This question already has answers here:
What algorithm for a tic-tac-toe game can I use to determine the "best move" for the AI?
(10 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I designed simple AI for 3x3 Tic Tac Toe game. However I didn't want to do neither complete search, nor MinMax. Instead i thought of a heuristic that would evaluate values for all of 9 fields, and then AI would choose the field with highest value. The problem is, I have absolutely no idea how to determine, whether it is a perfect (unbeatable) algorithm.
And here are the details:
Every Field has several WinPaths on the grid. Middle one has 4 (horizontal, vertical and two diagonals), corners have 3 each (horizontal, diagonal and one vertical), sides have only 2 each (horizontal and vertical). Value of each Field equals sum of its WinPaths values. And WinPath value depends on its contents:
Empty: [ | | ] - 1 point
One symbol: [X| | ] - 10 points // can be any symbol in any place
Two different symbols: [X|O| ] - 0 points // they can be arranged in any possible way
Two identical opponents symbols: [X|X| ] - 100 points // arranged in any of three ways
Two identical "my" symbols: [O|O| ] - 1000 points // arranged in any of three ways
This way for example beginning situation has values as below:
3 | 2 | 3
---+---+---
2 | 4 | 2
---+---+---
3 | 2 | 3
However a later one can be like this (X is moving now):
X | 10| O
---+---+---
O | O |110
---+---+---
X | 20| 20
So is there any reliable way to find out whether is this a perfect algorithm, or does it have any disadvantages?
PS. I was trying (from the perspective of player) to create a fork situation so I could beat this AI, but I have failed.
Wikipedia: tic-tac-toe says that there are only 362,880 possible tic-tac-toe games. A brute force approach to proving your algorithm would be to exhaustively search the game tree, having your opponent try each possible move at each turn, and see if your algorithm ever loses (it's guaranteed a win or draw if perfect). The space is small enough that a program could do this very quickly. Of course, you would then be faced with proving that your test program is correct.
To know if your bot good enough you have to play a lot games bot vs top players and bot vs the best bots in the market (usually for much complicated game like chess or go).
Did you tried this (I play first)?
13| 12| 13
---+---+---
12| 14| 12
---+---+---
13| 12| O
Right?
| |
---+---+---
| X |
---+---+---
| | O
O |20 |30
---+---+---
20| X |20
---+---+---
30|20 | O
If I understand it well the X next move will be on the corner
O |20 | X
---+---+---
20| X |20
---+---+---
30|20 | O
And from here I win..
If this pass (if I missed something..) so your solution look perfect
Related
I have the below question:
In the first part of the question, is says the probability that the selected person will be a male is 0.44, it means the number of males is 25*0.44 = 11. That's ok
In the second part, the probability of the selected person will be a male who was born before 1960 is 0.28, Does that mean 0.28 out of the total number which is 25 or out of the number of males?
I mean should the number of male who was born before 1960 equals into 250.28 OR 110.28
I find it easiest to think of these sorts of problems as contingency tables.
You use a maxtrix layout to express the distributions in terms of two or more factors or characteristics, each having two or more categories. The table can be constructed either with probabilities (proportions) or with counts, and switching back and forth is easy based on the total count in the table. Entries in the table are the intersections of the categories, corresponding to and in a verbal description. The numbers to the right or at the bottom of the table are called marginals, because they're found in the margins of the tables, and are always the sum of the table row or column entries in which they occur. The total probability (or count) in the table is found by summing across all the rows and columns. The marginal distribution of gender would be found by summing across rows, and the marginal distribution of birthdays would be found by summing across the columns.
Based on this, you can inferentially determine other values as indicated by the entries in parentheses below. With one more entry, either for gender or in the marginal row for birthdays, you'd be able to fill in the whole table inferentially. (This is related to the concept of degrees of freedom - how many pieces of info can you fill in independently before the others are determined by the known constraint that the totals are fixed or that probability adds to 1.)
Probabilities
Birthday
< 1960 | >= 1960
_______________________
G | | |
e F | | | (0.56)
n __|_________|__________|
d | | |
e M | 0.28 | (0.16) | 0.44
r __|_________|__________|______
? ? | 1.00
Counts
Birthday
< 1960 | >= 1960
_______________________
G | | |
e F | | | (14)
n __|_________|__________|
d | | |
e M | 7 | (4) | 11
r __|_________|__________|_____
? ? | 25
Conditional probability corresponds to limiting yourself to the subset of rows or columns specified in the condition. If you had been asked what is the probability of a birthday < 1960 given the gender is male, i.e., P{birthday < 1960 | M} in relatively standard notation, you'd be restricting your focus to just the M row, so the answer would be 7/11 = 0.28/0.44. Computationally, you take the probabilities or counts in the qualifying table entries and express them as a proportion of the probabilities or counts of the specified (given) marginal entries. This is often written in prob & stats texts as P(A|B) = P(AB)/P(B), where AB is a set shorthand for A and B (intersection).
0,44 = 11 / 25 people are male.
0,28 = 7 / 25 people are male & born before 1960.
I have a system where people rate different items on a scale from 0-5. The issue is, not everyone rates the same items, and the scoring is not objective. The goal is to achieve a fair comparison between items so that an item's score is not affected too much if one of the scorers is very "lenient" or "harsh." In actuality, there may be 100 items, each one scored twice, but here is an example dataset where 4 people scored 12 items, each one being scored twice:
| Item | Score 1 | Score 2 |
_____
1 | 5 | | 4 |
2 | 5 | | 3 | C
3 | 4 | |_2_|
4 A | 5 | | 5 |
5 | 3 | | 0 |
6 |_5_| | 3 |
7 | 3 | | 1 | D
8 | 4 | | 1 |
9 B | 4 | |_2_|
10 | 4 | | 3 |
11 | 4 | | 3 | C
12 |_5_| | 4 |
In this table, the boxes represent a single person's set of scores. We can label the person who gave score 1 to items 1-6 person A, the one who gave score 1 to 7-12 person B, the one who gave score 2 to 1-3 and 10-12 person C, and the one who gave score 2 to to 4-9 person D.
Informally, if we assume person C was the closest to each item's objective score, we might reason as follows:
Person A generally gave higher scores than C on items 1-3 so he is "lenient."
D gave low scores to all of them except for item 4 which then must have been truly good. He gave scores generally lower than A, so his scores should be adjusted slightly upwards perhaps.
B gave higher scores than D, and a bit higher than C, so a bit "lenient".
Thus, we might produce adjusted scores for each item. For example, even though item 2 has a higher average score than item 9, they are probably on par considering A is generally lenient and D is generally harsh. The question is, how do we do this programmatically. I thought we might make several transformation functions which transform a raw score into an adjusted score, say A, B, C, and D. For example, we might have A(5)=3.7 because when A rates an item as 5, it is really in the 3-4 range. Then, we want to minimize
|A(x_0a)-C(x_0c)|^2 + |D(x_1d)-A(x_1a)|^2 + |B(x_2b)-D(x_2d)|^2 + |C(x_3c)-B(x_3b)|^2
where x_ip is a vector which consists of person p's ratings for items 3i+1, 3i+2, and 3i+3. We might make A, B, C, and D linear transformations, for example. How then do you optimize it? And is this the best way to eliminate one the harshness or leniency of scorers without throwing away their ratings?
I have a personal project I'm working and I have an issue that I can't seem to solve (well, I can't solve it quickly).
Let's say I have a group of x[1..|x|] people, and a group of x elements.
I want to create x groups (group number i is for person number i) and in each group there are y different elements.
For example: if I have 10 people and 10 elements and I want each group will have 2 elements:
| 0 |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |
|___________________________________________|
| 7 |4 |0 |6 |2 |8 |3 |1 |9 |5 |
| 6 |9 |5 |8 |7 |0 |2 |3 |1 |4 |
The top row represents the people (0..9);
the two numbers below each person says which elements he have.
Notice: every element appears only two times (not more and not less).
Also notice that person number i can't have the element number i.
For example: person number 3 can't have element number 3.
My problem is how to create those groups (quickly).
The best solution I found so far is to create a matrix with x column and y rows;
take an array with size x , shuffle it, and then to see if I can't insert it to the matrix. If I can, move to the next row; if I can't shuffle it again and see if now it can be inserted.
The problem is, that even with small numbers (1000 people/elements and in each group 50 elements) the code is very slow.
The problem is with the shuffle, when it tries to find a match to row (~13) it needs to reshuffle many times until it finds a row it can place inside the matrix.
Does anyone know how this thing can be done quickly? Any ideas will be welcomed!!
Thx.
you can iterate though people, for each placing y elements of that number in random groups that are not full. just have an array with the vacant groups and remove them when they fill up, and of course exclude the current group from the random selection.
In mathematical terms, what you want is to generate a random permutation without fixed points. This is called a this is called a derangement (see here for more details including the probability of a random permutation being a derangement). If you google "generate random derangement" or something similar you will find several implementations.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Given a 2d array sorted in increasing order from left to right and top to bottom, what is the best way to search for a target number?
The following was asked in a Google interview:
You are given a 2D array storing integers, sorted vertically and horizontally.
Write a method that takes as input an integer and outputs a bool saying whether or not the integer is in the array.
What is the best way to do this? And what is its time complexity?
Start at the Bottom-Left corner of the Matrix and follow the rules stated below to traverse the matrix:
The matrix traversal is based on these conditions:
If the input number is greater than current number: Move Right
If the input number is less than current number: Move Up.
If the input number is equal to current number: Return Success
If the input number is not equal to current number and no transition is possible: Return Fail
Time Complexity: (Thanks to Martinho Fernandes)
The time complexity is O(N+M). In the worst case, the element searched for is in the upper-left corner, meaning you'll go up N times, and left M times.
Example
Input matrix:
--------------
| 1 | 4 | 6 |
--------------
| 2 | 5 | 9 |
--------------
| *3* | 8 | 10 |
--------------
Number to search: 4
Step 1:
Start at the cell where you have 3 (Bottom-Left).
3 < 4: Move Right
| 1 | 4 | 6 |
--------------
| 2 | 5 | 9 |
--------------
| 3 | *8* | 10 |
--------------
Step 2:
8 > 4: Move Up
| 1 | 4 | 6 |
--------------
| 2 | *5* | 9 |
--------------
| 3 | 8 | 10 |
--------------
Step 3:
5 > 4: Move Up
| 1 | *4* | 6 |
--------------
| 2 | 5 | 9 |
--------------
| 3 | 8 | 10 |
--------------
Step 4:
4=4: Return the index of the number
I would start by asking details about what it means to be "sorted vertically and horizontally"
If the matrix is sorted in a way that the last element of each row is less than the first element of the next row, you can run a binary search on the first column to find out in what row that number is, and then run another binary search on the row. This algorithm will take O(log C + log R) time, where C and R are, respectively the number of rows and columns. Using a property of the logarithm, one can write that as O(log(C*R)), which is the same as O(log N), if N is the number of elements in the array. This is almost the same as treating the array as 1D and running a binary search on it.
But the matrix could be sorted in a way that the last element of each row is not less than the first element of the next row:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
In this case, you could run some sort of horizontal an vertical binary search simultaneously:
Test the middle number of the first column. If it's less than the target, consider the lines above it. If it's greater, consider those below;
Test the middle number of the first considered line. If it's less, consider the columns left of it. If it's greater, consider those to the right;
Lathe, rinse, repeat until you find one, or you're left with no more elements to consider;
This method is also logarithmic on the number of elements.
The first method that comes to mind is a vertical binary search, followed by a horizontal one when you find the row it should be in. Complexity will be O(log NM) where N and M are the dimensions of the array.
Further explanation:
Consider just the first number of every row. When you perform a binary search of these first numbers for the specified number, the result will be either the specified number if you're lucky, otherwise it will be the position before or after where the specified number would go depending on the binary search implementation. Once you find the two of the first numbers that the specified number should go between, you know that the number is in that row, and a second binary search will find the number if it is in the row.
I've heard about the Apriori algorithm several times before but never got the time or the opportunity to dig into it, can anyone explain to me in a simple way the workings of this algorithm? Also, a basic example would make it a lot easier for me to understand.
Apriori Algorithm
It is a candidate-generation-and-test approach for frequent pattern mining in datasets. There are two things you have to remember.
Apriori Pruning Principle - If any itemset is infrequent, then its superset should not be generated/tested.
Apriori Property - A given (k+1)-itemset is a candidate (k+1)-itemset only if everyone of its k-itemset subsets are frequent.
Now, here is the apriori algorithm in 4 steps.
Initially, scan the database/dataset once to get the frequent 1-itemset.
Generate length k+1 candidate itemsets from length k frequent itemsets.
Test the candidates against the database/dataset.
Terminate when no frequent or candidate set can be generated.
Solved Example
Suppose there is a transaction database as follows with 4 transactions including their transaction IDs and items bought with them. Assume the minimum support - min_sup is 2. The term support is the number of transactions in which a certain itemset is present/included.
Transaction DB
tid | items
-------------
10 | A,C,D
20 | B,C,E
30 | A,B,C,E
40 | B,E
Now, let's create the candidate 1-itemsets by the 1st scan of the DB. It is simply called as the set of C_1 as follows.
itemset | sup
-------------
{A} | 2
{B} | 3
{C} | 3
{D} | 1
{E} | 3
If we test this with min_sup, we can see {D} does not satisfy the min_sup of 2. So, it will not be included in the frequent 1-itemset, which we simply call as the set of L_1 as follows.
itemset | sup
-------------
{A} | 2
{B} | 3
{C} | 3
{E} | 3
Now, let's scan the DB for the 2nd time, and generate candidate 2-itemsets, which we simply call as the set of C_2 as follows.
itemset | sup
-------------
{A,B} | 1
{A,C} | 2
{A,E} | 1
{B,C} | 2
{B,E} | 3
{C,E} | 2
As you can see, {A,B} and {A,E} itemsets do not satisfy the min_sup of 2 and hence they will not be included in the frequent 2-itemset, L_2
itemset | sup
-------------
{A,C} | 2
{B,C} | 2
{B,E} | 3
{C,E} | 2
Now let's do a 3rd scan of the DB and get candidate 3-itemsets, C_3 as follows.
itemset | sup
-------------
{A,B,C} | 1
{A,B,E} | 1
{A,C,E} | 1
{B,C,E} | 2
You can see that, {A,B,C}, {A,B,E} and {A,C,E} does not satisfy min_sup of 2. So they will not be included in frequent 3-itemset, L_3 as follows.
itemset | sup
-------------
{B,C,E} | 2
Now, finally, we can calculate the support (supp), confidence (conf) and lift (interestingness value) values of the Association/Correlation Rules that can be generated by the itemset {B,C,E} as follows.
Rule | supp | conf | lift
-------------------------------------------
B -> C & E | 50% | 66.67% | 1.33
E -> B & C | 50% | 66.67% | 1.33
C -> E & B | 50% | 66.67% | 1.77
B & C -> E | 50% | 100% | 1.33
E & B -> C | 50% | 66.67% | 1.77
C & E -> B | 50% | 100% | 1.33
See Top 10 algorithms in data mining (free access) or The Top Ten Algorithms in Data Mining. The latter gives a detailed description of the algorithm, together with details on how to get optimized implementations.
Well, I would assume you've read the wikipedia entry but you said "a basic example would make it a lot easier for me to understand". Wikipedia has just that so I'll assume you haven't read it and suggest that you do.
Read the wikipedia article.
The best introduction to Apriori can be downloaded from this book:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kumar/dmbook/index.php
you can download the chapter 6 for free which explain Apriori very clearly.
Moreover, if you want to download a Java version of Apriori and other algorithms for frequent itemset mining, you can check my website:
http://www.philippe-fournier-viger.com/spmf/