Planning algorithms are impacting technical disciplines and industries around the world, including robotics, computer-aided design, manufacturing, computer graphics, aerospace applications, drug design, and protein folding. This coherent and comprehensive book unifies material from several sources, including robotics, control theory, artificial intelligence, and algorithms. The treatment is centered on robot motion planning but integrates material on planning in discrete spaces. A major part of the book is devoted to planning under uncertainty, including decision theory, Markov decision processes, and information spaces, which are the “configuration spaces” of all sensor-based planning problems. The last part of the book delves into planning under differential constraints that arise when automating the motions of virtually any mechanical system. Developed from courses taught by the author, the book is intended for students, engineers, and researchers in robotics, artificial intelligence, and control theory as well as computer graphics, algorithms, and computational biology.

Planning Algorithms: Introductory Material

/pdf/convex-analysisnoer-san-nojin-zhan-nituite-5dl2rbmoyr.pdf

Convex Analysisの二,三の進展について

Many practical computing problems concern large graphs. Standard examples include the Web graph and various social networks. The scale of these graphs - in some cases billions of vertices, trillions of edges - poses challenges to their efficient processing. In this paper we present a computational model suitable for this task. Programs are expressed as a sequence of iterations, in each of which a vertex can receive messages sent in the previous iteration, send messages to other vertices, and modify its own state and that of its outgoing edges or mutate graph topology. This vertex-centric approach is flexible enough to express a broad set of algorithms. The model has been designed for efficient, scalable and fault-tolerant implementation on clusters of thousands of commodity computers, and its implied synchronicity makes reasoning about programs easier. Distribution-related details are hidden behind an abstract API. The result is a framework for processing large graphs that is expressive and easy to program.

/pdf/pregel-a-system-for-large-scale-graph-processing-30lgjenxxg.pdf

Pregel: a system for large-scale graph processing

problems To understand the class of polynomial-time solvable problems, we must first have a formal notion of what a "problem" is. We define an abstract problem Q to be a binary relation on a set I of problem instances and a set S of problem solutions. For example, an instance for SHORTEST-PATH is a triple consisting of a graph and two vertices. A solution is a sequence of vertices in the graph, with perhaps the empty sequence denoting that no path exists. The problem SHORTEST-PATH itself is the relation that associates each instance of a graph and two vertices with a shortest path in the graph that connects the two vertices. Since shortest paths are not necessarily unique, a given problem instance may have more than one solution. This formulation of an abstract problem is more general than is required for our purposes. As we saw above, the theory of NP-completeness restricts attention to decision problems: those having a yes/no solution. In this case, we can view an abstract decision problem as a function that maps the instance set I to the solution set {0, 1}. For example, a decision problem related to SHORTEST-PATH is the problem PATH that we saw earlier. If i = G, u, v, k is an instance of the decision problem PATH, then PATH(i) = 1 (yes) if a shortest path from u to v has at most k edges, and PATH(i) = 0 (no) otherwise. Many abstract problems are not decision problems, but rather optimization problems, in which some value must be minimized or maximized. As we saw above, however, it is usually a simple matter to recast an optimization problem as a decision problem that is no harder. Encodings If a computer program is to solve an abstract problem, problem instances must be represented in a way that the program understands. An encoding of a set S of abstract objects is a mapping e from S to the set of binary strings. For example, we are all familiar with encoding the natural numbers N = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4,...} as the strings {0, 1, 10, 11, 100,...}. Using this encoding, e(17) = 10001. Anyone who has looked at computer representations of keyboard characters is familiar with either the ASCII or EBCDIC codes. In the ASCII code, the encoding of A is 1000001. Even a compound object can be encoded as a binary string by combining the representations of its constituent parts. Polygons, graphs, functions, ordered pairs, programs-all can be encoded as binary strings. Thus, a computer algorithm that "solves" some abstract decision problem actually takes an encoding of a problem instance as input. We call a problem whose instance set is the set of binary strings a concrete problem. We say that an algorithm solves a concrete problem in time O(T (n)) if, when it is provided a problem instance i of length n = |i|, the algorithm can produce the solution in O(T (n)) time. A concrete problem is polynomial-time solvable, therefore, if there exists an algorithm to solve it in time O(n) for some constant k. We can now formally define the complexity class P as the set of concrete decision problems that are polynomial-time solvable. We can use encodings to map abstract problems to concrete problems. Given an abstract decision problem Q mapping an instance set I to {0, 1}, an encoding e : I → {0, 1}* can be used to induce a related concrete decision problem, which we denote by e(Q). If the solution to an abstract-problem instance i I is Q(i) {0, 1}, then the solution to the concreteproblem instance e(i) {0, 1}* is also Q(i). As a technicality, there may be some binary strings that represent no meaningful abstract-problem instance. For convenience, we shall assume that any such string is mapped arbitrarily to 0. Thus, the concrete problem produces the same solutions as the abstract problem on binary-string instances that represent the encodings of abstract-problem instances. We would like to extend the definition of polynomial-time solvability from concrete problems to abstract problems by using encodings as the bridge, but we would like the definition to be independent of any particular encoding. That is, the efficiency of solving a problem should not depend on how the problem is encoded. Unfortunately, it depends quite heavily on the encoding. For example, suppose that an integer k is to be provided as the sole input to an algorithm, and suppose that the running time of the algorithm is Θ(k). If the integer k is provided in unary-a string of k 1's-then the running time of the algorithm is O(n) on length-n inputs, which is polynomial time. If we use the more natural binary representation of the integer k, however, then the input length is n = ⌊lg k⌋ + 1. In this case, the running time of the algorithm is Θ (k) = Θ(2), which is exponential in the size of the input. Thus, depending on the encoding, the algorithm runs in either polynomial or superpolynomial time. The encoding of an abstract problem is therefore quite important to our under-standing of polynomial time. We cannot really talk about solving an abstract problem without first specifying an encoding. Nevertheless, in practice, if we rule out "expensive" encodings such as unary ones, the actual encoding of a problem makes little difference to whether the problem can be solved in polynomial time. For example, representing integers in base 3 instead of binary has no effect on whether a problem is solvable in polynomial time, since an integer represented in base 3 can be converted to an integer represented in base 2 in polynomial time. We say that a function f : {0, 1}* → {0,1}* is polynomial-time computable if there exists a polynomial-time algorithm A that, given any input x {0, 1}*, produces as output f (x). For some set I of problem instances, we say that two encodings e1 and e2 are polynomially related if there exist two polynomial-time computable functions f12 and f21 such that for any i I , we have f12(e1(i)) = e2(i) and f21(e2(i)) = e1(i). That is, the encoding e2(i) can be computed from the encoding e1(i) by a polynomial-time algorithm, and vice versa. If two encodings e1 and e2 of an abstract problem are polynomially related, whether the problem is polynomial-time solvable or not is independent of which encoding we use, as the following lemma shows. Lemma 34.1 Let Q be an abstract decision problem on an instance set I , and let e1 and e2 be polynomially related encodings on I . Then, e1(Q) P if and only if e2(Q) P. Proof We need only prove the forward direction, since the backward direction is symmetric. Suppose, therefore, that e1(Q) can be solved in time O(nk) for some constant k. Further, suppose that for any problem instance i, the encoding e1(i) can be computed from the encoding e2(i) in time O(n) for some constant c, where n = |e2(i)|. To solve problem e2(Q), on input e2(i), we first compute e1(i) and then run the algorithm for e1(Q) on e1(i). How long does this take? The conversion of encodings takes time O(n), and therefore |e1(i)| = O(n), since the output of a serial computer cannot be longer than its running time. Solving the problem on e1(i) takes time O(|e1(i)|) = O(n), which is polynomial since both c and k are constants. Thus, whether an abstract problem has its instances encoded in binary or base 3 does not affect its "complexity," that is, whether it is polynomial-time solvable or not, but if instances are encoded in unary, its complexity may change. In order to be able to converse in an encoding-independent fashion, we shall generally assume that problem instances are encoded in any reasonable, concise fashion, unless we specifically say otherwise. To be precise, we shall assume that the encoding of an integer is polynomially related to its binary representation, and that the encoding of a finite set is polynomially related to its encoding as a list of its elements, enclosed in braces and separated by commas. (ASCII is one such encoding scheme.) With such a "standard" encoding in hand, we can derive reasonable encodings of other mathematical objects, such as tuples, graphs, and formulas. To denote the standard encoding of an object, we shall enclose the object in angle braces. Thus, G denotes the standard encoding of a graph G. As long as we implicitly use an encoding that is polynomially related to this standard encoding, we can talk directly about abstract problems without reference to any particular encoding, knowing that the choice of encoding has no effect on whether the abstract problem is polynomial-time solvable. Henceforth, we shall generally assume that all problem instances are binary strings encoded using the standard encoding, unless we explicitly specify the contrary. We shall also typically neglect the distinction between abstract and concrete problems. The reader should watch out for problems that arise in practice, however, in which a standard encoding is not obvious and the encoding does make a difference. A formal-language framework One of the convenient aspects of focusing on decision problems is that they make it easy to use the machinery of formal-language theory. It is worthwhile at this point to review some definitions from that theory. An alphabet Σ is a finite set of symbols. A language L over Σ is any set of strings made up of symbols from Σ. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, the set L = {10, 11, 101, 111, 1011, 1101, 10001,...} is the language of binary representations of prime numbers. We denote the empty string by ε, and the empty language by Ø. The language of all strings over Σ is denoted Σ*. For example, if Σ = {0, 1}, then Σ* = {ε, 0, 1, 00, 01, 10, 11, 000,...} is the set of all binary strings. Every language L over Σ is a subset of Σ*. There are a variety of operations on languages. Set-theoretic operations, such as union and intersection, follow directly from the set-theoretic definitions. We define the complement of L by . The concatenation of two languages L1 and L2 is the language L = {x1x2 : x1 L1 and x2 L2}. The closure or Kleene star of a language L is the language L*= {ε} L L L ···, where Lk is the language obtained by

Introduction to Algorithms, Second Edition

1 Defining Network Flow A flow network is a directed graph G = (V,E) in which each edge (u, v) ∈ E has non-negative capacity c(u, v) ≥ 0. We require that if (u, v) ∈ E, then (v, u) / ∈ E. That is, if an edge exists, then the edge between the same vertices going the reverse direction does not exist. Every flow network has a source s and a sink t, and we assume that for every v ∈ V , there is some path s→ · · · → v → · · · → t. Note that this implies that flow networks are connected. Informally, the intuition behind network flow is to think of the edges as pipes and the weights on the edges as the capacity its corresponding pipe per unit of time. The question we are trying to ask is: how many units of water can we send from the source to the sink per unit of time? Formally, a flow in G is a function f : V × V → R that satisfies the following: • Capacity constraint. For all u, v ∈ V , we require 0 ≤ f(u, v) ≤ c(u, v). Our pipe cannot hold more than is allowed as dictated by its capacity. • Flow conservation. For u ∈ V − {s, t}, we require ∑

Network Flows

We consider very natural "fence enclosure" problems studied by Capoyleas, Rote, and Woeginger and Arkin, Khuller, and Mitchell in the early 90s. Given a set $S$ of $n$ points in the plane, we aim at finding a set of closed curves such that (1) each point is enclosed by a curve and (2) the total length of the curves is minimized. We consider two main variants. In the first variant, we pay a unit cost per curve in addition to the total length of the curves. An equivalent formulation of this version is that we have to enclose $n$ unit disks, paying only the total length of the enclosing curves. In the other variant, we are allowed to use at most $k$ closed curves and pay no cost per curve. For the variant with at most $k$ closed curves, we present an algorithm that is polynomial in both $n$ and $k$. For the variant with unit cost per curve, or unit disks, we present a near-linear time algorithm. Capoyleas, Rote, and Woeginger solved the problem with at most $k$ curves in $n^{O(k)}$ time. Arkin, Khuller, and Mitchell used this to solve the unit cost per curve version in exponential time. At the time, they conjectured that the problem with $k$ curves is NP-hard for general $k$. Our polynomial time algorithm refutes this unless P equals NP.

Fast Fencing.

Suppose that we are to place $m$ balls into $n$ bins sequentially using the $d$-choice paradigm: For each ball we are given a choice of $d$ bins, according to $d$ hash functions $h_1,\dots,h_d$ and we place the ball in the least loaded of these bins breaking ties arbitrarily. Our interest is in the number of balls in the fullest bin after all $m$ balls have been placed. 
Azar et al. [STOC'94] proved that when $m=O(n)$ and when the hash functions are fully random the maximum load is at most $\frac{\lg \lg n }{\lg d}+O(1)$ whp (i.e. with probability $1-O(n^{-\gamma})$ for any choice of $\gamma$). 
In this paper we suppose that the $h_1,\dots,h_d$ are simple tabulation hash functions. Generalising a result by Dahlgaard et al [SODA'16] we show that for an arbitrary constant $d\geq 2$ the maximum load is $O(\lg \lg n)$ whp, and that expected maximum load is at most $\frac{\lg \lg n}{\lg d}+O(1)$. We further show that by using a simple tie-breaking algorithm introduced by Vocking [J.ACM'03] the expected maximum load drops to $\frac{\lg \lg n}{d\lg \varphi_d}+O(1)$ where $\varphi_d$ is the rate of growth of the $d$-ary Fibonacci numbers. Both of these expected bounds match those of the fully random setting. 
The analysis by Dahlgaard et al. relies on a proof by Patrascu and Thorup [J.ACM'11] concerning the use of simple tabulation for cuckoo hashing. We need here a generalisation to $d>2$ hash functions, but the original proof is an 8-page tour de force of ad-hoc arguments that do not appear to generalise. Our main technical contribution is a shorter, simpler and more accessible proof of the result by Patrascu and Thorup, where the relevant parts generalise nicely to the analysis of $d$ choices.

Power of $d$ Choices with Simple Tabulation

Locality-sensitive hashing (LSH), introduced by Indyk and Motwani in STOC ’98, has been an extremely influential framework for nearest neighbor search in high-dimensional data sets. While theoretical work has focused on the approximate nearest neighbor problem, in practice LSH data structures with suitably chosen parameters are used to solve the exact nearest neighbor problem (with some error probability). Sublinear query time is often possible in practice even for exact nearest neighbor search, intuitively because the nearest neighbor tends to be significantly closer than other data points. However, theory offers little advice on how to choose LSH parameters outside of pre-specified worst-case settings.

Confirmation sampling for exact nearest neighbor search

Recently, Kawarabayashi and Thorup presented the first deterministic edge-connectivity recognition algorithm in near-linear time. A crucial step in their algorithm uses the existence of vertex subsets of a simple graph $G$ on $n$ vertices whose contractions leave a multigraph with $\tilde{O}(n/\delta)$ vertices and $\tilde{O}(n)$ edges that preserves all non-trivial min-cuts of $G$. 
We show a very simple argument that improves this contraction-based sparsifier by eliminating the poly-logarithmic factors, that is, we show a contraction-based sparsification that leaves $O(n/\delta)$ vertices and $O(n)$ edges, preserves all non-trivial min-cuts and can be computed in near-linear time $\tilde{O}(|E(G)|)$. As consequence, every simple graph has $O((n/\delta)^2)$ non-trivial min-cuts. 
Our approach allows to represent all non-trivial min-cuts of a graph by a cactus representation, whose cactus graph has $O(n/\delta)$ vertices. Moreover, this cactus representation can be derived directly from the standard cactus representation of all min-cuts in linear time.

Contraction-Based Sparsification in Near-Linear Time.

In recent years a large number of problems have been considered in external memory models of computation, where the complexity measure is the number of blocks of data that are moved between slow external memory and fast internal memory (also called I/Os). In practice, however, internal memory time often dominates the total running time once I/O-efficiency has been obtained. In this paper we initiate a study of algorithms for fundamental problems that are simultaneously I/O-efficient and internal memory efficient in the RAM model of computation. For sorting the conventional wisdom is to use merging base algorithms in external memory but we describe how this leads to suboptimal RAM performance. However, by using a splitting based algorithm in combination with existing RAM sorting techniques we obtain a sorting algorithm that is both I/O and RAM model efficient. Furthermore, we design an I/O- and RAM-efficient priority queue. Finally, we prove a sorting lower bound that shows that in most cases our results are optimal both in terms of I/O and internal computation.

Mikkel Thorup

Papers

Fast Fencing.

Power of $d$ Choices with Simple Tabulation

Confirmation sampling for exact nearest neighbor search

Contraction-Based Sparsification in Near-Linear Time.

RAM-Efficient External Memory Sorting