Task: Build NFA from a given regular expression.
I decided to push some of my old programs to GitHub. Specifically problems regarding Theory of formal languages. After testing code I had this result and I can't really tell if this a wrong or correct output. It is kindaaa looks right but not something Thompson's algo would output. Also those little loops look suspicious. They basically do nothing though.
Definitely wrong.
The epsilon-self-loops look to me like a bug in the handling of the union operator. There should be an epsilon transition from each end state in the union to a new end state, so my guess is that you have mixed up the epsilon links. I'm not sure how you end up with the correct epsilon transition on a in one case and b in the other, so perhaps the bug is more complicated.
You're right that in this case, there is no harm in the epsilon self-loop. But it is quite possible that the absence of an epsilon link from the end of the union leg to the union's end state will cause a problem with (a*|b) or (a|b*). One of those might actually turn out to recognize (a|b)+.
Also, your Kleene star implementation does not allow zero repetitions. What you have is (a|b)+, not (a|b)*, because there is no epsilon transition from the start state to the state of the star subconstruction.
My C# implementation of Brzozowski's algorithm for DFA minimization gives the DFA below. (0) is initial state, (2) and (3) are final states.
Related
I am searching some SWI-Prolog function which is able to make some set union with variables as parameters inside. My aim is to make the union first and define the parameters at further on in source code.
Means eg. I have some function union and the call union(A, B, A_UNION_B) makes sense. Means further more the call:
union(A, [1,2], C), A=[3].
would give me as result
C = [3, 1, 2].
(What you call union/3 is most probably just concatenation, so I will use append/3 for keeping this answer short.)
What you expect is impossible without delayed goals or constraints. To see this, consider the following failure-slice
?- append(A, [1,2], C), false, A=[3].
loops, unexpected. % observed, but for us unexpected
false. % expected, but not the case
This query must terminate, in order to make the entire question useful. But there are infinitely many lists of different length for A. So in order to describe all possible solutions, we would need infinitely many answer substitutions, like
?- append(A, [1,2], C).
A = [], C = [1,2]
; A = [_A], C = [_A,1,2]
; A = [_A,_B], C = [_A,_B,1,2]
; A = [_A,_B,_C], C = [_A,_B,_C,1,2]
; ... .
The only way around is to describe that set of solutions with finitely many answers. One possibility could be:
?- when((ground(A);ground(C)), append(A,B,C)).
when((ground(A);ground(C)),append(A,B,C)).
Essentially it reads: Yes, the query is true, provided the query is true.
While this solves your exact problem, it will now delay many otherwise succeeding goals, think of A = [X], B = [].
A more elaborate version could provide more complex tests. But it would require a somehow different definition than append/3 is. Some systems like sicstus-prolog provide block declarations to make this more smoothly (SWI has a coarse emulation for that).
So it is possible to make this even better, but the question remains whether or not this makes much sense. After all, debugging delayed goals becomes more and more difficult with larger programs.
In many situations it is preferable to prevent this and produce an instantiation error in its stead as iwhen/2 does:
?- iwhen((ground(A);ground(C)),append(A,B,C)).
error(instantiation_error,iwhen/2).
That error is not the nicest answer possible, but at least it is not incorrect. It says: You need to provide more instantiations.
If you really want to solve this problem for the general case you have to delve into E-unification. That is an area with most trivial problem statements and extremely evolved answers. Often, just decidability is non-trivial let alone an effective algorithm. For your particular question, either ACI (for sets) or ANlr (for concatenation) are of interest. Where ACI requires solving Diophantine Equations and associative unification alone is even more complex than that. I am unaware of any such implementation for a Prolog system that solves the general problem.
Prolog IV offered an associative infix operator for concatenation but simply delayed more complex cases. So debugging these remains non-trivial.
I am trying to find out the parameters for the function below:
$$
\log L(\alpha,\beta,v) = v/\beta(e^{-\beta T} -1) + \alpha/\beta \sum_{i=1}^{n}(e^{-\beta(T-t_i)} -1) + \sum_{i=1}^{N}log(v e^{-\beta t_i} + \alpha \sum_{j=1}^{jmax(t_i)} e^{-\beta(t_i - t_j)}).
$$
However, the conventional methods like fmin, fminsearch are not converging properly. Any suggestions on any other methods or open libraries which I can use?
I was trying CVXPY, but they don't support the division by a variable in the expression.
The problem may not be convex (I have not verified this but it could be why CVXPY refused it). We don't have the data so we cannot try things out, but I can give some general advice:
Provide exact gradients (and 2nd derivatives if needed) or use a modeling system with automatic differentiation. Especially first derivatives should be preferably quite precise. With finite differences you may lose half the precision.
Provide a good starting point. May be using an alternative estimation method.
Some solvers can use bounds on the variables to restrict the feasible region where functions will be evaluated. This can be used to restrict the search to interesting areas only and also to protect operations like division and log functions.
This seems to be a theoretical question.
As I far as I know ANTLR3 handles errors itself using its recover(###) method. I want to know what the method ANTLR3 uses for error recovery. (i.e. panic-mode/phrase-level etc.) Can someone help me figure this out?
It would be nice if someone can show me the declaration of its recover method, if my first guess is correct. Thank you.
Quote:
ANTLR’s error recovery mechanism is based upon Niklaus Wirth’s early
ideas in Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs 1 (as well as
Rodney Topor’s A Note on Error Recovery in Recursive Descent Parsers
2) but also includes Josef Grosch’s good ideas from his CoCo
parser generator (Efficient and Comfortable Error Recovery in Recur-
sive Descent Parsers 3). Essentially, recognizers perform single-
symbol insertion and deletion upon mismatched symbol errors (as
described in a moment) if possible. If not, recognizers gobble up sym-
bols until the lookahead is a member of the resynchronization set and
then exit the rule. The resynchronization set is the set of input symbols
that can legally follow references to the current rule and references to
any invoking rules up the call chain. Similarly, if the recognizer cannot
choose any of the alternatives from the start of a rule, the recognizer
again uses the gobble-and-exit strategy.
[...]
-- Terence Parr. The Definitive ANTLR Reference, 10.7 Automatic Error Recovery Strategy.
References
1 Niklaus Wirth. Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1978.
2 Rodney W. Topor. A note on error recovery in recursive descent parsers. SIGPLAN Not., 17(2):37–40, 1982.
3 Josef Grosch. Efficient and comfortable error recovery in recursive descent parsers. Structured Programming, 11(3):129–140, 1990.
I have a task, where I have to calculate optimal policy
(Reinforcement Learning - Markov decision process) in the grid world (agent movies left,right,up,down).
In left table, there are Optimal values (V*).
In right table, there is sollution (directions) which I don't know how to get by using that "Optimal policy" formula.
Y=0.9 (discount factor)
And here is formula:
So if anyone knows how to use that formula, to get solution (those arrows), please help.
Edit: there is whole problem description on this page:
http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/ebook/node35.html
Rewards: state A(column 2, row 1) is followed by a reward of +10 and transition to state A', while state B(column 4, row 1) is followed by a reward of +5 and transition to state B'.
You can move: up,down,left,right. You cannot move outside the grid or stay in same place.
Break the math down, piece by piece:
The arg max (....) is telling you to find the argument, a, which maximizes everything in the parentheses. The variables a, s, and s' are an action, a state you're in, and a state that results from that action, respectively. So the arg max (...) is telling you to find an action that maximizes that term.
You know gamma, and someone did the hard work of calculating V*(s'), which is the value of that resulting state. So you know what to plug in there, right?
So what is p(s,a,s')? That is the probability that, starting from s and doing a, you end in some s'. This is meant to represent some kind of faulty actuator-- you say "go forward!" and it foolishly decides to go left (or two squares forward, or remain still, or whatever.) For this problem, I'd expect it to be given to you, but you haven't shared it with us. And the summation over s' is telling you that when you start in s, and you pick an action a, you need to sum over all possible resulting s' states. Again, you need the details of that p(s,a,s') function to know what those are.
And last, there is r(s,a) which is the reward for doing action a in state s, regardless of where you end up. In this problem it might be slightly negative, to represent a fuel cost. If there is a series of rewards in the grid and a grab action, it might be positive. You need that, too.
So, what to do? Pick a state s, and calculate your policy for it. For each s, you're going have the possibility of (s,a1), and (s,a2), and (s,a3), etc. You have to find the a that gives you the biggest result. And of course for each pair (s,a) you may (in fact, almost certainly will) have multiple values of s' to stick in the summation.
If this sounds like a lot of work, well, that's why we have computers.
PS - Read the problem description very carefully to find out what happens if you run into a wall.
I have a game I am working on that has homing missiles in it. At the moment they just turn towards their target, which produces a rather dumb looking result, with all the missiles following the target around.
I want to create a more deadly flavour of missile that will aim at the where the target "will be" by the time it gets there and I am getting a bit stuck and confused about how to do it.
I am guessing I will need to work out where my target will be at some point in the future (a guess anyway), but I can't get my head around how far ahead to look. It needs to be based on how far the missile is away from the target, but the target it also moving.
My missiles have a constant thrust, combined with a weak ability to turn. The hope is they will be fast and exciting, but steer like a cow (ie, badly, for the non HitchHiker fans out there).
Anyway, seemed like a kind of fun problem for Stack Overflow to help me solve, so any ideas, or suggestions on better or "more fun" missiles would all be gratefully received.
Next up will be AI for dodging them ...
What you are suggesting is called "Command Guidance" but there is an easier, and better way.
The way that real missiles generally do it (Not all are alike) is using a system called Proportional Navigation. This means the missile "turns" in the same direction as the line-of-sight (LOS) between the missile and the target is turning, at a turn rate "proportional" to the LOS rate... This will do what you are asking for as when the LOS rate is zero, you are on collision course.
You can calculate the LOS rate by just comparing the slopes of the line between misile and target from one second to the next. If that slope is not changing, you are on collision course. if it is changing, calculate the change and turn the missile by a proportionate angular rate... you can use any metrics that represent missile and target position.
For example, if you use a proportionality constant of 2, and the LOS is moving to the right at 2 deg/sec, turn the missile to the right at 4 deg/sec. LOS to the left at 6 deg/sec, missile to the left at 12 deg/sec...
In 3-d problem is identical except the "Change in LOS Rate", (and resultant missile turn rate) is itself a vector, i.e., it has not only a magnitude, but a direction (Do I turn the missile left, right or up or down or 30 deg above horizontal to the right, etc??... Imagine, as a missile pilot, where you would "set the wings" to apply the lift...
Radar guided missiles, which "know" the rate of closure. adjust the proportionality constant based on closure (the higher the closure the faster the missile attempts to turn), so that the missile will turn more aggressively in high closure scenarios, (when the time of flight is lower), and less aggressively in low closure (tail chases) when it needs to conserve energy.
Other missiles (like Sidewinders), which do not know the closure, use a constant pre-determined proportionality value). FWIW, Vietnam era AIM-9 sidewinders used a proportionality constant of 4.
I've used this CodeProject article before - it has some really nice animations to explain the math.
"The Mathematics of Targeting and Simulating a Missile: From Calculus to the Quartic Formula":
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/Missile_Guidance_System.aspx
(also, hidden in the comments at the bottom of that article is a reference to some C++ code that accomplishes the same task from the Unreal wiki)
Take a look at OpenSteer. It has code to solve problems like this. Look at 'steerForSeek' or 'steerForPursuit'.
Have you considered negative feedback on the recent change of bearing over change of time?
Details left as an exercise.
The suggestions is completely serious: if the target does not maneuver this should obtain a near optimal intercept. And it should converge even if the target is actively dodging.
Need more detail?
Solving in a two dimensional space for ease of notation. Take \vec{m} to be the location of the missile and vector \vec{t} To be the location of the target.
The current heading in the direction of motion over last time unit: \vec{h} = \bar{\vec{m}_i - \vec{m}_i-1}}. Let r be the normlized vector between the missile and the target: \vec{r} = \bar{\vec{t} - \vec{m}}. The bearing is b = \vec{r} \dot \vec{h} Compute the bearing at each time tick, and the change thereof, and change heading to minimize that quantity.
The math is harrier in 3d because of the need to find the plane of action at each step, but the process is the same.
You'll want to interpolate the trajectory of both the target and the missile as a function of time. Then look for the times in which the coordinates of the objects are within some acceptable error.