I want to implement the robot path planning program applying hill climbing algorithm.
I understand the basic of hill climbing algorithm but I cannot think any idea!
I also Googled the hill climbing algorithm, but I cannot find any information about robot path planning with hill climbing algorithm.
It is hard to implement start function, choosing neighbor function, and check/draw path using Bresenham's line algorithm.
It all depends on which pathfinding algorithm you are using of course, but essentially just add a multiplier to the amount of 'cost' associated with hill climbing. Something as simple as:
//Psuedo-code
MovementCost = FlatDistance + (HillClimbAltitude * 2)
//Where 2 is the 'effort' involved in climbing compared to a flat distance
Would suffice. This also easily accomodates for a cost reduction where a hill decline (downhill) is involved. You could fancy it up by making the cost increase based on the angle of the incline etc
Related
In hill climbing for 1 dimension, I try two neighbors - a small delta to the left and one to the right of my current point, and then keep the one that gives a higher value of the objective function. How do I extend it to an n-dimensional space? How does one define a neighbor for an n-dimensional space? Do I have to try 2^n neighbors (a delta applied to each of the dimension)?
You don't need to compare each pair of neighbors, you need to compute a set of neighbors, e.g. on a circle (sphere/ hypersphere in a higher dimensions) with a radius of delta, and then take the one with the highest values to "climb up". In any case you will discretize the neighborhood of your current solution and compute the score function for each neighbor. When you can differentiate your function, than, Gradient ascent/descent based algorithms may solve your problem:
1) Compute the gradient (direction of steepest ascent)
2) Go a small step into the direction of the gradient
3) Stop if solution does not change
A common problem with those algorithms is, that you often only find local maxima / minima. You can find a great overview on gradient descent/ascent algorithms here: http://sebastianruder.com/optimizing-gradient-descent/
If you are using IEEE-754 floating point numbers then the obvious answer is something like (2^52*(log_2(delta)+1023))^(n-1)+1 if delta>=2^(-1022) (more or less depending on your search space...) as that is the only way you can be certain that there are no more neighboring solutions with a distance of delta.
Even assuming you instead take a random fixed size sample of all points within a given distance of delta, lets say delta=.1, you would still have the problem that if the distance from the local optimum was .0001 the probability of finding an improvement in just 1 dimension would be less than .0001/.1/2=0.05% so you would need to take more and more random samples as you get closer to the local optimum (of which you don't know the value...).
Obviously hill climbing is not intended for the real number space or theoretical graph spaces with infinite degree. You should instead be using a global search algorithm.
One example of a multidimensional search algorithm which needs only O(n) neighbours instead of O(2^n) neighbours is the Torczon simplex method described in Multidirectional search: A direct search algorithm for parallel machines (1989). I chose this over the more widely known Nelder-Mead method because the Torczon simplex method has a convergence proof (convergence to a local optimum given some reasonable conditions).
I'm running both gradient ascent and hill climbing on a landscape to assess which one can reach the greatest height in less steps. The outcome of my test is that hill climbing always manages to reach greater heights in less increments in comparison to gradient ascent. What's reason behind this. Because I thought gradient ascent would be more efficient. Does anyone have experience with these algorithms that may have something to say about the outcome.
Thank you.
Can someone point me to a reference implementation on how to construct a (multiplicatively and/or additively) weighted voronoi diagram, which is preferably based on Fortune's voronoi algorithm?
My goal:
Given a set of points(each point has a weight) and a set of boundary edges(usually a rectangle) I want to construct a weighted voronoi diagram using either python or the processing.org-framework. Here is an example.
What I have worked on so far:
So far I have implemented Fortune's algorithm as well as the "centroidal voronoi tessellation" presented in Michael Balzer's paper. Algorithm 3 states how the weights need to be adjusted, however, when I implement this my geometry does not work anymore. To fix this the sweep-line algorithm has to be updated to take weights into account, but I have been unable to do this so far.
Hence I would like to see how other people solved this problem.
For additively weighted Voronoi Diagram: Remember that a power diagram in dimension n is only a(n unweighted) Voronoi diagram in dimension n+1.
For that, just recall that the Voronoi diagram of a point set is invariant if you add any constant to the coordinates, and that the weighted Voronoi diagram can thus be written as a non weighted Voronoi diagram using the coordinates, for example in 2D lifted to 3D:
(x_i, y_i, sqrt(C - w_i))
where w_i is the weight of the seed, and C is any arbitrarily large constant (in practice, one just small enough such that C-w_i is positive).
Once your diagram is computed, just discard the last component.
So, basically, you only need to find a library that is able to handle Voronoi diagrams in dimension n+1 compared to your problem. CGAL can do that. This also makes the implementation extremely easy.
This computation is not easy, but it is available in CGAL. See the manual pages here.
See also the Effective Computational Geometry project, which employs and
supports CGAL:
There is little `off-the-shelf' open source code out there, for the case where distances to the centers are weighted with a multiplicative factor.
To my knowledge, none of the current CGAL packages covers this case.
Takashi Ohyama's beautifully colorful website provides java implementations
http://www.nirarebakun.com/voro/emwvoro.html
for up to 100 points with a SIMPLE algorithm (Euclidean and Manhattan distances).
There is also a paper describing this simple intersection algorithm and an approximate implementation within O(n^3) time, as a plugin to TerraView.
However, I cannot find the source of this plugin in the TerraView / TerraLib repository:
http://www.geoinfo.info/geoinfo2011/papers/mauricio1.pdf
Aurenhammer and Edelsbrunner describe an optimal n^2 time algorithm, but I'm unaware of available code of that.
If you are comfortable digging into Octave, you could reference the code provided in their library.
I'm writing an app that looks up points in two-dimensional space using a k-d tree. It would be nice, during development, to be able to "see" the nearest-neighbor zones surrounding each point.
In the attached image, the red points are points in the k-d tree, and the blue lines surrounding each point bound the zone where a nearest neighbor search will return the contained point.
The image was created thusly:
for each point in the space:
da = distance to nearest neighbor
db = distance to second-nearest neighbor
if absolute_value(da - db) < 4:
draw blue pixel
This algorithm has two problems:
(more important) It's slow on my (reasonably fast Core i7) computer.
(less important) It's sloppy, as you can see by the varying widths of the blue lines.
What is this "visualization" of a set of points called?
What are some good algorithms to create such a visualization?
This is called a Voronoi Diagram and there are many excellent algorithms for generating them efficiently. The one I've heard about most is Fortune's algorithm, which runs in time O(n log n), though others algorithms exist for this problem.
Hope this helps!
Jacob,
hey, you found an interesting way of generating this Voronoi diagram, even though it is not so efficient.
The less important issue first: the varying thickness boundaries that you get, those butterfly shapes, are in fact the area between the two branches of an hyperbola. Precisely the hyperbola given by the equation |da - db| = 4. To get a thick line instead, you have to modify this criterion and replace it by the distance to the bisector of the two nearest neighbors, let A and B; using vector calculus, | PA.AB/||AB|| - ||AB||/2 | < 4.
The more important issue: there are two well known efficient solutions to the construction of the Voronoi diagram of a set of points: Fortune's sweep algorithm (as mentioned by templatetypedef) and Preparata & Shamos' Divide & Conquer solutions. Both run in optimal time O(N.Lg(N)) for N points, but aren't so easy to implement.
These algorithm will construct the Voronoi diagram as a set of line segments and half-lines. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram.
This paper "Primitives for the manipulation of general subdivisions and the computation of Voronoi" describes both algorithms using a somewhat high-level framework, caring about all implementation details; the article is difficult but the algorithms are implementable.
You may also have a look at "A straightforward iterative algorithm for the planar Voronoi diagram", which I never tried.
A totally different approach is to directly build the distance map from the given points for example by means of Dijkstra's algorithm: starting from the given points, you grow the boundary of the area within a given distance from every point and you stop growing when two boundaries meet. [More explanations required.] See http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-O6rXggLa9fE/TnAwz4f9hXI/AAAAAAAAAPk/0vrqEKRPVIw/s1600/distmap-20-seed4-fin.jpg
Another good starting point (for efficiently computing the distance map) can be "A general algorithm for computing distance transforms in linear time".
From personal experience: Fortune's algorithm is a pain to implement. The divide and conquer algorithm presented by Guibas and Stolfi isn't too bad; they give detailed pseudocode that's easy to transcribe into a procedural programming language. Both will blow up if you have nearly degenerate inputs and use floating point, but since the primitives are quadratic, if you can represent coordinates as 32-bit integers, then you can use 64 bits to carry out the determinant computations.
Once you get it working, you might consider replacing your kd-tree algorithms, which have a Theta(√n) worst case, with algorithms that work on planar subdivisions.
You can find a great implementation for it at D3.js library: http://mbostock.github.com/d3/ex/voronoi.html
The problem of finding the intersection/union of 'N' discs/circles on a flat plane was first proposed by M. I. Shamos in his 1978 thesis:
Shamos, M. I. “Computational Geometry” Ph.D. thesis, Yale Univ., New Haven, CT 1978.
Since then, in 1985, Micha Sharir presented an O(n log2n) time and O(n) space deterministic algorithm for the disc intersection/union problem (based on modified Voronoi diagrams): Sharir, M. Intersection and closest-pair problems for a set of planar discs. SIAM .J Comput. 14 (1985), pp. 448-468.
In 1988, Franz Aurenhammer presented a more efficient O(n log n) time and O(n) space algorithm for circle intersection/union using power diagrams (generalizations of Voronoi diagrams): Aurenhammer, F. Improved algorithms for discs and balls using power diagrams. Journal of Algorithms 9 (1985), pp. 151-161.
Earlier in 1983, Paul G. Spirakis also presented an O(n^2) time deterministic algorithm, and an O(n) probabilistic algorithm: Spirakis, P.G. Very Fast Algorithms for the Area of the Union of Many Circles. Rep. 98, Dept. Comput. Sci., Courant Institute, New York University, 1983.
I've been searching for any implementations of the algorithms above, focusing on computational geometry packages, and I haven't found anything yet. As neither appear trivial to put into practice, it would be really neat if someone could point me in the right direction!
Perhaps a constructive solid geometry (CSG) package would have a surface-area feature for overlapping circle primitives?
I've spent some time looking at the algorithms for computing the union of a set of balls - as you mention, it is done by using generalized Voronoi diagrams.
The CGAL library has a package that implements a union of balls. This is one dimension higher than what you're interested in, and it doesn't handle intersections. so probably no cigar.
If you're working in 2 dimensions, the problem is equivalent to finding a convex hull in 3 dimensions. You could use the convex hull stuff from CGAL or another package.
If you're looking for implementations of the specific algorithms you've mentioned, I can't help you. But if you just want to find the power diagram that allows you to easily compute unions and intersections, it might be easier than you think to roll your own using a 3D convex hull algorithm.
Sorry for the half baked answer, but we may as well start somewhere and see how much flexibility you have.
Edit: There's also a CGAL package for 2D power diagrams: http://www.cgal.org/Manual/last/doc_html/cgal_manual/Apollonius_graph_2/Chapter_main.html.
Also, #RGrey has found a CGAL library for calculating 2D booleans for generalized polygons, including circles at http://www.cgal.org/Manual/3.5/doc_html/cgal_manual/Boolean_set_operations_2/Chapter_main.html.
There is no 2D power diagram implementation in CGAL. The link suggested above (http://www.cgal.org/Manual/last/doc_html/cgal_manual/Apollonius_graph_2/Chapter_main.html) is for the additive weighted Voronoi diagram, which uses the euclid + weight, instead of euclid^2 + weight (as Power Diagrams do).