Related
Problem:
Consider a patient suffering from skin infection and germs are spreading all over rapidly. Assume that skin surface is scaled as a rectangular grid of size MxN and cells are marked by 0 and 1 where 0 represents non affected region on skin and 1 represents affected region on skin. Germs can move from one cell of grid to another in 4 possible directions (right, left, up, down) but can move to only one cell at a time in one direction and affect that cell in 1 sec. Doctor currently who is treating the patient see's status and wants to know the time left for him to save him before the germs spread all over the skin and patient dies. Can you help to estimate the minimum time taken for the germs to completely occupy skin surface?
Input: : Current status of skin. (A matrix of size MxN with 1's and 0's which represents affected and non affected area)
Output: : Min time in sec to cover all over the grid.
Example:
Input:
[1 1 0 0 1]
[0 1 1 0 0]
[0 0 0 0 1]
[0 1 0 0 0]
Output: 2 seconds
Explanation:
After 1 sec from input, matrix could be as below
[1 1 1 0 1]
[1 1 1 0 1]
[0 1 1 0 1]
[0 1 1 0 1]
In next sec, matrix is completely filled by 1's
I will not present a detailed solution here, but some thoughts that hopefully may help you to write your own program.
First step is to determine the kind of algorithm to implement. The optimal way would be to find a simple and fast ad hoc solution for this problem. In the absence of such a solution, for this kind of problems, classical candidates are DFS, BFS, A* ...
As the goal is to find the shortest solution, it seems natural to consider BFS first, as once BFS finds a solution, we know that it is the shortest ones and we can stop the search. However, then, we have to consider avoiding inflation of the nodes, as it would lead not only to a huge calculation time, but also a huge memory.
First idea to avoid node inflation is to consider that some 1 cells can only be expended in one another cell. In the posted diagram, for example the cell (0, 0) (top left) can only be expended to cell (1, 0). Then, after this expansion, cell (1, 1) can only move to cell (2, 1). Therefore, we know it would be suboptimal to move cell (1,1) to cell (1,0). Therefore: move such cells first.
In a similar way, once an infected cell is surrounded by other infected cells only, it is no longer necessary to consider it for next moves.
At the end, it would be convenient to have a list of infected cells, together with the number of non-infected cells that each such cell can move to.
Another idea to limit the number of nodes is to detect duplicates, as it is likely here that many of them will exist. For that, we have to define a kind of hashing. The used hash function does not need to be 100% efficient, but need to be calculated rapidly, and if possible in a recursive manner. If we obtain B diagram from A diagram by adding a 1-cell at position (i, j), then I propose something like
H(B) = H(A)^f(i, j)
f(i, j) = a*(1024*i+j)%b
Here, I used the fact that N and M are less than 1000.
Each time a new diagram is consider, we have to calculate the corresponding H value and check if it exists already in the set of past diagrams.
I'm not sure how far I would get with this in an interview situation. After some thought, rather than considering solutions that store more than one full board state, I would rather consider a greedy priority queue since a strong heuristic for the next zero-cell candidates to fill seems to be:
(1) healthy cells that have the least neighbouring infected cells (but at least one, of course),
e.g., choose A over B
1 1 B 0 1
0 1 1 0 0
0 0 A 0 1
0 1 0 0 0
and (2) break ties by choosing first the healthy cells that when infected will block the least infected cells.
e.g., choose A over B
1 1 1 0 1
1 B 1 0 A
0 0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0 0
An interesting observation is that any healthy cell destination can technically be reached in time Manhattan-distance from the nearest infected cell, where the cell leading such a "crawl" continually chooses the single move that brings us closer to the destination. We know that at the same time, though, this same infected-cell "snake" produces new "crawlers" that could reach any equally far or closer neighbours. This makes me wonder if there may be a more efficient way to determine the lower-bound, based on counts of the farthest healthy cells.
This is a variant of the multi-agent pathfinding problem (MAPF). There is a ton of recent work on this topic, but earlier modern work is a good starting point for finding optimal solutions to this problem - for instance the operator decomposition approach.
To do this you would order the agents (germs) 1..k. Then, you would start a search where you generate all possible first moves for germ 1, followed by all possible first moves for germ 2, and so on, where moves for an agent are to stay in place, or to spread to an adjacent unoccupied location. With 4 possible actions for each germ, there are up to 4^k possible actions between complete states. (Partial states occur when you haven't yet assigned actions to all k agents.) The number of actions is exponential, meaning you may run up against resource constraints (time or space) fairly quickly. But, there are only 2^(MxN) states possible. (Since agents don't go away, it's actually 2^(MxN-i) where i is the number of initial germs.)
Every time all (k) germs have considered a possible action, you have a new complete state. (And k then increases for the next iteration.) The minimum time left comes from the shallowest complete state which has the grid filled. A bit of brute-force computation will find the shortest solution. (Quite a bit in the case of large grids.)
You could use a BFS to find the first state that is completely filled. But, A* might do much better. As a heuristic, you could consider that all adjacent locations of all cells were filled in each step, and then compute the number of steps required to fill the grid under that model. That gives a lower bound on the time required to fill the full grid.
But, there are many more optimizations. The reason to do operator decomposition is that you could order the moves to take the best moves first and not consider the weaker possibilities (eg all germs don't spread). You could also use a partial-expansion approach (EPEA*) to avoid generating a lot of clearly suboptimal policies for the germs.
If I was asking this as an interview questions I might be looking to see someone formulate the problem (what are actions, what are states), come up with the lower bound on the solution (every germ expands to every adjacent cell), come up with an algorithm, and perhaps analyze how hard the problem is, in order of increasing difficulty.
The problem i have goes as follows (simplified):
I have a board, represented as a matrix of n x m squares (n might equal m)
In it, there are p game pieces
Each game piece has a pre-defined speed, which is how many steps it can take in it's turn
Pieces can't overlap
There are three types of cells: those which don't require extra movements to be crossed (you loose 0 extra speed when going through), those which require 1 extra movement to be crossed and some which you simply can't get through (like a wall)
So, given a game piece in a certain [i,j] position in my game board, i want to find out:
a) All the places it can move to, with it's speed
b) The path to a certain [k,l] position in the board
Having a) solved, b) is almost trivial.
Currently the algorithm i'm using goes as follows, assuming a language where arrays of size n go from 0 to n-1:
Create a sqaure matrix of speed*2+1 size which represents the cost of moving as if all cells had no extra cost to be crossed (the piece is on the position [speed, speed])
Create another square matrix of speed*2+1 size which has the extra costs of each cell (those which can't be crossed because either it's a wall or there is another piece in it has a value of infinite)(the piece is on the position [speed, speed])
Create another square matrix of speed*2+1 size which is the sum of the former two(the piece is on the position [speed, speed])
Correct the latter matrix making sure the value of each cell is: the minimal cost of all the adjacent cells + 1 + the extra cost of the cell. If it isn't, i correct it and start with the matrix all over again.
An example:
P are pieces, W are walls, E are empty cells which require no extra movement, X are cells which require 1 extra movement to be crossed.
X,E,X,X,X
X,X,X,X,X
W,E,E,E,W
W,E,X,E,W
E,P,P,P,P
The first matrix:
2,2,2,2,2
2,1,1,1,2
2,1,0,1,2
2,1,1,1,2
2,2,2,2,2
The second matrix:
1,0,1,inf,1
1,1,1,1,1
inf,0,0,0,inf
inf,0,1,0,inf
0,inf,inf,inf,inf
The sum:
3,2,3,3,3
3,2,2,2,3
inf,1,0,1,inf
inf,1,2,1,inf
inf,inf,inf,inf,inf
Since [0,0] is not 2+1+1, i correct it:
The sum:
4,2,3,3,3
3,2,2,2,3
inf,1,0,1,inf
inf,1,2,1,inf
inf,inf,inf,inf,inf
Since [0,1] is not 2+1+0, i correct it:
The sum:
4,3,3,3,3
3,2,2,2,3
inf,1,0,1,inf
inf,1,2,1,inf
inf,inf,inf,inf,inf
Since [0,2] is not 2+1+1, i correct it:
The sum:
4,2,4,3,3
3,2,2,2,3
inf,1,0,1,inf
inf,1,2,1,inf
inf,inf,inf,inf,inf
Which one is the correct answer?
What I want to know is if this problem has a name I can search it by (couldn't find anything) or if anybody can tell me how to solve the point a).
Note that I want the optimal solution, so I went with a dynamic programming algorithm. Might random walkers be better? AFAIK, this solution is not failing (yet), but I have no proof of correctness for it, and I want to be sure it works.
A-star is a standard algorithm to determine shortest path give obstacles on a 2d board and cost per square of moving. You can also use it to test if a specific move is valid, but to actually generate all valid moves I would simply start ay the start position, move in each direction by one square mark which squares are valid and then repeat from each of your new places making sure not to visit the same square again. It will be a recursive algorithm calling itself at most 4 times on each call and will generate you valid moves efficiently. If there are constraints like how many squares you can move at once with different costs just pass the running total of how far you've come for each square.
I am trying to create a grid with n separate labels, where each cell is labelled with one of the n labels such that all labels neighbour (edge-wise) all other labels somewhere in the grid (I don't care where). Labels are free to appear as many times as necessary, and I'd like the grid to be as small as possible. As an example, here's a grid for five labels, 1 to 5:
3 2 4
5 1 3
2 4 5
While generating this by hand is not too bad for small numbers of labels, it appears to be very hard to generate a grid of reasonable size for larger numbers and so I'm looking to write a program to generate them, without having to resort to a brute-force search. I imagine this must have been investigated before, but the closest I've found are De Bruijn tori, which are not quite what I'm looking for. Any help would be appreciated.
EDIT: Thanks to Benawii for the following improved description:
"Given an integer n, generate the smallest possible matrix where for every pair (x,y) where x≠y and x,y ∈ {1,...,n} there exists a pair of adjacent cells in the matrix whose values are x and y."
You can experiment with a simple greedy algorithm.
I don't think that I'm able to give you a strict mathematical prove, at least because the question is not strictly defined, but the algorithm is quite intuitive.
First, if you have 1...K numbers (K labels) then you need at least K*(K-1)/2 adjacent cells (connections) for full coverage. A matrix of size NxM generates (N-1)*M+(M-1)*N=2*N*M-(N+M) connections.
Since you didn't mention what you understand under 'smallest matrix', let's assume that you meant the area. In that case it is obvious that for the given area the square matrix will generate bigger number of connections because it has more 'inner' cells adjacent to 4 others. For example, for area 16 the matrix 4x4 is better than 2x8. 'Better' is intuitive - more connections and more chances to reach the goal. So lets use target square matrixes and expand them if needed. The above formula will become 2*N*(N-1).
Then we can experiment with the following greedy algorithm:
For input number K find the N such that 2*N*(N-1)>K*(K-1)/2. A simple school equation.
Keep an adjacency matrix M, set M[i][i]=1 for all i, and 0 for the rest of the pairs.
Initialize a resulting matrix R of size NxN, fill with 'empty value' markers, for example with -1.
Start from top-left corner and iterate right-down:
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
for (int j = 0; j < N; ++j)
R[i][j];
for each such R[i][j] (which is -1 now) find such a value which will 'fit best'. Again, 'fit best' is an intuitive definition, here we understand such a value that will contribute to a new unused connection. For that reason create the set of already filled cell neighbor numbers - S, its size is 2 at most (upper and left neighbor). Then find first k such that M[x][k]=0 for both numbers x in S. If no such number then try at least one new connection, if no number even for one then both neighbors are completely covered, put some number from uncovered here - probably the one in 'worst situation' - such x where Sum(M[x][i]) is the smallest. You should also choose the one in 'worst situation' when there are several ones to choose from in any case.
After setting the value for R[i][j] don't forget to mark the new connections with numbers x from S - M[R[i][j]][x] = M[x][R[i][j]] = 1.
If the matrix is filled and there are still unmarked connections in M then append another row to the matrix and continue. If all the connections are found before the end then remove extra rows.
You can check this algorithm and see what will happen. Step 5 is the place for playing around, particularly in guessing which one to choose in equal situation (several numbers can be in equally 'worst situation').
Example:
for K=6 we need 15 connections:
N=4, we need 4x4 square matrix. The theory says that 4x3 matrix has 17 connections, so it can possibly fit, but we will try 4x4.
Here is the output of the algorithm above:
1234
5615
2413
36**
I'm not sure if you can do by 4x3, maybe yes... :)
I have been sitting on this for almost a week now. Here is the question in a PDF format.
I could only think of one idea so far but it failed. The idea was to recursively create all connected subgraphs which works in O(num_of_connected_subgraphs), but that is way too slow.
I would really appreciate someone giving my a direction. I'm inclined to think that the only way is dynamic programming but I can't seem to figure out how to do it.
OK, here is a conceptual description for the algorithm that I came up with:
Form an array of the (x,y) board map from -7 to 7 in both dimensions and place the opponents pieces on it.
Starting with the first row (lowest Y value, -N):
enumerate all possible combinations of the 2nd player's pieces on the row, eliminating only those that conflict with the opponents pieces.
for each combination on this row:
--group connected pieces into separate networks and number these
networks starting with 1, ascending
--encode the row as a vector using:
= 0 for any unoccupied or opponent position
= (1-8) for the network group that that piece/position is in.
--give each such grouping a COUNT of 1, and add it to a dictionary/hashset using the encoded vector as its key
Now, for each succeeding row, in ascending order {y=y+1}:
For every entry in the previous row's dictionary:
--If the entry has exactly 1 group, add it's COUNT to TOTAL
--enumerate all possible combinations of the 2nd player's pieces
on the current row, eliminating only those that conflict with the
opponents pieces. (change:) you should skip the initial combination
(where all entries are zero) for this step, as the step above actually
covers it. For each such combination on the current row:
+ produce a grouping vector as described above
+ compare the current row's group-vector to the previous row's
group-vector from the dictionary:
++ if there are any group-*numbers* from the previous row's
vector that are not adjacent to any gorups in the current
row's vector, *for at least one value of X*, then skip
to the next combination.
++ any groups for the current row that are adjacent to any
groups of the previous row, acquire the lowest such group
number
++ any groups for the current row that are not adjacent to
any groups of the previous row, are assigned an unused
group number
+ Re-Normalize the group-number assignments for the current-row's
combination (**) and encode the vector, giving it a COUNT equal
to the previous row-vector's COUNT
+ Add the current-row's vector to the dictionary for the current
Row, using its encoded vector as the key. If it already exists,
then add it's COUNT to the COUNT for the pre-exising entry
Finally, for every entry in the dictionary for the last row:
If the entry has exactly one group, then add it's COUNT to TOTAL
**: Re-Normalizing simply means to re-assign the group numbers so as to eliminate any permutations in the grouping pattern. Specifically, this means that new group numbers should be assigned in increasing order, from left-to-right, starting from one. So for example, if your grouping vector looked like this after grouping ot to the previous row:
2 0 5 5 0 3 0 5 0 7 ...
it should be re-mapped to this normal form:
1 0 2 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 ...
Note that as in this example, after the first row, the groupings can be discontiguous. This relationship must be preserved, so the two groups of "5"s are re-mapped to the same number ("2") in the re-normalization.
OK, a couple of notes:
A. I think that this approach is correct , but I I am really not certain, so it will definitely need some vetting, etc.
B. Although it is long, it's still pretty sketchy. Each individual step is non-trivial in itself.
C. Although there are plenty of individual optimization opportunities, the overall algorithm is still pretty complicated. It is a lot better than brute-force, but even so, my back-of-the-napkin estimate is still around (2.5 to 10)*10^11 operations for N=7.
So it's probably tractable, but still a long way off from doing 74 cases in 3 seconds. I haven't read all of the detail for Peter de Revaz's answer, but his idea of rotating the "diamond" might be workable for my algorithm. Although it would increase the complexity of the inner loop, it may drop the size of the dictionaries (and thus, the number of grouping-vectors to compare against) by as much as a 100x, though it's really hard to tell without actually trying it.
Note also that there isn't any dynamic programming here. I couldn't come up with an easy way to leverage it, so that might still be an avenue for improvement.
OK, I enumerated all possible valid grouping-vectors to get a better estimate of (C) above, which lowered it to O(3.5*10^9) for N=7. That's much better, but still about an order of magnitude over what you probably need to finish 74 tests in 3 seconds. That does depend on the tests though, if most of them are smaller than N=7, it might be able to make it.
Here is a rough sketch of an approach for this problem.
First note that the lattice points need |x|+|y| < N, which results in a diamond shape going from coordinates 0,6 to 6,0 i.e. with 7 points on each side.
If you imagine rotating this diamond by 45 degrees, you will end up with a 7*7 square lattice which may be easier to think about. (Although note that there are also intermediate 6 high columns.)
For example, for N=3 the original lattice points are:
..A..
.BCD.
EFGHI
.JKL.
..M..
Which rotate to
A D I
C H
B G L
F K
E J M
On the (possibly rotated) lattice I would attempt to solve by dynamic programming the problem of counting the number of ways of placing armies in the first x columns such that the last column is a certain string (plus a boolean flag to say whether some points have been placed yet).
The string contains a digit for each lattice point.
0 represents an empty location
1 represents an isolated point
2 represents the first of a new connected group
3 represents an intermediate in a connected group
4 represents the last in an connected group
During the algorithm the strings can represent shapes containing multiple connected groups, but we reject any transformations that leave an orphaned connected group.
When you have placed all columns you need to only count strings which have at most one connected group.
For example, the string for the first 5 columns of the shape below is:
....+ = 2
..+++ = 3
..+.. = 0
..+.+ = 1
..+.. = 0
..+++ = 3
..+++ = 4
The middle + is currently unconnected, but may become connected by a later column so still needs to be tracked. (In this diagram I am also assuming a up/down/left/right 4-connectivity. The rotated lattice should really use a diagonal connectivity but I find that a bit harder to visualise and I am not entirely sure it is still a valid approach with this connectivity.)
I appreciate that this answer is not complete (and could do with lots more pictures/explanation), but perhaps it will prompt someone else to provide a more complete solution.
I need some advice. I'm developing a game similar to Flow Free wherein the gameboard is composed of a grid and colored dots, and the user has to connect the same colored dots together without overlapping other lines, and using up ALL the free spaces in the board.
My question is about level-creation. I wish to make the levels generated randomly (and should at least be able to solve itself so that it can give players hints) and I am in a stump as to what algorithm to use. Any suggestions?
Note: image shows the objective of Flow Free, and it is the same objective of what I am developing.
Thanks for your help. :)
Consider solving your problem with a pair of simpler, more manageable algorithms: one algorithm that reliably creates simple, pre-solved boards and another that rearranges flows to make simple boards more complex.
The first part, building a simple pre-solved board, is trivial (if you want it to be) if you're using n flows on an nxn grid:
For each flow...
Place the head dot at the top of the first open column.
Place the tail dot at the bottom of that column.
Alternatively, you could provide your own hand-made starter boards to pass to the second part. The only goal of this stage is to get a valid board built, even if it's just trivial or predetermined, so it's worth keeping it simple.
The second part, rearranging the flows, involves looping over each flow, seeing which one can work with its neighboring flow to grow and shrink:
For some number of iterations...
Choose a random flow f.
If f is at the minimum length (say 3 squares long), skip to the next iteration because we can't shrink f right now.
If the head dot of f is next to a dot from another flow g (if more than one g to choose from, pick one at random)...
Move f's head dot one square along its flow (i.e., walk it one square towards the tail). f is now one square shorter and there's an empty square. (The puzzle is now unsolved.)
Move the neighboring dot from g into the empty square vacated by f. Now there's an empty square where g's dot moved from.
Fill in that empty spot with flow from g. Now g is one square longer than it was at the beginning of this iteration. (The puzzle is back to being solved as well.)
Repeat the previous step for f's tail dot.
The approach as it stands is limited (dots will always be neighbors) but it's easy to expand upon:
Add a step to loop through the body of flow f, looking for trickier ways to swap space with other flows...
Add a step that prevents a dot from moving to an old location...
Add any other ideas that you come up with.
The overall solution here is probably less than the ideal one that you're aiming for, but now you have two simple algorithms that you can flesh out further to serve the role of one large, all-encompassing algorithm. In the end, I think this approach is manageable, not cryptic, and easy to tweek, and, if nothing else, a good place to start.
Update: I coded a proof-of-concept based on the steps above. Starting with the first 5x5 grid below, the process produced the subsequent 5 different boards. Some are interesting, some are not, but they're always valid with one known solution.
Starting Point
5 Random Results (sorry for the misaligned screenshots)
And a random 8x8 for good measure. The starting point was the same simple columns approach as above.
Updated answer: I implemented a new generator using the idea of "dual puzzles". This allows much sparser and higher quality puzzles than any previous method I know of. The code is on github. I'll try to write more details about how it works, but here is an example puzzle:
Old answer:
I have implemented the following algorithm in my numberlink solver and generator. In enforces the rule, that a path can never touch itself, which is normal in most 'hardcore' numberlink apps and puzzles
First the board is tiled with 2x1 dominos in a simple, deterministic way.
If this is not possible (on an odd area paper), the bottom right corner is
left as a singleton.
Then the dominos are randomly shuffled by rotating random pairs of neighbours.
This is is not done in the case of width or height equal to 1.
Now, in the case of an odd area paper, the bottom right corner is attached to
one of its neighbour dominos. This will always be possible.
Finally, we can start finding random paths through the dominos, combining them
as we pass through. Special care is taken not to connect 'neighbour flows'
which would create puzzles that 'double back on themselves'.
Before the puzzle is printed we 'compact' the range of colours used, as much as possible.
The puzzle is printed by replacing all positions that aren't flow-heads with a .
My numberlink format uses ascii characters instead of numbers. Here is an example:
$ bin/numberlink --generate=35x20
Warning: Including non-standard characters in puzzle
35 20
....bcd.......efg...i......i......j
.kka........l....hm.n....n.o.......
.b...q..q...l..r.....h.....t..uvvu.
....w.....d.e..xx....m.yy..t.......
..z.w.A....A....r.s....BB.....p....
.D.........E.F..F.G...H.........IC.
.z.D...JKL.......g....G..N.j.......
P...a....L.QQ.RR...N....s.....S.T..
U........K......V...............T..
WW...X.......Z0..M.................
1....X...23..Z0..........M....44...
5.......Y..Y....6.........C.......p
5...P...2..3..6..VH.......O.S..99.I
........E.!!......o...."....O..$$.%
.U..&&..J.\\.(.)......8...*.......+
..1.......,..-...(/:.."...;;.%+....
..c<<.==........)./..8>>.*.?......#
.[..[....]........:..........?..^..
..._.._.f...,......-.`..`.7.^......
{{......].....|....|....7.......#..
And here I run it through my solver (same seed):
$ bin/numberlink --generate=35x20 | bin/numberlink --tubes
Found a solution!
┌──┐bcd───┐┌──efg┌─┐i──────i┌─────j
│kka│└───┐││l┌─┘│hm│n────n┌o│┌────┐
│b──┘q──q│││l│┌r└┐│└─h┌──┐│t││uvvu│
└──┐w┌───┘d└e││xx│└──m│yy││t││└──┘│
┌─z│w│A────A┌┘└─r│s───┘BB││┌┘└p┌─┐│
│D┐└┐│┌────E│F──F│G──┐H┐┌┘││┌──┘IC│
└z└D│││JKL┌─┘┌──┐g┌─┐└G││N│j│┌─┐└┐│
P──┐a││││L│QQ│RR└┐│N└──┘s││┌┘│S│T││
U─┐│┌┘││└K└─┐└─┐V││└─────┘││┌┘││T││
WW│││X││┌──┐│Z0││M│┌──────┘││┌┘└┐││
1┐│││X│││23││Z0│└┐││┌────M┌┘││44│││
5│││└┐││Y││Y│┌─┘6││││┌───┐C┌┘│┌─┘│p
5││└P│││2┘└3││6─┘VH│││┌─┐│O┘S┘│99└I
┌┘│┌─┘││E┐!!│└───┐o┘│││"│└─┐O─┘$$┌%
│U┘│&&│└J│\\│(┐)┐└──┘│8││┌*└┐┌───┘+
└─1└─┐└──┘,┐│-└┐│(/:┌┘"┘││;;│%+───┘
┌─c<<│==┌─┐││└┐│)│/││8>>│*┌?│┌───┐#
│[──[└─┐│]││└┐│└─┘:┘│└──┘┌┘┌┘?┌─^││
└─┐_──_│f││└,│└────-│`──`│7┘^─┘┌─┘│
{{└────┘]┘└──┘|────|└───7└─────┘#─┘
I've tested replacing step (4) with a function that iteratively, randomly merges two neighboring paths. However it game much denser puzzles, and I already think the above is nearly too dense to be difficult.
Here is a list of problems I've generated of different size: https://github.com/thomasahle/numberlink/blob/master/puzzles/inputs3
The most straightforward way to create such a level is to find a way to solve it. This way, you can basically generate any random starting configuration and determine if it is a valid level by trying to have it solved. This will generate the most diverse levels.
And even if you find a way to generate the levels some other way, you'll still want to apply this solving algorithm to prove that the generated level is any good ;)
Brute-force enumerating
If the board has a size of NxN cells, and there are also N colours available, brute-force enumerating all possible configurations (regardless of wether they form actual paths between start and end nodes) would take:
N^2 cells total
2N cells already occupied with start and end nodes
N^2 - 2N cells for which the color has yet to be determined
N colours available.
N^(N^2 - 2N) possible combinations.
So,
For N=5, this means 5^15 = 30517578125 combinations.
For N=6, this means 6^24 = 4738381338321616896 combinations.
In other words, the number of possible combinations is pretty high to start with, but also grows ridiculously fast once you start making the board larger.
Constraining the number of cells per color
Obviously, we should try to reduce the number of configurations as much as possible. One way of doing that is to consider the minimum distance ("dMin") between each color's start and end cell - we know that there should at least be this much cells with that color. Calculating the minimum distance can be done with a simple flood fill or Dijkstra's algorithm.
(N.B. Note that this entire next section only discusses the number of cells, but does not say anything about their locations)
In your example, this means (not counting the start and end cells)
dMin(orange) = 1
dMin(red) = 1
dMin(green) = 5
dMin(yellow) = 3
dMin(blue) = 5
This means that, of the 15 cells for which the color has yet to be determined, there have to be at least 1 orange, 1 red, 5 green, 3 yellow and 5 blue cells, also making a total of 15 cells.
For this particular example this means that connecting each color's start and end cell by (one of) the shortest paths fills the entire board - i.e. after filling the board with the shortest paths no uncoloured cells remain. (This should be considered "luck", not every starting configuration of the board will cause this to happen).
Usually, after this step, we have a number of cells that can be freely coloured, let's call this number U. For N=5,
U = 15 - (dMin(orange) + dMin(red) + dMin(green) + dMin(yellow) + dMin(blue))
Because these cells can take any colour, we can also determine the maximum number of cells that can have a particular colour:
dMax(orange) = dMin(orange) + U
dMax(red) = dMin(red) + U
dMax(green) = dMin(green) + U
dMax(yellow) = dMin(yellow) + U
dMax(blue) = dMin(blue) + U
(In this particular example, U=0, so the minimum number of cells per colour is also the maximum).
Path-finding using the distance constraints
If we were to brute force enumerate all possible combinations using these color constraints, we would have a lot less combinations to worry about. More specifically, in this particular example we would have:
15! / (1! * 1! * 5! * 3! * 5!)
= 1307674368000 / 86400
= 15135120 combinations left, about a factor 2000 less.
However, this still doesn't give us the actual paths. so a better idea would be to a backtracking search, where we process each colour in turn and attempt to find all paths that:
doesn't cross an already coloured cell
Is not shorter than dMin(colour) and not longer than dMax(colour).
The second criteria will reduce the number of paths reported per colour, which causes the total number of paths to be tried to be greatly reduced (due to the combinatorial effect).
In pseudo-code:
function SolveLevel(initialBoard of size NxN)
{
foreach(colour on initialBoard)
{
Find startCell(colour) and endCell(colour)
minDistance(colour) = Length(ShortestPath(initialBoard, startCell(colour), endCell(colour)))
}
//Determine the number of uncoloured cells remaining after all shortest paths have been applied.
U = N^(N^2 - 2N) - (Sum of all minDistances)
firstColour = GetFirstColour(initialBoard)
ExplorePathsForColour(
initialBoard,
firstColour,
startCell(firstColour),
endCell(firstColour),
minDistance(firstColour),
U)
}
}
function ExplorePathsForColour(board, colour, startCell, endCell, minDistance, nrOfUncolouredCells)
{
maxDistance = minDistance + nrOfUncolouredCells
paths = FindAllPaths(board, colour, startCell, endCell, minDistance, maxDistance)
foreach(path in paths)
{
//Render all cells in 'path' on a copy of the board
boardCopy = Copy(board)
boardCopy = ApplyPath(boardCopy, path)
uRemaining = nrOfUncolouredCells - (Length(path) - minDistance)
//Recursively explore all paths for the next colour.
nextColour = NextColour(board, colour)
if(nextColour exists)
{
ExplorePathsForColour(
boardCopy,
nextColour,
startCell(nextColour),
endCell(nextColour),
minDistance(nextColour),
uRemaining)
}
else
{
//No more colours remaining to draw
if(uRemaining == 0)
{
//No more uncoloured cells remaining
Report boardCopy as a result
}
}
}
}
FindAllPaths
This only leaves FindAllPaths(board, colour, startCell, endCell, minDistance, maxDistance) to be implemented. The tricky thing here is that we're not searching for the shortest paths, but for any paths that fall in the range determined by minDistance and maxDistance. Hence, we can't just use Dijkstra's or A*, because they will only record the shortest path to each cell, not any possible detours.
One way of finding these paths would be to use a multi-dimensional array for the board, where
each cell is capable of storing multiple waypoints, and a waypoint is defined as the pair (previous waypoint, distance to origin). The previous waypoint is needed to be able to reconstruct the entire path once we've reached the destination, and the distance to origin
prevents us from exceeding the maxDistance.
Finding all paths can then be done by using a flood-fill like exploration from the startCell outwards, where for a given cell, each uncoloured or same-as-the-current-color-coloured neigbour is recursively explored (except the ones that form our current path to the origin) until we reach either the endCell or exceed the maxDistance.
An improvement on this strategy is that we don't explore from the startCell outwards to the endCell, but that we explore from both the startCell and endCell outwards in parallel, using Floor(maxDistance / 2) and Ceil(maxDistance / 2) as the respective maximum distances. For large values of maxDistance, this should reduce the number of explored cells from 2 * maxDistance^2 to maxDistance^2.
I think you'll want to do this in two steps. Step 1) find a set of non-intersecting paths that connect all your points, then 2) Grow/shift those paths to fill the entire board
My thoughts on Step 1 are to essentially perform Dijkstra like algorithm on all points simultaneously, growing together the paths. Similar to Dijkstra, I think you'll want to flood-fill out from each of your points, chosing which node to search next using some heuristic (My hunch says chosing points with the least degrees of freedom first, then by distance, might be a good one). Very differently from Dijkstra though I think we might be stuck with having to backtrack when we have multiple paths attempting to grow into the same node. (This could of course be fairly problematic on bigger maps, but might not be a big deal on small maps like the one you have above.)
You may also solve for some of the easier paths before you start the above algorithm, mainly to cut down on the number of backtracks needed. In specific, if you can make a trace between points along the edge of the board, you can guarantee that connecting those two points in that fashion would never interfere with other paths, so you can simply fill those in and take those guys out of the equation. You could then further iterate on this until all of these "quick and easy" paths are found by tracing along the borders of the board, or borders of existing paths. That algorithm would actually completely solve the above example board, but would undoubtedly fail elsewhere .. still, it would be very cheap to perform and would reduce your search time for the previous algorithm.
Alternatively
You could simply do a real Dijkstra's algorithm between each set of points, pathing out the closest points first (or trying them in some random orders a few times). This would probably work for a fair number of cases, and when it fails simply throw out the map and generate a new one.
Once you have Step 1 solved, Step 2 should be easier, though not necessarily trivial. To grow your paths, I think you'll want to grow your paths outward (so paths closest to walls first, growing towards the walls, then other inner paths outwards, etc.). To grow, I think you'll have two basic operations, flipping corners, and expanding into into adjacent pairs of empty squares.. that is to say, if you have a line like
.v<<.
v<...
v....
v....
First you'll want to flip the corners to fill in your edge spaces
v<<<.
v....
v....
v....
Then you'll want to expand into neighboring pairs of open space
v<<v.
v.^<.
v....
v....
v<<v.
>v^<.
v<...
v....
etc..
Note that what I've outlined wont guarantee a solution if one exists, but I think you should be able to find one most of the time if one exists, and then in the cases where the map has no solution, or the algorithm fails to find one, just throw out the map and try a different one :)
You have two choices:
Write a custom solver
Brute force it.
I used option (2) to generate Boggle type boards and it is VERY successful. If you go with Option (2), this is how you do it:
Tools needed:
Write a A* solver.
Write a random board creator
To solve:
Generate a random board consisting of only endpoints
while board is not solved:
get two endpoints closest to each other that are not yet solved
run A* to generate path
update board so next A* knows new board layout with new path marked as un-traversable.
At exit of loop, check success/fail (is whole board used/etc) and run again if needed
The A* on a 10x10 should run in hundredths of a second. You can probably solve 1k+ boards/second. So a 10 second run should get you several 'usable' boards.
Bonus points:
When generating levels for a IAP (in app purchase) level pack, remember to check for mirrors/rotations/reflections/etc so you don't have one board a copy of another (which is just lame).
Come up with a metric that will figure out if two boards are 'similar' and if so, ditch one of them.