[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Permanent Computation Efficiency
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg105103] Re: [mg105035] Permanent Computation Efficiency
*From*: Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com>
*Date*: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:33:01 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <200911181200.HAA04436@smc.vnet.net> <4B0427ED.5080309@wolfram.com> <eafb5fea0911190206w3555b52i12aec24f66479d06@mail.gmail.com>
Sunt wrote:
> Daniel, thank you for your suggestion!
>
> However, I still didn't quite know the mechanism of the function
> Coefficient[].
> And how to determine the computation complexities of the two permanent[]
> functions by big O notation?
> In my opinion, the complexity of permanent2[] is O(n!). Is it right?
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Sunt
> [...]
I was confused for some time about the complexity of permanent2. In the
numeric case it behaves like O(2^n), in the symbolic cases I tried it
seemed to be O(n!). I now think I understand this.
It is easy to check that O(2^n) sub-permanents get created when one
computes a permanent of an nxn from scratch (this means we erase all
stored DownValues after finishing a computation and before starting the
next one).
Here is a specific example. It shows the 2^n complexity, both in speed
and memory usage. That latter is not hard to reason from basic
principles, and indeed that also gives a measure of the expected
performance. Or at least a lower bound, as we'll see momentarily.
mat[n_] := Array[m, {n,n}];
Table[
Clear[permanent2];
permanent2[m_] /; Length[m]==1 := m[[1,1]];
permanent2[m_] := permanent2[m] = With[{mp=Drop[m,None,1]},
Apply[Plus, Table[m[[j,1]]*permanent2[Drop[mp,{j}]],
{j,Length[m]}]]];
{First[Timing[permanent2[mat[j]/.m[ii_,jj_]:>ii+jj^2]]],
Length[DownValues[permanent2]]},
{j,8,18}]
Out[12]= {{0.007999, 249}, {0.017998, 504}, {0.035994, 1015},
{0.077988, 2038}, {0.167975, 4085}, {0.370943, 8180},
{0.797878, 16371}, 1.74074, 32754}, {3.70044, 65521},
{7.8638, 131056}, {16.7045, 262127}}
Now we'll try the purely symbolic case (of necessity, using smaller
dimensions).
Table[
Clear[permanent2];
permanent2[m_] /; Length[m]==1 := m[[1,1]];
permanent2[m_] := permanent2[m] = With[{mp=Drop[m,None,1]},
Apply[Plus, Table[m[[j,1]]*permanent2[Drop[mp,{j}]],
{j,Length[m]}]]];
{First[Timing[permanent2[mat[j]]]],
Length[DownValues[permanent2]]},
{j,7,11}]
Out[13]= {{0.009998, 122}, {0.037994, 249}, {0.249962, 504},
{2.05569, 1015}, {21.8357, 2038}}
We are storing O(2^n) sub-permanents. But the timing is clearly O(n!).
This seeming mystery is resolved by checking the sizes (measured by
LeafCount) of the results. They are grwoing as N!, hence the time needed
to produce them must be as bad. Here is the code, barely modified, that
shows this.
Table[
Clear[permanent2];
permanent2[m_] /; Length[m]==1 := m[[1,1]];
permanent2[m_] := permanent2[m] = With[{mp=Drop[m,None,1]},
Apply[Plus, Table[m[[j,1]]*permanent2[Drop[mp,{j}]],
{j,Length[m]}]]];
{First[Timing[permanent2[mat[j]]]],
LeafCount[permanent2[mat[j]]],
Length[DownValues[permanent2]]},
{j,7,11}]
Out[14]= {{0.011998, 53376, 122}, {0.037994, 427041, 249},
{0.240964, 3843406, 504}, {2.08568, 38434101, 1015},
{21.9807, 422775156, 2038}}
The upshot is that expression swell is making this purely symbolic case
show the n! behavior. In contrast, the integer case when done with
cached sub-permanents, is "merely" exponential in behavior.
Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Question about MeshFunctions (Plot function)**
Next by Date:
**Re: Dynamic Control of Graphics**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Permanent Computation Efficiency**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Permanent Computation Efficiency**
| |