I am attempting to solve the Google ASP Competition 2019 : Insurance Referee Assignment problem. The problem is provided in this link.
There is a hard constraint that if a referee has preference type of 0 then the case will not be assigned to that referee. I have simplified the problem to include a few variables.
case(cid) refers to a case with cid as the case id.
ref(rid) refers to the referee with referee id.
pref(rid, type) takes the preference of referee 'rid' and type which takes value from 0 to 3. The higher the number, the more likely it will take the case.
In ref(10, 3) and ref(9, 2), the higher preference will be given to ref(10).
I have tried the following clingo code:
ref(rid).
case(cid).
pref(rid, type).
assign(cid, rid) :- ref(rid), pref(rid, type), type != 0.
case(4).
ref(3).
ref(5).
pref(3, 0).
pref(5, 1).
#show assign/2.
However, when I run the command, it shows satisfiable but outputs only this
assign(cid, rid)
What am I doing wrong?
In clingo variables start with a capital letter and are "valid" just withhin the rule. So my guess is you want the following code:
assign(Rcid, Rrid) :- case(Rcid), ref(Rrid), pref(Rrid, Rtype), Rtype != 0.
case(4).
ref(3). ref(5).
pref(3, 0). pref(5, 1).
#show assign/2.
output:
Solving...
Answer: 1
assign(4,5)
SATISFIABLE
Please note that only renaming the constants to variable names will result in an error message, you have to add case(Rcid) to the rule body as well. Variable names were freely choosen, you can use any variable name as long as it starts with a capital letter.
Related
I am using clingo to solve a homework problem and stumbled upon something I can't explain:
normalized(0,0).
normalized(A,1) :-
A != 0.
normalized(10).
In my opinion, normalized should be 0 when the first parameter is 0 or 1 in every other case.
Running clingo on that, however, produces the following:
test.pl:2:1-3:12: error: unsafe variables in:
normalized(A,1):-[#inc_base];A!=0.
test.pl:2:12-13: note: 'A' is unsafe
Why is A unsafe here?
According to Programming with CLINGO
Some error messages say that the program
has “unsafe variables.” Such a message usually indicates that the head of one of
the rules includes a variable that does not occur in its body; stable models of such
programs may be infinite.
But in this example A is present in the body.
Will clingo produce an infinite set consisting of answers for all numbers here?
I tried adding number(_) around the first parameter and pattern matching on it to avoid this situation but with the same result:
normalized(number(0),0).
normalized(A,1) :-
A=number(B),
B != 0.
normalized(number(10)).
How would I write normalized properly?
With "variables occuring in the body" actually means in a positive literal in the body. I can recommend the official guide: https://github.com/potassco/guide/releases/
The second thing, ASP is not prolog. Your rules get grounded, i.e. each first order variable is replaced with its domain. In your case A has no domain.
What would be the expected outcome of your program ?
normalized(12351,1).
normalized(my_mom,1).
would all be valid replacements for A so you create an infinite program. This is why 'A' has to be bounded by a domain. For example:
dom(a). dom(b). dom(c). dom(100).
normalized(0,0).
normalized(A,1) :- dom(A).
would produce
normalize(0,0).
normalize(a,1).
normalize(b,1).
normalize(c,1).
normalize(100,1).
Also note that there is no such thing as number/1. ASP is a typefree language.
Also,
normalized(10).
is a different predicate with only one parameter, I do not know how this will fit in your program.
Maybe your are looking for something like this:
dom(1..100).
normalize(0,0).
normalize(X,1) :- dom(X).
foo(43).
bar(Y) :- normalize(X,Y), foo(X).
I have some trouble understanding the value of Time (0040,A122) tag. I am trying to update an anonymization software, but I can't seem to find any example of the actual tag.
The DICOM standard (PS 3.3) mentions that:
This is the Value component of a Name/Value pair when the Concept implied by Concept Name Code Sequence (0040,A043) is a time.
Note
The purpose or role of the date value could be specified in Concept Name Code Sequence (0040,A043).
Required if the value that Concept Name Code Sequence (0040,A043) requires (implies) is a time. Shall not be present otherwise.
So basically Concept Name Code Sequence (0040,A043) specifies what type of time it is? I would like to know what are some examples of Concept Name Code Sequence?
I would suggest to have a look at the SR sample given from the DICOM standard section PS 3.20:
A.7.2 Target DICOM SR "Measurement Report" (TID 1500)
In particular:
>>>>1.5.1.1.4: HAS ACQ CONTEXT: TIME: (111061,DCM,"Study Time") = "070844"
You may also want to check PS 3.16 for the definition of TID 1500:
TID 1500 Measurement Report
Just as a reminder, Enhanced SR are defined in PS 3.3:
A.35.2 Enhanced SR IOD
Drools 5.4
I have a decision table that sets values in the BlueReport object based on Channel Name attribute. Everything works, except if a Channel name contains an unknown channel for which we don't have mappings, we need to set the values to indicate this condition. The picture below should illustrate this more clearly, I'm sure. Here is what we want:
How can we achieve the "ALL OTHERS" default condition?!
I've evolved my spreadsheet rules to this now:
In this version of DT above, I have left B15 blank, and then I have added a new condition on C15 which checks the auditRule field for presence of string variable "DIV". I don't know if I have the right syntax for it in C9?! The ruleAudit field is update everytime there is a match for Channel Name (F11 - F15). Therefore, absence of DIV rule name, would indicate that there is no match to any of the patterns on B11 - B14. What do you think?!
Add a new condition column again with declaration for blueReport and set this condition
channel_name!=$1 || channel_name!=$2 ||channel_name!=$3 || channel_name!=$4
New Condition's value field must be empty for the first four records except these values like ChannelName1,ChannelName2,ChannelName3,ChannelName4 in "ALL OTHERS" row. Though this isn't the standard solution try this workaround to check
I think the post can help you. It means you should not only declare sequential in the RuleSet, but also declare PRIORITY in RuleTable that the rules will be called according to the value of PRIORITY.
I'm a total erlang noob and I just want to see what's in a particular table I have. I want to just "select *" from a particular table to start with. The examples I'm seeing, such as the official documentation, all have column restrictions which I don't really want. I don't really know how to form the MatchHead or Guard to match anything (aka "*").
A very simple primer on how to just get everything out of a table would be very appreciated!
For example, you can use qlc:
F = fun() ->
Q = qlc:q([R || R <- mnesia:table(foo)]),
qlc:e(Q)
end,
mnesia:transaction(F).
The simplest way to do it is probably mnesia:dirty_match_object:
mnesia:dirty_match_object(foo, #foo{_ = '_'}).
That is, match everything in the table foo that is a foo record, regardless of the values of the fields (every field is '_', i.e. wildcard). Note that since it uses record construction syntax, it will only work in a module where you have included the record definition, or in the shell after evaluating rr(my_module) to make the record definition available.
(I expected mnesia:dirty_match_object(foo, '_') to work, but that fails with a bad_type error.)
To do it with select, call it like this:
mnesia:dirty_select(foo, [{'_', [], ['$_']}]).
Here, MatchHead is _, i.e. match anything. The guards are [], an empty list, i.e. no extra limitations. The result spec is ['$_'], i.e. return the entire record. For more information about match specs, see the match specifications chapter of the ERTS user guide.
If an expression is too deep and gets printed with ... in the shell, you can ask the shell to print the entire thing by evaluating rp(EXPRESSION). EXPRESSION can either be the function call once again, or v(-1) for the value returned by the previous expression, or v(42) for the value returned by the expression preceded by the shell prompt 42>.
I ran into a strange statement when working on a COBOL program from $WORK.
We have a paragraph that is opening a cursor (from DB2), and the looping over it until it hits an EOT (in pseudo code):
... working storage ...
01 I PIC S9(9) COMP VALUE ZEROS.
01 WS-SUB PIC S9(4) COMP VALUE 0.
... code area ...
PARA-ONE.
PERFORM OPEN-CURSOR
PERFORM FETCH-CURSOR
PERFORM VARYING I FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL SQLCODE = DB2EOT
do stuff here...
END-PERFORM
COMPUTE WS-SUB = I + 0
PERFORM CLOSE-CURSOR
... do another loop using WS-SUB ...
I'm wondering why that COMPUTE WS-SUB = I + 0 line is there. My understanding is that I will always at least be 1, because of the perform block above it (i.e., even if there is an EOT to start with, I will be set to one on that initial iteration).
Is that COMPUTE line even needed? Is it doing some implicit casting that I'm not aware of? Why would it be there? Why wouldn't you just MOVE I TO WS-SUB?
Call it stupid, but with some compilers (with the correct options in effect), given
01 SIGNED-NUMBER PIC S99 COMP-5 VALUE -1.
01 UNSIGNED-NUMBER PIC 99 COMP-5.
...
MOVE SIGNED-NUMBER TO UNSIGNED-NUMBER
DISPLAY UNSIGNED-NUMBER
results in: 255. But...
COMPUTE UNSIGNED-NUMBER = SIGNED-NUMBER + ZERO
results in: 1 (unsigned)
So to answer your question, this could be classified as a technique used cast signed numbers into unsigned numbers. However, in the code example you gave it makes no sense at all.
Note that the definition of "I" was (likely) coded by one programmer and of WS-SUB by another (naming is different, VALUE clause is different for same purpose).
Programmer 2 looks like "old school": PIC S9(4), signed and taking up all the digits which "fit" in a half-word. The S9(9) is probably "far over the top" as per range of possible values, but such things concern Programmer 1 not at all.
Probably Programmer 2 had concerns about using an S9(9) COMP for something requiring (perhaps many) fewer than 9999 "things". "I'll be 'efficient' without changing the existing code". It seems to me unlikely that the field was ever defined as unsigned.
A COMP/COMP-4 with nine digits does have a performance penalty when used for calculations. Try "ADD 1" to a 9(9) and a 9(8) and a 9(10) and compare the generated code. If you can have nine digits, define with 9(10), otherwise 9(8), if you need a fullword.
Programmer 2 knows something of this.
The COMPUTE with + 0 is probably deliberate. Why did Programmer 2 use the COMPUTE like that (the original question)?
Now it is going to get complicated.
There are two "types" of "binary" fields on the Mainframe: those which will contain values limited by the PICture clause (USAGE BINARY, COMP and COMP-4); those which contain values limited by the field size (USAGE COMP-5).
With BINARY/COMP/COMP-4, the size of the field is determined from the PICture, and so are the values that can be held. PIC 9(4) is a halfword, with a maxiumum value of 9999. PIC S9(4) a halfword with values -9999 through +9999.
With COMP-5 (Native Binary), the PICture just determines the size of the field, all the bits of the field are relevant for the value of the field. PIC 9(1) to 9(4) define halfwords, pic 9(5) to 9(9) define fullwords, and 9(10) to 9(18) define doublewords. PIC 9(1) can hold a maximum of 65535, S9(1) -32,768 through +32,767.
All well and good. Then there is compiler option TRUNC. This has three options. STD, the default, BIN and OPT.
BIN can be considered to have the most far-reaching affect. BIN makes BINARY/COMP/COMP-4 behave like COMP-5. Everything becomes, in effect, COMP-5. PICtures for binary fields are ignored, except in determining the size of the field (and, curiously, with ON SIZE ERROR, which "errors" when the maxima according to the PICture are exceeded). Native Binary, in IBM Enterprise Cobol, generates, in the main, though not exclusively, the "slowest" code. Truncation is to field size (halfword, fullword, doubleword).
STD, the default, is "standard" truncation. This truncates to "PICture". It is therefore a "decimal" truncation.
OPT is for "performance". With OPT, the compiler truncates in whatever way is the most "performant" for a particular "code sequence". This can mean intermediate values and final values may have "bits set" which are "outside of the range" of the PICture. However, when used as a source, a binary field will always only reflect the value specified by the PICture, even if there are "excess" bits set.
It is important when using OPT that all binary fields "conform to PICture" meaning that code must never rely on bits which are set outside the PICture definition.
Note: Even though OPT has been used, the OPTimizer (OPT(STD) or OPT(FULL)) can still provide further optimisations.
This is all well and good.
However, a "pickle" can readily ensue if you "mix" TRUNC options, or if the binary definition in a CALLing program is not the same as in the CALLed program. The "mix" can occur if modules within the same run-unit are compiled with different TRUNC options, or if a binary field on a file is written with one TRUNC option and later read with another.
Now, I suspect Programmer 2 encountered something like this: Either, with TRUNC(OPT) they noticed "excess bits" in a field and thought there was a need to deal with them, or, through the "mix" of options in a run-unit or "across file usage" they noticed "excess bits" where there would be a need to do something about it (which was to "remove the mix").
Programmer 2 developed the COMPUTE A = B + 0 to "deal" with a particular problem (perceived or actual) and then applied it generally to their work.
This is a "guess", or, better, a "rationalisation" which works with the known information.
It is a "fake" fix. There was either no problem (the normal way that TRUNC(OPT) works) or the correct resolution was "normalisation" of the TRUNC option across modules/file use.
I do not want loads of people now rushing off and putting COMPUTE A = B + 0 in their code. For a start, they don't know why they are doing it. For a continuation it is the wrong thing to do.
Of course, do not just remove the "+ 0" from any of these that you find. If there is a "mix" of TRUNCs, a program may stop "working".
There is one situation in which I have used "ADD ZERO" for a BINARY/COMP/COMP-4. This is in a "Mickey Mouse" program, a program with no purpose but to try something out. Here I've used it as a method to "trick" the optimizer, as otherwise the optimizer could see unchanging values so would generate code to use literal results as all values were known at compile time. (A perhaps "neater" and more flexible way to do this which I picked up from PhilinOxford, is to use ACCEPT for the field). This is not the case, for certain, with the code in question.
I wonder if a testing version of the sources ever had
COMPUTE WS-SUB = I + 0
ON SIZE ERROR
DISPLAY "WS-SUB overflow"
STOP RUN
END-COMPUTE
with the range test discarded when the developer was satisfied and cleaning up? MOVE doesn't allow declarative SIZE statements. That's as much of a reason as I could see. Or perhaps developer habit of using COMPUTE to move, as a subtle reminder to question the need for defensive code at every step? And perhaps not knowing, as Joe pointed out, the SIZE clause would be just as effective without the + 0? Or a maintainer struggled with off by one errors and there was a corrective change from 1 to 0 after testing?