Related
I've been wondering if there are known solutions for algorithm of creating a school timetable. Basically, it's about optimizing "hour-dispersion" (both in teachers and classes case) for given class-subject-teacher associations. We can assume that we have sets of classes, lesson subjects and teachers associated with each other at the input and that timetable should fit between 8AM and 4PM.
I guess that there is probably no accurate algorithm for that, but maybe someone knows a good approximation or hints for developing it.
This problem is NP-Complete!
In a nutshell one needs to explore all possible combinations to find the list of acceptable solutions. Because of the variations in the circumstances in which the problem appears at various schools (for example: Are there constraints with regards to classrooms?, Are some of the classes split in sub-groups some of the time?, Is this a weekly schedule? etc.) there isn't a well known problem class which corresponds to all the scheduling problems. Maybe, the Knapsack problem has many elements of similarity with these problems at large.
A confirmation that this is both a hard problem and one for which people perennially seek a solution, is to check this (long) list of (mostly commercial) software scheduling tools
Because of the big number of variables involved, the biggest source of which are, typically, the faculty member's desires ;-)..., it is typically impractical to consider enumerating all possible combinations. Instead we need to choose an approach which visits a subset of the problem/solution spaces.
- Genetic Algorithms, cited in another answer is (or, IMHO, seems) well equipped to perform this kind of semi-guided search (The problem being to find a good evaluation function for the candidates to be kept for the next generation)
- Graph Rewriting approaches are also of use with this type of combinatorial optimization problems.
Rather than focusing on particular implementations of an automatic schedule generator program, I'd like to suggest a few strategies which can be applied, at the level of the definition of the problem.
The general rationale is that in most real world scheduling problems, some compromises will be required, not all constraints, expressed and implied: will be satisfied fully. Therefore we help ourselves by:
Defining and ranking all known constraints
Reducing the problem space, by manually, providing a set of additional constraints.This may seem counter-intuitive but for example by providing an initial, partially filled schedule (say roughly 30% of the time-slots), in a way that fully satisfies all constraints, and by considering this partial schedule immutable, we significantly reduce the time/space needed to produce candidate solutions. Another way additional constraints help is for example "artificially" adding a constraint which prevent teaching some subjects on some days of the week (if this is a weekly schedule...); this type of constraints results in reducing the problem/solution spaces, without, typically, excluding a significant number of good candidates.
Ensuring that some of the constraints of the problem can be quickly computed. This is often associated with the choice of data model used to represent the problem; the idea is to be able to quickly opt-for (or prune-out) some of the options.
Redefining the problem and allowing some of the constraints to be broken, a few times, (typically towards the end nodes of the graph). The idea here is to either remove some of constraints for filling-in the last few slots in the schedule, or to have the automatic schedule generator program stop shy of completing the whole schedule, instead providing us with a list of a dozen or so plausible candidates. A human is often in a better position to complete the puzzle, as indicated, possibly breaking a few of the contraints, using information which is not typically shared with the automated logic (eg "No mathematics in the afternoon" rule can be broken on occasion for the "advanced math and physics" class; or "It is better to break one of Mr Jones requirements than one of Ms Smith ... ;-) )
In proof-reading this answer , I realize it is quite shy of providing a definite response, but it none the less full of practical suggestions. I hope this help, with what is, after all, a "hard problem".
It's a mess. a royal mess. To add to the answers, already very complete, I want to point out my family experience. My mother was a teacher and used to be involved in the process.
Turns out that having a computer to do so is not only difficult to code per-se, it is also difficult because there are conditions that are difficult to specify to a pre-baked computer program. Examples:
a teacher teaches both at your school and at another institute. Clearly, if he ends the lesson there at 10.30, he cannot start at your premises at 10.30, because he needs some time to commute between the institutes.
two teachers are married. In general, it's considered good practice not to have two married teachers on the same class. These two teachers must therefore have two different classes
two teachers are married, and their child attends the same school. Again, you have to prevent the two teachers to teach in the specific class where their child is.
the school has separate facilities, like one day the class is in one institute, and another day the class is in another.
the school has shared laboratories, but these laboratories are available only on certain weekdays (for security reasons, for example, where additional personnel is required).
some teachers have preferences for the free day: some prefer on Monday, some on Friday, some on Wednesday. Some prefer to come early in the morning, some prefer to come later.
you should not have situations where you have a lesson of say, history at the first hour, then three hours of math, then another hour of history. It does not make sense for the students, nor for the teacher.
you should spread the arguments evenly. It does not make sense to have the first days in the week only math, and then the rest of the week only literature.
you should give some teachers two consecutive hours to do evaluation tests.
As you can see, the problem is not NP-complete, it's NP-insane.
So what they do is that they have a large table with small plastic insets, and they move the insets around until a satisfying result is obtained. They never start from scratch: they normally start from the previous year timetable and make adjustments.
The International Timetabling Competition 2007 had a lesson scheduling track and exam scheduling track. Many researchers participated in that competition. Lots of heuristics and metaheuristics were tried, but in the end the local search metaheuristics (such as Tabu Search and Simulated Annealing) clearly beat other algorithms (such as genetic algorithms).
Take a look at the 2 open source frameworks used by some of the finalists:
JBoss OptaPlanner (Java, open source)
Unitime (Java, open source) - more for universities
One of my half-term assignments was an genetic-algorithm school table generation.
Whole table is one "organism". There were some changes and caveats to the generic genetic algorithms approach:
Rules were made for "illegal tables": two classes in the same classroom, one teacher teaching two groups at the same time etc. These mutations were deemed lethal immediately and a new "organism" was sprouted in place of the "deceased" immediately. The initial one was generated by a series of random tries to get a legal (if senseless) one. Lethal mutation wasn't counted towards count of mutations in iteration.
"Exchange" mutations were much more common than "Modify" mutations. Changes were only between parts of the gene that made sense - no substituting a teacher with a classroom.
Small bonuses were assigned for bundling certain 2 hours together, for assigning same generic classroom in sequence for the same group, for keeping teacher's work hours and class' load continuous. Moderate bonuses were assigned for giving correct classrooms for given subject, keeping class hours within bonds (morning or afternoon), and such. Big bonuses were for assigning correct number of given subject, given workload for a teacher etc.
Teachers could create their workload schedules of "want to work then", "okay to work then", "doesn't like to work then", "can't work then", with proper weights assigned. Whole 24h were legal work hours except night time was very undesired.
The weight function... oh yeah. The weight function was huge, monstrous product (as in multiplication) of weights assigned to selected features and properties. It was extremely steep, one property easily able to change it by an order of magnitude up or down - and there were hundreds or thousands of properties in one organism. This resulted in absolutely HUGE numbers as the weights, and as a direct result, need to use a bignum library (gmp) to perform the calculations. For a small testcase of some 10 groups, 10 teachers and 10 classrooms, the initial set started with note of 10^-200something and finished with 10^+300something. It was totally inefficient when it was more flat. Also, the values grew a lot wider distance with bigger "schools".
Computation time wise, there was little difference between a small population (100) over a long time and a big population (10k+) over less generations. The computation over the same time produced about the same quality.
The calculation (on some 1GHz CPU) would take some 1h to stabilize near 10^+300, generating schedules that looked quite nice, for said 10x10x10 test case.
The problem is easily paralellizable by providing networking facility that would exchange best specimens between computers running the computation.
The resulting program never saw daylight outside getting me a good grade for the semester. It showed some promise but I never got enough motivation to add any GUI and make it usable to general public.
This problem is tougher than it seems.
As others have alluded to, this is a NP-complete problem, but let's analyse what that means.
Basically, it means you have to look at all possible combinations.
But "look at" doesn't tell you much what you need to do.
Generating all possible combinations is easy. It might produce a huge amount of data, but you shouldn't have much problems understanding the concepts of this part of the problem.
The second problem is the one of judging whether a given possible combination is good, bad, or better than the previous "good" solution.
For this you need more than just "is it a possible solution".
For instance, is the same teacher working 5 days a week for X weeks straight? Even if that is a working solution, it might not be a better solution than alternating between two people so that each teacher does one week each. Oh, you didn't think about that? Remember, this is people you're dealing with, not just a resource allocation problem.
Even if one teacher could work full-time for 16 weeks straight, that might be a sub-optimal solution compared to a solution where you try to alternate between teachers, and this kind of balancing is very hard to build into software.
To summarize, producing a good solution to this problem will be worth a lot, to many many people. Hence, it's not an easy problem to break down and solve. Be prepared to stake out some goals that aren't 100% and calling them "good enough".
My timetabling algorithm, implemented in FET (Free Timetabling Software, http://lalescu.ro/liviu/fet/ , a successful application):
The algorithm is heuristic. I named it "recursive swapping".
Input: a set of activities A_1...A_n and the constraints.
Output: a set of times TA_1...TA_n (the time slot of each activity. Rooms are excluded here, for simplicity). The algorithm must put each activity at a time slot, respecting constraints. Each TA_i is between 0 (T_1) and max_time_slots-1 (T_m).
Constraints:
C1) Basic: a list of pairs of activities which cannot be simultaneous (for instance, A_1 and A_2, because they have the same teacher or the same students);
C2) Lots of other constraints (excluded here, for simplicity).
The timetabling algorithm (which I named "recursive swapping"):
Sort activities, most difficult first. Not critical step, but speeds up the algorithm maybe 10 times or more.
Try to place each activity (A_i) in an allowed time slot, following the above order, one at a time. Search for an available slot (T_j) for A_i, in which this activity can be placed respecting the constraints. If more slots are available, choose a random one. If none is available, do recursive swapping:
a. For each time slot T_j, consider what happens if you put A_i into T_j. There will be a list of other activities which don't agree with this move (for instance, activity A_k is on the same slot T_j and has the same teacher or same students as A_i). Keep a list of conflicting activities for each time slot T_j.
b. Choose a slot (T_j) with lowest number of conflicting activities. Say the list of activities in this slot contains 3 activities: A_p, A_q, A_r.
c. Place A_i at T_j and make A_p, A_q, A_r unallocated.
d. Recursively try to place A_p, A_q, A_r (if the level of recursion is not too large, say 14, and if the total number of recursive calls counted since step 2) on A_i began is not too large, say 2*n), as in step 2).
e. If successfully placed A_p, A_q, A_r, return with success, otherwise try other time slots (go to step 2 b) and choose the next best time slot).
f. If all (or a reasonable number of) time slots were tried unsuccessfully, return without success.
g. If we are at level 0, and we had no success in placing A_i, place it like in steps 2 b) and 2 c), but without recursion. We have now 3 - 1 = 2 more activities to place. Go to step 2) (some methods to avoid cycling are used here).
UPDATE: from comments ... should have heuristics too!
I'd go with Prolog ... then use Ruby or Perl or something to cleanup your solution into a prettier form.
teaches(Jill,math).
teaches(Joe,history).
involves(MA101,math).
involves(SS104,history).
myHeuristic(D,A,B) :- [test_case]->D='<';D='>'.
createSchedule :- findall(Class,involves(Class,Subject),Classes),
predsort(myHeuristic,Classes,ClassesNew),
createSchedule(ClassesNew,[]).
createSchedule(Classes,Scheduled) :- [the actual recursive algorithm].
I am (still) in the process of doing something similar to this problem but using the same path as I just mentioned. Prolog (as a functional language) really makes solving NP-Hard problems easier.
Genetic algorithms are often used for such scheduling.
Found this example (Making Class Schedule Using Genetic Algorithm) which matches your requirement pretty well.
Here are a few links I found:
School timetable - Lists some problems involved
A Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for School Timetabling
Scheduling Utilities and Tools
This paper describes the school timetable problem and their approach to the algorithm pretty well: "The Development of SYLLABUS—An Interactive, Constraint-Based Scheduler for Schools and Colleges."[PDF]
The author informs me the SYLLABUS software is still being used/developed here: http://www.scientia.com/uk/
I work on a widely-used scheduling engine which does exactly this. Yes, it is NP-Complete; the best approaches seek to approximate an optimal solution. And, of course there are a lot of different ways to say which one is the "best" solution - is it more important that your teachers are happy with their schedules, or that students get into all their classes, for instance?
The absolute most important question you need to resolve early on is what makes one way of scheduling this system better than another? That is, if I have a schedule with Mrs Jones teaching Math at 8 and Mr Smith teaching Math at 9, is that better or worse than one with both of them teaching Math at 10? Is it better or worse than one with Mrs Jones teaching at 8 and Mr Jones teaching at 2? Why?
The main advice I'd give here is to divide the problem up as much as possible - maybe course by course, maybe teacher by teacher, maybe room by room - and work on solving the sub-problem first. There you should end up with multiple solutions to choose from, and need to pick one as the most likely optimal. Then, work on making the "earlier" sub-problems take into account the needs of later sub-problems in scoring their potential solutions. Then, maybe work on how to get yourself out of painted-into-the-corner situations (assuming you can't anticipate those situations in earlier sub-problems) when you get to a "no valid solutions" state.
A local-search optimization pass is often used to "polish" the end answer for better results.
Note that typically we are dealing with highly resource-constrained systems in school scheduling. Schools don't go through the year with a lot of empty rooms or teachers sitting in the lounge 75% of the day. Approaches which work best in solution-rich environments aren't necessarily applicable in school scheduling.
Generally, constraint programming is a good approach to this type of scheduling problem. A search on "constraint programming" and scheduling or "constraint based scheduling" both within stack overflow and on Google will generate some good references. It's not impossible - it's just a little hard to think about when using traditional optimization methods like linear or integer optimization. One output would be - does a schedule exist that satisfies all the requirements? That, in itself, is obviously helpful.
Good luck !
I have designed commercial algorithms for both class timetabling and examination timetabling. For the first I used integer programming; for the second a heuristic based on maximizing an objective function by choosing slot swaps, very similar to the original manual process that had been evolved. They main things in getting such solutions accepted are the ability to represent all the real-world constraints; and for human timetablers to not be able to see ways to improve the solution. In the end the algorithmic part was quite straightforward and easy to implement compared with the preparation of the databases, the user interface, ability to report on statistics like room utilization, user education and so on.
You can takle it with genetic algorithms, yes. But you shouldn't :). It can be too slow and parameter tuning can be too timeconsuming etc.
There are successful other approaches. All implemented in open source projects:
Constraint based approach
Implemented in UniTime (not really for schools)
You could also go further and use Integer programming. Successfully done at Udine university and also at University Bayreuth (I was involved there) using the commercial software (ILOG CPLEX)
Rule based approach with heuristisc - See Drools planner
Different heuristics - FET and my own
See here for a timetabling software list
I think you should use genetic algorithm because:
It is best suited for large problem instances.
It yields reduced time complexity on the price of inaccurate answer(Not the ultimate best)
You can specify constraints & preferences easily by adjusting fitness punishments for not met ones.
You can specify time limit for program execution.
The quality of solution depends on how much time you intend to spend solving the program..
Genetic Algorithms Definition
Genetic Algorithms Tutorial
Class scheduling project with GA
Also take a look at :a similar question and another one
This problem is MASSIVE where I work - imagine 1800 subjects/modules, and 350 000 students, each doing 5 to 10 modules, and you want to build an exam in 10 weeks, where papers are 1 hour to 3 days long... one plus point - all exams are online, but bad again, cannot exceed the system's load of max 5k concurrent. So yes we are doing this now in cloud on scaling servers.
The "solution" we used was simply to order modules on how many other modules they "clash" with descending (where a student does both), and to "backpack" them, allowing for these long papers to actually overlap, else it simply cannot be done.
So when things get too large, I found this "heuristic" to be practical... at least.
I don't know any one will agree with this code but i developed this code with the help of my own algorithm and is working for me in ruby.Hope it will help them who are searching for it
in the following code the periodflag ,dayflag subjectflag and the teacherflag are the hash with the corresponding id and the flag value which is Boolean.
Any issue contact me.......(-_-)
periodflag.each do |k2,v2|
if(TimetableDefinition.find(k2).period.to_i != 0)
subjectflag.each do |k3,v3|
if (v3 == 0)
if(getflag_period(periodflag,k2))
#teachers=EmployeesSubject.where(subject_name: #subjects.find(k3).name, division_id: division.id).pluck(:employee_id)
#teacherlists=Employee.find(#teachers)
teacherflag=Hash[teacher_flag(#teacherlists,teacherflag,flag).to_a.shuffle]
teacherflag.each do |k4,v4|
if(v4 == 0)
if(getflag_subject(subjectflag,k3))
subjectperiod=TimetableAssign.where("timetable_definition_id = ? AND subject_id = ?",k2,k3)
if subjectperiod.blank?
issubjectpresent=TimetableAssign.where("section_id = ? AND subject_id = ?",section.id,k3)
if issubjectpresent.blank?
isteacherpresent=TimetableAssign.where("section_id = ? AND employee_id = ?",section.id,k4)
if isteacherpresent.blank?
#finaltt=TimetableAssign.new
#finaltt.timetable_struct_id=#timetable_struct.id
#finaltt.employee_id=k4
#finaltt.section_id=section.id
#finaltt.standard_id=standard.id
#finaltt.division_id=division.id
#finaltt.subject_id=k3
#finaltt.timetable_definition_id=k2
#finaltt.timetable_day_id=k1
set_school_id(#finaltt,current_user)
if(#finaltt.save)
setflag_sub(subjectflag,k3,1)
setflag_period(periodflag,k2,1)
setflag_teacher(teacherflag,k4,1)
end
end
else
#subjectdetail=TimetableAssign.find_by_section_id_and_subject_id(#section.id,k3)
#finaltt=TimetableAssign.new
#finaltt.timetable_struct_id=#subjectdetail.timetable_struct_id
#finaltt.employee_id=#subjectdetail.employee_id
#finaltt.section_id=section.id
#finaltt.standard_id=standard.id
#finaltt.division_id=division.id
#finaltt.subject_id=#subjectdetail.subject_id
#finaltt.timetable_definition_id=k2
#finaltt.timetable_day_id=k1
set_school_id(#finaltt,current_user)
if(#finaltt.save)
setflag_sub(subjectflag,k3,1)
setflag_period(periodflag,k2,1)
setflag_teacher(teacherflag,k4,1)
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
end
The domain of this question is scheduling operations on constrained hardware. The resolution of the result is the number of clock cycles the schedule fits within. The search space grows very rapidly where early decisions constrain future decisions and the total number of possible schedules grows rapidly and exponentially. A lot of the possible schedules are equivalent because just swapping the order of two instructions usually result in the same timing constraint.
Basically the question is what is a good strategy for exploring the vast search space without spending too much time. I expect to search only a small fraction but would like to explore different parts of the search space while doing so.
The current greedy algorithm tend to make stupid decisions early on sometimes and the attempt at branch and bound was beyond slow.
Edit:
Want to point out that the result is very binary with perhaps the greedy algorithm ending up using 8 cycles while there exists a solution using only 7 cycles using branch and bound.
Second point is that there are significant restrictions in data routing between instructions and dependencies between instructions that limits the amount of commonality between solutions. Look at it as a knapsack problem with a lot of ordering constraints as well as some solutions completely failing because of routing congestion.
Clarification:
In each cycle there is a limit to how many operations of each type and some operations have two possible types. There are a set of routing constraints which can be varied to be either fairly tight or pretty forgiving and the limit depends on routing congestion.
Integer linear optimization for NP-hard problems
Depending on your side constraints, you may be able to use the critical path method or
(as suggested in a previous answer) dynamic programming. But many scheduling problems are NP-hard just like the classical traveling sales man --- a precise solution has a worst case of exponential search time, just as you describe in your problem.
It's important to know that while NP-hard problems still have a very bad worst case solution time there is an approach that very often produces exact answers with very short computations (the average case is acceptable and you often don't see the worst case).
This approach is to convert your problem to a linear optimization problem with integer variables. There are free-software packages (such as lp-solve) that can solve such problems efficiently.
The advantage of this approach is that it may give you exact answers to NP-hard problems in acceptable time. I used this approach in a few projects.
As your problem statement does not include more details about the side constraints, I cannot go into more detail how to apply the method.
Edit/addition: Sample implementation
Here are some details about how to implement this method in your case (of course, I make some assumptions that may not apply to your actual problem --- I only know the details form your question):
Let's assume that you have 50 instructions cmd(i) (i=1..50) to be scheduled in 10 or less cycles cycle(t) (t=1..10). We introduce 500 binary variables v(i,t) (i=1..50; t=1..10) which indicate whether instruction cmd(i) is executed at cycle(t) or not. This basic setup gives the following linear constraints:
v_it integer variables
0<=v_it; v_it<=1; # 1000 constraints: i=1..50; t=1..10
sum(v_it: t=1..10)==1 # 50 constraints: i=1..50
Now, we have to specify your side conditions. Let's assume that operations cmd(1)...cmd(5) are multiplication operations and that you have exactly two multipliers --- in any cycle, you may perform at most two of these operations in parallel:
sum(v_it: i=1..5)<=2 # 10 constraints: t=1..10
For each of your resources, you need to add the corresponding constraints.
Also, let's assume that operation cmd(7) depends on operation cmd(2) and needs to be executed after it. To make the equation a little bit more interesting, lets also require a two cycle gap between them:
sum(t*v(2,t): t=1..10) + 3 <= sum(t*v(7,t): t=1..10) # one constraint
Note: sum(t*v(2,t): t=1..10) is the cycle t where v(2,t) is equal to one.
Finally, we want to minimize the number of cycles. This is somewhat tricky because you get quite big numbers in the way that I propose: We give assign each v(i,t) a price that grows exponentially with time: pushing off operations into the future is much more expensive than performing them early:
sum(6^t * v(i,t): i=1..50; t=1..10) --> minimum. # one target function
I choose 6 to be bigger than 5 to ensure that adding one cycle to the system makes it more expensive than squeezing everything into less cycles. A side-effect is that the program will go out of it's way to schedule operations as early as possible. You may avoid this by performing a two-step optimization: First, use this target function to find the minimal number of necessary cycles. Then, ask the same problem again with a different target function --- limiting the number of available cycles at the outset and imposing a more moderate price penalty for later operations. You have to play with this, I hope you got the idea.
Hopefully, you can express all your requirements as such linear constraints in your binary variables. Of course, there may be many opportunities to exploit your insight into your specific problem to do with less constraints or less variables.
Then, hand your problem off to lp-solve or cplex and let them find the best solution!
At first blush, it sounds like this problem might fit into a dynamic programming solution. Several operations may take the same amount of time so you might end up with overlapping subproblems.
If you can map your problem to the "travelling salesman" (like: Find the optimal sequence to run all operations in minimum time), then you have an NP-complete problem.
A very quick way to solve that is the ant algorithm (or ant colony optimization).
The idea is that you send an ant down every path. The ant spreads a smelly substance on the path which evaporates over time. Short parts mean that the path will stink more when the next ant comes along. Ants prefer smelly over clean paths. Run thousands of ants through the network. The most smelly path is the optimal one (or at least very close).
Try simulated annealing, cfr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing .
I'm developing an application that optimally assigns shifts to nurses in a hospital. I believe this is a linear programming problem with discrete variables, and therefore probably NP-hard:
For each day, each nurse (ca. 15-20) is assigned a shift
There is a small number (ca. 6) of different shifts
There is a considerable number of constraints and optimization criteria, either concerning a day, or concerning an emplyoee, e.g.:
There must be a minimum number of people assigned to each shift every day
Some shifts overlap so that it's OK to have one less person in early shift if there's someone doing intermediate shift
Some people prefer early shift, some prefer late shift, but a minimum of shift changes is required to still get the higher shift-work pay.
It's not allowed for one person to work late shift one day and early shift the next day (due to minimum resting time regulations)
Meeting assigned working week lengths (different for different people)
...
So basically there is a large number (aout 20*30 = 600) variables that each can take a small number of discrete values.
Currently, my plan is to use a modified Min-conflicts algorithm
start with random assignments
have a fitness function for each person and each day
select the person or day with the worst fitness value
select at random one of the assignments for that day/person and set it to the value that results in the optimal fitness value
repeat until either a maximum number of iteration is reached or no improvement can be found for the selected day/person
Any better ideas? I am somewhat worried that it will get stuck in a local optimum. Should I use some form of simulated annealing? Or consider not only changes in one variable at a time, but specifically switches of shifts between two people (the main component in the current manual algorithm)? I want to avoid tailoring the algorithm to the current constraints since those might change.
Edit: it's not necessary to find a strictly optimal solution; the roster is currently done manual, and I'm pretty sure the result is considerably sub-optimal most of the time - shouldn't be hard to beat that. Short-term adjustments and manual overrides will also definitely be necessary, but I don't believe this will be a problem; Marking past and manual assignments as "fixed" should actually simplify the task by reducing the solution space.
This is a difficult problem to solve well. There has been many academic papers on this subject particularly in the Operations Research field - see for example nurse rostering papers 2007-2008 or just google "nurse rostering operations research". The complexity also depends on aspects such as: how many days to solve; what type of "requests" can the nurse's make; is the roster "cyclic"; is it a long term plan or does it need to handle short term rostering "repair" such as sickness and swaps etc etc.
The algorithm you describe is a heuristic approach.
You may find you can tweak it to work well for one particular instance of the problem but as soon as "something" is changed it may not work so well (e.g. local optima, poor convergence).
However, such an approach may be adequate depending your particular business needs - e.g. how important is it to get the optimal solution, is the problem outline you describe expected to stay the same, what is the potential savings (money and resources), how important is the nurse's perception of the quality of their rosters, what is the budget for this work etc.
Umm, did you know that some ILP-solvers do quite a good job? Try AIMMS, Mathematica or the GNU programming kit! 600 Variables is of course a lot more than the Lenstra theorem will solve easily, but sometimes these ILP solvers have a good handle and in AIMMS, you can modify the branching strategy a little. Plus, there's a really fast 100%-approximation for ILPs.
I solved a shift assignment problem for a large manufacturing plant recently. First we tried generating purely random schedules and returning any one which passed the is_schedule_valid test - the fallback algorithm. This was, of course, slow and indeterminate.
Next we tried genetic algorithms (as you suggested), but couldn't find a good fitness function that closed on any viable solution (because the smallest change can make the entire schedule RIGHT or WRONG - no points for almost).
Finally we chose the following method (which worked great!):
Randomize the input set (i.e. jobs, shift, staff, etc.).
Create a valid tuple and add it to your tentative schedule.
If not valid tuple can be created, rollback (and increment) the last tuple added.
Pass the partial schedule to a function that tests could_schedule_be_valid, that is, could this schedule be valid if the remaining tuples were filled in a possible way
If !could_schedule_be_valid, simply rollback (and increment) the tuple added in (2).
If schedule_is_complete, return schedule
Goto (2)
You incrementally build a partial shift this way. The benefit is that some tests for valid schedule can easily be done in Step 2 (pre-tests), and others must remain in Step 5 (post-tests).
Good luck. We wasted days trying the first two algorithms, but got the recommended algorithm generating valid schedules instantly in under 5 hours of development.
Also, we supported pre-fixing and post-fixing of assignments that the algorithm would respect. You simply don't randomize those slots in Step 1. You'll find that the solutions doesn't have to be anywhere near optimal. Our solution is O(N*M) at a minimum but executes in PHP(!) in less than half a second for an entire manufacturing plant. The beauty is in ruling out bad schedules quickly using a good could_schedule_be_valid test.
The people that are used to doing it manually don't care if it takes an hour - they just know they don't have to do it manually any more.
Mike,
Don't know if you ever got a good answer to this, but I'm pretty sure that constraint programming is the ticket. While a GA might give you an answer, CP is designed to give you many answers or tell you if there is no feasible solution. A search on "constraint programming" and scheduling should bring up lots of info. It's a relatively new area and CP methods work well on many types of problems where traditional optimization methods bog down.
Dynamic programming a la Bell? Kinda sounds like there's a place for it: overlapping subproblems, optimal substructures.
One thing you can do is to try to look for symmetries in the problem. E.g. can you treat all nurses as equivalent for the purposes of the problem? If so, then you only need to consider nurses in some arbitrary order -- you can avoid considering solutions such that any nurse i is scheduled before any nurse j where i > j. (You did say that individual nurses have preferred shift times, which contradicts this example, although perhaps that's a less important goal?)
I think you should use genetic algorithm because:
It is best suited for large problem instances.
It yields reduced time complexity on the price of inaccurate answer(Not the ultimate best)
You can specify constraints & preferences easily by adjusting fitness punishments for not met ones.
You can specify time limit for program execution.
The quality of solution depends on how much time you intend to spend solving the program..
Genetic Algorithms Definition
Genetic Algorithms Tutorial
Class scheduling project with GA
Also take a look at :a similar question and another one
Using CSP programming I made programms for automatic shitfs rostering. eg:
2-shifts system - tested for 100+ nurses, 30 days time horizon, 10+
rules
3-shifts system - tested for 80+ nurses, 30 days time horizon, 10+ rules
3-shifts system, 4-teams - tested for 365 days horizon, 10+ rules,
and a couple of similiar systems. All of them were tested on my home PC (1.8GHz, dual-core). Execution times always were acceptable ie. for 3/ it took around 5 min and 300MB RAM.
Most hard part of this problem was selecting proper solver and proper solving strategy.
Metaheuristics did very well at the International Nurse Rostering Competition 2010.
For an implementation, see this video with a continuous nurse rostering (java).
I need help selecting or creating a clustering algorithm according to certain criteria.
Imagine you are managing newspaper delivery persons.
You have a set of street addresses, each of which is geocoded.
You want to cluster the addresses so that each cluster is assigned to a delivery person.
The number of delivery persons, or clusters, is not fixed. If needed, I can always hire more delivery persons, or lay them off.
Each cluster should have about the same number of addresses. However, a cluster may have less addresses if a cluster's addresses are more spread out. (Worded another way: minimum number of clusters where each cluster contains a maximum number of addresses, and any address within cluster must be separated by a maximum distance.)
For bonus points, when the data set is altered (address added or removed), and the algorithm is re-run, it would be nice if the clusters remained as unchanged as possible (ie. this rules out simple k-means clustering which is random in nature). Otherwise the delivery persons will go crazy.
So... ideas?
UPDATE
The street network graph, as described in Arachnid's answer, is not available.
I've written an inefficient but simple algorithm in Java to see how close I could get to doing some basic clustering on a set of points, more or less as described in the question.
The algorithm works on a list if (x,y) coords ps that are specified as ints. It takes three other parameters as well:
radius (r): given a point, what is the radius for scanning for nearby points
max addresses (maxA): what are the maximum number of addresses (points) per cluster?
min addresses (minA): minimum addresses per cluster
Set limitA=maxA.
Main iteration:
Initialize empty list possibleSolutions.
Outer iteration: for every point p in ps.
Initialize empty list pclusters.
A worklist of points wps=copy(ps) is defined.
Workpoint wp=p.
Inner iteration: while wps is not empty.
Remove the point wp in wps. Determine all the points wpsInRadius in wps that are at a distance < r from wp. Sort wpsInRadius ascendingly according to the distance from wp. Keep the first min(limitA, sizeOf(wpsInRadius)) points in wpsInRadius. These points form a new cluster (list of points) pcluster. Add pcluster to pclusters. Remove points in pcluster from wps. If wps is not empty, wp=wps[0] and continue inner iteration.
End inner iteration.
A list of clusters pclusters is obtained. Add this to possibleSolutions.
End outer iteration.
We have for each p in ps a list of clusters pclusters in possibleSolutions. Every pclusters is then weighted. If avgPC is the average number of points per cluster in possibleSolutions (global) and avgCSize is the average number of clusters per pclusters (global), then this is the function that uses both these variables to determine the weight:
private static WeightedPClusters weigh(List<Cluster> pclusters, double avgPC, double avgCSize)
{
double weight = 0;
for (Cluster cluster : pclusters)
{
int ps = cluster.getPoints().size();
double psAvgPC = ps - avgPC;
weight += psAvgPC * psAvgPC / avgCSize;
weight += cluster.getSurface() / ps;
}
return new WeightedPClusters(pclusters, weight);
}
The best solution is now the pclusters with the least weight. We repeat the main iteration as long as we can find a better solution (less weight) than the previous best one with limitA=max(minA,(int)avgPC). End main iteration.
Note that for the same input data this algorithm will always produce the same results. Lists are used to preserve order and there is no random involved.
To see how this algorithm behaves, this is an image of the result on a test pattern of 32 points. If maxA=minA=16, then we find 2 clusters of 16 addresses.
(source: paperboyalgorithm at sites.google.com)
Next, if we decrease the minimum number of addresses per cluster by setting minA=12, we find 3 clusters of 12/12/8 points.
(source: paperboyalgorithm at sites.google.com)
And to demonstrate that the algorithm is far from perfect, here is the output with maxA=7, yet we get 6 clusters, some of them small. So you still have to guess too much when determining the parameters. Note that r here is only 5.
(source: paperboyalgorithm at sites.google.com)
Just out of curiosity, I tried the algorithm on a larger set of randomly chosen points. I added the images below.
Conclusion? This took me half a day, it is inefficient, the code looks ugly, and it is relatively slow. But it shows that it is possible to produce some result in a short period of time. Of course, this was just for fun; turning this into something that is actually useful is the hard part.
(source: paperboyalgorithm at sites.google.com)
(source: paperboyalgorithm at sites.google.com)
What you are describing is a (Multi)-Vehicle-Routing-Problem (VRP). There's quite a lot of academic literature on different variants of this problem, using a large variety of techniques (heuristics, off-the-shelf solvers etc.). Usually the authors try to find good or optimal solutions for a concrete instance, which then also implies a clustering of the sites (all sites on the route of one vehicle).
However, the clusters may be subject to major changes with only slightly different instances, which is what you want to avoid. Still, something in the VRP-Papers may inspire you...
If you decide to stick with the explicit clustering step, don't forget to include your distribution in all clusters, as it is part of each route.
For evaluating the clusters using a graph representation of the street grid will probably yield more realistic results than connecting the dots on a white map (although both are TSP-variants). If a graph model is not available, you can use the taxicab-metric (|x_1 - x_2| + |y_1 - y_2|) as an approximation for the distances.
I think you want a hierarchical agglomeration technique rather than k-means. If you get your algorithm right you can stop it when you have the right number of clusters. As someone else mentioned you can seed subsequent clusterings with previous solutions which may give you a siginificant performance improvement.
You may want to look closely at the distance function you use, especially if your problem has high dimension. Euclidean distance is the easiest to understand but may not be the best, look at alternatives such as Mahalanobis.
I'm presuming that your real problem has nothing to do with delivering newspapers...
Have you thought about using an economic/market based solution? Divide the set up by an arbitrary (but constant to avoid randomness effects) split into even subsets (as determined by the number of delivery persons).
Assign a cost function to each point by how much it adds to the graph, and give each extra point an economic value.
Iterate allowing each person in turn to auction their worst point, and give each person a maximum budget.
This probably matches fairly well how the delivery people would think in real life, as people will find swaps, or will say "my life would be so much easier if I didn't do this one or two. It is also pretty flexible (for example, would allow one point miles away from any others to be given a premium fairly easily).
I would approach it differently: Considering the street network as a graph, with an edge for each side of each street, find a partitioning of the graph into n segments, each no more than a given length, such that each paperboy can ride a single continuous path from the start to the end of their route. This way, you avoid giving people routes that require them to ride the same segments repeatedly (eg, when asked to cover both sides of a street without covering all the surrounding streets).
This is a very quick and dirty method of discovering where your "clusters" lie. This was inspired by the game "Minesweeper."
Divide your entire delivery space up into a grid of squares. Note - it will take some tweaking of the size of the grid before this will work nicely. My intuition tells me that a square size roughly the size of a physical neighbourhood block will be a good starting point.
Loop through each square and store the number of delivery locations (houses) within each block. Use a second loop (or some clever method on the first pass) to store the number of delivery points for each neighbouring block.
Now you can operate on this grid in a similar way to photo manipulation software. You can detect the edges of clusters by finding blocks where some neighbouring blocks have no delivery points in them.
Finally you need a system that combines number of deliveries made as well as total distance travelled to create and assign routes. There may be some isolated clusters with just a few deliveries to be made, and one or two super clusters with many homes very close to each other, requiring multiple delivery people in the same cluster. Every home must be visited, so that is your first constraint.
Derive a maximum allowable distance to be travelled by any one delivery person on a single run. Next do the same for the number of deliveries made per person.
The first ever run of the routing algorithm would assign a single delivery person, send them to any random cluster with not all deliveries completed, let them deliver until they hit their delivery limit or they have delivered to all the homes in the cluster. If they have hit the delivery limit, end the route by sending them back to home base. If they could safely travel to the nearest cluster and then home without hitting their max travel distance, do so and repeat as above.
Once the route is finished for the current delivery person, check if there are homes that have not yet had a delivery. If so, assign another delivery person, and repeat the above algorithm.
This will generate initial routes. I would store all the info - the location and dimensions of each square, the number of homes within a square and all of its direct neighbours, the cluster to which each square belongs, the delivery people and their routes - I would store all of these in a database.
I'll leave the recalc procedure up to you - but having all the current routes, clusters, etc in a database will enable you to keep all historic routes, and also try various scenarios to see how to best to adapt to changes creating the least possible changes to existing routes.
This is a classic example of a problem that deserves an optimized solution rather than trying to solve for "The OPTIMUM". It's similar in some ways to the "Travelling Salesman Problem", but you also need to segment the locations during the optimization.
I've used three different optimization algorithms to good effect on problems like this:
Simulated Annealing
Great Deluge Algorithm
Genetic Algoritms
Using an optimization algorithm, I think you've described the following "goals":
The geographic area for each paper
boy should be minimized.
The number of subscribers served by
each should be approximately equal.
The distance travelled by each
should be about equal.
(And one you didn't state, but might
matter) The route should end where
it began.
Hope this gets you started!
* Edit *
If you don't care about the routes themselves, that eliminates goals 3 and 4 above, and perhaps allows the problem to be more tailored to your bonus requirements.
If you take demographic information into account (such as population density, subscription adoption rate and subscription cancellation rate) you could probably use the optimization techniques above to eliminate the need to rerun the algorithm at all as subscribers adopted or dropped your service. Once the clusters were optimized, they would stay in balance because the rates of each for an individual cluster matched the rates for the other clusters.
The only time you'd have to rerun the algorithm was when and external factor (such as a recession/depression) caused changes in the behavior of a demographic group.
Rather than a clustering model, I think you really want some variant of the Set Covering location model, with an additional constraint to cover the number of addresses covered by each facility. I can't really find a good explanation of it online. You can take a look at this page, but they're solving it using areal units and you probably want to solve it in either euclidean or network space. If you're willing to dig up something in dead tree format, check out chapter 4 of Network and Discrete Location by Daskin.
Good survey of simple clustering algos. There is more though:
http://home.dei.polimi.it/matteucc/Clustering/tutorial_html/index.html
Perhaps a minimum spanning tree of the customers, broken into set based on locality to the paper boy. Prims or Kruskal to get the MST with the distance between houses for the weight.
I know of a pretty novel approach to this problem that I have seen applied to Bioinformatics, though it is valid for any sort of clustering problem. It's certainly not the simplest solution but one that I think is very interesting. The basic premise is that clustering involves multiple objectives. For one you want to minimise the number of clusters, the trival solution being a single cluster with all the data. The second standard objective is to minimise the amount of variance within a cluster, the trivial solution being many clusters each with only a single data point. The interesting solutions come about when you try to include both of these objectives and optimise the trade-off.
At the core of the proposed approach is something called a memetic algorithm that is a little like a genetic algorithm, which steve mentioned, however it not only explores the solution space well but also has the ability to focus in on interesting regions, i.e. solutions. At the very least I recommend reading some of the papers on this subject as memetic algorithms are an unusual approach, though a word of warning; it may lead you to read The Selfish Gene and I still haven't decided whether that was a good thing... If algorithms don't interest you then maybe you can just try and express your problem as the format requires and use the source code provided. Related papers and code can be found here: Multi Objective Clustering
This is not directly related to the problem, but something I've heard and which should be considered if this is truly a route-planning problem you have. This would affect the ordering of the addresses within the set assigned to each driver.
UPS has software which generates optimum routes for their delivery people to follow. The software tries to maximize the number of right turns that are taken during the route. This saves them a lot of time on deliveries.
For people that don't live in the USA the reason for doing this may not be immediately obvious. In the US people drive on the right side of the road, so when making a right turn you don't have to wait for oncoming traffic if the light is green. Also, in the US, when turning right at a red light you (usually) don't have to wait for green before you can go. If you're always turning right then you never have to wait for lights.
There's an article about it here:
http://abcnews.go.com/wnt/story?id=3005890
You can have K means or expected maximization remain as unchanged as possible by using the previous cluster as a clustering feature. Getting each cluster to have the same amount of items seems bit trickier. I can think of how to do it as a post clustering step by doing k means and then shuffling some points until things balance but that doesn't seem very efficient.
A trivial answer which does not get any bonus points:
One delivery person for each address.
You have a set of street
addresses, each of which is geocoded.
You want to cluster the addresses so that each cluster is
assigned to a delivery person.
The number of delivery persons, or clusters, is not fixed. If needed,
I can always hire more delivery
persons, or lay them off.
Each cluster should have about the same number of addresses. However,
a cluster may have less addresses if a
cluster's addresses are more spread
out. (Worded another way: minimum
number of clusters where each cluster
contains a maximum number of
addresses, and any address within
cluster must be separated by a maximum
distance.)
For bonus points, when the data set is altered (address added or
removed), and the algorithm is re-run,
it would be nice if the clusters
remained as unchanged as possible (ie.
this rules out simple k-means
clustering which is random in nature).
Otherwise the delivery persons will go
crazy.
As has been mentioned a Vehicle Routing Problem is probably better suited... Although strictly isn't designed with clustering in mind, it will optimize to assign based on the nearest addresses. Therefore you're clusters will actually be the recommended routes.
If you provide a maximum number of deliverers then and try to reach the optimal solution this should tell you the min that you require. This deals with point 2.
The same number of addresses can be obtained by providing a limit on the number of addresses to be visited, basically assigning a stock value (now its a capcitated vehicle routing problem).
Adding time windows or hours that the delivery persons work helps reduce the load if addresses are more spread out (now a capcitated vehicle routing problem with time windows).
If you use a nearest neighbour algorithm then you can get identical results each time, removing a single address shouldn't have too much impact on your final result so should deal with the last point.
I'm actually working on a C# class library to achieve something like this, and think its probably the best route to go down, although not neccesairly easy to impelement.
I acknowledge that this will not necessarily provide clusters of roughly equal size:
One of the best current techniques in data clustering is Evidence Accumulation. (Fred and Jain, 2005)
What you do is:
Given a data set with n patterns.
Use an algorithm like k-means over a range of k. Or use a set of different algorithms, the goal is to produce an ensemble of partitions.
Create a co-association matrix C of size n x n.
For each partition p in the ensemble:
3.1 Update the co-association matrix: for each pattern pair (i, j) that belongs to the same cluster in p, set C(i, j) = C(i, j) + 1/N.
Use a clustering algorihm such as Single Link and apply the matrix C as the proximity measure. Single Link gives a dendrogram as result in which we choose the clustering with the longest lifetime.
I'll provide descriptions of SL and k-means if you're interested.
I would use a basic algorithm to create a first set of paperboy routes according to where they live, and current locations of subscribers, then:
when paperboys are:
Added: They take locations from one or more paperboys working in the same general area from where the new guy lives.
Removed: His locations are given to the other paperboys, using the closest locations to their routes.
when locations are:
Added : Same thing, the location is added to the closest route.
Removed: just removed from that boy's route.
Once a quarter, you could re-calculate the whole thing and change all the routes.
Finding routes for a car is pretty easy: you store a weighted graph of all the roads and you could use Djikstra's algorithm [1]. A bus route is less obvious. With a bus you have to represent things like "wait 10 minutes for the next bus" or "walk one block to another bus stop" and feed those into your pathfinding algorithm.
It's not even always simple for cars. In some cities, some roads are one-way-only into the city in the morning, and one-way-only out of the city in the evening. Some advanced GPSs know how to avoid busy routes during rush hour.
How would you efficiently represent this kind of time-dependent graph and find a route? There is no need for a provably optimal solution; if the traveler wanted to be on time, they would buy a car. ;-)
[1] A wonderful algorithm to mention in an example because everyone's heard of it, though A* is a likelier choice for this application.
I have been involved in development of one journy planner system for Stockholm Public Transportation in Sweden. It was based on Djikstra's algorithm but with termination before every node was visited in the system. Today when there are reliable coordinates available for each stop, I guess the A* algorithm would be the choise.
Data about upcoming trafic was extracted from several databases regularly and compiled into large tables loaded into memory of our search server cluster.
One key to a sucessfull algorith was using a path cost function based on travel and waiting time multiplied by diffrent weightes. Known in Swedish as “kresu"-time these weighted times reflect the fact that, for example, one minute’s waiting time is typically equivalent in “inconvenience” to two minutes of travelling time.
KRESU Weight table
x1 - Travel time
x2 - Walking between stops
x2 - Waiting at a stop
during the journey. Stops under roof,
with shops, etc can get a slightly
lower weight and crowded stations a
higher to tune the algorithm.
The weight for the waiting time at the first stop is a function of trafic intensity and can be between 0.5 to 3.
Data structure
Area
A named area where you journey can start or end. A Bus Stop could be an area with two Stops. A larger Station with several platforms could be one area with one stop for each platform.
Data: Name, Stops in area
Stops
An array with all bus stops, train and underground stations. Note that you usually need two stops, one for each direction, because it takes some time to cross the street or walk to the other platform.
Data: Name, Links, Nodes
Links
A list with other stops you can reach by walking from this stop.
Data: Other Stop, Time to walk to other Stop
Lines/Tours
You have a number on the bus and a destination. The bus starts at one stop and passes several stops on its way to the destination.
Data: Number, Name, Destination
Nodes
Usually you have a timetable with the least the time for when it should be at the first and last stop in a Tour. Each time a bus/train passes a stop you add a new node to the array. This table can have millions of values per day.
Data: Line/Tour, Stop, Arrival Time, Departure Time, Error margin, Next Node in Tour
Search
Array with the same size as the Nodes array used to store how you got there and the path cost.
Data: Back-link with Previous Node (not set if Node is unvisited), Path Cost (infinit for unvisited)
What you're talking about is more complicated than something like the mathematical models that can be described with simple data structures like graphs and with "simple" algorithms like Djikstra's. What you are asking for is a more complex problem like those encountered in the world of automated logistics management.
One way to think about it is that you are asking a multi-dimensional problem, you need to be able to calculate:
Distance optimization
Time optimization
Route optimization
"Time horizon" optimization (if it's 5:25 and the bus only shows up at 7:00, pick another route.)
Given all of these circumstances you can attempt to do deterministic modeling using complex multi-layered data structures. For example, you could still use a weighted di-graph to represent the existing potential routes, wherein each node also contained a finite state automata which added a weight bias to a route depending on time values (so by crossing a node at 5:25 you get a different value than if your simulation crossed it at 7:00.)
However, I think that at this point you are going to find yourself with a simulation that is more and more complex, which most likely does not provide "great" approximation of optimal routes when the advice is transfered into the real world. It turns out that software and mathematical modeling and simulation is at best a weak tool when encountering real world chaotic behaviors and dynamism.
My suggestion would go to use an alternate strategy. I would attempt to use a genetic algorithm in which the DNA for an individual calculated a potential route, I would then create a fitness function which encoded costs and weights in a more "easy to maintain" lookup table fashion. Then I would let the Genetic Algorithm attempt to converge on a near optimal solution for a public transport route finder. On modern computers a GA such as this is probably going to perform reasonably well, and it should be at least relatively robust to real world dynamism.
I think that most systems that do this sort of thing take the "easy way out" and simply do something like an A* search algorithm, or something similar to a greedy costed weighted digraph walk. The thing to remember is that the users of the public transport don't themselves know what the optimal route would be, so a 90% optimal solution is still going to be a great solution for the average case.
Some data points to be aware of from the public transportation arena:
Each transfer incurs a 10 minute penalty (unless it is a timed transfer) in the riders mind. That is to say mentally a trip involving a single bus that takes 40 minutes is roughly equivalent to a 30minute trip that requires a transfer.
Maximum distance that most people are willing to walk to a bus stop is 1/4 mile. Train station / Light rail about 1/2 mile.
Distance is irrelevant to the public transportation rider. (Only time is important)
Frequency matters (if a connection is missed how long until the next bus). Riders will prefer more frequent service options if the alternative is being stranded for an hour for the next express.
Rail has a higher preference than bus ( more confidence that the train will come and be going in the right direction)
Having to pay a new fare is a big hit. (add about a 15-20min penalty)
Total trip time matters as well (with above penalties)
How seamless is the connect? Does the rider have to exist a train station cross a busy street? Or is it just step off a train and walk 4 steps to a bus?
Crossing busy streets -- another big penalty on transfers -- may miss connection because can't get across street fast enough.
if the cost of each leg of the trip is measured in time, then the only complication is factoring in the schedule - which just changes the cost at each node to a function of the current time t, where t is just the total trip time so far (assuming schedules are normalized to start at t=0).
so instead of Node A having a cost of 10 minutes, it has a cost of f(t) defined as:
t1 = nextScheduledStop(t); //to get the next stop time at or after time t
baseTime for leg = 10 //for example, a 10-minute trip
return (t1-t)+baseTime
wait-time is thus included dynamically in the cost of each leg, and walks between bus stops are just arcs with a constant time cost
with this representation you should be able to apply A* or Dijkstra's algorithm directly
Finding routes for a car is pretty
easy: you store a weighted graph of
all the roads and you could use
Djikstra's algorithm. A bus route
is less obvious.
It may be less obvious, but the reality is that it's merely another dimension to the car problem, with the addition of infinite cost calculation.
For instance, you mark the buses whose time is past as having infinite cost - they then aren't included in the calculation.
You then get to decide how to weight each aspect.
Transit Time might get weighted by 1
Waiting time might get weighted by 1
Transfers might get weighted by 0.5 (since I'd rather get there sooner and have an extra transfer)
Then you calculate all the routes in the graph using any usual cost algorithm with the addition of infinite cost:
Each time you move along an edge you have to keep track of 'current' time (add up the transit time) and if you arrive at a vector you have to assign infinite cost to any buses that are prior to your current time. The current time is incremented by the waiting time at that vector until the next bus leaves, then you're free to move along another edge and find the new cost.
In other words, there's a new constraint, "current time" which is the time of the first bus starting, summed with all the transit and waiting times of buses and stops traveled.
It complicates the algorithm only a little bit, but the algorithm is still the same. You can see that most algorithms can be applied to this, some might require multiple passes, and a few won't work because you can't add the time-->infinite cost calculation inline. But most should work just fine.
You can simplify it further by simply assuming that the buses are on a schedule, and there's ALWAYS another bus, but it increases the waiting time. Do the algorithm only adding up the transit costs, then go through the tree again and add waiting costs depending on when the next bus is coming. It will sometimes result in less efficient versions, but the total graph of even a large city is actually pretty small, so it's not really an issue. In most cases one or two routes will be the obvious winners.
Google has this, but also includes additional edges for walking from one bus stop to another so you might find a slightly more optimal route if you're willing to walk in cities with large bus systems.
-Adam
The way I think of this problem is that ultimately you are trying to optimize your average speed from your starting point to your ending point. In particular, you don't care at all about total distance traveled if going [well] out of your way saves time. So, a basic part of the solution space is going to need to be identifying efficient routes available that cover non-trivial parts of the total distance at relatively high speeds between start and finish.
To your original point, the typical automotive route algorithms used by GPS navigation units to make the trip by car is a good bound for a target optimal total time and optimal route evaluations. In other words, your bus based trip would be doing really good to approach a car based solution. Clearly, the bus route based system is going to have many more constraints than the car based solutions, but having the car solution as a reference (time and distance) gives the bus algorithm a framework to optimize against*. So, put loosely, you want to morph the car solution towards the set of possible bus solutions in an iterative fashion or perhaps more likely take possible bus solutions and score them against your car based solution to know if you are doing "good" or not.
Making this somewhat more concrete, for a specific departure time there are only going to be a limited number of buses available within any reasonable period of time that can cover a significant percentage of your total distance. Based on the straight automotive analysis reasonable period of time and significant percentage of distance become quantifiable using some mildly subjective metrics. Certainly, it becomes easier to score each possibility relative to the other in a more absolute sense.
Once you have a set of possible major segment(s) available as possible answers within the solution, you then need to hook them together with other possible walking and waiting paths....or if sufficiently far apart recursive selection of additional short bus runs. Intuitively, it doesn't seem that there is really going to be a prohibitive set of choices here because of the Constraints Paradox (see footnote below). Even if you can't brute force all possible combinations from there, what remains should be able to be optimized using a simulated annealing (SA) type algorithm. A Monte Carlo method would be another option.
The way we've broken the problem down to this point leaves us something that is quite analogous to how SA algorithms are applied to the automated layout and routing of ASIC chips, FPGA's and also the placement and routing of printed circuit boards of which there is quite a bit of published work on optimizing that type of problem form.
* Note: I usually refer to this as "The Constraints Paradox" - my term. While people can naturally think of more constrained problems as harder to solve, the constraints reduce choices and less choices means easier to brute force. When you can brute force, then even the optimal solution is available.
Basically, a node in your graph should not only represent a location, but also the earliest time you can get there. You can think of it as graph exploration in the (place,time) space. Additionally, if you have (place, t1) and (place,t2) where t1<t2, discard (place,t2).
Theoretically, this will get the earliest arrival time for all possible destinations from your starting node. In practice, you need some heuristic to prune roads that take you too far away from your destination.
You also need some heuristic to consider the promising routes before the less promising ones - if a route leads away from your destination, it is less likely (but not totally unlikely) to be good.
I think Your problem is more complicated than You expect. Recent COST action is focused on solving this problem: http://www.cost.esf.org/domains_actions/tud/Actions/TU1004 : "Modelling Public Transport Passenger Flows in the Era of Intelligent Transport Systems".
From my point of view regular SPS algorithms are not suitable for this. You have dynamic network state, where certain options to travel forward are incotinuous (route is always "opened" for car, bike, pedestrain, while transit connection is available only at certain dwell time).
I think new polycriterial (time, reliability, cost, comfort, and more criteria) approach is desired here. It needs to be computed real-time to 1) publish information to end user within short time 2) be able to adjust path in real-time (based on real-time traffic conditions - from ITS).
I'm about to think about this problem for the next several months (maybe even throughout a PhD thesis).
Regards
Rafal
I dont think there is any other special data structure that would cater for these specific needs but you can still use the normal data structures like a linked list and then make route calculations per given factor-you are going to need some kind of input into your app of the variables that affect the result and then make calculations accordingly i.e depending on the input.
As for the waiting and stuff, these are factors that are associated with a particular node right? You can translate this factor into a route node for each of the branches attached to the node. For example you can say for every branch from Node X, if there is a wait for say m minutes on Node X, then scale up the weight of the branch by
[m/Some base value*100]% (just an example). In this way, you have factored in the other factors uniformly but at the same time maintaining a simple representation of the problem you want to solve.
If I was tackling this problem, I'd probably start with an annotated graph. Each node on the graph would represent every intersection in the city, whether or not the public transit system stops there - this helps account for the need to walk, etc. On intersections with transit service, you annotate these with stop labels - the labels allowing you to lookup the service schedule for the stop.
Then you have a choice to make. Do you need the best possible route, or merely a route? Are you displaying the routes in real time, or can solutions be calculated and cached?
If you need "real time" calculation, you'll probably want to go with a greedy algorithm of sorts, I think an A* algorithm would probably fit this problem domain fairly nicely.
If you need optimal solutions, you should look at dynamic programming solutions to the graph... optimal solutions will likely take much longer to calculate, but you only need to find them once, then they can be cached. Perhaps your A* algorithm could use pre-calculated optimal paths to inform its decisions about "similar" routes.
A horribly inefficient way that might work would be to store a copy of each intersection in the city for each minute of the day. A bus route from Elm St. and 2nd to Main St. and 25th would be represented as, say,
elm_st_and_2nd[12][30].edges :
elm_st_and_1st[12][35] # 5 minute walk to the next intersection
time = 5 minutes
transport = foot
main_st_and_25th[1][15] # 40 minute bus ride
time = 40 minutes
transport = bus
elm_st_and_1st[12][36] # stay in one place for one minute
time = 1 minute
transport = stand still
Run your favorite pathfinding algorithm on this graph and pray for a good virtual memory implementation.
You're answering the question yourself. Using A* or Dijkstra's algorithm, all you need to do is decide on a good cost per part of each route.
For the bus route, you're implying that you don't want the shortest, but the fastest route. The cost of each part of the route must therefore include the average travel speed of a bus in that part, and any waits at bus stops.
The algorithm for finding the most suitable route is then still the same as before. With A*, all the magic happens in the cost function...
You need to weight the legs differently. For example - on a rainy day I think someone might prefer to travel longer in a vehicle than walk in the rain. Additionally, someone who detests walking or is unable to walk might make a different/longer trip than someone who would not mind walking.
These edges are costs, but I think you can expand the notion/concept of costs and they can have different relative values.
The algorithm remains the same, you just increase the weight of each graph edge according to different scenarios (Bus schedules etc).
I put together a subway route finder as an exercise in graph path finding some time ago:
http://gfilter.net/code/pathfinderDemo.aspx