Let's assume I have a variable V and value of V can be any number from the range 0..5. However, some values are more preferred than other others therefore it would help me to specify the domain of V as an ordered sequence.
Can I do it in SICStus Prolog?
Example:
% PSEUDOCODE
%
% 3 is more preferred than 4; 4 is more preferred than 2; and so on..
% So I would write something like this:
V in {3,4,2,5,1,0},
getDomainAsList(V, List), % the predicate do not exist
% and the List would be: [3,4,2,5,1,0] and not [1,2,3,4,5]
I read the manual and I did not find anything that would help. I can solve the problem by custom labeling (i.e., convert the domain of V to a list, sort it and assign a value to V) but I expect worse performance.
There is a manual page describing this.
See the value(Enum) option to labeling/2, here:
You can have an array or list of all the values in the preferred order.
Then you work with array indexes in your program, and at the very end you return values corresponding to the indexes.
Related
Disclaimer: I'm not a professional programmer or mathematician and this is my first time encountering the field of optimisation problems. Now that's out of the way so let's get to the problem at hand:
I got several lists, each containing various items and number called 'mandatoryAmount':
listA (mandatoryAmountA, itemA1, itemA2, itemA2, ...)
Each item has certain values (each value is a number >= 0):
itemA1 (M, E, P, C, Al, Ac, D, Ab,S)
I have to choose a certain number of items from each list determined by 'mandatoryAmount'.
Within each list I can choose every item multiple times.
Once I have all of the items from each list, I'll add up the values of each.
For example:
totalM = listA (itemA1 (M) + itemA1 (M) + itemA3 (M)) + listB (itemB1 (M) + itemB2 (M))
The goals are:
-To have certain values (totalAl, totalAc, totalAb, totalS) reach a certain number cap while going over that cap as little as possible. Anything over that cap is wasted.
-To maximize the remaining values with different weightings each
The output should be the best possible selection of items to meet the goals stated above. I imagine the evaluation function to just add up all non-waste values times their respective weightings while subtracting all wasted stats times their respective weightings.
edit:
The total amount of items across all lists should be somewhere between 500 and 1000, the number of lists is around 10 and the mandatoryAmount for each list is between 0 and 14.
Here's some sample code that uses Python 3 and OR-Tools. Let's start by
defining the input representation and a random instance.
import collections
import random
Item = collections.namedtuple("Item", ["M", "E", "P", "C", "Al", "Ac", "D", "Ab", "S"])
List = collections.namedtuple("List", ["mandatoryAmount", "items"])
def RandomItem():
return Item(
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
random.random(),
)
lists = [
List(
random.randrange(5, 10), [RandomItem() for j in range(random.randrange(5, 10))]
)
for i in range(random.randrange(5, 10))
]
Time to formulate the optimization as a mixed-integer program. Let's import
the solver library and initialize the solver object.
from ortools.linear_solver import pywraplp
solver = pywraplp.Solver.CreateSolver("solver", "SCIP")
Make constraints for the totals that must reach a certain cap.
AlCap = random.random()
totalAl = solver.Constraint(AlCap, solver.infinity())
AcCap = random.random()
totalAc = solver.Constraint(AcCap, solver.infinity())
AbCap = random.random()
totalAb = solver.Constraint(AbCap, solver.infinity())
SCap = random.random()
totalS = solver.Constraint(SCap, solver.infinity())
We want to maximize the other values subject to some weighting.
MWeight = random.random()
EWeight = random.random()
PWeight = random.random()
CWeight = random.random()
DWeight = random.random()
solver.Objective().SetMaximization()
Create variables and fill in the constraints. For each list there is an
equality constraint on the number of items.
associations = []
for list_ in lists:
amount = solver.Constraint(list_.mandatoryAmount, list_.mandatoryAmount)
for item in list_.items:
x = solver.IntVar(0, solver.infinity(), "")
amount.SetCoefficient(x, 1)
totalAl.SetCoefficient(x, item.Al)
totalAc.SetCoefficient(x, item.Ac)
totalAb.SetCoefficient(x, item.Ab)
totalS.SetCoefficient(x, item.S)
solver.Objective().SetCoefficient(
x,
MWeight * item.M
+ EWeight * item.E
+ PWeight * item.P
+ CWeight * item.C
+ DWeight * item.D,
)
associations.append((item, x))
if solver.Solve() != solver.OPTIMAL:
raise RuntimeError
solution = []
for item, x in associations:
solution += [item] * round(x.solution_value())
print(solution)
I think David Eisenstat has the right idea with Integer programming, but let's see if we get some good solutions otherwise and perhaps provide some initial optimization. However, I think that we can just choose all of one item in each list may make this easier to solve that it normally would be. Basically that turns it into more of a Subset Sum problem. Especially with the cap.
There are two possibilities here:
There is no solution, no condition satisfies the requirement.
There is a solution that we need to be optimized.
We really want to try to find a solution first, if we can find one (regardless of the amount of waste), then that's nice.
So let's reframe the problem: We aim to simply minimize waste, but we also need to meet a min requirement. So let's try to get as much waste as possible in ways we need it.
I'm going to propose an algorithm you could use that should work "fairly well" and is polynomial time, though could probably have some optimizations. I'll be using K to mean mandatoryAmount as it's a bit of a customary variable in this situation. Also I'll be using N to mean the number of lists. Lastly, Z to represent the total number of items (across all lists).
Get the list of all items and sort them by the amount of each value they have (first the goal values, then the bonus values). If an item has 100A, 300C, 200B, 400D, 150E and the required are [B, D], then the sort order would look like: [400,200,300,150,100]. Repeat but for one goal value. Using the same example above we would have: [400,300,150,100] for goal: D and [200,300,150,100] for goal B. Create a boolean variable for optimization mode (we start by seeking for a solution, once we find one, we can try to optimize it). Create a counter/hash to contain the unassigned items. An item cannot be unassigned more than K times (to avoid infinite loops). This isn't strictly needed, but could work as an optimization for step 5, as it prioritize goals you actually need.
For each list, keep a counter of the number of assignable slots for each list, set each to K, as well as the number of total assignable slots, and set to K * N. This will be adjusted as needed along the way. You want to be able to quickly O(1) lookup for: a) which list an (sorted) item belongs to, b) how many available slots that item has, and c) How many times has the item been unassigned, d) Find the item is the sorted list.
General Assignment. While there are slots available (total slots), go through the list from highest to lowest order. If the list for that item is available, assign as many slots as possible to that item. Update the assignable and total slots. If result is a valid solution, record it, trip the "optimization mode flag". If slots remain unassigned, revert the previous unassignment (but do not change the assignment count).
Waste Optimization. Find the most wasteful item that can be unassigned (unassigned count < K). Unassign one slot of it. If in optimization mode, do not allow any of the goal values to go below their cap (skip if it would). Update the unassigned count for item. Goto #3, but start just after the wasteful item. If no assignment made, reassign this item until the list has no remaining assignments, but do not update the unassigned count (otherwise we might end up in an invalid state).
Goal value Optimization. Skip if current state is a valid solution. Find the value furthest from it's goal (IE: A/B/C/D/E above) that can be unassigned. Unassign one slot for that item. Update assignment count. Goto step 3, begin search at start of list (unlike Step 4), stop searching the list if you go below the value of this item (not this item itself, as others may have the same value). If no assignment made, reassign this item until the list has no remaining assignments, but do not update the unassigned count (otherwise we might end up in an invalid state).
No Assignments remain. Return current state as "best solution found".
Algorithm should end with the "best" solution that this approach can come up with. Increasing max unassignment counts may improve the solution, decreasing max assignment counts will speed up the algorithm. Algorithm will run until it has maxed out it's assignment counts.
This is a bit of a greedy algorithm, so I'm not sure it's optimal (in that it will always yield the best result) but it may give you some ideas as to how to approach it. It also feels like it should yield fairly good results, as it basically trying to bound the results. Algorithm performance is something like O(Z^2 * K), where K is the mandatoryAmount and Z is the total number of items. Each item is unassigned K items, and potentially each assignment also requires O(Z) checks before it is reassigned.
As an optimization, use a O(log N) or better delete/next operation sorted data structure to store the sorted lists. Doing so it would make it practical to delete items from the assignment lists once the unassignment count reaches K (rendering them no longer assignable) allowing for O(Z * log(Z) * K) performance instead.
Edit:
Hmmm, the above only works within a single list (IE: Item removed can only be added to it's own list, as only that list has room). To avoid this, do step 4 (remove too heavy) then step 5 (remove too light) and then goto step 3 (using step 5's rules for searching, but also disallow adding back the too heavy ones).
So basically we remove the heaviest one then the lightest one then we try to assign something that is as heavy as possible to make up for the lightest one we removed.
I am using clingo to solve flood-it problems. I use the predicate frontier([CELL], [COLOR], [TIMESTEP]) to keep track of all cells that are neighbors of the flood. The set of frontiers could look something like this:
frontier(c(1,3),2,3) frontier(c(2,1),2,3) frontier(c(2,2),3,3) frontier(c(2,3),3,3) frontier(c(3,1),3,3) frontier(c(3,2),3,3) frontier(c(4,1),3,3)
We can split this set in two subsets. One where each color value is 2 or 3 respectively. What I need is basically two things:
Determine which subset is bigger, i.e. if there are more cells with color value 2 or 3 (BTW the number of colors is not fixed, thus a solution has to be generic)
Get the color value of a member of the biggest set
How can I compare the cardinalities of n (n>=2) sets in predicate logic?
Thank you in advance!
I found an answer which is more domain (i.e. clingo) specific than general.
What I initially do is count the number of cells that are of color C:
frontier_subset_size(C,N) :- color(C), N = #count{ X : frontier(X,C) }.
Then I filter the biggest set(s) using the #max aggregate:
max_subset_color(C) :- frontier_subset_size(C,N), N = #max{ M : frontier_subset_size(_,M) }.
This works as desired for this specific problem.
Yet I would like to know how to do that in pure predicate logic.
I am searching for how to accomplish something I've somewhat a grasp on, but do not:
I have n number of lists of varying size:
{A, B, C, D}
{1,2}
{X, Y, Z}
...to the nth potentially
How do I generate all possible chains of 1 item from each level A1X, A1Y, A1Z, etc. Its an algotrithmic and mathematic task, no its not homework(I know school is starting), its part of something I'm working on, I have no code --- I just need to be pointed in the right direction to formulate my terms.
(You didn't ask for code, but I tend to use Python for executable pseudo-code. You still need to translate the core algorithm to the language of your choice).
In effect, you are talking about forming the Cartesian Product of the lists. It can be done in various ways. If the number of lists isn't known ahead of time, a recursive approach is the most natural.
Let L1*L2* ... *Ln denote the list of all strings which are of the form
s1+s2+...+sn where si in Li and + is the concatenation operator. For a basis you could either take n ==1, a single List, or n == 0, no lists at all. In many ways the latter is more elegant, in which case it is natural to define the product of an empty list of strings to be the list whose sole element is the empty string.
Then:
Return [''] if n == 0
Otherwise return
[a+b | a ranges over L1 and b ranges over (L2 * L3 * ... * Ln)]
where (L2 * L3 * ... *Ln) was alread computed recursively (which will just be the empty string if n is 1).
The last list can easily be built up in a nested loop, or expressed more directly in any language which supports list comprehensions.
Here is a Python implementation which returns the list of all products given a list of lists of strings (abbreviated as lls in the code):
def product(lls):
if len(lls) == 0:
return ['']
else:
return [a+b for a in lls[0] for b in product(lls[1:])]
Tested like thus:
lists_of_strings = [['A','B','C','D'],['1','2','3'],['X','Y','Z']]
print(product(lists_of_strings))
With output:
['A1X', 'A1Y', 'A1Z', 'A2X', 'A2Y', 'A2Z', 'A3X', 'A3Y', 'A3Z', 'B1X', 'B1Y', 'B1Z', 'B2X', 'B2Y', 'B2Z', 'B3X', 'B3Y', 'B3Z', 'C1X', 'C1Y', 'C1Z', 'C2X', 'C2Y', 'C2Z', 'C3X', 'C3Y', 'C3Z', 'D1X', 'D1Y', 'D1Z', 'D2X', 'D2Y', 'D2Z', 'D3X', 'D3Y', 'D3Z']
In Python itself there isn't much motivation to do this since the itertools module has a nice product and the same product can be expressed as:
[''.join(p) for p in itertools.product(*lists_of_strings)]
Lets say I have a matrix x=[ 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 ]. To look at its histogram, I can do h=hist(x).
Now, h with retrieve a matrix consisting only the number of occurrences and does not store the original value to which it occurred.
What I want is something like a function which takes a value from x and returns number of occurrences of it. Having said that, what one thing histeq does should we admire is, it automatically scales nearest values according!
How should solve this issue? How exactly people do it?
My reason of interest is in images:
Lets say I have an image. I want to find all number of occurrences of a chrominance value of image.
I'm not really shure what you are looking for, but if you ant to use hist to count the number of occurences, use:
[h,c]=hist(x,sort(unique(x)))
Otherwise hist uses ranges defined by centers. The second output argument returns the corresponding number.
hist has a second return value that will be the bin centers xc corresponding to the counts n returned in form of the first return value: [n, xc] = hist(x). You should have a careful look at the reference which describes a large number of optional arguments that control the behavior of hist. However, hist is way too mighty for your specific problem.
To simply count the number of occurrences of a specific value, you could simply use something like sum(x(:) == 42). The colon operator will linearize your image matrix, the equals operator will yield a list of boolean values with 1 for each element of x that was 42, and thus sum will yield the total number of these occurrences.
An alternative to hist / histc is to use bsxfun:
n = unique(x(:)).'; %'// values contained in x. x can have any number of dims
y = sum(bsxfun(#eq, x(:), n)); %// count for each value
How can I generate a random number that is in the range (1,n) but not in a certain list (i,j)?
Example: range is (1,500), list is [1,3,4,45,199,212,344].
Note: The list may not be sorted
Rejection Sampling
One method is rejection sampling:
Generate a number x in the range (1, 500)
Is x in your list of disallowed values? (Can use a hash-set for this check.)
If yes, return to step 1
If no, x is your random value, done
This will work fine if your set of allowed values is significantly larger than your set of disallowed values:if there are G possible good values and B possible bad values, then the expected number of times you'll have to sample x from the G + B values until you get a good value is (G + B) / G (the expectation of the associated geometric distribution). (You can sense check this. As G goes to infinity, the expectation goes to 1. As B goes to infinity, the expectation goes to infinity.)
Sampling a List
Another method is to make a list L of all of your allowed values, then sample L[rand(L.count)].
The technique I usually use when the list is length 1 is to generate a random
integer r in [1,n-1], and if r is greater or equal to that single illegal
value then increment r.
This can be generalised for a list of length k for small k but requires
sorting that list (you can't do your compare-and-increment in random order). If the list is moderately long, then after the sort you can start with a bsearch, and add the number of values skipped to r, and then recurse into the remainder of the list.
For a list of length k, containing no value greater or equal to n-k, you
can do a more direct substitution: generate random r in [1,n-k], and
then iterate through the list testing if r is equal to list[i]. If it is
then set r to n-k+i (this assumes list is zero-based) and quit.
That second approach fails if some of the list elements are in [n-k,n].
I could try to invest something clever at this point, but what I have so far
seems sufficient for uniform distributions with values of k much less than
n...
Create two lists -- one of illegal values below n-k, and the other the rest (this can be done in place).
Generate random r in [1,n-k]
Apply the direct substitution approach for the first list (if r is list[i] then set r to n-k+i and go to step 5).
If r was not altered in step 3 then we're finished.
Sort the list of larger values and use the compare-and-increment method.
Observations:
If all values are in the lower list, there will be no sort because there is nothing to sort.
If all values are in the upper list, there will be no sort because there is no occasion on which r is moved into the hazardous area.
As k approaches n, the maximum size of the upper (sorted) list grows.
For a given k, if more value appear in the upper list (the bigger the sort), the chance of getting a hit in the lower list shrinks, reducing the likelihood of needing to do the sort.
Refinement:
Obviously things get very sorty for large k, but in such cases the list has comparatively few holes into which r is allowed to settle. This could surely be exploited.
I might suggest something different if many random values with the same
list and limits were needed. I hope that the list of illegal values is not the
list of results of previous calls to this function, because if it is then you
wouldn't want any of this -- instead you would want a Fisher-Yates shuffle.
Rejection sampling would be the simplest if possible as described already. However, if you didn't want use that, you could convert the range and disallowed values to sets and find the difference. Then, you could choose a random value out of there.
Assuming you wanted the range to be in [1,n] but not in [i,j] and that you wanted them uniformly distributed.
In Python
total = range(1,n+1)
disallowed = range(i,j+1)
allowed = list( set(total) - set(disallowed) )
return allowed[random.randrange(len(allowed))]
(Note that this is not EXACTLY uniform since in all likeliness, max_rand%len(allowed) != 0 but this will in most practical applications be very close)
I assume that you know how to generate a random number in [1, n) and also your list is ordered like in the example above.
Let's say that you have a list with k elements. Make a map(O(logn)) structure, which will ensure speed if k goes higher. Put all elements from list in map, where element value will be the key and "good" value will be the value. Later on I'll explain about "good" value. So when we have the map then just find a random number in [1, n - k - p)(Later on I'll explain what is p) and if this number is in map then replace it with "good" value.
"GOOD" value -> Let's start from k-th element. It's good value is its own value + 1, because the very next element is "good" for us. Now let's look at (k-1)th element. We assume that its good value is again its own value + 1. If this value is equal to k-th element then the "good" value for (k-1)th element is k-th "good" value + 1. Also you will have to store the largest "good" value. If the largest value exceed n then p(from above) will be p = largest - n.
Of course I recommend you this only if k is big number otherwise #Timothy Shields' method is perfect.