I try to solve this problem using genetic algorithm and get difficult to choose the fitness function.
My problem is a little differnt than the original Traveling Salesman Problem ,since the population and maybe also the win unit not neccesrly contain all the cities.
So , I have 2 value for each unit: the amount of cities he visit, the total time and the order he visit the cities.
I tried 2-3 fitness function but they don't give good sulotion.
I need idea of good fitness function which take in account the amount of cities he visited and also the total time.
Thanks!
In addition to Peladao's suggestions of using a pareto approach or some kind of weighted sum there are two more possibilities that I'd like to mention for the sake of completeness.
First, you could prioritize your fitness functions. So that the individuals in the population are ranked by first goal, then second goal, then third goal. Therefore only if two individuals are equal in the first goal they will be compared by second goal. If there is a clear dominance in your goals this may be a feasible approach.
Second, you could define two of your goals as constraints that you penalize only when they exceed a certain threshold. This may be feasible when e.g. the amount of cities should not be in a certain range, e.g. [4;7], but doesn't matter if it's 4 or 5. This is similar to a weighted sum approach where the contribution of the individual goals to the combined fitness value differs by several orders of magnitude.
The pareto approach is the only one that treats all objectives with equal importance. It requires special algorithms suited for multiobjective optimization though, such as NSGA-II, SPEA2, AbYSS, PAES, MO-TS, ...
In any case, it would be good if you could show the 2-3 fitness functions that you tried. Maybe there were rather simple errors.
Multiple-objective fitness functions can be implemented using a Pareto optimal.
You could also use a weighted sum of different fitness values.
For a good and readable introduction into multiple-objective optimisation and GA: http://www.calresco.org/lucas/pmo.htm
Related
I'm working on university scheduling problem and using simple genetic algorithm for this. Actually it works great and optimizes the objective function value for 1 hour from 0% to 90% (approx). But then the process getting slow down drammatically and it takes days to get the best solution. I saw a lot of papers that it is reasonable to mix other algos with genetiŃ one. Could you, please, give me some piece of advise of what algorithm can be mixed with genetic one and of how this algorithm can be applied to speed up the solving process. The main question is how can any heuristic can be applied to such complex-structured problem? I have no idea of how can be applied there, for instance, greedy heuristics.
Thanks to everyone in advance! Really appreciate your help!
Problem description:
I have:
array filled by ScheduleSlot objects
array filled by Lesson objects
I do:
Standart two-point crossover
Mutation (Move random lesson to random position)
Rough selection (select only n best individuals to next population)
Additional information for #Dougal and #izomorphius:
I'm triyng to construct a university schedule, which will have no breaks between lessons, overlaps and geographically distributed lessons for groups and professors.
The fitness function is really simple: fitness = -1000*numberOfOverlaps - 1000*numberOfDistrebutedLessons - 20*numberOfBreaks. (or something like that, we can simply change coefficients in fron of the variables)
At the very beggining I generate my individuals just placing lessons in random room, time and day.
Mutation and crossover, as described above, a really trivial:
Crossover - take to parent schedules, randomly choose the point and the range of crossover and just exchange the parts of parent schedules, generating two child schedules.
Mutation - take a child schedule and move n random lessons to random position.
My initial observation: you have chosen the coefficients in front of the numberOfOverlaps, numberOfDistrebutedLessons and numberOfBreaks somewhat randomly. My experience shows that usually these choices are not the best one and you should better let the computer choose them. I propose writing a second algorithm to choose them - could be neural network, second genetic algorithm or a hill climbing. The idea is - compute how good a result you get after a certain amount of time and try to optimize the choice of these 3 values.
Another idea: after getting the result you may try to brute-force optimize it. What I mean is the following - if you had the initial problem the "silly" solution would be back track that checks all the possibilities and this is usually done using dfs. Now this would be very slow, but you may try using depth first search with iterative deepening or simply a depth restricted DFS.
For many problems, I find that a Lamarckian-style of GA works well, combining a local search into the GA algorithm.
For your case, I would try to introduce a partial systematic search as the local search. There are two obvious ways to do this, and you should probably try both.
Alternate GA iterations with local search iterations. For your local search you could, for example, brute force all the lessons assigned in a single day while leaving everything else unchanged. Another possibility is to move a randomly selected lesson to all free slots to find the best choice for that. The key is to minimise the cost of the brute-search while still having the chance to find local improvements.
Add a new operator alongside mutation and crossover that performs your local search. (You might find that the mutation operator is less useful in the hybrid scheme, so just replacing that could be viable.)
In essence, you will be combining the global exploration of the GA with an efficient local search. Several GA frameworks include features to assist in this combination. For example, GAUL implements the alternate scheme 1 above, with either the full population or just the new offspring at each iteration.
What are concrete examples (e.g. Alpha-beta pruning, example:tic-tac-toe and how is it applicable there) of heuristics. I already saw an answered question about what heuristics is but I still don't get the thing where it uses estimation. Can you give me a concrete example of a heuristic and how it works?
Warnsdorff's rule is an heuristic, but the A* search algorithm isn't. It is, as its name implies, a search algorithm, which is not problem-dependent. The heuristic is. An example: you can use the A* (if correctly implemented) to solve the Fifteen puzzle and to find the shortest way out of a maze, but the heuristics used will be different. With the Fifteen puzzle your heuristic could be how many tiles are out of place: the number of moves needed to solve the puzzle will always be greater or equal to the heuristic.
To get out of the maze you could use the Manhattan Distance to a point you know is outside of the maze as your heuristic. Manhattan Distance is widely used in game-like problems as it is the number of "steps" in horizontal and in vertical needed to get to the goal.
Manhattan distance = abs(x2-x1) + abs(y2-y1)
It's easy to see that in the best case (there are no walls) that will be the exact distance to the goal, in the rest you will need more. This is important: your heuristic must be optimistic (admissible heuristic) so that your search algorithm is optimal. It must also be consistent. However, in some applications (such as games with very big maps) you use non-admissible heuristics because a suboptimal solution suffices.
A heuristic is just an approximation to the real cost, (always lower than the real cost if admissible). The better the approximation, the fewer states the search algorithm will have to explore. But better approximations usually mean more computing time, so you have to find a compromise solution.
Most demonstrative is the usage of heuristics in informed search algorithms, such as A-Star. For realistic problems you usually have large search space, making it infeasible to check every single part of it. To avoid this, i.e. to try the most promising parts of the search space first, you use a heuristic. A heuristic gives you an estimate of how good the available subsequent search steps are. You will choose the most promising next step, i.e. best-first. For example if you'd like to search the path between two cities (i.e. vertices, connected by a set of roads, i.e. edges, that form a graph) you may want to choose the straight-line distance to the goal as a heuristic to determine which city to visit first (and see if it's the target city).
Heuristics should have similar properties as metrics for the search space and they usually should be optimistic, but that's another story. The problem of providing a heuristic that works out to be effective and that is side-effect free is yet another problem...
For an application of different heuristics being used to find the path through a given maze also have a look at this answer.
Your question interests me as I've heard about heuristics too during my studies but never saw an application for it, I googled a bit and found this : http://www.predictia.es/blog/aco-search
This code simulate an "ant colony optimization" algorithm to search trough a website.
The "ants" are workers which will search through the site, some will search randomly, some others will follow the "best path" determined by the previous ones.
A concrete example: I've been doing a solver for the game JT's Block, which is roughly equivalent to the Same Game. The algorithm performs a breadth-first search on all possible hits, store the values, and performs to the next ply. Problem is the number of possible hits quickly grows out of control (10e30 estimated positions per game), so I need to prune the list of positions at each turn and only take the "best" of them.
Now, the definition of the "best" positions is quite fuzzy: they are the positions that are expected to lead to the best final scores, but nothing is sure. And here comes the heuristics. I've tried a few of them:
sort positions by score obtained so far
increase score by best score obtained with a x-depth search
increase score based on a complex formula using the number of tiles, their color and their proximity
improve the last heuristic by tweaking its parameters and seeing how they perform
etc...
The last of these heuristic could have lead to an ant-march optimization: there's half a dozen parameters that can be tweaked from 0 to 1, and an optimizer could find the optimal combination of these. For the moment I've just manually improved some of them.
The second of this heuristics is interesting: it could lead to the optimal score through a full depth-first search, but such a goal is impossible of course because it would take too much time. In general, increasing X leads to a better heuristic, but increases the computing time a lot.
So here it is, some examples of heuristics. Anything can be an heuristic as long as it helps your algorithm perform better, and it's what makes them so hard to grasp: they're not deterministic. Another point with heuristics: they're supposed to lead to quick and dirty results of the real stuff, so there's a trade-of between their execution time and their accuracy.
A couple of concrete examples: for solving the Knight's Tour problem, one can use Warnsdorff's rule - an heuristic. Or for solving the Fifteen puzzle, a possible heuristic is the A* search algorithm.
The original question asked for concrete examples for heuristics.
Some of these concrete examples were already given. Another one would be the number of misplaced tiles in the 15-puzzle or its improvement, the Manhattan distance, based on the misplaced tiles.
One of the previous answers also claimed that heuristics are always problem-dependent, whereas algorithms are problem-independent. While there are, of course, also problem-dependent algorithms (for instance, for every problem you can just give an algorithm that immediately solves that very problem, e.g. the optimal strategy for any tower-of-hanoi problem is known) there are also problem-independent heuristics!
Consequently, there are also different kinds of problem-independent heuristics. Thus, in a certain way, every such heuristic can be regarded a concrete heuristic example while not being tailored to a specific problem like 15-puzzle. (Examples for problem-independent heuristics taken from planning are the FF heuristic or the Add heuristic.)
These problem-independent heuristics base on a general description language and then they perform a problem relaxation. That is, the problem relaxation only bases on the syntax (and, of course, its underlying semantics) of the problem description without "knowing" what it represents. If you are interested in this, you should get familiar with "planning" and, more specifically, with "planning as heuristic search". I also want to mention that these heuristics, while being problem-independent, are dependent on the problem description language, of course. (E.g., my before-mentioned heuristics are specific to "planning problems" and even for planning there are various different sub problem classes with differing kinds of heuristics.)
Given a list of cities and the cost to fly between each city, I am trying to find the cheapest itinerary that visits all of these cities. I am currently using a MATLAB solution to find the cheapest route, but I'd now like to modify the algorithm to allow the following:
repeat nodes - repeat nodes should be allowed, since travelling via hub cities can often result in a cheaper route
dynamic edge weights - return/round-trip flights have a different (usually lower) cost to two equivalent one-way flights
For now, I am ignoring the issue of flight dates and assuming that it is possible to travel from any city to any other city.
Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this problem? My first idea was to use an evolutionary optimisation method like GA or ACO to solve point 2, and simply adjust the edge weights when evaluating the objective function based on whether the itinerary contains return/round-trip flights, but perhaps somebody else has a better idea.
(Note: I am using MATLAB, but I am not specifically looking for coded solutions, more just high-level ideas about what algorithms can be used.)
Edit - after thinking about this some more, allowing "repeat nodes" seems to be too loose of a constraint. We could further constrain the problem so that, although nodes can be repeatedly visited, each directed edge can only be visited at most once. It seems reasonable to ignore any itineraries which include the same flight in the same direction more than once.
I haven't tested it myself; however, I have read that implementing Simulated Annealing to solve the TSP (or variants of it) can produce excellent results. The key point here is that Simulated Annealing is very easy to implement and requires minimal tweaking, while approximation algorithms can take much longer to implement and are probably more error prone. Skiena also has a page dedicated to specific TSP solvers.
If you want the cost of the solution produced by the algorithm is within 3/2 of the optimum then you want the Christofides algorithm. ACO and GA don't have a guaranteed cost.
Solving the TSP is a NP-hard problem for its subcycles elimination constraints, if you remove any of them (for your hub cities) you just make the problem easier.
But watch out: TSP has similarities with association problem in the meaning that you could obtain non-valid itineraries like:
Cities: New York, Boston, Dallas, Toronto
Path:
Boston - New York
New York - Boston
Dallas - Toronto
Toronto - Dallas
which is clearly wrong since we don't go across all cities.
The subcycle elimination constraints serve just to this purpose. Including a 'hub city' sounds like you need to add weights to the point and make an hybrid between flux problems and tsp problems. Sounds pretty hard but the first try may be: eliminate the subcycles constraints relative to your hub cities (and leave all the others). You can then link the subcycles obtained for the hub cities together.
Good luck
Firstly, what is approximate number of cities in your problem set? (Up to 100? More than 100?)
I have a fair bit of experience with GA (not ACO), and like epitaph says, it has a bit of gambling aspect. For some input, it might stop at a brutally inefficient solution. So, what I have done in the past is to use GA as the first option, compare the answer to some lower bound, and if that seems to be "way off", then run a second (usually a less efficient) algorithm.
Of course, I used plenty of terms that were not standard, so let us make sure that we agree what they would be in this context:
lower bound - of course, in this case, MST would be a lower bound.
"Way Off" - If triangle inequality holds, then an upper bound is UB = 2 * MST. A good "way off" in this context would be 2 * UB.
Second algorithm - In this case, both a linear programming based approach and Christofides would be good choices.
If you limit the problem to round-trips (i.e. the salesman can only buy round-trip tickets), then it can be represented by an undirected graph, and the problem boils down to finding the minimum spanning tree, which can be done efficiently.
In the general case I don't know of a clever way to use efficient algorithms; GA or similar might be a good way to go.
Do you want a near-optimal solution, or do you want the optimal solution?
For the optimal solution, there's still good ol' brute force. Due to requirement 1 involving repeat nodes, you'll have to make sure you search breadth-first, not dept-first. Otherwise you can end up in an infinite loop. You can slowly drop all routes that exceed your current minimum until all routes are exhausted and the minimal route is discovered.
I read various stuff on this and understand the principle and concepts involved, however, none of paper mentions the details of how to calculate the fitness of a chromosome (which represents a route) involving adjacent cities (in the chromosome) that are not directly connected by an edge (in the graph).
For example, given a chromosome 1|3|2|8|4|5|6|7, in which each gene represents the index of a city on the graph/map, how do we calculate its fitness (i.e. the total sum of distances traveled) if, say, there is no direct edge/link between city 2 and 8. Do we follow some sort of greedy algorithm to work out a route between 2 and 8, and add the distance of this route to the total?
This problem seems pretty common when applying GA to TSP. Anyone who's done it before please share your experience. Thanks.
If there is no link between 2 and 8 on your graph, then any chromosome with 2|8 or 8|2 in it is invalid for the classical travelling salesman problem. If you find some other route between 2 and 8, you are probably going to violate the "visit each location once" requirement.
One really dodgy-but-pragmatic solution is to include edges between those nodes with incredibly high distances, or even +INF if your language supports it. That way, your standard minimizing fitness function will naturally prune them.
I think the original formulation of the problem includes edges between all nodes, so this is a non-issue.
This is the exact kind of problem, specialized Crossover and mutation methods have been applied for GA based solutions to TSP problems. See this question.
if the chromosone does not represent a valid solution then it is completly unfit to solve the problem. So depending on how you order fitness. ie if a lower number represents more fitness (possibly a good idea when fitness represents total cost) then you'd assign it a max value and break any further fitness calculation on that chromosone when you get to a gene sequence that is invalid.
(or vice versa, assign it a fitness of zero if a higher fitness means a chromosone is more fit for the job)
however as others have pointed out it could be better to ensure that invalid chromosones dont occur. However if that is itself an overly compex process then allowing them and ensuring that broken chromosones are unlikely to make it into successive generations could be an acceptable approach.
I am looking for a general algorithm to help in situations with similar constraints as this example :
I am thinking of a system where images are constructed based on a set of operations. Each operation has a set of parameters. The total "gene" of the image is then the sequential application of the operations with the corresponding parameters. The finished image is then given a vote by one or more real humans according to how "beautiful" it is.
The question is what kind of algorithm would be able to do better than simply random search if you want to find the most beautiful image? (and hopefully improve the confidence over time as votes tick in and improve the fitness function)
Given that the operations will probably be correlated, it should be possible to do better than random search. So for example operation A with parameters a1 and a2 followed by B with parameters b1 could generally be vastly superior to B followed by A. The order of operations will matter.
I have tried googling for research papers on random walk and markov chains as that is my best guesses about where to look, but so far have found no scenarios similar enough. I would really appreciate even just a hint of where to look for such an algorithm.
I think what you are looking for fall in a broad research area called metaheuristics (which include many non-linear optimization algorithms such as genetic algorithms, simulated annealing or tabu search).
Then if your raw fitness function is just giving a statistical value somehow approximating a real (but unknown) fitness function, you can probably still use most metaheuristics by (somehow) smoothing your fitness function (averaging results would do that).
Do you mean the Metropolis algorithm?
This approach uses a random walk, weighted by the fitness function. It is useful for locating local extrema in complicated fitness landscapes, but is generally slower than deterministic approaches where those will work.
You're pretty much describing a genetic algorithm in which the sequence of operations represents the "gene" ("chromosome" would be a better term for this, where the parameter[s] passed to each operation represents a single "gene", and multiple genes make up a chromosome), the image produced represents the phenotypic expression of the gene, and the votes from the real humans represent the fitness function.
If I understand your question, you're looking for an alternative algorithm of some sort that will evaluate the operations and produce a "beauty" score similar to what the real humans produce. Good luck with that - I don't think there really is any such thing, and I'm not surprised that you didn't find anything. Human brains, and correspondingly human evaluations of aesthetics, are much too staggeringly complex to be reducible to a simplistic algorithm.
Interestingly, your question seems to encapsulate the bias against using real human responses as the fitness function in genetic-algorithm-based software. This is a subject of relevance to me, since my namesake software is specifically designed to use human responses (or "votes") to evaluate music produced via a genetic process.
Simple Markov Chain
Markov chains, which you mention, aren't a bad way to go. A Markov chain is just a state machine, represented as a graph with edge weights which are transition probabilities. In your case, each of your operations is a node in the graph, and the edges between the nodes represent allowable sequences of operations. Since order matters, your edges are directed. You then need three components:
A generator function to construct the graph of allowed transitions (which operations are allowed to follow one another). If any operation is allowed to follow any other, then this is easy to write: all nodes are connected, and your graph is said to be complete. You can initially set all the edge weights to 1.
A function to traverse the graph, crossing N nodes, where N is your 'gene-length'. At each node, your choice is made randomly, but proportionally weighted by the values of the edges (so better edges have a higher chance of being selected).
A weighting update function which can be used to adjust the weightings of the edges when you get feedback about an image. For example, a simple update function might be to give each edge involved in a 'pleasing' image a positive vote each time that image is nominated by a human. The weighting of each edge is then normalised, with the currently highest voted edge set to 1, and all the others correspondingly reduced.
This graph is then a simple learning network which will be refined by subsequent voting. Over time as votes accumulate, successive traversals will tend to favour the more highly rated sequences of operations, but will still occasionally explore other possibilities.
Advantages
The main advantage of this approach is that it's easy to understand and code, and makes very few assumptions about the problem space. This is good news if you don't know much about the search space (e.g. which sequences of operations are likely to be favourable).
It's also easy to analyse and debug - you can inspect the weightings at any time and very easily calculate things like the top 10 best sequences known so far, etc. This is a big advantage - other approaches are typically much harder to investigate ("why did it do that?") because of their increased abstraction. Although very efficient, you can easily melt your brain trying to follow and debug the convergence steps of a simplex crawler!
Even if you implement a more sophisticated production algorithm, having a simple baseline algorithm is crucial for sanity checking and efficiency comparisons. It's also easy to tinker with, by messing with the update function. For example, an even more baseline approach is pure random walk, which is just a null weighting function (no weighting updates) - whatever algorithm you produce should perform significantly better than this if its existence is to be justified.
This idea of baselining is very important if you want to evaluate the quality of your algorithm's output empirically. In climate modelling, for example, a simple test is "does my fancy simulation do any better at predicting the weather than one where I simply predict today's weather will be the same as yesterday's?" Since weather is often correlated on a timescale of several days, this baseline can give surprisingly good predictions!
Limitations
One disadvantage of the approach is that it is slow to converge. A more agressive choice of update function will push promising results faster (for example, weighting new results according to a power law, rather than the simple linear normalisation), at the cost of giving alternatives less credence.
This is equivalent to fiddling with the mutation rate and gene pool size in a genetic algorithm, or the cooling rate of a simulated annealing approach. The tradeoff between 'climbing hills or exploring the landscape' is an inescapable "twiddly knob" (free parameter) which all search algorithms must deal with, either directly or indirectly. You are trying to find the highest point in some fitness search space. Your algorithm is trying to do that in less tries than random inspection, by looking at the shape of the space and trying to infer something about it. If you think you're going up a hill, you can take a guess and jump further. But if it turns out to be a small hill in a bumpy landscape, then you've just missed the peak entirely.
Also note that since your fitness function is based on human responses, you are limited to a relatively small number of iterations regardless of your choice of algorithmic approach. For example, you would see the same issue with a genetic algorithm approach (fitness function limits the number of individuals and generations) or a neural network (limited training set).
A final potential limitation is that if your "gene-lengths" are long, there are many nodes, and many transitions are allowed, then the size of the graph will become prohibitive, and the algorithm impractical.