So I've been working on a problem in my spare time and I'm stuck. Here is where I'm at. I have a number 40. It represents players. I've been given other numbers 39, 38, .... 10. These represent the scores of the first 30 players (1 -30). The rest of the players (31-40) have some unknown score. What I would like to do is find how many combinations of the scores are consistent with the given data.
So for a simpler example: if you have 3 players. One has a score of 1. Then the number of possible combinations of the scores is 3 (0,2; 2,0; 1,1), where (a,b) stands for the number of wins for player one and player two, respectively. A combination of (3,0) wouldn't work because no person can have 3 wins. Nor would (0,0) work because we need a total of 3 wins (and wouldn't get it with 0,0).
I've found the total possible number of games. This is the total number of games played, which means it is the total number of wins. (There are no ties.) Finally, I have a variable for the max wins per player (which is one less than the total number of players. No player can have more than that.)
I've tried finding the number of unique combinations by spreading out N wins to each player and then subtracting combinations that don't fit the criteria. E.g., to figure out many ways to give 10 victories to 5 people with no more than 4 victories to each person, you would use:
C(14,4) - C(5,1)*C(9,4) + C(5,2)*C(4,4) = 381. C(14,4) comes from the formula C(n+k-1, k-1) (google bars and strips, I believe). The next is picking off the the ones with the 5 (not allowed), but adding in the ones we subtracted twice.
Yeah, there has got to be an easier way. Lastly, the numbers get so big that I'm not sure that my computer can adequately handle them. We're talking about C(780, 39), which is 1.15495183 × 10^66. Regardless, there should be a better way of doing this.
To recap, you have 40 people. The scores of the first 30 people are 10 - 39. The last ten people have unknown scores. How many scores can you generate that are meet the criteria: all the scores add up to total possible wins and each player gets no more 39 wins.
Thoughts?
Generating functions:
Since the question is more about math, but still on a programming QA site, let me give you a partial solution that works for many of these problems using a symbolic algebra (like Maple of Mathematica). I highly recommend that you grab an intro combinatorics book, these kind of questions are answered there.
First of all the first 30 players who score 10-39 (with a total score of 735) are a bit of a red herring - what we would like to do is solve the other problem, the remaining 10 players whose score could be in the range of (0...39).
If we think of the possible scores of the players as the polynomial:
f(x) = x^0 + x^1 + x^2 + ... x^39
Where a value of x^2 is the score of 2 for example, consider what this looks like
f(x)^10
This represents the combined score of all 10 players, ie. the coefficent of x^385 is 2002, which represents the fact that there are 2002 ways for the 10 players to score 385. Wolfram Alpha (a programming lanuage IMO) can evaluate this for us.
If you'd like to know how many possible ways of doing this, just substitute in x=1 in the expression giving 8,140,406,085,191,601, which just happens to be 39^10 (no surprise!)
Why is this useful?
While I know it may seem silly to some to set up all this machinery for a simple problem that can be solved on paper - the approach of generating functions is useful when the problem gets messy (and asymptotic analysis is possible). Consider the same problem, but now we restrict the players to only score prime numbers (2,3,5,7,11,...). How many possible ways can the 10 of them score a specific number, say 344? Just modify your f(x):
f(x) = x^2 + x^3 + x^5 + x^7 + x^11 ...
and repeat the process! (I get [x^344]f(x)^10 = 1390).
Related
I have been working on the algorithm for this problem, but can't figure it out. The problem is below:
In a tournament with X player, each player is betting on the outcomes of basketball matches in the NBA.
Guessing the correct match outcome earns a player 3 points, guessing the MVP of the match earns 1 point and guessing both wrong - 0 points.
The algorithm needs to be able to determine if a certain player can't reach the number 1 spot in this betting game.
For example, let's say there are a total of 30 games in the league, so the max points a player can get for guessing right is (3+1)*30=120.
In the table below you can see players X,Y and Z.
Player X guessed correctly so far 20 matches so he have 80 points.
Players Y and Z have 26 and 15 points, and since there are only 10 matches left, even if they guess correctly all the remaining 10 it would not be enough to reach the number 1 spot.
Therefore, the algorithm determined that they are eliminated from the game.
Team
Points
Points per match
Total Games
Max Points possible
Games left
Points Available
Eliminated?
X
80
0-L 1-MVP 3-W
30
120
10
0-40
N
Y
26
0-L 1-MVP 3-W
30
120
10
0-40
Y
Z
15
0-L 1-MVP 3-W
30
120
10
0-40
Y
The baseball elimination problem seems to be the most similar to this problem, but it's not exactly it.
How should I build the reduction of the maximum-flow problem to suit this problem?
Thank you.
I don't get why you are looking at very complex max-flow algorithms. Those might be needed for very complex things (especially when pairings lead to zero-sum results and order/remaining parings start to matter -> !much! harder to do worst-case analysis).
Maybe the baseball problem you mention is one of those (did not check it). But your use-case sounds trivial.
1. Get current leader score LS
2. Get remaining matches N
3. For each player P
4. Get current player score PS
5. Eliminate iff PS + 3 * N < LS
(assumes parallel progress: standings always synced to all players P have played M games
-> easy to generalize though)
This is simple. Given your description there is nothing preventing us from asumming worst-case performance from every other player aka it's a valid scenario that every other player guesses wrong for all upcoming guesses -> score S of player P can stay at S for all remaining games.
Things might quickly change to NP-hard decision-problems when there are more complex side-constraints (e.g. statistical distributions / expectations)
Let's say we have N teams in a tournament and based on historical data we know what is the probability of each team winning any other team .Lets put all the probabilities in a matrix called P . P[a][b] is the probability team a winning team b. It is obvious that P[a][a] = 0 and P[a][b] = 1-P[b][a].
In this tournament at every round, two of teams compete against each other and the loser is eliminated. This two team are chosen randomly (with equal possibility of each team being picked). So at the first round we have n teams, next n-1 teams and so on until only one team remains and becomes the champion. What is the probability of each team becoming the champion? ( 1 <= N <= 18).
At first when I didn't know how to approach the problem but after some reading and search and keeping in mind that max n is 18 I figured at that using Dynamic programming and Bitmask is the way to go. How ever I couldn't figure at a solution. Here are my problems:
I have really hard time to figure at what are the sub problems and what sub problems should not be recomputed, basically I can't find a well defined recursive ( or not recursive) equation for the problem
In bitmask+dp problems we usually define something like dp[mask][n] or dp[n][mask]. I tried different approaches to define the mask but since the general solution is not clear to me there was no success
Some guidance on this two problems would be very helpful.
This is not really a dynamic programming problem.
If you have a vector V that gives the probability of each player being in the game after n rounds, then you can calculate the player probabilities for n+1 rounds by:
V'i = 2/((18-n)(17-n)) * sum over all j!=i of [ViVjPi,j]
That first factor is the probability that any given available match will be chosen, which depends on the number of previous rounds, because each successive round has fewer players to match up.
The second part is the probability of the players being available for each match, times the probability that the current player will win.
Just do this calculation 17 times to get the player probabilities after 17 rounds, which is the answer you're looking for. You can even drop that first factor, and fix it at the end by normalizing the vector so that the probabilities sum to 1.
I recently created a tournament system that will soon lead into player rankings. Basically, after players are done with the tournament, they are given a rank based on how they did in the tournament. So the person who won the tournament will have the most points and be ranked #1, while the second will have the second most points and be ranked #2, and so on...
However, after they are ranked in the new rankings, they can challenge other members and have a way to play other members and change their ranks. So basically (using a ranking system), if Player A who is ranked #2 beats Player B who is ranked #1, Player A will now become #1.
I've also decided that if a player wants to compete in the rankings but was not present during the tournament, they can sign up after the tournament, and will be given the lowest possible rank with the lowest points (but they have a chance to move up).
So now, I am wanting to know which way should I go about planning this. When I convert the players from tournament to match rankings, I have to identify them with points in order to rank them. I decided this seems like the best way to do it.
1 1000
2 900
3 800
4 700
5 600
6 500
7 400
8 300
9 200
10 100
After looking on the internet I've decided it would be wise to use ELO to give players their new rank after they players have matched against each other.. I went about it on this page: http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2006/01/ranking_systems.html
So if I go about it this way, lets say I have rank #10 facing rank #1. According to the website above, my formula is:
R' = R + K * (S - E)
and the rating of #10 only has 100 points where #1 has 1,000.
So after doing the math rank #10's expected value of beating #1 is:
1 / [ 1 + 10 ^ ( [1000 - 100] / 400) ]
= 0.55%
So
100 + 32 * (1 - 0.52)
= 115.36
The problem I have with ELO is it makes no sense. After A rank such as #10 beats #1, he should not gain something as low as 15 points. I'm not sure if i'm doing the math wrong, or if I'm splitting up the points wrong. Or maybe I shouldn't use ELO at all? Any suggestions would be very helpful
Don't get offended, it is your table that doesn't make sense.
Elo system is based on the premise that a rating is an accurate estimate of the strength, and difference of ratings accurately predicts an outcome of a match (a player better by 200 point is expected to score 75%). If an actual outcome does not agree with a prediction, it means that ratings do not reflect strength, hence must be adjusted according to how much an actual outcome differs from the predicted.
An official (as in FIDE) Elo system has few arbitrary arbitrary constants (e.g. 200/75 gauge, Erf as predictor, etc); choosing them (reasonably) different may lead to a different rating values, yet would result (in a long run) in the same ranking. There is some interesting math behind this assertion; this is not a right place to get into details.
Now back to your table. It assigns the rating based on the place, not on the points scored. The champion gets 1000 no matter whether she swept the tournament with an absolute 100% result, or barely made it among equals. These points do not estimate the strength of the participants.
So my advise is to abandon the table altogether, assign each new player an entry rating (say, 1000; it really doesn't matter as long as you are consistent), and stick to Elo from the very beginning.
I'm developing a tournament model for a virtual city commerce game (Urbien.com) and would love to get some algorithm suggestions. Here's the scenario and current "basic" implementation:
Scenario
Entries are paired up duel-style, like on the original Facemash or Pixoto.com.
The "player" is a judge, who gets a stream of dueling pairs and must choose a winner for each pair.
Tournaments never end, people can submit new entries at any time and winners of the day/week/month/millenium are chosen based on the data at that date.
Problems to be solved
Rating algorithm - how to rate tournament entries and how to adjust their ratings after each match?
Pairing algorithm - how to choose the next pair to feed the player?
Current solution
Rating algorithm - the Elo rating system currently used in chess and other tournaments.
Pairing algorithm - our current algorithm recognizes two imperatives:
Give more duels to entries that have had less duels so far
Match people with similar ratings with higher probability
Given:
N = total number of entries in the tournament
D = total number of duels played in the tournament so far by all players
Dx = how many duels player x has had so far
To choose players x and y to duel, we first choose player x with probability:
p(x) = (1 - (Dx / D)) / N
Then choose player y the following way:
Sort the players by rating
Let the probability of choosing player j at index jIdx in the sorted list be:
p(j) = ...
0, if (j == x)
n*r^abs(jIdx - xIdx) otherwise
where 0 < r < 1 is a coefficient to be chosen, and n is a normalization factor.
Basically the probabilities in either direction from x form a geometic series, normalized so they sum to 1.
Concerns
Maximize informational value of a duel - pairing the lowest rated entry against the highest rated entry is very unlikely to give you any useful information.
Speed - we don't want to do massive amounts of calculations just to choose one pair. One alternative is to use something like the Swiss pairing system and pair up all entries at once, instead of choosing new duels one at a time. This has the drawback (?) that all entries submitted in a given timeframe will experience roughly the same amount of duels, which may or may not be desirable.
Equilibrium - Pixoto's ImageDuel algorithm detects when entries are unlikely to further improve their rating and gives them less duels from then on. The benefits of such detection are debatable. On the one hand, you can save on computation if you "pause" half the entries. On the other hand, entries with established ratings may be the perfect matches for new entries, to establish the newbies' ratings.
Number of entries - if there are just a few entries, say 10, perhaps a simpler algorithm should be used.
Wins/Losses - how does the player's win/loss ratio affect the next pairing, if at all?
Storage - what to store about each entry and about the tournament itself? Currently stored:
Tournament Entry: # duels so far, # wins, # losses, rating
Tournament: # duels so far, # entries
instead of throwing in ELO and ad-hoc probability formulae, you could use a standard approach based on the maximum likelihood method.
The maximum likelihood method is a method for parameter estimation and it works like this (example). Every contestant (player) is assigned a parameter s[i] (1 <= i <= N where N is total number of contestants) that measures the strength or skill of that player. You pick a formula that maps the strengths of two players into a probability that the first player wins. For example,
P(i, j) = 1/(1 + exp(s[j] - s[i]))
which is the logistic curve (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function). When you have then a table that shows the actual results between the users, you use global optimization (e.g. gradient descent) to find those strength parameters s[1] .. s[N] that maximize the probability of the actually observed match result. E.g. if you have three contestants and have observed two results:
Player 1 won over Player 2
Player 2 won over Player 3
then you find parameters s[1], s[2], s[3] that maximize the value of the product
P(1, 2) * P(2, 3)
Incidentally, it can be easier to maximize
log P(1, 2) + log P(2, 3)
Note that if you use something like the logistics curve, it is only the difference of the strength parameters that matters so you need to anchor the values somewhere, e.g. choose arbitrarily
s[1] = 0
In order to have more recent matches "weigh" more, you can adjust the importance of the match results based on their age. If t measures the time since a match took place (in some time units), you can maximize the value of the sum (using the example)
e^-t log P(1, 2) + e^-t' log P(2, 3)
where t and t' are the ages of the matches 1-2 and 2-3, so that those games that occurred more recently weigh more.
The interesting thing in this approach is that when the strength parameters have values, the P(...) formula can be used immediately to calculate the win/lose probability for any future match. To pair contestants, you can pair those where the P(...) value is close to 0.5, and then prefer those contestants whose time-adjusted number of matches (sum of e^-t1 + e^-t2 + ...) for match ages t1, t2, ... is low. The best thing would be to calculate the total impact of a win or loss between two players globally and then prefer those matches that have the largest expected impact on the ratings, but that could require lots of calculations.
You don't need to run the maximum likelihood estimation / global optimization algorithm all the time; you can run it e.g. once a day as a batch run and use the results for the next day for matching people together. The time-adjusted match masses can be updated real time anyway.
On algorithm side, you can sort the players after the maximum likelihood run base on their s parameter, so it's very easy to find equal-strength players quickly.
I have a data set of players' skill ranking, age and sex and would like to create evenly matched teams.
Teams will have the same number of players (currently 8 teams of 12 players).
Teams should have the same or similar male to female ratio.
Teams should have similar age curve/distribution.
I would like to try this in Haskell but the choice of coding language is the least important aspect of this problem.
This is a bin packing problem, or a multi-dimensional knapsack problem. Björn B. Brandenburg has made a bin packing heuristics library in Haskell that you may find useful.
You need something like...
data Player = P { skill :: Int, gender :: Bool, age :: Int }
Decide on a number of teams n (I'm guessing this is a function of the total number of players).
Find the desired total skill per team:
teamSkill n ps = sum (map skill ps) / n
Find the ideal gender ratio:
genderRatio ps = sum (map (\x -> if gender x then 1 else 0)) / length ps
Find the ideal age variance (you'll want the Math.Statistics package):
ageDist ps = pvar (map age ps)
And you must assign the three constraints some weights to come up with a scoring for a given team:
score skillW genderW ageW team = skillW * sk + genderW * g + ageW * a
where (sk, (g, a)) = (teamSkill 1 &&& genderRatio &&& ageDist) team
The problem reduces to the minimization of the difference in scores between teams. A brute force approach will take time proportional to Θ(nk−1). Given the size of your problem (8 teams of 12 players each), this translates to about 6 to 24 hours on a typical modern PC.
EDIT
An approach that may work well for you (since you don't need an exact solution in practise) is simulated annealing, or continual improvement by random permutation:
Pick teams at random.
Get a score for this configuration (see above).
Randomly swap players between two or more teams.
Get a score for the new configuration. If it's better than the previous one, keep it and recurse to step 3. Otherwise discard the new configuration and try step 3 again.
When the score has not improved for some fixed number of iterations (experiment to find the knee of this curve), stop. It's likely that the configuration you have at this point will be close enough to the ideal. Run this algorithm a few times to gain confidence that you have not hit on some local optimum that is considerably worse than ideal.
Given the number of players per team and the gender ration (which you can easily compute). The remaining problem is called n-partition problem, which is unfortunately NP-complete and thus very hard to solve exactly. You will have to use approximative or heuristic allgorithms (evolutionary algorithms), if your problem size is too big for a brute force solution. A very simple approximation would be sorting by age and assign in an alternating way.
Assign point values to the skill levels, gender, and age
Assign the sum of the points for each criteria to each player
Sort players by their calculated point value
Assign the next player to the first team
Assign players to the second team until it has >= total points than the first team or the team reaches the maximum players.
Perform 5 for each team, looping back to the first team, until all players are assigned
You can tweak the skill level, gender, and age point values to change the distribution of each.
Lets say you have six players (for a simple example). We can use the same algorithm which pairs opponents in single-elimination tournaments and adapt that to generate "even" teams based on any criteria you choose.
First rank your players best-to-worst. Don't take this too literally. You want a list of players sorted by the criteria you wish to separate them.
Why?
Let's look at single elimination tournaments for a second. The idea of using an algorithm to generate optimal single-elimination matches is to avoid the problem of the "top players" meeting too soon in the tournament. If top players meet too soon, one of the top players will be eliminated early on, making the tournament less interesting. We can use this "optimal" pairing to generate teams in which the "top" players are spread out evenly across the teams. Then spread out the the second top players, etc, etc.
So list you players by the criteria you want them separated: men first, then women... sorted by age second. We get (for example):
Player 1: Male - 18
Player 2: Male - 26
Player 3: Male - 45
Player 4: Female - 18
Player 5: Female - 26
Player 6: Female - 45
Then we'll apply the single-elimination algorithm which uses their "rank" (which is just their player number) to create "good match ups".
The single-elimination tournament generator basically works like this: take their rank (player number) and reverse the bits (binary). This new number you come up with become their "slot" in the tournament.
Player 1 in binary (001), reversed becomes 100 (4 decimal) = slot 4
Player 2 in binary (010), reversed becomes 010 (2 decimal) = slot 2
Player 3 in binary (011), reversed becomes 110 (6 decimal) = slot 6
Player 4 in binary (100), reversed becomes 001 (1 decimal) = slot 1
Player 5 in binary (101), reversed becomes 101 (5 decimal) = slot 5
Player 6 in binary (110), reversed becomes 011 (3 decimal) = slot 3
In a single-elimination tournament, slot 1 plays slot 2, 3-vs-4, 5-vs-6. We're going to uses these "pair ups" to generate optimal teams.
Looking at the player number above, ordered by their "slot number", here is the list we came up with:
Slot 1: Female - 18
Slot 2: Male - 26
Slot 3: Female - 45
Slot 4: Male - 18
Slot 5: Female - 26
Slot 6: Male - 45
When you split the slots up into teams (two or more) you get the players in slot 1-3 vs players in slot 4-6. That is the best/optimal grouping you can get.
This technique scales very well with many more players, multiple criteria (just group them together correctly), and multiple teams.
Idea:
Sort players by skill
Assign best players in order (i.e.: team A: 1st player, team B: 2nd player, ...)
Assign worst players in order
Loop on 2
Evaluate possible corrections and perform them (i.e.: if team A has a total skill of 19 with a player with skill 5 and team B has a total skill of 21 with a player with skill 4, interchange them)
Evaluate possible corrections on gender distribution and perform them
Evaluate possible corrections on age distribution and perform them
Almost trivial approach for two teams:
Sort all player by your skill/rank assessment.
Assign team A the best player.
Assign team B the next two best players
Assign team A the next two best players
goto 3
End when you're out of players.
Not very flexible, and only works on one column ranking, so it won't try to get similar gender or age profiles. But it does make fair well matched teams if the input distribution is reasonably smooth. Plus it doesn't always end with team A have the spare player when there are an odd number.
Well,
My answer is not about scoring strategies of teams/players because all the posted are good, but I would try a brute force or a random search approach.
I don't think it's worth create a genetic algorithm.
Regards.