I recently came across the above puzzle game. The objective is to form a large triangle in such a way that the shapes and colors of the parts of the figures on neighboring triangles match.
One way to solve this problem is to apply an exhaustive search and to test every possible combination (roughly 7.1e9). I wrote a simple script to solve it (github).
Since this puzzle is quite old, brute-forcing this problem may not have been feasible back then. So, what's a more efficient way (algorithm/mathematical theory) to solve this?
This is equivalent to the Edge-matching problem (with some regular polygons), which is of course np-complete (and there are more negative results i assume about approximations). This means, that there exists puzzles which are very hard to solve (at least if P != NP).
One interesting side-note: there is a very popular (commercial) edge-matching puzzle called Eternity II which had a prize value of two million dollars. It's still unsoved to my knowledge.
This problem resulted in many attempts and blog-writings, which should offer you much about solving these kind of problems.
Failed (in terms of: did not solve the full-size E2 puzzle; but other hard ones) approaches, which should work much better than exhaustive-search (without heuristics) are:
SAT-solving (in my opinion most powerful complete approach)
Constraint-programming
Common Metaheuristics (a lot of potential when tuned to some problem-statistics)
Some interesting resources:
Complexity-theory: Demaine, Erik D., and Martin L. Demaine. "Jigsaw puzzles, edge matching, and polyomino packing: Connections and complexity." Graphs and Combinatorics 23.1 (2007): 195-208.
General hardness analysis (practical): Ansótegui, Carlos, et al. "How Hard is a Commercial Puzzle: the Eternity II Challenge." CCIA. 2008.
SAT-solving approach: Heule, Marijn JH. "Solving edge-matching problems with satisfiability solvers." SAT (2009): 69-82.
Edge-matching as benchmarks (because of hardness): Ansótegui, Carlos, et al. "Edge matching puzzles as hard sat/csp benchmarks." International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
One common approach to solving this sort of problem is with backtracking.
You choose a starting place, put down one of the tiles and then try to find matches for it in the neighboring places. When you get stuck, you back up one, and try an alternative there.
Eventually you have tried every possibility, without bothering with a huge number of dead ends. Once you get stuck, there is no point in filling in the rest in any way, because you'll still be stuck at that one point.
More recently, Knuth has applied his Dancing Links algorithm to problems of this nature, with even greater efficiencies gained thereby.
For a problem the size of your example, with just 9 pieces and two "colors", all solutions would be found in a matter of seconds at the most.
Related
I want to try my hand at finding heuristics/approximations for solving the Traveling Salesman Problem, and in order to do that, I'm looking for some "hard" TSP instances (along with their best known solutions) so that I can try solving them and see how well I can do.
Ideally, they would be simply a text-based list of adjacency matrices or adjacency lists (I don't want to deal with parsing, just the algorithm).
By "hard", I mean that they should be practically impossible to solve or approximate using brute-force.
(This is so that I can be reasonably confident that if I find an answer close to the best known answer, then I'm actually doing something right, and not just getting lucky.)
Are there any lists that would work for this purpose? I searched around a bit but didn't find anything.
Here is another question on SE partially answering your problem (it lists problems, but most of these seems not to have a solution provided, but you better check the links anyway - things may have changed).
If you can't find them, what about randomly generating a set of nodes along with a path connecting them, saving the path length as "minimal" (making sure that the longest connection between two nodes is never > X) and then adding a bunch of other paths making sure these are all > X?
This way (unless I am missing something) you have a set of connected nodes "as complex as you want" and know the actual shortest connecting path from the start...
Addendum - if you really want to see how you compare to existing tools, then you have to run these on your generated problems. One that is free and accessible (but I don't know how "efficient" it may be) is the TSP Library for R.
Wikipedia has a list of other free sw packages for this.
Maybe you could create a different SE question asking for how to get other TSP tools.
The TSP gatech site seems to be the canonical site for TSP information.
Here's a list of the available datasets: http://www.tsp.gatech.edu/data/index.html
The optimal solution is available for some datasets with over 10 000 cities. And there are datasets available of over 1 000 000 cities.
There is a well-known algorithm for finding the optimum TSP solution - it is called brute force.
So the only real way you can compare two algorithms has to be on the quality of the solution as well as some other criteria - usually running time.
Even here you run into a problem. Many algorithms are effectively search algorithms, and the longer you search the more possible solutions are evaluated. The algorithms already trade off quality and running time. They may or may not result in the correct (best) answer for some or all graphs.
The only real way you are going to be able to compare your algorithm to others is by implementing the other algorithms then throwing yours and them the same hard problems (and as others have identified, it is easy to make at least some types of hard problems). Implementing these existing algorithms may suggest ways of improving yours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem has plenty of algorithms, and at least a couple look very easy to code. Why not implement them as the first benchmark for your algorithm?
I need to develop a Course Timetabling software which can allot timeslots and rooms efficiently. This is a curriculum based routine, not post-enrollment based. And efficiently means classes are assigned timeslots according to staff time preferences and also need to minimize 1st year-2nd year class overlap so that 2nd year students can retake the courses they've failed to pass.(and also for 3rd-4th yr pair).
Now, at first i thought that would be an easy problem, but now it seems different. Most of the papers i've looked on uses Genetic Algorithm/PSO/Simulated Annealing or these type of algorithm. And i'm still unable to interpret the problem to a GA problem.
what i'm confused about is why almost none of them suggests DFS or Graph-coloring algorithm?
Can someone explain the scenario if DFS/graph-coloring is used? Or why they aren't suggested or tried.
My experience with solving this problem for a complex department, is that the hard constraints (like no overlapping of courses that are taken by the same population, and hard constraints of the teachers) are rather easily solvable by exact methods. I modeled the problem with 0-1 integer linear programming, and solved it with a SAT-based tool called minisat+. Competitive commercial tools like cplex can also solve it.
So with today's tools there is no need to approximate as suggested above, even when the input is rather large.
Now, optimizing the solution is a different story. There can be many (weighted) objectives, and finding the solution that brings the objective to minimum is indeed very hard computationally (no tool that I tried can solve it within 24 hours), but they reach near optimum in a few hours (I know it is near optimum because I can compute the theoretical bound on the solution).
This document describes applying a GA approach to university time-tabling, so it should be directly applicable to your requirement: Using a GA to solve university time-tabling
Me and some of my friends at college were assigned a practical task of developing a net application for optimization of cutting rectangular parts from some kind of material. Something like apps in this list, but more simplistic. Basically, I'm interested if there is any source code for this kind of optimization algorithms available on the internet. I'm planning to develop the app using Adobe Flex framework. The programming part will be done in Actionscript 3, ofc. However, I doubt that there are any optimization samples for this language. There may be some for Java, C++, C#, Ruby or Python and other more popular languages, though(then I'd just have to rewrite it in AS). So, if anyone knows any free libs or algorithm code samples that would suit me, I'd like to hear your suggestions. :)
This sounds just like the stock cutting problem which is extermely hard! The best solutions use linear programming (typically based on the simplex method) with column generation (which, even after years on a constraint solving research project I feel unequipped to give a half decent explanation). In short, you won't want to try this approach in Actionscript; consequently, with whatever you do implement, you shouldn't expect great results on anything other than small problems.
The best advice I can offer, then, is to see if you can cut the source rectangle into strips (each of the width of the largest rectangles you need), then subdivide the remainder of each strip after the "head" rectangle has been removed.
I'd recommend using branch-and-bound as your optimisation strategy. BnB works by doing an exhaustive tree search that keeps track of the best solution seen so far. When you find a solution, update the bound, and backtrack looking for the next solution. Whenever you know your search takes you to a branch that you know cannot lead to a better solution than the best you have found, you can backtrack early at that point.
Since these search trees will be very large, you will probably want to place a time limit on the search and just return your best effort.
Hope this helps.
I had trouble finding examples when I wanted to do the same for the woodwoorking company I work for. The problem itself is NP-hard so you need to use an approximation algorithm like a first fit or best fit algorithm.
Do a search for 2d bin-packing algorithms. The one I found, you sort the panels biggest to smallest, then add the to the sheets in in order, putting in the first bin it will fit. Sorry don't have the code with with me and its in vb.net anyway.
In industry, there is often a problem where you need to calculate the most efficient use of material, be it fabric, wood, metal etc. So the starting point is X amount of shapes of given dimensions, made out of polygons and/or curved lines, and target is another polygon of given dimensions.
I assume many of the current CAM suites implement this, but having no experience using them or of their internals, what kind of computational algorithm is used to find the most efficient use of space? Can someone point me to a book or other reference that discusses this topic?
After Andrew in his answer pointed me to the right direction and named the problem for me, I decided to dump my research results here in a separate answer.
This is indeed a packing problem, and to be more precise, it is a nesting problem. The problem is mathematically NP-hard, and thus the algorithms currently in use are heuristic approaches. There does not seem to be any solutions that would solve the problem in linear time, except for trivial problem sets. Solving complex problems takes from minutes to hours with current hardware, if you want to achieve a solution with good material utilization. There are tens of commercial software solutions that offer nesting of shapes, but I was not able to locate any open source solutions, so there are no real examples where one could see the algorithms actually implemented.
Excellent description of the nesting and strip nesting problem with historical solutions can be found in a paper written by Benny Kjær Nielsen of University of Copenhagen (Nielsen).
General approach seems to be to mix and use multiple known algorithms in order to find the best nesting solution. These algorithms include (Guided / Iterated) Local Search, Fast Neighborhood Search that is based on No-Fit Polygon, and Jostling Heuristics. I found a great paper on this subject with pictures of how the algorithms work. It also had benchmarks of the different software implementations so far. This paper was presented at the International Symposium on Scheduling 2006 by S. Umetani et al (Umetani).
A relatively new and possibly the best approach to date is based on Hybrid Genetic Algorithm (HGA), a hybrid consisting of simulated annealing and genetic algorithm that has been described by Wu Qingming et al of Wuhan University (Quanming). They have implemented this by using Visual Studio, SQL database and genetic algorithm optimization toolbox (GAOT) in MatLab.
You are referring to a well known computer science domain of packing, for which there are a variety of problems defined and research done, for both 2-dimnensional space as well as 3-dimensional space.
There is considerable material on the net available for the defined problems, but to find it you knid of have to know the name of the problem to search for.
Some packages might well adopt a heuristic appraoch (which I suspect they will) and some might go to the lengths of calculating all the possibilities to get the absolute right answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packing_problem
I'm not interested in tiny optimizations giving few percents of the speed.
I'm interested in the most important heuristics for alpha-beta search. And most important components for evaluation function.
I'm particularly interested in algorithms that have greatest (improvement/code_size) ratio.
(NOT (improvement/complexity)).
Thanks.
PS
Killer move heuristic is a perfect example - easy to implement and powerful.
Database of heuristics is too complicated.
Not sure if you're already aware of it, but check out the Chess Programming Wiki - it's a great resource that covers just about every aspect of modern chess AI. In particular, relating to your question, see the Search and Evaluation sections (under Principle Topics) on the main page. You might also be able to discover some interesting techniques used in some of the programs listed here. If your questions still aren't answered, I would definitely recommend you ask in the Chess Programming Forums, where there are likely to be many more specialists around to answer. (Not that you won't necessarily get good answers here, just that it's rather more likely on topic-specific expert forums).
MTD(f) or one of the MTD variants is a big improvement over standard alpha-beta, providing you don't have really fine detail in your evaluation function and assuming that you're using the killer heuristic. The history heuristic is also useful.
The top-rated chess program Rybka has apparently abandoned MDT(f) in favour of PVS with a zero-aspiration window on the non-PV nodes.
Extended futility pruning, which incorporates both normal futility pruning and deep razoring, is theoretically unsound, but remarkably effective in practice.
Iterative deepening is another useful technique. And I listed a lot of good chess programming links here.
Even though many optimizations based on heuristics(I mean ways to increase the tree depth without actualy searching) discussed in chess programming literature, I think most of them are rarely used. The reason is that they are good performance boosters in theory, but not in practice.
Sometimes these heuristics can return a bad(I mean not the best) move too.
The people I have talked to always recommend optimizing the alpha-beta search and implementing iterative deepening into the code rather than trying to add the other heuristics.
The main reason is that computers are increasing in processing power, and research[need citation I suppose] has shown that the programs that use their full CPU time to brute force the alpha-beta tree to the maximum depth have always outrunned the programs that split their time between a certain levels of alpha-beta and then some heuristics,.
Even though using some heuristics to extend the tree depth can cause more harm than good, ther are many performance boosters you can add to the alpha-beta search algorithm.
I am sure that you are aware that for alpha-beta to work exactly as it is intended to work, you should have a move sorting mechanisn(iterative deepening). Iterative deepening can give you about 10% performace boost.
Adding Principal variation search technique to alpha beta may give you an additional 10% boost.
Try the MTD(f) algorithm too. It can also increase the performance of your engine.
One heuristic that hasn't been mentioned is Null move pruning.
Also, Ed Schröder has a great page explaining a number of tricks he used in his Rebel engine, and how much improvement each contributed to speed/performance: Inside Rebel
Using a transposition table with a zobrist hash
It takes very little code to implement [one XOR on each move or unmove, and an if statement before recursing in the game tree], and the benefits are pretty good, especially if you are already using iterative deepening, and it's pretty tweakable (use a bigger table, smaller table, replacement strategies, etc)
Killer moves are good example of small code size and great improvement in move ordering.
Most board game AI algorithms are based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minmax MinMax. The goal is to minimize their options while maximizing your options. Although with Chess this is a very large and expensive runtime problem. To help reduce that you can combine minmax with a database of previously played games. Any game that has a similar board position and has a pattern established on how that layout was won for your color can be used as far as "analyzing" where to move next.
I am a bit confused on what you mean by improvement/code_size. Do you really mean improvement / runtime analysis (big O(n) vs. o(n))? If that is the case, talk to IBM and big blue, or Microsoft's Parallels team. At PDC I spoke with a guy (whose name escapes me now) who was demonstrating Mahjong using 8 cores per opponent and they won first place in the game algorithm design competition (whose name also escapes me).
I do not think there are any "canned" algorithms out there to always win chess and do it very fast. The way that you would have to do it is have EVERY possible previously played game indexed in a very large dictionary based database and have pre-cached the analysis of every game. It would be a VERY compex algorithm and would be a very poor improvement / complexity problem in my opinion.
I might be slightly off topic but "state of the art" chess programs use MPI such as Deep Blue for massive parallel power.
Just consider than parallel processing plays a great role in modern chess