What are the relative pro's and con's of both DFA's and NFA's when compared to each other?
I know that DFA's are easier to implement than NFA's and that NFA's are slower to arrive at the accept state than DFA's but are there any other explicit, well known advantages/disadvantages?
NFAs and DFAs accept the same set of languages - the regular languages.
A direct implementation of an NFA (which is not a DFA, since DFA is a subset of NFA) usually involves allowing backtracking whereas a direct implementation of a DFA requires only as many steps as the input length, so in that sense, DFAs "arrive at the answer" faster than equivalent NFAs (which are not DFAs).
When trying to find a FA corresponding to a given language or RE (e.g., by an algorithm), it is usually easier to arrive first at the NFA (since the rules are less strict). This is especially true when attempting to demonstrate the existence of a FA, since the existence of an NFA is as good as the existence of a DFA. If a DFA is needed, algorithms exist for (a) converting the NFA to an equivalent DFA and (b) minimizing the DFA.
Making gross generalizations, DFAs are faster but more complex (in terms of number of states and transitions) whereas NFAs are slower but more simple (in the same terms).
The advantage of NFA's over DFA's is the property, to always "choose the right path". Since you cannot say in an algorithm to "choose the right path", usually a conversion from NFA to DFA works, creating DFA states that symbolize multiple NFA states. Thus, when your NFA is in State A and has the choice to go to A,B or C then the next state in your DFA would be {A,B,C}.
This explains the advantages and the disadvantages:
DFA's can be implemented easier since their next state is determined by a function.
NFA's allow a user to easier express what they want, because the NFA can choose between many path's.
One definite advantage of NFA's over DFA's is that, you can build a FA representing the language that is a union, intersection, concetanation etc. of two (or more) languages easily by using NFA's. That is to say, if you have slightly simple FA's doing parts of the job, you can combine them easily using NFA's. While using a DFA, you need to build a new automata doing all the job by itself.
see, it is easier to implement.
but there's the time issue as you mentioned.
Related
I have a burning question about finite state machines, that how we can know that this language needs 2 states or 3 states? I mean is there any formula for that?
Although I believe, we would always work to minimize the number of states but still How can we determine the number of states to be created according to any language or string (without actually constructing the DFA)?
You are in effect asking about DFA minimization. It is a well-studied problem for which a number of algorithms have been developed. The Wikipedia article on it is a good starting point.
The theoretical result which governs the number of states is the Myhill-Nerode theorem, but this theorem doesn't give any quick formula. You have to determine the number of equivalence classes in an equivalence relation defined in terms of the language. Hopcroft's algorithm for DFA minimization is essentially an algorithm for determining the equivalence classes in the Myhill-Nerode equivalence relation. I suspect that any attempt to use Myhill-Nerode more directly is going to lead to something similar to Hopcroft's algorithm, though I am not an expert in the field.
Aho-corasick multiple pattern matching algorithm is a finite state machine with only 1 state.
How could I show that there exist infinitely many DFA's each of which recognises the language {ϵ,a,b}.
That depends on how you are counting DFAs. Clearly there is one DFA for the language, and you can always add an unreachable state to the automaton. Ordinarily, though, such trivial differences are discounted, and with a finite language, there are only a finite number of different DFAs. With an infinite language there would be cycles in the transition graph which can be expanded again and again, which makes for a more significant difference. Another way to put it, you cannot show that there exist an infinite number of different DFAs for the given finite language.
Every now and then, I hear someone saying things like "functional programming languages are more mathematical". Is it so? If so, why and how? Is, for instance, Scheme more mathematical than Java or C? Or Haskell?
I cannot define precisely what is "mathematical", but I believe you can get the feeling.
Thanks!
There are two common(*) models of computation: the Lambda Calculus (LC) model and the Turing Machine (TM) model.
Lambda Calculus approaches computation by representing it using a mathematical formalism in which results are produced through the composition of functions over a domain of types. LC is also related to Combinatory Logic, which is considered a more generalized approach to the same topic.
The Turing Machine model approaches computation by representing it as the manipulation of symbols stored on idealized storage using a body of basic operations (like addition, mutation, etc).
These different models of computation are the basis for different families of programming languages. Lambda Calculus has given rise to languages like ML, Scheme, and Haskell. The Turing Model has given rise to C, C++, Pascal, and others. As a generalization, most functional programming languages have a theoretical basis in lambda calculus.
Due to the nature of Lambda Calculus, certain proofs are possible about the behavior of systems built on its principles. In fact, provability (ie correctness) is an important concept in LC, and makes possible certain kinds of reasoning and conclusions about LC systems. LC is also related to (and relies on) type theory and category theory.
By contrast, Turing models rely less on type theory and more on structuring computation as a series of state transitions in the underlying model. Turing Machine models of computation are more difficult to make assertions about and do not lend themselves to the same kinds of mathematical proofs and manipulation that LC-based programs do. However, this does not mean that no such analysis is possible - some important aspects of TM models is used when studying virtualization and static analysis of programs.
Because functional programming relies on careful selection of types and transformation between types, FP can be perceived as more "mathematical".
(*) Other models of computation exist as well, but they are less relevant to this discussion.
Pure functional programming languages are examples of a functional calculus and so in theory programs written in a functional language can be reasoned about in a mathematical sense. Ideally you'd like to be able to 'prove' the program is correct.
In practice such reasoning is very hard except in trivial cases, but it's still possible to some degree. You might be able to prove certain properties of the program, for example you might be able to prove that given all numeric inputs to the program, the output is always constrained within a certain range.
In non-functional languages with mutable state and side effects attempts to reason about a program and 'prove' correctness are all but impossible, at the moment at least. With non-functional programs you can think through the program and convince yourself parts of it are correct, and you can run unit tests that test certain inputs, but it's usually not possible to construct rigorous mathematical proofs about the behaviour of the program.
I think one major reason is that pure functional languages have no side effects, i.e. no mutable state, they only map input parameters to result values, which is just what a mathematical function does.
The logic structures of functional programming is heavily based on lambda calculus. While it may not appear to be mathematical based solely on algebraic forms of math, it is written very easily from discrete mathematics.
In comparison to imperative programming, it doesn't prescribe exactly how to do something, but what must be done. This reflects topology.
The mathematical feel of functional programming languages comes from a few different features. The most obvious is the name; "functional", i.e. using functions, which are fundamental to math. The other significant reason is that functional programming involves defining a collection of things that will always be true, which by their interactions achieve the desired computation -- this is similar to how mathematical proofs are done.
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.
Something pretty annoying in evolutionary computing is that mildly different and overlapping concepts tend to pick dramatically different names. My latest confusion because of this is that gene-expression-programming seems very similar to cartesian-genetic-programming.
(how) Are these fundamentally different concepts?
I've read that indirect encoding of GP instructions is an effective technique ( both GEP and CGP do that ). Has there been reached some sort of consensus that indirect encoding has outdated classic tree bases GP?
Well, it seems that there is some difference between gene expression programming (GEP) and cartesian genetic programming (CGP or what I view as classic genetic programming), but the difference might be more hyped up than it really ought to be. Please note that I have never used GEP, so all of my comments are based on my experience with CGP.
In CGP there is no distinction between genotype and a phenotype, in other words- if you're looking at the "genes" of a CGP you're also looking at their expression. There is no encoding here, i.e. the expression tree is the gene itself.
In GEP the genotype is expressed into a phenotype, so if you're looking at the genes you will not readily know what the expression is going to look like. The "inventor" of GP, Cândida Ferreira, has written a really good paper and there are some other resources which try to give a shorter overview of the whole concept.
Ferriera says that the benefits are "obvious," but I really don't see anything that would necessarily make GEP better than CGP. Apparently GEP is multigenic, which means that multiple genes are involved in the expression of a trait (i.e. an expression tree). In any case, the fitness is calculated on the expressed tree, so it doesn't seem like GEP is doing anything to increase the fitness. What the author claims is that GEP increases the speed at which the fitness is reached (i.e. in fewer generations), but frankly speaking you can see dramatic performance shifts from a CGP just by having a different selection algorithm, a different tournament structure, splitting the population into tribes, migrating specimens between tribes, including diversity into the fitness, etc.
Selection:
random
roulette wheel
top-n
take half
etc.
Tournament Frequency:
once per epoch
once per every data instance
once per generation.
Tournament Structure:
Take 3, kill 1 and replace it with the child of the other two.
Sort all individuals in the tournament by fitness, kill the lower half and replace it with the offspring of the upper half (where lower is worse fitness and upper is better fitness).
Randomly pick individuals from the tournament to mate and kill the excess individuals.
Tribes
A population can be split into tribes that evolve independently of each-other:
Migration- periodically, individual(s) from a tribe would be moved to another tribe
The tribes are logically separated so that they're like their own separate populations running in separate environments.
Diversity Fitness
Incorporate diversity into the fitness, where you count how many individuals have the same fitness value (thus are likely to have the same phenotype) and you penalize their fitness by a proportionate value: the more individuals with the same fitness value, the more penalty for those individuals. This way specimens with unique phenotypes will be encouraged, therefore there will be much less stagnation of the population.
Those are just some of the things that can greatly affect the performance of a CGP, and when I say greatly I mean that it's in the same order or greater than Ferriera's performance. So if Ferriera didn't tinker with those ideas too much, then she could have seen much slower performance of the CGPs... especially if she didn't do anything to combat stagnation. So I would be careful when reading performance statistics on GEP, because sometimes people fail to account for all of the "optimizations" available out there.
There seems to be some confusion in these answers that must be clarified. Cartesian GP is different from classic GP (aka tree-based GP), and GEP. Even though they share many concepts and take inspiration from the same biological mechanisms, the representation of the individuals (the solutions) varies.
In CGPthe representation (mapping between genotype and phenotype) is indirect, in other words, not all of the genes in a CGP genome will be expressed in the phenome (a concept also found in GEP and many others). The genotypes can be coded in a grid or array of nodes, and the resulting program graph is the expression of active nodes only.
In GEP the representation is also indirect, and similarly not all genes will be expressed in the phenotype. The representation in this case is much different from treeGP or CGP, but the genotypes are also expressed into a program tree. In my opinion GEP is a more elegant representation, easier to implement, but also suffers from some defects like: you have to find the appropriate tail and head size which is problem specific, the mnltigenic version is a bit of a forced glue between expression trees, and finally it has too much bloat.
Independently of which representation may be better than the other in some specific problem domain, they are general purpose, can be applied to any domain as long as you can encode it.
In general, GEP is simpler from GP. Let's say you allow the following nodes in your program: constants, variables, +, -, *, /, if, ...
For each of such nodes with GP you must create the following operations:
- randomize
- mutate
- crossover
- and probably other genetic operators as well
In GEP for each of such nodes only one operation is needed to be implemented: deserialize, which takes array of numbers (like double in C or Java), and returns the node. It resembles object deserialization in languages like Java or Python (the difference is that deserialization in programming languages uses byte arrays, where here we have arrays of numbers). Even this 'deserialize' operation doesn't have to be implemented by the programmer: it can be implemented by a generic algorithm, just like it's done in Java or Python deserialization.
This simplicity from one point of view may make searching of best solution less successful, but from other side: requires less work from programmer and simpler algorithms may execute faster (easier to optimize, more code and data fits in CPU cache, and so on). So I would say that GEP is slightly better, but of course the definite answer depends on problem, and for many problems the opposite may be true.