Related
I am using the FFD Algorithm in Optaplanner as a construction heuristic for my CVRP problem. I thought I understood the FFD-Alg from bin picking, but I don't understand the logic behind it when applied in OP on CVRP. So my thought was, it focuses on the demands (Sort cities in decreasing order, starting with the highest demand). To proof my assumption, I fixed the city coordinates to only one location, so the distance to the depot of all cities is the same. Then I changed the demands from big to small. But it doesn't take the cities in decrasing order in the result file.
The Input is: City 1: Demand 16, City 2: Demand 12, City 3: Demand 8, City 4: Demand 4,
City 5: Demand 2.
3 Vehicles with a capacity of 40 per vehicle.
What I thougt: V1<-[C1,C2,C3,C4], V2<-[C5]
What happened: V1<-[C5,C4,C3,C2], V2<-[C1]
Could anyone please explain me the theory of this? Also, I would like to know what happens the other way around, same capacities, but different locations per customer. I tried this too, but it also doesn't sort the cities beginning with the farthest one.
Thank you!
(braindump)
Unlike with non-VRP problems, the choice of "difficulty comparison" to determine the "Decreasing Difficulty" of "First Fit Decreasing", isn't always clear. I've done experiments with several forms - such as based on distance to depot, angle to depot, latitude, etc. You can find all those forms of difficulty comperators in the examples, usually TSP.
One common pitfall is to tweak the comperator before enabling Nearby Selection: tweak Nearby Selection first. If you're dealing with large datasets, an "angle to depo" comparator will behave much better, just because Nearby Selection and/or Paritioned Search aren't active yet. In any case, as always: you need to be using optaplanner-benchmark for this sort of work.
This being said, on a pure TSP use case, the First Fit Decreasing algorithm has worse results than the Nearest Neighbor algorithm (which is another construction heuristics for which we have limited support atm). Both require Local Search to improve further, of course. However, translating the Nearest Neighbor algorithm to VRP is difficult/ambiguous (to say the least): I was/am working on such a translation and I am calling it the Bouy algorithm (look for a class in the vrp example that starts with Bouy). It works, but it doesn't combine well with Nearby Selection yet IIRC.
Oh, and there's also the Clarke and Wright savings algorithm, which is great on small pure CVRP cases. But suffers from BigO (= scaling) problems on bigger datasets and it too becomes difficult/ambiguous when other constraints are added (such as time windows, skill req, lunch breaks, ...).
Long story short: the jury's still out on what's the best construction heuristic for real-world, advanced VRP cases. optaplanner-benchmark will help us there. This despite all the academic papers talking about their perfect CH for a simple form of VRP on small datasets...
When looking at Genetic programming papers, it seems to me that the number of test cases is always fixed. However, most mutations should (?) at every stage of the execution be very deleterious, i. e. make it obvious after one test case that the mutated program performs much worse than the previous one. What happens if you, at first, only try very few (one?) test case and look whether the mutation makes any sense?
Is it maybe so that different test cases test for different features of the solutions, and one mutation will probably improve only one of those features?
I don't know if I agree with your assumption that most mutations should be very deleterious, but you shouldn't care even if they were. Your goal is not to optimize the individuals, but to optimize the population. So trying to determine if a "mutation makes any sense" is exactly what genetic programming is supposed to do: i.e. eliminate mutations that "don't make sense." Your only "guidance" for the algorithm should come through the fitness function.
I'm also not sure what you mean with "test case", but for me it sounds like you are looking for something related to multi-objective-optimization (MOO). That means you try to optimize a solution regarding different aspects of the problem - therefore you do not need to mutate/evaluate a population for a specific test-case, but to find a multi objective fitness function.
"The main idea in MOO is the notion of Pareto dominance" (http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk)
I think this is a good idea in theory but tricky to put into practice. I can't remember seeing this approach actually used before but I wouldn't be surprised if it has.
I presume your motivation for doing this is to improve the efficiency of the applying the fitness function - you can stop evaluation early and discard the individual (or set fitness to 0) if the tests look like they're going to be terrible.
One challenge is to decide how many test cases to apply; discarding an individual after one random test case is surely not a good idea as the test case could be a real outlier. Perhaps terminating evaluation after 50% of test cases if the fitness of the individual was <10% of the best would probably not discard any very good individuals; on the other hand it might not be worth it given a lot of individuals will be of middle-of-the road fitness and might well only save a small proportion of the computation. You could adjust the numbers so you save more effort, but the more effort you try to save the more chances you have of genuinely good individuals being discarded by accident.
Factor in the extra time to taken to code this and possible bugs etc. and I shouldn't think the benefit would be worthwhile (unless this is a research project in which case it might be interesting to try it and see).
I think it's a good idea. Fitness evaluation is the most computational intense process in GP, so estimating the fitness value of individuals in order to reduce the computational expense of actually calculating the fitness could be an important optimization.
Your idea is a form of fitness approximation, sometimes it's called lazy evaluation (try searching these words, there are some research papers).
There are also distinct but somewhat overlapping schemes, for instance:
Dynamic Subset Selection (Chris Gathercole, Peter Ross) is a method to select a small subset of the training data set on which to actually carry out the GP algorithm;
Segment-Based Genetic Programming (Nailah Al-Madi, Simone Ludwig) is a technique that reduces the execution time of GP by partitioning the dataset into segments and using the segments in the fitness evaluation process.
PS also in the Brood Recombination Crossover (Tackett) child programs are usually evaluated on a restricted number of test cases to speed up the crossover.
Decision problems are not suited for use in evolutionary algorithms since a simple right/wrong fitness measure cannot be optimized/evolved. So, what are some methods/techniques for converting decision problems to optimization problems?
For instance, I'm currently working on a problem where the fitness of an individual depends very heavily on the output it produces. Depending on the ordering of genes, an individual either produces no output or perfect output - no "in between" (and therefore, no hills to climb). One small change in an individual's gene ordering can have a drastic effect on the fitness of an individual, so using an evolutionary algorithm essentially amounts to a random search.
Some literature references would be nice if you know of any.
Application to multiple inputs and examination of percentage of correct answers.
True, a right/wrong fitness measure cannot evolve towards more rightness, but an algorithm can nonetheless apply a mutable function to whatever input it takes to produce a decision which will be right or wrong. So, you keep mutating the algorithm, and for each mutated version of the algorithm you apply it to, say, 100 different inputs, and you check how many of them it got right. Then, you select those algorithms that gave more correct answers than others. Who knows, eventually you might see one which gets them all right.
There are no literature references, I just came up with it.
Well i think you must work on your fitness function.
When you say that some Individuals are more close to a perfect solution can you identify this solutions based on their genetic structure?
If you can do that a program could do that too and so you shouldn't rate the individual based on the output but on its structure.
An article has been making the rounds lately discussing the use of genetic algorithms to optimize "build orders" in StarCraft II.
http://lbrandy.com/blog/2010/11/using-genetic-algorithms-to-find-starcraft-2-build-orders/
The initial state of a StarCraft match is pre-determined and constant. And like chess, decisions made in this early stage of the match have long-standing consequences to a player's ability to perform in the mid and late game. So the various opening possibilities or "build orders" are under heavy study and scrutiny. Until the circulation of the above article, computer-assisted build order creation probably wasn't as popularity as it has been recently.
My question is... Is a genetic algorithm really the best way to model optimizing build orders?
A build order is a sequence of actions. Some actions have prerequisites like, "You need building B before you can create building C, but you can have building A at any time." So a chromosome may look like AABAC.
I'm wondering if a genetic algorithm really is the best way to tackle this problem. Although I'm not too familiar with the field, I'm having a difficult time shoe-horning the concept of genes into a data structure that is a sequence of actions. These aren't independent choices that can be mixed and matched like a head and a foot. So what value is there to things like reproduction and crossing?
I'm thinking whatever chess AIs use would be more appropriate since the array of choices at any given time could be viewed as tree-like in a way.
Although I'm not too familiar with the field, I'm having a difficult time shoe-horning the concept of genes into a data structure that is a sequence of actions. These aren't independent choices that can be mixed and matched like a head and a foot. So what value is there to things like reproduction and crossing?
Hmm, that's a very good question. Perhaps the first few moves in Starcraft can indeed be performed in pretty much any order, since contact with the enemy is not as immediate as it can be in Chess, and therefore it is not as important to remember the order of the first few moves as it is to know which of the many moves are included in those first few. But the link seems to imply otherwise, which means the 'genes' are indeed not all that amenable to being swapped around, unless there's something cunning in the encoding that I'm missing.
On the whole, and looking at the link you supplied, I'd say that genetic algorithms are a poor choice for this situation, which could be accurately mathematically modelled in some parts and the search tree expanded out in others. They may well be better than an exhaustive search of the possibility space, but may not be - especially given that there are multiple populations and poorer ones are just wasting processing time.
However, what I mean by "a poor choice" is that it is inefficient relative to a more appropriate approach; that's not to say that it couldn't still produce 98% optimal results in under a second or whatever. In situations such as this where the brute force of the computer is useful, it is usually more important that you have modelled the search space correctly than to have used the most effective algorithm.
As TaslemGuy pointed out, Genetic Algorithms aren't guaranteed to be optimal, even though they usually give good results.
To get optimal results you would have to search through every possible combination of actions until you find the optimal path through the tree-like representation. However, doing this for StarCraft is difficult, since there are so many different paths to reach a goal. In chess you move a pawn from e2 to e4 and then the opponent moves. In StarCraft you can move a unit at instant x or x+1 or x+10 or ...
A chess engine can look at many different aspects of the board (e.g. how many pieces does it have and how many does the opponent have), to guide it's search. It can ignore most of the actions available if it knows that they are strictly worse than others.
For a build-order creator only time really matters. Is it better to build another drone to get minerals faster, or is it faster to start that spawning pool right away? Not as straightforward as with chess.
These kinds of decisions happen pretty early on, so you will have to search each alternative to conclusion before you can decide on the better one, which will take a long time.
If I were to write a build-order optimizer myself, I would probably try to formulate a heuristic that estimates how good (close the to the goal state) the current state is, just as chess engines do:
Score = a*(Buildings_and_units_done/Buildings_and_units_required) - b*Time_elapsed - c*Minerals - d*Gas + e*Drone_count - f*Supply_left
This tries to keep the score tied to the completion percentage as well as StarCraft common knowledge (keep your ressources low, build drones, don't build more supply than you need). The variables a to f would need tweaking, of course.
After you've got a heuristic that can somewhat estimate the worth of a situation, I would use Best-first search or maybe IDDFS to search through the tree of possibilities.
Edit:
I recently found a paper that actually describes build order optimization in StarCraft, in real time even. The authors use depth-first search with branch and bound and heuristics that estimate the minimum amount of effort required to reach the goal based on the tech tree (e.g. zerglings need a spawning pool) and the time needed to gather the required minerals.
Genetic Algorithm can be, or can sometimes not be, the optimal or non-optimal solution. Based on the complexity of the Genetic Algorithm, how much mutation there is, the forms of combinations, and how the chromosomes of the genetic algorithm is interpreted.
So, depending on how your AI is implemented, Genetic Algorithms can be the best.
You are looking at a SINGLE way to implement genetic algorithms, while forgetting about genetic programming, the use of math, higher-order functions, etc. Genetic algorithms can be EXTREMELY sophisticated, and by using clever combining systems for crossbreeding, extremely intelligent.
For instance, neural networks are optimized by genetic algorithms quite often.
Look up "Genetic Programming." It's similar, but uses tree-structures instead of lines of characters, which allows for more complex interactions that breed better. For more complex stuff, they typically work out better.
There's been some research done using hierarchical reinforcement learning to build a layered ordering of actions that efficiently maximizes a reward. I haven't found much code implementing the idea, but there are a few papers describing MAXQ-based algorithms that have been used to explicitly tackle real-time strategy game domains, such as this and this.
This Genetic algorithm only optimizes the strategy for one very specific part of the game: The order of the first few build actions of the game. And it has a very specific goal as well: To have as many roaches as quickly as possible.
The only aspects influencing this system seem to be (I'm no starcraft player):
build time of the various units and
buildings
allowed units and buildings given the available units and buildings
Larva regeneration rate.
This is a relatively limited, relatively well defined problem with a large search space. As such it is very well suited for genetic algorithms (and quite a few other optimization algorithm at that). A full gene is a specific set of build orders that ends in the 7th roach. From what I understand you can just "play" this specific gene to see how fast it finishes, so you have a very clear fitness test.
You also have a few nice constraints on the build order, so you can combine different genes slightly smarter than just randomly.
A genetic algorithm used in this way is a very good tool to find a more optimal build order for the first stage of a game of starcraft. Due to its random nature it is also good at finding a surprising strategy, which might have been an additional goal of the author.
To use a genetic algorithm as the algorithm in an RTS game you'd have to find a way to encode reactions to situations rather than just plain old build orders. This also involves correctly identifying situations which can be a difficult task in itself. Then you'd have to let these genes play thousands of games of starcraft, against each other and (possibly) against humans, selecting and combining winners (or longer-lasting losers). This is also a good application of genetic algorithms, but it involves solving quite a few very hard problems before you even get to the genetic algorithm part.
Today I read this blog entry by Roger Alsing about how to paint a replica of the Mona Lisa using only 50 semi transparent polygons.
I'm fascinated with the results for that particular case, so I was wondering (and this is my question): how does genetic programming work and what other problems could be solved by genetic programming?
There is some debate as to whether Roger's Mona Lisa program is Genetic Programming at all. It seems to be closer to a (1 + 1) Evolution Strategy. Both techniques are examples of the broader field of Evolutionary Computation, which also includes Genetic Algorithms.
Genetic Programming (GP) is the process of evolving computer programs (usually in the form of trees - often Lisp programs). If you are asking specifically about GP, John Koza is widely regarded as the leading expert. His website includes lots of links to more information. GP is typically very computationally intensive (for non-trivial problems it often involves a large grid of machines).
If you are asking more generally, evolutionary algorithms (EAs) are typically used to provide good approximate solutions to problems that cannot be solved easily using other techniques (such as NP-hard problems). Many optimisation problems fall into this category. It may be too computationally-intensive to find an exact solution but sometimes a near-optimal solution is sufficient. In these situations evolutionary techniques can be effective. Due to their random nature, evolutionary algorithms are never guaranteed to find an optimal solution for any problem, but they will often find a good solution if one exists.
Evolutionary algorithms can also be used to tackle problems that humans don't really know how to solve. An EA, free of any human preconceptions or biases, can generate surprising solutions that are comparable to, or better than, the best human-generated efforts. It is merely necessary that we can recognise a good solution if it were presented to us, even if we don't know how to create a good solution. In other words, we need to be able to formulate an effective fitness function.
Some Examples
Travelling Salesman
Sudoku
EDIT: The freely-available book, A Field Guide to Genetic Programming, contains examples of where GP has produced human-competitive results.
Interestingly enough, the company behind the dynamic character animation used in games like Grand Theft Auto IV and the latest Star Wars game (The Force Unleashed) used genetic programming to develop movement algorithms. The company's website is here and the videos are very impressive:
http://www.naturalmotion.com/euphoria.htm
I believe they simulated the nervous system of the character, then randomised the connections to some extent. They then combined the 'genes' of the models that walked furthest to create more and more able 'children' in successive generations. Really fascinating simulation work.
I've also seen genetic algorithms used in path finding automata, with food-seeking ants being the classic example.
Genetic algorithms can be used to solve most any optimization problem. However, in a lot of cases, there are better, more direct methods to solve them. It is in the class of meta-programming algorithms, which means that it is able to adapt to pretty much anything you can throw at it, given that you can generate a method of encoding a potential solution, combining/mutating solutions, and deciding which solutions are better than others. GA has an advantage over other meta-programming algorithms in that it can handle local maxima better than a pure hill-climbing algorithm, like simulated annealing.
I used genetic programming in my thesis to simulate evolution of species based on terrain, but that is of course the A-life application of genetic algorithms.
The problems GA are good at are hill-climbing problems. Problem is that normally it's easier to solve most of these problems by hand, unless the factors that define the problem are unknown, in other words you can't achieve that knowledge somehow else, say things related with societies and communities, or in situations where you have a good algorithm but you need to fine tune the parameters, here GA are very useful.
A situation of fine tuning I've done was to fine tune several Othello AI players based on the same algorithms, giving each different play styles, thus making each opponent unique and with its own quirks, then I had them compete to cull out the top 16 AI's that I used in my game. The advantage was they were all very good players of more or less equal skill, so it was interesting for the human opponent because they couldn't guess the AI as easily.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm#Problem_domains
You should ask yourself : "Can I (a priori) define a function to determine how good a particular solution is relative to other solutions?"
In the mona lisa example, you can easily determine if the new painting looks more like the source image than the previous painting, so Genetic Programming can be "easily" applied.
I have some projects using Genetic Algorithms. GA are ideal for optimization problems, when you cannot develop a fully sequential, exact algorithm do solve a problem. For example: what's the best combination of a car characteristcs to make it faster and at the same time more economic?
At the moment I'm developing a simple GA to elaborate playlists. My GA has to find the better combinations of albums/songs that are similar (this similarity will be "calculated" with the help of last.fm) and suggests playlists for me.
There's an emerging field in robotics called Evolutionary Robotics (w:Evolutionary Robotics), which uses genetic algorithms (GA) heavily.
See w:Genetic Algorithm:
Simple generational genetic algorithm pseudocode
Choose initial population
Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population
Repeat until termination: (time limit or sufficient fitness achieved)
Select best-ranking individuals to reproduce
Breed new generation through crossover and/or mutation (genetic
operations) and give birth to
offspring
Evaluate the individual fitnesses of the offspring
Replace worst ranked part of population with offspring
The key is the reproduction part, which could happen sexually or asexually, using genetic operators Crossover and Mutation.