I'm developing a game similar to Pacman: consider this maze:
Each white square is a node from the maze where an object located at P, say X, is moving towards node A in the right-to-left direction. X cannot switch to its opposite direction unless it encounters a dead-end such as A. Thus the shortest path joining P and B goes through A because X cannot reverse its direction towards the rightmost-bottom node (call it C). A common A* algorithm would output:
to get to B from P first go rightward, then go upward;
which is wrong. So I thought: well, I can set the C's visited attribute to true before running A* and let the algorithm find the path. Obviously this method doesn't work for the linked maze, unless I allow it to rediscover some nodes (the question is: which nodes? How to discriminate from useless nodes?). The first thinking that crossed my mind was: use the previous method always keeping track of the last-visited cell; if the resulting path isn't empty, you are done. Otherwise, when you get to the last-visited dead-end, say Y, (this step is followed by the failing of A*) go to Y, then use standard A* to get to the goal (I'm assuming the maze is connected). My questions are: is this guaranteed to work always? Is there a more efficient algorithm, such as an A*-derived algorithm modified to this purpose? How would you tackle this problem? I would greatly appreciate an answer explaining both optimal and non-optimal search techniques (actually I don't need the shortest path, a slightly long path is good, but I'm curious if such an optimal algorithm running as efficiently as Dijkstra's algorithm exists; if it does, what is its running time compared to a non-optimal algorithm?)
EDIT For Valdo: I added 3 cells in order to generalize a bit: please tell me if I got the idea:
Good question. I can suggest the following approach.
Use Dijkstra (or A*) algorithm on a directed graph. Each cell in your maze should be represented by multiple (up to 4) graph nodes, each node denoting the visited cell in a specific state.
That is, in your example you may be in the cell denoted by P in one of 2 states: while going left, and while going right. Each of them is represented by a separate graph node (though spatially it's the same cell). There's also no direct link between those 2 nodes, since you can't switch your direction in this specific cell.
According to your rules you may only switch direction when you encounter an obstacle, this is where you put links between the nodes denoting the same cell in different states.
You may also think of your graph as your maze copied into 4 layers, each layer representing the state of your pacman. In the layer that represents movement to the right you put only links to the right, also w.r.t. to the geometry of your maze. In the cells with obstacles where moving right is not possible you put links to the same cells at different layers.
Update:
Regarding the scenario that you described in your sketch. It's actually correct, you've got the idea right, but it looks complicated because you decided to put links between different cells AND states.
I suggest the following diagram:
The idea is to split your inter-cell AND inter-state links. There are now 2 kinds of edges: inter-cell, marked by blue, and inter-state, marked by red.
Blue edges always connect nodes of the same state (arrow direction) between adjacent cells, whereas red edges connect different states within the same cell.
According to your rules the state change is possible where the obstacle is encountered, hence every state node is the source of either blue edges if no obstacle, or red if it encounters an obstacle (i.e. can't emit a blue edge). Hence I also painted the state nodes in blue and red.
If according to your rules state transition happens instantly, without delay/penalty, then red edges have weight 0. Otherwise you may assign a non-zero weight for them, the weight ratio between red/blue edges should correspond to the time period ratio of turn/travel.
Related
I'm making a game engine for a board game called Blockade and right now I'm trying to generate all legal moves in a position. The rules aren't exactly the same as the actual game and they don't really matter. The gist is: the board is a matrix and you move a pawn and place a wall every move.
In short, I have to find whether or not a valid path exists from every pawn to every goal after every potential legal move (imagine a pawn doesn't move and a wall is just placed), to rule out illegal moves. Or rather, if I simplify it to a subproblem, whether or not the removal of a few edges (placing a wall) removes all paths to a node.
Brute-forcing it would take O(k*n*m), where n and m are the board dimensions and k is the number of potential legal moves. Searching for a path (worst case; traversing most of the board) is very expensive, but I'm thinking with dynamic programming or some other idea/algorithm it can be done faster since the position is the same the wall placement just changes, or rather, in graph terms, the graph is the same which edges are removed is just changed. Any sort of optimization is welcome.
Edit:
To elaborate on the wall (blockade). A wall is two squares wide/tall (depending on whether it's horizontal or vertical) therefore it will usually remove at least four edges, eg:
p | r
q | t
In this 2x2 matrix, placing a wall in the middle (as shown) will remove jumping from and to:
p and t, q and r, p and r, and q and t
I apologize ahead of time if I don't fully understand your question as it is asked; there seems to be some tacit contextual knowledge you are hinting at in your question with respect to knowledge about how the blockade game works (which I am completely unfamiliar with.)
However, based on a quick scan on wikipedia about the rules of the game, and from what I gather from your question, my understanding is that you are effectively asking how to ensure that a move is legal. Based on what I understand, an illegal move is a wall/blockade placement that would make it impossible for any pawn to reach its goal state.
In this case, I believe a workable solution that would be fairly efficient would be as follows.
Define a path tree of a pawn to be a (possibly but not necessarily shortest) path tree from the pawn to each reachable position. The idea is, you want to maintain a path tree for every pawn so that it can be updated efficiently with every blockade placement. What is described in the previous sentence can be accomplished by observing and implementing the following:
when a blockade is placed it removes 2 edges from the graph, which can sever up to (at most) two edges in all your existing path trees
each pawn's path tree can be efficiently recomputed after edges are severed using the "adoption" algorithm of the Boykov-Komolgrov maxflow algorithm.
once every pawns path tree is recomputed efficiently, simply check that each pawn can still access its goal state, if not mark the move as illegal
repeat for each possible move (reseting graphs as needed during the search)
Here are resources on the adoption algorithm that is critical to doing what is described efficiently:
open-source implementation as part of the BK-maxflow: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_66_0/libs/graph/doc/boykov_kolmogorov_max_flow.html
implementation by authors as part of BK-maxflow: https://pub.ist.ac.at/~vnk/software.html
detailed description of adoption (stage) algorithm of BK maxflow algorithm: section 3.2.3 of https://www.csd.uwo.ca/~yboykov/Papers/pami04.pdf
Note reading the description of the adopton algorithm included in the last
bullet point above would be most critical to understanding how to adopt
orphaned portions of your path-tree efficiently.
In terms of efficiency of this approach, I believe on average you should expect on average O(1) operations for each adopted edge, meaning this approach should take about O(k) time to compute where k is the number of board states which you wish to compute for.
Note, the pawn path tree should actually be a reverse directed tree rooted at the goal nodes, which will allow the computation to be done for all legal pawn placements given a blockade configuration.
A few suggestions:
To check if there's a path from A to B after ever
Every move removes a node from the graph/grid. So what we want to know is if there are critical nodes on the path from A to B (single points that could be blocked to break the path. This is a classic flow problem. For this application you want to set the vertex capacity to 1 and push 2 units of flow (basically just to verify that there are at least 2 paths). If there are 2 paths, no one block can disconnect you from the destination. You can optimize it a bit by using an implicit graph, but if you're new to this maybe create the graph to visualize it better. This should be O(N*M), the size of your grid.
Optimizations
Since this is a game, you know that the setup doesn't change dramatically from one step to another. So, you can keep track of the two paths. If the blocade is not placed on any of the paths, you can ignore it. You already have 2 paths to destination.
If the block does land on one of the paths, cancel only that path and then look for another (reusing the one you already have).
You can also speed up the pawn movement. This can be a bit trick, but what you want is to move the source. I'm assuming the pawn moves only a few cells at a time, maybe instead of finding completely new paths, you can simply adjust them to connect to the new position, speeding up the update.
I have a game system that can be represented as an undirected, unweighted graph where each vertex has one (relevant) property: a color. The goal of the game in terms of the graph representation is to reduce it down to one vertex in the fewest "steps" possible. In each step, the player can change the color of any one vertex, and all adjacent vertices of the same color are merged with it. (Note that in the example below I just happened to show the user only changing one specific vertex the whole game, but the user can pick any vertex in each step.)
What I am after is a way to compute the fewest amount of steps necessary to "beat" a given graph per the procedure described above, and also provide the specific moves needed to do so. I'm familiar with the basics of path-finding, BFS, and things of that nature, but I'm having a hard time framing this problem in terms of a "fastest path" solution.
I am unable to find this same problem anywhere on Google, or even a graph-theory term that encapsulates the problem. Does anyone have an idea of at least how to get started approaching this problem? Can anyone point me in the right direction?
EDIT Since this problem seems to be really difficult to solve efficiently, perhaps I could change the aim of my question. Could someone describe how I would even set up a brute force, breadth first search for this? (Brute force could possibly be okay, since in practice these graphs will only be 20 vertices at most.) I know how to write a BFS for a normal linked graph data structure... but in this case it seems quite weird since each vertex would have to contain a whole graph within itself, and the next vertices in the search graph would have to be generated based on possible moves to make in the graph within the vertex. How would one setup the data structure and search algorithm to accomplish this?
EDIT 2 This is an old question, but I figured it might help to just state outright what the game was. The game was essentially to be a rip-off of Kami 2 for iOS, except my custom puzzle editor would automatically figure out the quickest possible way to solve your puzzle, instead of having to find the shortest move number by trial and error yourself. I'm not sure if Kami was a completely original game concept, or if there is a whole class of games like it with the same "flood-fill" mechanic that I'm unaware of. If this is a common type of game, perhaps knowing the name of it could allow finding more literature on the algorithm I'm seeking.
EDIT 3 This Stack Overflow question seems like it may have some relevant insights.
Intuitively, the solution seems global. If you take a larger graph, for example, which dot you select first will have an impact on the direct neighbours which will have an impact on their neighbours and so on.
It sounds as if it were of the same breed of problems as the map colouring problem. Not because of the colours but because of the implications of a local selection to the other end of the graph down the road. In the map colouring, you have to decide what colour to draw a country and its neighbouring countries so two countries that touch don't have the same colour. That first set of selections have an impact on whether there is a solution in the subsequent iterations.
Just to show how complex problem is.
Lets check simpler problem where graph is changed with a tree, and only root vertex can change a colour. In that case path to a leaf can be represented as a sequence of colours of vertices on that path. Sequence A of colour changes collapses a leaf if leaf's sequence is subsequence of A.
Problem can be stated that for given set of sequences problem is to find minimal length sequence (S) so that each initial sequence is contained in S. That is called shortest common supersequence problem, and it is NP-complete.
Your problem is for sure more complex than this one :-/
Edit *
This is a comment on question's edit. Check this page for a terms.
Number of minimal possible moves is >= than graph radius. With that it seems good strategy to:
use central vertices for moves,
use moves that reduce graph radius, or at least reduce distance from central vertices to 'large' set of vertices.
I would go with a strategy that keeps track of central vertices and distances of all graph vertices to these central vertices. Step is to check all meaningful moves and choose one that reduce radius or distance to central vertices the most. I think BFS can be used for distance calculation and how move influences them. There are tricky parts, like when central vertices changes after moves. Maybe it is good idea to use not only central vertices but also vertices close to central.
I think the graph term you are looking for is the "valence" of a graph, which is the number of edges that a node is connected to. It looks like you want to change the color based on what node has the highest valence. Then in the resulting graph change the color for the node that has the highest valence, etc. until you have just one node left.
I am looking for an algorithm that could find a random cycle in a graph from a node while that cycle is traversing around another nodes (area). For example, from the green star on the left of the image, finds a random cycle that goes around the red-star nodes.
Given that you are looking for a path that is "random", but still fairly close to minimal perimeter around the "red star", you could try this:
First, we need to choose the direction we are going. Let us decide on clockwise, and we start at point S.
Second, calculate the shortest path around the red star, including the point S. I am not going into details here (e.g. what if it is concave) since this is another question. Also, notice that deciding on S is already taking away from the randomness of the algorithm.
While choosing the path, keep 3 parameters (forward, left, right) that present the weight in the random choice of the next move. The difference in the outcome will be largely determined by the handling of theses parameters. You could always keep the weight equal, and then you might never get back to the start point, and even if you do, you don't know that the red star is inside.
To fix this, check the position with the minimal path calculated before.
If you are on it, then right = 0. Also, the directions going away from the minimal path could get less and less chances the further you are from it.
Hope this was helpful.
Introduction
As part of a larger program (related to rendering of volumetric graphics), I have a small but tricky subproblem where an arbitrary (but finite) triangular 2D mesh needs to be labeled in a specific way. Already a while ago I wrote a solution (see below) which was good enough for the test meshes I had at the time, even though I realized that the approach will probably not work very well for every possible mesh that one could think of. Now I have finally encountered a mesh for which the present solution does not perform that well at all -- and it looks like I should come up with a totally different kind of an approach. Unfortunately, it seems that I am not really able to reset my lines of thinking, which is why I thought I'd ask here.
The problem
Consider the picture below. (The colors are not part of the problem; I just added them to improve (?) the visualization. Also the varying edge width is a totally irrelevant artifact.)
For every triangle (e.g., the orange ABC and the green ABD), each of the three edges needs to be given one of two labels, say "0" or "1". There are just two requirements:
Not all the edges of a triangle can have the same label. In other words, for every triangle there must be two "0"s and one "1", or two "1"s and one "0".
If an edge is shared by two triangles, it must have the same label for both. In other words, if the edge AB in the picture is labeled "0" for the triangle ABC, it must be labeled "0" for ABD, too.
The mesh is a genuine 2D one, and it is finite: i.e., it does not wrap, and it has a well-defined outer border. Obviously, on the border it is quite easy to satisfy the requirements -- but it gets more difficult inside.
Intuitively, it looks like at least one solution should always exist, even though I cannot prove it. (Usually there are several -- any one of them is enough.)
Current solution
My current solution is a really brute-force one (provided here just for completeness -- feel free to skip this section):
Maintain four sets of triangles -- one for each possible count (0..3) of edges remaining to be labeled. In the beginning, every triangle is in the set where three edges remain to be labeled.
For as long as there are triangles with non-labeled edges:Find the smallest non-zero number of unallocated edges for which there are still triangles left. In other words: at any given time, we try to minimize the number of triangles for which the labeling has been partially completed. The number of edges remaining will be anything between 1 and 3. Then, just pick one such triangle with this specific number of edges remaining to be allocated. For this triangle, do the following:
See if the labeling of any remaining edge is already imposed by the labeling of some other triangle. If so, assign the labels as implied by requirement #2 above.
If this results in a dead end (i.e., requirement #1 can no more be satisfied for the present triangle), then start over the whole process from the very beginning.
Allocate any remaining edges as follows:
If no edges have been labeled so far, assign the first one randomly.
When one edge already allocated, assign the second one so that it will have the opposite label.
When two edges allocated: if they have the same label, assign the third one to have the opposite label (obviously); if the two have different labels, assign the third one randomly.
Update the sets of triangles for the different counts of unallocated edges.
If we ever get here, then we have a solution -- hooray!
Usually this approach finds a solution within just a couple of iterations, but recently I encountered a mesh for which the algorithm tends to terminate only after one or two thousands of retries... Which obviously suggests that there may be meshes for which it never terminates.
Now, I would love to have a deterministic algorithm that is guaranteed to always find a solution. Computational complexity is not that big an issue, because the meshes are not very large and the labeling basically only has to be done when a new mesh is loaded, which does not happen all the time -- so an algorithm with (for example) exponential complexity ought to be fine, as long as it works. (But of course: the more efficient, the better.)
Thank you for reading this far. Now, any help would be greatly appreciated!
Edit: Results based on suggested solutions
Unfortunately, I cannot get the approach suggested by Dialecticus to work. Maybe I did not get it right... Anyway, consider the following mesh, with the start point indicated by a green dot:
Let's zoom in a little bit...
Now, let's start the algorithm. After the first step, the labeling looks like this (red = "starred paths", blue = "ringed paths"):
So far so good. After the second step:
And the third:
... fourth:
But now we have a problem! Let's do one more round - but please pay attention on the triangle plotted in magenta:
According to my current implementation, all the edges of the magenta triangle are on a ring path, so they should be blue -- which effectively makes this a counterexample. Now maybe I got it wrong somehow... But in any case the two edges that are nearest to the start node obviously cannot be red; and if the third one is labeled red, then it seems that the solution does not really fit the idea anymore.
Btw, here is the data used. Each row represents one edge, and the columns are to be interpreted as follows:
Index of first node
Index of second node
x coordinate of first node
y coordinate of first node
x coordinate of second node
y coordinate of second node
The start node is the one having index 1.
I guess that next I should try the method suggested by Rafał Dowgird... But perhaps I ought to do something completely different for a while :)
If you order the triangles so that for every triangle at most 2 of its neighbors precede it in the order, then you are set: just color them in this order. The condition guarantees that for each triangle being colored you will always have at least one uncolored edge whose color you can choose so that the condition is satisfied.
Such an order exists and can be constructed the following way:
Sort all of the vertices left-to-right, breaking ties by top-to-bottom order.
Sort the triangles by their last vertex in this order.
When several triangles share the same last vertex, break ties by sorting them clockwise.
Given any node in the mesh the mesh can be viewed as set of concentric rings around this node (like spider's web). Give all edges that are not in the ring (starred paths) a value of 0, and give all edges that are in the ring (ringed paths) a value of 1. I can't prove it, but I'm certain you will get the correct labeling. Every triangle will have exactly one edge that is part of some ring.
Let's say you have a grid like this (made randomly):
Now let's say you have a car starting randomly from one of the while boxes, what would be the shortest path to go through each one of the white boxes? You can visit each white box as many times as you want and can't jump over the black boxes. The black boxes are like walls. In simple words you can move from white box to white box only.
You can move in any direction, even diagonally.
Two subquestions:
Assume you know the position of all black boxes before moving.
Assume you only know the position of a black box when you are in a white box adjacent to it.
You should model the problem as a complete graph where the distance between two nodes (white boxes) is the length of the shortest path between those nodes. Those path lengths can be calculated by the Floyd-Warshall algorithm. Then, you can treat it as "Traveling salesman", like glowcoder wrote.
EDIT: to make it more clear: you can describe each "interesting" path through the maze by a sequence of different white boxes. Because if you have an arbitrary path visiting each white box, you can split it up into sub-paths each one ending at a new white box not visited so far. Each of this sub-paths from white box A to B can be replaced by a shortest sub-path from A to B, that's why you need the shortest-paths-between-all-pairs-of-nodes matrix.
This seems to be an NP-Complete problem.
Hamiltonian Path in grid graph is NP-Complete has been shown here: Hamilton Paths in Grid Graphs.
Note grid graph = subgraph of the complete grid.
Of course, I haven't read that paper, so confirm it first, especially the diagonal movement allowed part.
Doc has got it. I'll add that the black boxes only change the distance between all pairs of white boxes. Further elaboration - if there's a black box on the diagonal between any two white boxes (easily checked), you need to calculate a shortest path to get the distance. Once you have a distance matrix, then solve a TSP or a Hamiltonian Path by solving a TSP after creating a dummy node with length zero to all other nodes.
The key is that in order to formulate and solve the TSP (or any problem formulation for that matter), you MUST have a distance matrix to start with. The distance matrix isn't specified at the start so it must be developed from scratch.
while the TSP based heuristic is a reasonable approach, it's not clear it gives the optimal answer. The problem (as Moron points out) is the spanning trail problem, and in the link provided in the comment, there are many special cases for which there are linear time optimal solutions. One catch that makes the OP's problem different from the grid graph formulation used in the cited paper is the ability to traverse diagonally, which changes the game quite a bit.
This is similar to the Knights Tour problem, where a typical solution evaluates all possible routes originating from the starting square. When a tour cannot be completed, then backtracking is used to return to back up on previous decisions. Your problem is more relaxed since you can visit squares more than once. The Knights tour and Travelling Saleman problems typically require visiting each square exactly once.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight's_tour
Try building it as a graph (where each node has at most 8 other nodes) and treat it like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem