I noticed that for problems such as Cloudbalancing, move factories exist to generate moves and swaps. A "move move" transfers a cloud process from one computer to another. A "swap move" swaps any two processes from their respective computers.
I am developing a timetabling application.
A subjectTeacherHour (a combination of subject and teacher) have
only a subset of Periods to which they may be assigned. If Jane teaches 6 hours at a class, there are 6 subjectTeacherHours each which have to be allocated a Period, from a possible 30 Periods of that class ;unlike the cloudbalance example, where a process can move to any computer.
Only one subjectTeacherHour may be allocated a Period (naturally).
It tries to place subjectTeacherHour to eligible Periods , till an optimal combination is found.
Pros
The manual seems to recommend it.
...However, as the traveling tournament example proves, if you can remove
a hard constraint by using a certain set of big moves, you can win
performance and scalability...
...The `[version with big moves] evaluates a lot less unfeasible
solutions, which enables it to outperform and outscale the simple
version....
...It's generally a good idea to use several selectors, mixing fine
grained moves and course grained moves:...
While only one subjectTeacher may be allocated to Period, the solver must temporarily break such a constraint to discover that swapping two certain Period allocations lead to a better solution. A swap move "removes this brick wall" between those two states.
So a swap move can help lead to better solutions much faster.
Cons
A subjectTeacher have only a subset of Periods to which they may be assigned. So finding intersecting (common) hours between any two subjectTeachers is a bit tough (but doable in an elegant way: Good algorithm/technique to find overlapping values from objects' properties? ) .
Will it only give me only small gains in time and optimality?
I am also worried about crazy interactions having two kinds of moves may cause, leading to getting stuck at a bad solution.
Swap moves are crucial.
Consider 2 courses assigned to a room which is fully booked. Without swapping, it would have to break a hard constraint to move 1 course to a conflicted room and chose that move as the step (which is unlikely).
You can use the build-in generic swap MoveFactory. If you write your own, you can say the swap move isDoable() false when your moving either sides to an ineligible period.
Related
I need to measure the time forklift spends in collision, however movement_log
for agent type that is a forklift managed by transporter, fleet is not available. I also can not use statecharts because it uses much performance.
Situation: I am simulating a warehouse with one-way aisles and the capacity of these one-way aisles is 2 vehicles. There are situations
where a forklift (the yellow one) needs to wait behind another one in one-way aisle, I currently have that modeled properly I just don't know how to detect this situation and log it.
Thank you
I would do it as following:
Create a new 2-dimensional variable called collisionLog.
Check the speed [getSpeed() function] and state [TransporterState getState() function] every 1 second.
Write these into the collisionLog.
Once the simulation is completed, remove the rows with idle status.
Then do the calculations based on the fact that when speed is zero and transporter is busy, then you have the waiting vehicle.
There is no accessible trigger point (typically an action of a block) to trap when transporters have collisions. Yes, that situation obviously has to be captured internally to enable the transporters to avoid collisions, but in this situation that is not exposed as a block action, or action anywhere else. (AnyLogic space markup elements never have actions, except for some of the newer Material Handling library ones like Station, because these effectively represent a process step.)
The Transporter Control block has all the settings for collision detection and avoidance, but no related actions.
So your alternatives are really
'Scan' for this situation occurring: Yashar's answer, inferring that zero speed when non-idle means 'waiting due to collision' (which may or may not be 100% robust) being one way.
Explicitly break down the movement (from the process perspective) to define the potential 'conflicts' and decision-making within the process flow (e.g., if you're trying to move to an aisle, move to an entrance node, reserve a space in the aisle using resource pools or similar, and only enter when free). Clearly that doesn't cover every possible case, but may be useful in some situations.
The actions that do exist in the Transporter Control block could help a bit here (for both alternatives) since at least you have action points on entering paths and nodes. (You could also raise an enhancement request with AnyLogic to add collision-related actions here....)
I have a huge model with large number of forklifts, checking any attribute every second would result in huge performance loss
I also can not use statecharts because it uses much performance
Have you actually tried it though? Some things do not result in as much of a performance hit as you might think, and performance should not be an a priori 'that will be too slow' thing; ideally you have requirements for acceptable performance and you work round that. (There are always trade-offs between performance, functionality and maintainability.)
[You also don't say how you think using statecharts could have helped. Did you mean doing the 'scanning' approach via a statechart, say with cyclic entry/exit from a Scan state?]
So I have lectures and time periods and some lectures need to be taught in a specific time period. How do i do that?
Does scoreHolder.addHardConstraintMatch(kcontext, 10); solve this as a hard constraint? Does the value of positive 10 ensure the constraint of courses being in a specific time period?
I'm aware of the Penalty pattern but I don't want to make a lot of CoursePeriodPenalty objects. Ideally, i'd like to only have one CoursePeriodReward object to say that CS101 should be in time period 9:00-10:00
Locking them with Immovable planning entities won't work as I suspect you still want OptaPlanner to decide the room for you - and currently optaplanner only supports MovableSelectionFilter per entity, not per variable (vote for the open jira for that).
A positive hard constraint would definitely work. Your score will be harder to interpret for your users though, for example a solution with a hard score of 0 won't be feasible (either it didn't get that +10 hard points or it lost 10 hard points somewhere else).
Or you could add a new negative hard constraint type that says if != desiredTimeslot then loose 10 points.
I am solving a variation on vehicle routing problem. The model worked until I implemented a change where certain vehicles and/or stops may remain unassigned because the construction filter does not allow the move due to time window considerations (late arrival not allowed).
The problem size is 2 trucks/3 stops. truck_1 has 2 stops (Stop_1 and Stop_2) assigned to it, and consequently 1 truck and 1 stop remain unassigned since truck_2 will arrive late to Stop_3.
I have the following error:
INFO o.o.c.i.c.DefaultConstructionHeuristicPhase - Construction Heuristic phase (0) ended: step total (2), time spent (141), best score (-164hard/19387soft).
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Local Search phase started with an uninitialized Solution. First initialize the Solution. For example, run a Construction Heuristic phase first.
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.localsearch.DefaultLocalSearchPhase.phaseStarted(DefaultLocalSearchPhase.java:119)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.localsearch.DefaultLocalSearchPhase.solve(DefaultLocalSearchPhase.java:60)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.solver.DefaultSolver.runPhases(DefaultSolver.java:213)
at org.optaplanner.core.impl.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:176)
I tried to set the planning variable to null (nullable = true) but it seems it is not allowed in case of chained variables.
I am using Optaplanner 6.2.
Please help,
Thank you,
Piyush
Your construction filter may be too restrictive, it could prevent the construction heuristic from creating an initialized solution. You should remove the time window constraint from the construction filter and add it as a hard score constraint in your score calculator instead.
From the Optaplanner docs:
Instead of implementing a hard constraint, it can sometimes be built in. For example: If Lecture A should never be assigned to Room X, but it uses ValueRangeProvider on Solution, so the Solver will often try to assign it to Room X too (only to find out that it breaks a hard constraint). Use a ValueRangeProvider on the planning entity or filtered selection to define that Course A should only be assigned a Room different than X.
This can give a good performance gain in some use cases, not just because the score calculation is faster, but mainly because most optimization algorithms will spend less time evaluating unfeasible solutions. However, usually this not a good idea because there is a real risk of trading short term benefits for long term harm:
Many optimization algorithms rely on the freedom to break hard constraints when changing planning entities, to get out of local optima.
Both implementation approaches have limitations (feature compatiblity, disabling automatic performance optimizations, ...), as explained in their documentation.
I read about how FoundationDB does its network testing/simulation here: http://www.slideshare.net/FoundationDB/deterministic-simulation-testing
I would like to implement something very similar, but cannot figure out how they actually did implement it. How would one go about writing, for example, a C++ class that does what they do. Is it possible to do the kind of simulation they do without doing any code generation (as they presumeably do)?
Also: How can a simulation be repeated, if it contains random events?? Each time the simulation would require to choose a new random value and thus be not the same run as the one before. Maybe I am missing something here...hope somebody can shed a bit of light on the matter.
You can find a little bit more detail in the talk that went along with those slides here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFDFbi3toc
As for the determinism question, you're right that a simulation cannot be repeated exactly unless all possible sources of randomness and other non-determinism are carefully controlled. To that end:
(1) Generate all random numbers from a PRNG that you seed with a known value.
(2) Avoid any sort of branching or conditionals based on facts about the world which you don't control (e.g. the time of day, the load on the machine, etc.), or if you can't help that, then pseudo-randomly simulate those things too.
(3) Ensure that whatever mechanism you pick for concurrency has a mode in which it can guarantee a deterministic execution order.
Since it's easy to mess all those things up, you'll also want to have a way of checking whether determinism has been violated.
All of this is covered in greater detail in the talk that I linked above.
In the sims I've built the biggest issue with repeatability ends up being proper seed management (as per the previous answer). You want your simulations to give different results only when you supply a different seed to your random number generators than before.
After that the biggest issue I've seen seems tends to be making sure you don't iterate over collections with nondeterministic ordering. For instance, in Java, you'd use a LinkedHashMap instead of a HashMap.
I'm trying to code a puzzle solver app.
I need to find out how many moves it takes, and how many solutions there are.
I would rather not give too many details on the puzzle.
but the player moves around a grid ( say 5 x 7 )
as they move, obstacles could be captured so the state of the board needs to be tracked.
( this could be done as a string or an array )
I understand I need to create a TreeNode, starting with a root ( the players start position )
and give each node children of the possible moves until all the possible moves are calculated.
The puzzle stats could then be collected.
Number of Possible solutions, minimum number of moves to solve, average number of moves to solve, etc.
I have the puzzle logic created that will return if moves are possible and such.
I'm having problems creating the TreeNode structure and making sure moves are not duplicated.
The puzzle app itself is on the iPhone, but I'm writing this solver/editor on the Mac.
Any help would be VERY much appreciated.
Perhaps you could do a variant of a tree recursion? Traverse the tree recursively, having each end node return a value of how hard it was to get there (if there are costs associated with different moves) and a description of how it got there. This of course requires the player to only move in one direction, otherwise the tree-structure doesn't describe the problem. A bit more info on what your exact problem looks like would be helpful.
It might be a heavy algorithm, but it gets the job done.
For detecting repeated states, you would put the states in a set as you went along, and then check every time you found new states to see if they already existed. Though if space is an issue, you will have to resort to only checking if the children are not the same as the parent, or some kind of limited version of this approach.
A node class is very simple. It just contains a pointer back to a parent (if it has one) and the variable it holds (such as a state). You will also probably want other variables depending on your application.
When you get to a node, you use a successor function to get all the child nodes from there (the states that can be reached in one move) and add them to a list. You pluck from the list to traverse the tree.