What is the difference between best-first-search and the breadth-first-search ? and which one do we call "BFS" ?
To answer your second question first:
which one do we call "BFS" ?
Typically when we refer to BFS, we are talking Breadth-first Search.
What is the difference between best-first-search and the breadth-first-search
The analogy that I like to consult when comparing such algorithms is robots digging for gold.
Given a hill, our goal is to simply find gold.
Breadth-first search has no prior knowledge of the whereabouts of the gold so the robot simply digs 1 foot deep along the 10-foot strip if it doesn't find any gold, it digs 1 foot deeper.
Best-first search, however, has a built-in metal detector, thus meaning it has prior knowledge. There is, of course, the cost in having a metal detector, and cost in turning it on and seeing which place would be the best to start digging.
Best-first search is informed whereas Breadth-first search is uninformed, as in one has a metal detector and the other doesn't!
Breadth-first search is complete, meaning it'll find a solution if one exists, and given enough resources will find the optimal solution.
Best-first search is also complete provided the heuristic — estimator of the cost/ so the prior knowledge — is admissible — meaning it overestimates the cost of getting to the solution)
I got the BFS image from http://slideplayer.com/slide/9063462/ the Best-first search is my failed attempt at photoshop!
Thats 2 algorithms to search a graph (tree).
Breadth first looks at all elements(nodes) of a certain depth, trying to find a solutuion (searched value or whatever) then continous one level deeper and looks at every node and so on.
Best first looks at the "best" node defined mostly by a heuristic, checks the best subnode of that node and so on.
A* would be an example for heursitic (best first search) and its way faster. But you need a heuristic what you wouldn't need for breadth search.
Creating a heuristic needs some own effort. Breadth first is out of the box.
Although I have good understanding of beam search but I have a query regarding beam search. When we select n best paths should we sort them or simply we should keep them in the order in which they exist and just discard other expensive nodes?
I searched a lot about this but every where it says that keep best. Nothing is found about should we sort them or not?
I think that we should sort them because by applying sorting we will reach to goal node quickly. But I want confirmation of my sorting idea and I did not found it till now.
I will be thankful to you if you can help me in improving my concepts.
When we select n best paths should we sort them or simply we should keep them in the order in which they exist and just discard other expensive nodes?
We just sort them and keep the top k.
At each step after the initialization you sort the beam_size * vocabulary_size hypotheses and choose the top k. For each of the beam_size * vocabulary_size hypotheses, its weight/probability is the product of all probabilities along its history normalized by the length(length normalization).
One problem arises from the fact that the completed hypotheses may have different lengths. Because models generally assign lower probabilities to longer strings, a naive algorithm would also choose shorter strings for y. This was not an issue during the earlier steps of decoding; due to the breadth-first nature of beam search all the hypotheses being compared had the same length. The usual solution to this is to apply some form of length normalization to each of the hypotheses, for example simply dividing the negative log probability by the number of words:
For more information please refer to this answer.
Reference:
https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/ed3book.pdf
****Beam search uses breadth-first search to build its search tree. At each level of the tree, it generates all successors of the states at the current level, ***
sorting them in increasing order of heuristic cost
***. However, it only stores a predetermined number of best states at each level (called the beam width). Only those states are expanded next. The greater the beam width, the fewer states are pruned. With an infinite beam width, no states are pruned and beam search is identical to breadth-first search.
NOTE: (I got this information from WikipediA during my search.)may be its helpful.****
Given a node in a graph that is reachable, how do you find all the nodes that are reachable ? How would you enable parallel computation of this information ? Given a number of cores, how many threads would you choose ?
For the first part, i would go with the Breadth first Search and second part, i think somehow i should use the strnegth of Map-reduce but not able to understand how?
Could you please help. Appreciate your time and efforts.
There is a worked out example in the article: breadth-first graph search using an iterative map-reduce algorithm
(source: blogcu.com)
Assume there is a rabbit and at position (1,1). Moreover, its home is at position (7,7). How can it reach that position ?
Home positon is not fix place.
Real question, I am trying to solve a problem on a book for exersizing c.What algorithm should I apply to find solution?
Should I use linked list to store data?
Data is (1,1), (1,2),..., (3,3) ..., (7,7)
Place marked with black shows wall.
Use A*. It is the classic go-to algorithm for path-finding (that article lists many other algorithms you can consider too).
By using A* you learn an algorithm that you might actually need in your normal programming career later ;)
An example evaluation of a maze similar to that in the question using A*:
There are a bunch of search algorithms you can use. The easiest to implement will be either breadth-first search or depth-first search.
Algorithms like A* are likely to be more efficient but are a little harder to code.
Check out the Wikipedia "Search algorithms" page. It has links to a number of well-known algorithms.
Breadth-first search is always a good one.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/mazesolver.aspx
After implementing most of the common and needed functions for my Graph implementation, I realized that a couple of functions (remove vertex, search vertex and get vertex) don't have the "best" implementation.
I'm using adjacency lists with linked lists for my Graph implementation and I was searching one vertex after the other until it finds the one I want. Like I said, I realized I was not using the "best" implementation. I can have 10000 vertices and need to search for the last one, but that vertex could have a link to the first one, which would speed up things considerably. But that's just an hypothetical case, it may or may not happen.
So, what algorithm do you recommend for search lookup? Our teachers talked about Breadth-first and Depth-first mostly (and Dikjstra' algorithm, but that's a completely different subject). Between those two, which one do you recommend?
It would be perfect if I could implement both but I don't have time for that, I need to pick up one and implement it has the first phase deadline is approaching...
My guess, is to go with Depth-first, seems easier to implement and looking at the way they work, it seems a best bet. But that really depends on the input.
But what do you guys suggest?
If you’ve got an adjacency list, searching for a vertex simply means traversing that list. You could perhaps even order the list to decrease the needed lookup operations.
A graph traversal (such as DFS or BFS) won’t improve this from a performance point of view.
Finding and deleting nodes in a graph is a "search" problem not a graph problem, so to make it better than O(n) = linear search, BFS, DFS, you need to store your nodes in a different data structure optimized for searching or sort them. This gives you O(log n) for find and delete operations. Candidatas are tree structures like b-trees or hash tables. If you want to code the stuff yourself I would go for a hash table which normally gives very good performance and is reasonably easy to implement.
I think BFS would usually be faster an average. Read the wiki pages for DFS and BFS.
The reason I say BFS is faster is because it has the property of reaching nodes in order of their distance from your starting node. So if your graph has N nodes and you want to search for node N and node 1, which is the node you start your search form, is linked to N, then you will find it immediately. DFS might expand the whole graph before this happens however. DFS will only be faster if you get lucky, while BFS will be faster if the nodes you search for are close to your starting node. In short, they both depend on the input, but I would choose BFS.
DFS is also harder to code without recursion, which makes BFS a bit faster in practice, since it is an iterative algorithm.
If you can normalize your nodes (number them from 1 to 10 000 and access them by number), then you can easily keep Exists[i] = true if node i is in the graph and false otherwise, giving you O(1) lookup time. Otherwise, consider using a hash table if normalization is not possible or you don't want to do it.
Depth-first search is best because
It uses much less memory
Easier to implement
the depth first and breadth first algorithms are almost identical, except for the use of a stack in one (DFS), a queue in the other (BFS), and a few required member variables. Implementing them both shouldn't take you much extra time.
Additionally if you have an adjacency list of the vertices then your look up with be O(V) anyway. So little to nothing will be gained via using one of the two other searches.
I'd comment on Konrad's post but I can't comment yet so... I'd like to second that it doesn't make a difference in performance if you implement DFS or BFS over a simple linear search through your list. Your search for a particular node in the graph doesn't depend on the structure of the graph, hence it's not necessary to confine yourself to graph algorithms. In terms of coding time, the linear search is the best choice; if you want to brush up your skills in graph algorithms, implement DFS or BFS, whichever you feel like.
If you are searching for a specific vertex and terminating when you find it, I would recommend using A*, which is a best-first search.
The idea is that you calculate the distance from the source vertex to the current vertex you are processing, and then "guess" the distance from the current vertex to the target.
You start at the source, calculate the distance (0) plus the guess (whatever that might be) and add it to a priority queue where the priority is distance + guess. At each step, you remove the element with the smallest distance + guess, do the calculation for each vertex in its adjacency list and stick those in the priority queue. Stop when you find the target vertex.
If your heuristic (your "guess") is admissible, that is, if it's always an under-estimate, then you are guaranteed to find the shortest path to your target vertex the first time you visit it. If your heuristic is not admissible, then you will have to run the algorithm to completion to find the shortest path (although it sounds like you don't care about the shortest path, just any path).
It's not really any more difficult to implement than a breadth-first search (you just have to add the heuristic, really) but it will probably yield faster results. The only hard part is figuring out your heuristic. For vertices that represent geographical locations, a common heuristic is to use an "as-the-crow-flies" (direct distance) heuristic.
Linear search is faster than BFS and DFS. But faster than linear search would be A* with the step cost set to zero. When the step cost is zero, A* will only expand the nodes that are closest to a goal node. If the step cost is zero then every node's path cost is zero and A* won't prioritize nodes with a shorter path. That's what you want since you don't need the shortest path.
A* is faster than linear search because linear search will most likely complete after O(n/2) iterations (each node has an equal chance of being a goal node) but A* prioritizes nodes that have a higher chance of being a goal node.