I have been given an assignment to write an Dijkstra Shortest Path in Prolog.
First of all I don't want source or complete implementation, as I'm trying to understand code (part of evaluation would be explaining the code). I have seen a few implementations here and there, but I don't really know, how does it work.
So far I have this:
edge(1,2,12). %edge(From,To,Cost)
...
edge(1,4,13).
vertex(1,100000,nil,false).%vertex(Id, Weight, Over, Closed).
...
vertex(5,100000,nil,false).
neigh(V1, V2):-edge(V1,V2,_).
open_neigh(V1,V2):-edge(V1,V2,_),vertex(V2,_,_,P),not(P).
nearest_neighbor(From,Who,Cost):-findall(Node,neigh(From, Node),NeighL),
nearest_in_list(From,Who,NeighL,Cost).
n_hood(From,NeighList):-findall(Node, neigh(From,Node), NeighList).
open_n_hood(From,NeighList):-findall(Node, open_neigh(From,Node), NeighList).
nearest_in_list(_,Who,[Who],_).
nearest_in_list(From,Who,[H,K|T],Cost) :-
edge(From,H,C1),
edge(From,K,C2),
C1 =< C2,
Cost is C1,
nearest_in_list(From,Who,[H|T],Cost).
nearest_in_list(From,Who,[H,K|T],Cost) :-
edge(From,H,C1),
edge(From,K,C2),
C1 > C2,
Cost is C2,
nearest_in_list(From,Who,[K|T],Cost).
The thing is, I have no idea how to update the info about vertices. I have tried assert/1 and retract/1 but it doesn't work. I get error that I cannot modify static procedure vertex/4.
I'm currently using SWI Prolog, but the program should work on Amzi! Prolog too, so I would like to keep it as close to basic Prolog as possible.
Thanks.
If you really need to update values I would suggest you use flag/3. However, as suggested in the comments, Prolog programs usually don't have "global variables" that you update through your algorithm steps.
Instead, I would suggest that you find a proper way to calculate Dijkstra costs. Note that the initial arguments in a Dijkstra algorithm are always the "not visited" nodes, a list ([a,b,c,d|...]). At every step, you update this list by "visiting" one of these nodes and updating its costs. I see a clear recursive call here!
Related
The goal is to select shapes that don't touch each other using constraints (clpfd). Calling start(Pairs,4) would return Pairs = [1,3,5,7].
One problem I noticed is that if I print Final before labeling, it prints [1,3,5,7]. Which means labeling isn't doing anything.
What could I change/add to this code in order to fix that and also remove possible backtracking?
:-use_module(library(clpfd)).
:-use_module(library(lists)).
% init initialises Pairs and Max
% Pairs - The elements inside the Nth list in Pairs,
% represent the index of the shapes that shape N can touch
init([[3,5,6,7],[4,5,7],[1,4,5,7],[2,3,7],[1,2,3,7],[1],[1,2,3,4,5]],7).
start(Final, N):-
init(Pairs, Max),
length(Final, N),
domain(Final, 1, Max),
ascending(Final),
all_different(Final),
rules(Pairs,Final),
labeling([],Final).
rules(_,[]).
rules(Pairs,[H|T]):-
nth1(H,Pairs,PairH),
secondrule(PairH,T),
rules(Pairs,T).
secondrule(_, []).
secondrule(PairH, [H|T]):-
element(_,PairH,H),
secondrule(PairH, T).
ascending([_|[]]).
ascending([H|[T1|T2]]):-
H #< T1,
ascending([T1|T2]).
This is an Independent Set problem, which is an NP-hard problem. Therefore, it is unlikely that anybody will ever find a way to do it without search (backtracking) for general instances.
Regarding your code, labeling/2 does nothing, because your rules/2 is in fact a search procedure that returns the solution it it can find it. all_different/1 is useless too, because it is implied by ascending/1.
Presumably, your goal is a program that sets up constraints (without any search) and then searches for a solution with labeling/2. For that, you need to rethink your constraint model. Read up a bit on independent sets.
I'm working with this code. I'm struggling with the prolog logic paradigm. I have these two questions.
Is there a way to change the path predicate to not only get the "best" path, but to get all the paths that lead to that node/location in order?
How can I make the path predicate more "user friendly" and just insert the two locations I want to calculate, e.g. path(london, manchester)
Is there a way to change the path predicate to not only get the "best" path, but to get all the paths that lead to that node/location in order?
The given code is rather specialized to the Dijkstra algorithm and for finding shortest paths only. I don't see a simple way to modify it to give what you ask. (Initially I thought it might suffice to just remove some cuts, but I haven't had success with that. Comments welcome!)
If you want all paths between two nodes, you don't need the complexity of the Dijkstra algorithm. Here is a mostly reasonable answer defining a predicate that enumerates all paths: https://stackoverflow.com/a/27194523/4391743 ("Mostly" reasonable because the formatting isn't pretty, and because the unvisited/2 predicate would better be expressed using a generic non_member/2 predicate such as the one given here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/10322639/4391743)
There are many other Prolog path-finding questions here, but I haven't yet found one that has the best beginner-friendly answer.
Edit: Forgot to add that the predicate given above computes all paths, but does not yield them "in order". Enumerating all paths ordered by length isn't very easy. Here the best way might be to enumerate all paths and their lengths, use findall/3 to compute a single list of all these paths, and to sort that list by length.
How can I make the path predicate more "user friendly" and just insert the two locations I want to calculate, e.g. path(london, manchester)
If your predicate has too many arguments, just define another one that hides some of them:
path(Start, End) :-
path(Start, End, _Path, _Distance).
This will simply succeed or fail but not tell you anything more:
?- path(london, manchester).
true.
In Prolog it is normal to overload predicate names with different arities like this, which is why references to predicates often include the arity. In the definition above, we define path/2 in terms of path/4.
Sorry by the first ask, I'm new at the hood... I did a cleaning on the code. The problem is:
I have a square grid with paths and obstacles. I want to find the shortest path from a point to another. This is part of an artificial intelligence. When the path is too large, I can not see the whole list of points on the bash, but in the game, the character who travels this path, it does not at shortest path. So, my question is, how I can change this code to solve the shortest path. Thank you so much!
mov(X1,Y1,X2,Y2):-
pos(X1,Y1), X2 is X1 , Y2 is Y1+1 ,pos(X2,Y2).
mov(X1,Y1,X2,Y2):-
pos(X1,Y1), X2 is X1 , Y2 is Y1-1 ,pos(X2,Y2).
mov(X1,Y1,X2,Y2):-
pos(X1,Y1), X2 is X1+1 , Y2 is Y1 , pos(X2,Y2).
mov(X1,Y1,X2,Y2):-
pos(X1,Y1), X2 is X1 -1 , Y2 is Y1 , pos(X2,Y2).
path(X1,Y1,X2,Y2,Path) :-
travel(pos(X1,Y1),pos(X2,Y2),[pos(X1,Y1)],Q),
reverse(Q,Path).
travel(pos(X1,Y1),pos(X2,Y2),P,[pos(X2,Y2)|P]) :-
mov(X1,Y1,X2,Y2).
travel(pos(X1,Y1),pos(X2,Y2),Visited,Path) :-
mov(X1,Y1,X,Y),
pos(X,Y) \== pos(X2,Y2),
\+member(pos(X,Y),Visited),
travel(pos(X,Y),pos(X2,Y2),[pos(X,Y)|Visited],Path).
First some Prolog advice.
member/2 is a built-in, you should not have to define it.
ISO negation is \+, not not/1.
For performance, memberchk/2 beats member/2.
I see a lot of foo(X,Y) :- X == Y, ... in your code. It's much better if you just say foo(X,X) and save yourself the trouble of making explicit tests like this, unless you're going to do a conditional expression to avoid a choice point or something.
Lots of cuts in this code. Cuts and bugs tend to be great friends because the cut can undermine reasonable-looking code by preventing it from being executed.
If I had to solve this problem, I would want to separate the shortest-path logic from the grid traversal logic. You'll never be able to debug this, and even if you do, what you'll have is a one of those unreadable blocks of code that cannot be modified. It's clear that you have an explosion of terms because you're embedding the traversal logic in the path finding logic. Break them out into two separate steps and you will probably find that you get smaller pieces you can meaningfully test and debug. This is a good way of life with programming, regardless of the language: what would you do if you needed to change the grid structure or make the pathfinding more intelligent or complex? Keeping pieces granular always helps for managing change.
As for S.O. etiquette, this isn't great: you should talk about what doesn't work and what you've tried and you want to supply a minimum, complete, verifiable example. I suspect in producing such a thing you'd probably solve the problem yourself.
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.
When programming in Prolog I often write predicates whose behavior should be semi-deterministic when called with all arguments instantiated (and whose behavior should be non-deterministic otherwise).
A concrete use case for this is my predicate walk/3, which implements graph walks. Since multiple paths can exist between two vertices, the instantiation (+,+) gives multiple choicepoints after true. These are, however, quite useless. Calling code must explicitly use once/1 for performance reasons.
%! walk(+Graph:ugraph, +StartVertex, +EndVertex) is semidet.
%! walk(+Graph:ugraph, -StartVertex, +EndVertex) is nondet.
%! walk(+Graph:ugraph, +StartVertex, -EndVertex) is nondet.
%! walk(+Graph:ugraph, -StartVertex, -EndVertex) is nondet.
Semi-determinism can be forced by the use of once/1 in the calling context, but I want to implement semi-determinism as a property of the predicate walk/3, and not as something that has to be treated specially every time it is called.
In addition to concerns over code aesthetics, the calling context need not always know whether its call to walk/3 is semi-deterministic or not. For example:
%! cycle(+Graph:ugraph, +Vertex) is semidet.
%! cycle(+Graph:ugraph, -Vertex) is nondet.
cycle(Graph, Vertex):-
walk(Graph, Vertex, Vertex).
I have come up with the following solution, which does produce the correct behavior.
walk_wrapper(Graph, Start, End):-
call_ground_as_semidet(walk(Graph, Start, End)).
:- meta_predicate(call_ground_as_semidet(0)).
call_ground_as_semidet(Goal):-
ground(Goal), !,
Goal, !.
call_ground_as_semidet(Goal):-
Goal.
However, this solution has deficiencies:
It's not generic enough, e.g. sometimes ground should be nonvar.
It is not stylistic, requiring an extra predicate wrapper every time it is used.
It may also be slightly inefficient.
My question is: are there other ways in which often-occurring patterns of (non-)determinism, like the one described here, can be generically/efficiently/stylistically programmed in Prolog?
You should experiment with double negation as failure. Yes a ground goal can only be true or false, so it should not leave any choice points. Lets assume we have an acyclic graph, to make matters simple:
If I use this code:
edge(a, b). edge(a, c).
edge(a, d). edge(b, c).
edge(c, d). edge(c, e).
edge(d, e).
path(X,X).
path(X,Y) :- edge(X,Z), path(Z,Y).
The Prolog system will now leave choice points for closed queries:
?- path(a, e).
true ;
true ;
true ;
true ;
true ;
false.
In my opinion the recommended approach, to eliminate these
choice points and nevertheless have a multi-moded predicate,
is to use so called meta-programming in Prolog.
meta-programming is also sometimes derogeratively called
non-logical programming, since it is based on non-logical
predicates such as ground/1, !/0 or (+)/1. But lets call
it meta-programming when declarativity is not impacted.
You could write a wrapper smart/1 as follows, doing the
same as your call_ground_as_semidet/1, but with a small nuance:
smart(G) :- ground(G), !, \+ \+ G.
smart(G) :- G.
The Prolog system will not anymore leave a choice point for closed queries:
?- smart(path(a,e)).
true.
The advantage of \+ \+ over once, is that the former does
not only leave no choice points, but also removes the trail. It
is sometimes called the garbage collection meta-predicate of Prolog.
Not an answer but too long for a comment. Keep in mind I am not sure I understand exactly, so I want to re-state your question first.
To take your graph example. You want to be able to ask the following questions using the same call of the same predicate.
Given a graph,
Question 1: is vertex B reachable from vertex A (somehow)? - yes or no
Question 2: which vertices are reachable from A? - enumerate by backtracking
Question 3: from which vertices is B reachable? - enumerate by backtracking
Question 4: which A and B exist for which B is reachable from A? - enumerate by backtracking
And I might be wrong here, but it seems that answering Question 1 and Question 2 might employ a different search strategy than answering Question 3?
More generally, you want to have a way of saying: if I have a yes-or-no question, succeed or fail. Otherwise, enumerate answers.
Here comes my trouble: what are you going to do with the two different types of answers? And what are the situations in which you don't know in advance which type of answer you need? (If you do know in advance, you can use once(goal), as you said yourself.)
PS:
There is obviously setof/3, which will fail if there are no answers, or collect all answers. Are there situations in which you want to know some of the answers but you don't want to collect all of them? Is this an efficiency concern because of the size and number of the answers?
Not an answer but an advice.
Maybe I missunderstood your question. I think you are trying to address performance issues by forcing a predicate to be non-deterministic. That question is pointless: if p(X) is non-deterministic (multiple solutions), then p(X),! is deterministic (first solution only).
You should not address performance issues by altering program logic or predicate reversibility. I suggest a different approach:
First, take advantage of prolog indexing. For example:
cycle(+Graph:ugraph, +Vertex)
is NOT the same (in terms of performance) as:
cycle(+Vertex, +Graph:ugraph)
You should find documentation on prolog indexing (and performance impact) on the Web.
Second, write multiple implementations for the same problem. Each one will optimize performance for a different case. Then, write a predicate that chooses the best implementation for each case.