linear interpolation.
The working code is a bit complexer: there can be multiple markes within one segement.
But first find out where you get the polyline from, whitou that it will not work.
Suppose I have 3 sensors: sensor1, sensor2 and sensor3.
The only variables I know are:
Distance from sensor1 to origin is 36.05
Distance from sensor2 to origin is 62.00
Distance from sensor3 to origin is 63.19
Distance from sensor1 to sensor2 is 61.03
Distance from sensor1 to sensor3 is 90.07
Distance from sensor2 to sensor3 is 59.50
This is how it would look like if you had the positions:
How can I calculate the position of every point using only those variables?
This is not homework, just curiosity.
You cannot find the position of the points exactly, as any rotation around the origin, as well as symmetry still give the same distances.
Do you want a way to find all the possible results?
Finding the points is pretty straightforward, but do you need the method to be robust on noise?
This process is called trilateration. As others have noted, finding absolute, unambiguous positions for the sensors is not possible without more information - you'll need the positions of three non-coincident, non-colinear sensors in 2D, 4 non-coincident, non-coplanar sensors in 3D, to resolve all rotation/reflection ambiguities.
There's been an enormous amount of research into this problem in the field of wireless sensor network localisation - dealing with incomplete, noisy range measurements, unreliable communication and highly constrained resources make it interesting.
This might be an apt approach - the basic idea is to build up a system of located nodes piecewise - start with a seed formation of 3 or 4 nodes with well-defined relative locations and add nodes one by one as their locations become unambiguously computable relative to already-located nodes.
The anchor nodes with known locations can be used as the seed for system growth if possible, or used to compute a corrective transform after all nodes have been located.
The problem as posed is impossible without more information. If you add more information and some noise, then it is doable. See Finding a point that best fits the intersection of n spheres discusses how to solve that type of problem.
Look at these images.
And
You will see that the triangle can rotate freely (so no "fixed" position exists), and also the third intersensor distance is not needed in the general case, as it is determined by the other two distances.