Recursively finding sum in prolog - prolog

I'm trying to use Prolog to find a sum of a path using recursion. I need to pass a list of nodes of a graph, then have it return the sum of their weights.
This is what I've tried but I'm not sure if I'm on the right track.
connect(a,b,5).
connect(b,c,8).
connect(a,d,10).
connect(d,e,6).
connect(d,f,11).
connect(d,g,4).
connect(b,d,2).
connect(b,e,9).
connect(c,d,4).
connect(c,f,5).
connect(e,g,2).
connect(f,g,1).
list_sum([], 0).
list_sum([Head | Tail], TotalSum) :-
list_sum(connect(Head,Tail,X), Sum1),
TotalSum is Head + Sum1.
Example goal:
list_sum([a,b,c],Sum).
Sum = 13

I see three problems with your code. The first is that you have a logic variable X that you are not using, the second is that your predicate list_sum takes a list as its first element and yet you are giving it a predicate connect(Head,Tail,X), the third is that you are using Head in an addition whereas apparently Head is an atom, not an Integer (maybe you meant X here), the fourth (I'm finding them as I go) is that the second argument of the predicate connect is an atom (representing a node, in this case) and you are giving it a list.
And a fifth problem with your question: you seem to think that the weights are on the nodes where they are clearly on the edges.
So I think the question of your assignment is two-folds:
Check that the path given to you is actually a path (in that there is a connection between each element and the next)
If it is indeed a path, sum the weights of your connections along the way.
In Prolog, the core artifact of programming are predicates, not functions. So to get the weight of a given link, you call connect(Head,NextNode, Weight), which gives you (through unification) both the Weight and a possible NextNode, then the recursive call will check if that NextNode is indeed the next element in the list. After the recursive call, you use Weight instead of Head, and it should be a bit closer to the solution.
PS: Feel free to create a list_sum_aux/3 and use it instead.

Related

Prolog pathfinder

I'm interested in pathfinder stuff and found a cool example on a site from 2011 but there isn't any explanation for the code. I understand what it does but don't understand how the steps work. So, for example these are the edges:
edge(1,2).
edge(1,4).
edge(2,4).
edge(3,6).
edge(3,7).
edge(4,3).
edge(4,5).
edge(5,6).
edge(5,7).
edge(6,5).
edge(7,5).
edge(8,6).
edge(8,7).
and with this I can tell if there is path between them:
path(X,Y,[X,Y]):- edge(X,Y).
path(X,Y,[X|Xs]):- edge(X,W), path(W,Y,Xs).
The output is something like this:
path(1,6,Xs).
Xs = [1,2,4,5,6];
Xs = [1,4,5,6];
...
But how does it exactly work?
What does [X,Y] do in the first line and what happens in the second?
The crucial thing to understand in this example is how recursive predicates work. First of all, recursion always needs a recursion step (recursive use of the current predicate), and a recursion anchor (the step where the recursion stops). The resolution algorithm is a depth-first search, and whereever there are multiple options to choose from (i.e., a ; or different rules or facts with the signature), the interpreter chooses from top to bottom and from left to right. To avoid infinite evaluations, the recursion anchor needs to be on the top like it is here, and the recursion step should be on the right of the second rule.
In the above example, the recursion stops when there is a direct edge between Xand Y, because that's where the path ends. Keep in mind that the rules are implications from right to left. As the third parameter is an output argument (the result you want to get), it needs to be initialized first in the anchor. [X,Y] does that by starting it with a list that contains the last two elements of the path. The rule is equivalent to the following:
path(X,Y,Result):- edge(X,Y), Result = [X,Y].
The second rule aims to find intermediate path elements: It assumes there is an edge(X,W) to an intermediate element W, and then a path from W to Y. The interpreter will try every edge from X to possible Ws. If there exists a path from a W to Y, there also is a path from X to Y, and the second rule becomes true for that step. The result of the recursive use to the predicate (the path list in the third parameter) will be Xs. So all that needs to be done in the current step is to add the X to the result list ([X|Xs]). Again, that is equivalent to:
path(X,Y,Result):- edge(X,W), path(W,Y,Xs), Result=[X|Xs].
Long story short: The resulting list is started with the last two elements in the recursion anchor, which then gets passed backwards through all recursive steps, and each step add its current X to the front to the list.
Of course recursion can still be infinite when there are cycles in the data (and paths) like in the example. If you want to avoid such cycles (and likely unwanted solutions such as paths where elements appear multiple times), you can keep track of the elements already visited:
path(X,Y,[X,Y],V):- \+member(X,V),\+member(Y,V),edge(X,Y).
path(X,Y,[X|Xs],V):- \+member(X,V),edge(X,W), path(W,Y,Xs,[X|V]).
In this solution, the list in the additional forth parameter collects the items already visited in an additional list. With \+member(X,V) it can be checked if the current X is already contained in V. There are other ways this can be implemented, for example by just using V as a result an reverting it in the anchor. V needs to be initialized in the query with an empty list:
?- path(1,6,R,[]).
R = [1, 2, 4, 3, 6] ;
R = [1, 2, 4, 3, 7, 5, 6] ;
...

extracting algorithm for building prolog rules

I have to create some "list of predicates" in prolog.
But I don't fully understand the way of thinking
that I have to learn if I want to create some working predicates.
I've seen some popular tutorials (maybe I've not been searching precisely enough), but I can not find any tutorial that teaches how to plan an algorithm using REALLY elementary steps.
For example...
Task:
Write a concat(X,Y,Z). predicate that is taking elements from the lists X and Y and concatenates them in the list Z.
My analysing algorithm:
Firstly I define a domain of the number of elements I'll be concatenating (the lengths of the lists X and Y) as non-negative integers (XCount >= 0 and YCount >= 0). Then I create a predicate for the first case, which is XCount = 0 and YCount = 0:
concat([],[],[]).
... then test it and find that it is working for the first case.
Then, I create a predicate for the second case, where XCount = 1 and YCount = 0, as:
concat(X,[],X).
... and again test it and find that it is working with some unexpected positive result.
Results:
I can see that this algorithm is working not only for XCount = 1 but also for XCount = 0. So I can delete concat([],[],[]). and have only concat(X,[],X)., because X = [] inside predicate concat(X,[],X). is the same as concat([],[],[])..
The second unexpected result is that the algorithm is working not only for XCount in 0,1 but for all XCount >= 0.
Then I analyse the domain and search for elements that weren't handled yet, and find that the simplest way is to create a second predicate for YCount > 0.
Remembering that using just X as the first argument can cover all XCount >= 0, I create a case for YCount = 1 and all Xes, which is:
concat(X,[Y|_],[Y|X]).
And this is the place where my algorithm gets a brain-buffer overflow.
Respecting stackoverflow rules, I'm asking precisely.
Questions:
Is there any way to find the answer by myself? By which I mean - not an answer for the problem, but for the algorithm I've shown to solve it.
In the other words, the algorithm of my algorithm.
If you can answer question 1, how can I find this type of hint in future? Is there a specific name for my problem?
How precise do I have to be - how many cases and in what language can I try to implement my algorithm that is not just "doing" things, but is "thinking" how to plan and create other algorithms.
Lists are not defined as counts of elements in them. lists are defined recursively, as empty, or a pair of an element and the rest of elements:
list([]).
list([_A|B]) :- list(B).
Lists can be the same:
same_lists([], []).
same_lists([A|B], [A|C]) :- same_lists(B, C).
Or one can be shorter than the other, i.e. its prefix:
list_prefix([], L):- list(L).
list_prefix([A|B], [A|C]):- list_prefix(B, C).
Where the prefix ends, the suffix begins:
list_split([], L, L):- list(L).
list_split([A|B], Sfx, [A|C]):- list_split(B, Sfx, C).
So, general advice is: follow the types, how they are constructed, and analyze the situation according to all possible cases. With lists, it is either empty, or non-empty lists.

Hierarchical Agglomerative Clustering in Prolog

I'm trying to re-familiarize myself with Prolog and I thought this could be the type of problem with an elegant solution in Prolog.
I'm following along this example:
http://home.deib.polimi.it/matteucc/Clustering/tutorial_html/hierarchical.html
I've tried a variety of data formats:
dist('BA','FI',662).
dist(0,'BA','FI',662).
dist(['BA'],['FI'],662).
but I haven't found any particular one most suitable.
Here's all the data in the first format:
%% Graph distances
dist('BA','FI',662).
dist('BA','MI',877).
dist('BA','NA',255).
dist('BA','RM',412).
dist('BA','TO',996).
dist('FI','MI',295).
dist('FI','NA',468).
dist('FI','RM',268).
dist('FI','TO',400).
dist('MI','NA',754).
dist('MI','RM',564).
dist('MI','TO',138).
dist('NA','RM',219).
dist('NA','TO',869).
dist('RM','TO',669).
Now, there seems to be some awesome structure to this problem to exploit, but I'm really struggling to get a grasp of it. I think I've got the first cluster here (thought it may not be the most elegant way of doing it ;)
minDist(A,B,D) :- dist(A,B,D), dist(X,Y,Z), A \= X, A \= Y, B \= X, B \= Y, D < Z.
min(A,B,B) :- B < A
min(A,B,A) :- A < B
dist([A,B],C, D) :- minDist(A,B,D), dist(A,C,Q), dist(B,C,W), min(Q,W,D)
The problem I have here is the concept of "replacing" the dist statements involving A and B with the cluster.
This just quickly become a brainteaser for me and I'm stuck. Any ideas on how to formulate this? Or is this perhaps just not the kind of problem elegantly solved with Prolog?
Your table is actually perfect! The problem is that you don't have an intermediate data structure. I'm guessing you'll find the following code pretty surprising. In Prolog, you can simply use whatever structures you want, and it will actually work. First let's get the preliminary we need for calculating distance without regard for argument order:
distance(X, Y, Dist) :- dist(X, Y, Dist) ; dist(Y, X, Dist).
This just swaps the order if it doesn't get a distance on the first try.
Another utility we'll need: the list of cities:
all_cities(['BA','FI','MI','NA','RM','TO']).
This is just helpful; we could compute it, but it would be tedious and weird looking.
OK, so the end of the linked article makes it clear that what is actually being created is a tree structure. The article doesn't show you the tree at all until you get to the end, so it isn't obvious that's what's going on in the merges. In Prolog, we can simply use the structure we want and there it is, and it will work. To demonstrate, let's enumerate the items in a tree with something like member/2 for lists:
% Our clustering forms a tree. So we need to be able to do some basic
% operations on the tree, like get all of the cities in the tree. This
% predicate shows how that is done, and shows what the structure of
% the cluster is going to look like.
cluster_member(X, leaf(X)).
cluster_member(X, cluster(Left, Right)) :-
cluster_member(X, Left) ; cluster_member(X, Right).
So you can see we're going to be making use of trees using leaf('FI') for instance, to represent a leaf-node, a cluster of N=1, and cluster(X,Y) to represent a cluster tree with two branches. The code above lets you enumerate all the cities within a cluster, which we'll need to compute the minimum distance between them.
% To calculate the minimum distance between two cluster positions we
% need to basically pair up each city from each side of the cluster
% and find the minimum.
cluster_distance(X, Y, Distance) :-
setof(D,
XCity^YCity^(
cluster_member(XCity, X),
cluster_member(YCity, Y),
distance(XCity, YCity, D)),
[Distance|_]).
This probably looks pretty weird. I'm cheating here. The setof/3 metapredicate finds solutions for a particular goal. The calling pattern is something like setof(Template, Goal, Result) where the Result will become a list of Template for each Goal success. This is just like bagof/3 except that setof/3 gives you unique results. How does it do that? By sorting! My third argument is [Distance|_], saying just give me the first item in the result list. Because the result is sorted, the first item in the list will be the smallest. It's a big cheat!
The XCity^YCity^ notation says to setof/3: I don't care what these variables actually are. It marks them as "existential variables." This means Prolog will not provide multiple solutions for each city combination; they will all be thrown together and sorted once.
This is all we need to perform the clustering!
From the article, the base case is when you have two clusters left: just combine them:
% OK, the base case for clustering is that we have two items left, so
% we cluster them together.
cluster([Left,Right], cluster(Left,Right)).
The inductive case takes the list of results and finds the two which are nearest and combines them. Hold on!
% The inductive case is: pair up each cluster and find the minimum distance.
cluster(CityClusters, FinalCityClusters) :-
CityClusters = [_,_,_|_], % ensure we have >2 clusters
setof(result(D, cluster(N1,N2), CC2),
CC1^(select(N1, CityClusters, CC1),
select(N2, CC1, CC2),
cluster_distance(N1, N2, D)),
[result(_, NewCluster, Remainder)|_]),
cluster([NewCluster|Remainder], FinalCityClusters).
Prolog's built-in sorting is to sort a structure on the first argument. We cheat again here by creating a new structure, result/3, which will contain the distance, the cluster with that distance, and the remaining items to be considered. select/3 is extremely handy. It works by pulling an item out of the list and then giving you back the list without that item. We use it twice here to select two items from the list (I don't have to worry about comparing a place to itself as a result!). CC1 is marked as a free variable. The result structures will be created for considering each possible cluster with the items we were given. Again, setof/3 will sort the list to make it unique, so the first item in the list will happen to be the one with the shortest distance. It's a lot of work for one setof/3 call, but I like to cheat!
The last line says, take the new cluster and append it to the remaining items, and forward it on recursively to ourself. The result of that invocation will eventually be the base case.
Now does it work? Let's make a quick-n-dirty main procedure to test it:
main :-
setof(leaf(X), (all_cities(Cities), member(X, Cities)), Basis),
cluster(Basis, Result),
write(Result), nl.
Line one is a cheesy way to construct the initial conditions (all cities in their own cluster of one). Line two calls our predicate to cluster things. Then we write it out. What do we get? (Output manually indented for readability.)
cluster(
cluster(
leaf(FI),
cluster(
leaf(BA),
cluster(
leaf(NA),
leaf(RM)))),
cluster(
leaf(MI),
leaf(TO)))
The order is slightly different, but the result is the same!
If you're perplexed by my use of setof/3 (I would be!) then consider rewriting those predicates using the aggregate library or with simple recursive procedures that aggregate and find the minimum by hand.

Find best result without findall and a filter

I'm in a bit of pickle in Prolog.
I have a collection of objects. These objects have a certain dimension, hence weight.
I want to split up these objects in 2 sets (which form the entire set together) in such a way that their difference in total weight is minimal.
The first thing I tried was the following (pseudo-code):
-> findall with predicate createSets(List, set(A, B))
-> iterate over results while
---> calculate weight of both
---> calculate difference
---> loop with current difference and compare to current difference
till end of list of sets
This is pretty straightforward. The issue here is that I have a list of +/- 30 objects. Creating all possible sets causes a stack overflow.
Helper predicates:
sublist([],[]).
sublist(X, [_ | RestY]) :-
sublist(X,RestY).
sublist([Item|RestX], [Item|RestY]) :-
sublist(RestX,RestY).
subtract([], _, []) :-
!.
subtract([Head|Tail],ToSubstractList,Result) :-
memberchk(Head,ToSubstractList),
!,
subtract(Tail, ToSubstractList, Result).
subtract([Head|Tail], ToSubstractList, [Head|ResultTail]) :-
!,
subtract(Tail,ToSubstractList,ResultTail).
generateAllPossibleSubsets(ListToSplit,sets(Sublist,SecondPart)) :-
sublist(Sublist,ListToSplit),
subtract(ListToSplit, Sublist, SecondPart).
These can then be used as follows:
:- findall(Set, generateAllPossibleSubsets(ObjectList,Set), ListOfSets ),
findMinimalDifference(ListOfSets,Set).
So because I think this is a wrong way to do it, I figured I'd try it in an iterative way. This is what I have so far:
totalWeightOfSet([],0).
totalWeightOfSet([Head|RestOfSet],Weight) :-
objectWeight(Head,HeadWeight),
totalWeightOfSet(RestOfSet, RestWeight),
Weight is HeadWeight + RestWeight.
findBestBalancedSet(ListOfObjects,Sets) :-
generateAllPossibleSubsets(ListOfObjects,sets(A,B)),
totalWeightOfSet(A,WeightA),
totalWeightOfSet(B,WeightB),
Temp is WeightA - WeightB,
abs(Temp, Difference),
betterSets(ListOfObjects, Difference, Sets).
betterSets(ListOfObjects,OriginalDifference,sets(A,B)) :-
generateAllPossibleSubsets(ListOfObjects,sets(A,B)),
totalWeightOfSet(A,WeightA),
totalWeightOfSet(B,WeightB),
Temp is WeightA - WeightB,
abs(Temp, Difference),
OriginalDifference > Difference,
!,
betterSets(ListOfObjects, Difference, sets(A, B)).
betterSets(_,Difference,sets(A,B)) :-
write_ln(Difference).
The issue here is that it returns a better result, but it hasn't traversed the entire solution tree. I have a feeling this is a default Prolog scheme I'm missing here.
So basically I want it to tell me "these two sets have the minimal difference".
Edit:
What are the pros and cons of using manual list iteration vs recursion through fail
This is a possible solution (the recursion through fail) except that it can not fail, since that won't return the best set.
I would generate the 30 objects list, sort it descending on weight, then pop objects off the sorted list one by one and put each into one or the other of the two sets, so that I get the minimal difference between the two sets on each step. Each time we add an element to a set, just add together their weights, to keep track of the set's weight. Start with two empty sets, each with a total weight of 0.
It won't be the best partition probably, but might come close to it.
A very straightforward implementation:
pair(A,B,A-B).
near_balanced_partition(L,S1,S2):-
maplist(weight,L,W), %// user-supplied predicate weight(+E,?W).
maplist(pair,W,L,WL),
keysort(WL,SL),
reverse(SL,SLR),
partition(SLR,0,[],0,[],S1,S2).
partition([],_,A,_,B,A,B).
partition([N-E|R],N1,L1,N2,L2,S1,S2):-
( abs(N2-N1-N) < abs(N1-N2-N)
-> N3 is N1+N,
partition(R,N3,[E|L1],N2,L2,S1,S2)
; N3 is N2+N,
partition(R,N1,L1,N3,[E|L2],S1,S2)
).
If you insist on finding the precise answer, you will have to generate all the partitions of your list into two sets. Then while generating, you'd keep the current best.
The most important thing left is to find the way to generate them iteratively.
A given object is either included in the first subset, or the second (you don't mention whether they're all different; let's assume they are). We thus have a 30-bit number that represents the partition. This allows us to enumerate them independently, so our state is minimal. For 30 objects there will be 2^30 ~= 10^9 generated partitions.
exact_partition(L,S1,S2):-
maplist(weight,L,W), %// user-supplied predicate weight(+E,?W).
maplist(pair,W,L,WL),
keysort(WL,SL), %// not necessary here except for the aesthetics
length(L,Len), length(Num,Len), maplist(=(0),Num),
.....
You will have to implement the binary arithmetics to add 1 to Num on each step, and generate the two subsets from SL according to the new Num, possibly in one fused operation. For each freshly generated subset, it's easy to calculate its weight (this calculation too can be fused into the same generating operation):
maplist(pair,Ws,_,Subset1),
sumlist(Ws,Weight1),
.....
This binary number, Num, is all that represents our current position in the search space, together with the unchanging list SL. Thus the search will be iterative, i.e. running in constant space.

prolog recursively find largest node

Just a simple binary tree and i want to find the the largest node.
example tree: t(t(t(nil,1,nil),2,t(nil,3,nil)),4,t(t(t(nil,8,nil),5,nil),6,t(nil,7,nil)))
int L(t,max) {
if(t=null) return max;
if(max<t.root) max = t.root;
LN(t,max);
RN(t,max);
return max;
}
L(tree,tree.root);
I just cant wrap my head around applying it to prolog. Here i display each node. Which i get, but i dont understand how to save the max value and keep it recursively.
tree(nil).
tree(t(L,Root,R)) :-
tree(L),
tree(R),
write(Root).
edit: It checks all the leaf nodes, but ignores the t(nil,8,nil)
tree(nil,0).
tree(t(nil,Q,nil),Q) :- !.
tree(t(nil,Q,_),Q).
tree(t(_,Q,nil),Q).
tree(t(L,_,R),Max) :-
tree(L, LValue),
tree(R, RValue),
max(LValue,RValue,Max).
Is this another homework assignment?
In any case, I'll try to let you do the thinking since you seem to be learning Prolog. Not to mention the fact that I don't actually have Prolog running on my computer, so I couldn't be sure my suggested solution would actually work.
The fact that the 5 is the only node with only one subnode (i.e. the 8 it's ignoring) should tell you something. All the other nodes are either leaf nodes or have two subnodes.
What exactly is it that you think these two rules do?
tree(t(nil,Q,_),Q).
tree(t(_,Q,nil),Q).

Resources