[rules-users] Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my droolsmodel/ moves
Geoffrey De Smet
ge0ffrey.spam at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 14:06:15 EDT 2009
Probably a typo (no ; after AppointmentSlot() ?), take a look at the
examination example's roomCapacity rule to compare.
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
Laurent Michenaud schreef:
> Hi,
>
> The jira web site doesnot work the moment. I will have a look later.
>
> I have tried your wordround but it raises the exception :
>
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: There are errors in the scoreDrl's:[63,0]: [ERR 101] Line 63:0 no viable alternative at input ''[63,1]: [ERR 101] Line 63:1 no viable alternative at input ''[63,2]: [ERR 101] Line 63:2 no viable alternative at input ''[63,3]: [ERR 101] Line 63:3 no viable alternative at input ''
> at org.drools.solver.config.localsearch.LocalSearchSolverConfig.buildRuleBase(LocalSearchSolverConfig.java:170)
> at org.drools.solver.config.localsearch.LocalSearchSolverConfig.buildSolver(LocalSearchSolverConfig.java:138)
> at org.drools.solver.config.XmlSolverConfigurer.buildSolver(XmlSolverConfigurer.java:73)
>
> rule "mySoftConstraint"
> when
> $appointmentSlot: AppointmentSlot()
> not IntConstraintOccurrence(ruleId == "mySoftConstraint",
> constraintType == ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,
> causes contains $appointmentSlot,
> eval(weight != ($appointmentSlot.getCurrentDistance() + ($appointmentSlot.getNbShifts() * 1000 )))
> );
> then
> insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("mySoftConstraint",
> ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,
> $appointmentSlot.getCurrentDistance() + ( $appointmentSlot.getNbShifts() * 1000 ),
> $appointmentSlot));
> end
>
> Best regards
> Michenux
>
> -------- Message d'origine--------
> De: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org de la part de Geoffrey De Smet
> Date: lun. 29/06/2009 21:25
> À: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> Objet : Re: RE : [rules-users] Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my droolsmodel/ moves
>
>
> > rule "mySoftConstraint"
> > when
> > $appointmentSlot: AppointmentSlot()
> > then
> > insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("mySoftConstraint",
> > ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,
> > $appointmentSlot.getCurrentDistance() + (
> $appointmentSlot.getNbShifts() * 1000 ),
> > $appointmentSlot));
> > end
>
> This rule probably runs into
> https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBRULES-1804
> Logical insertion lingers after the rule that inserted it no longer
> supports it
>
> Vote for the issue so Mark & Edson know it's annoying for us :) An
> alternative drools-core configuration option will probably fix this
> wierd issue for us, but it's unproven that it will have no negative side
> effects...
>
> A workaround (that will cost you performance) is to do something like this
> when
> $appointmentSlot: AppointmentSlot()
> not IntConstraintOccurrence(
> ruleId == "mySoftConstraint",
> constraintType == ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,
> causes contains $appointmentSlot,
> eval(weight != ($appointmentSlot.getCurrentDistance() + (
> $appointmentSlot.getNbShifts() * 1000 )))
> );
> then
> ...
>
> With kind regards,
> Geoffrey De Smet
>
>
> Laurent Michenaud schreef:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for your answer. I will study it next.
>>
>> I have changed a little my solution and the solver
>> seems to do more things and finds more solutions :
>> - The move list are generated at each loop.
>> - The init solution has no customer availability and
>> the only possible move is to choose one.
>> - When a customer availability is chosen, i initialize
>> the resource shifts list of the solution myself.
>> - Then, the only possible moves are to replace a resource shift
>> by another one, or add one if the number of needed persons is not reached.
>>
>> My soft rules are the following:
>> - sum of all distances between the resources and the appointment.
>> - the number of resource shifts * 1000 ( less resource shifts is considered a better solution ).
>>
>> I have configured a solution recaller to keep the n best solutions.
>>
>> Please look at the log of the solutions below because i think i
>> have a problem :
>>
>> Solution 1 :
>> score : 0hard/-102030soft
>> CustomerAvailability : [start=2009-05-11 10:00:00.0,end=2009-05-11 12:00:00.0,duration=120]
>> persons count : 3
>> distance : 100030
>> ResourceShift[id=1,period=[start=2009-05-11 08:00:00.0,end=2009-05-11 12:00:00.0,duration=240],resourceId=1,distance=100000]
>> ResourceShift[id=3,period=[start=2009-05-11 09:00:00.0,end=2009-05-11 11:00:00.0,duration=120],resourceId=2,distance=30]
>> /
>> Solution 2 :
>> score : 0hard/-104070soft
>> CustomerAvailability : [start=2009-05-11 10:00:00.0,end=2009-05-11 12:00:00.0,duration=120]
>> persons count : 3
>> distance : 40
>> ResourceShift[id=4,period=[start=2009-05-11 08:00:00.0,end=2009-05-11 12:00:00.0,duration=240],resourceId=3,distance=10]
>> ResourceShift[id=3,period=[start=2009-05-11 09:00:00.0,end=2009-05-11 11:00:00.0,duration=120],resourceId=2,distance=30]
>> /
>>
>> I understand the score of the solution 1 ( distance(10000 + 30) + (2 resourceShifts * 1000) = 102030
>> but i don't understand the score of the solution 2, it is like if it has added the score of
>> solution 1 + ( distance(10+30) + 2 resourceShifts * 1000) = 104070
>> It should be 2040.
>>
>> My soft rule constraints are :
>>
>> rule "mySoftConstraint"
>> when
>> $appointmentSlot: AppointmentSlot()
>> then
>> insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("mySoftConstraint",
>> ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,
>> $appointmentSlot.getCurrentDistance() + ( $appointmentSlot.getNbShifts() * 1000 ),
>> $appointmentSlot));
>> end
>>
>> It is quite hard to debug that part of the framework and your help would
>> be welcomed.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Michenux.
>>
>>
>> -------- Message d'origine--------
>> De: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org de la part de Geoffrey De Smet
>> Date: lun. 29/06/2009 19:00
>> À: rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> Objet : [rules-users] Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my drools model/ moves
>>
>> I call this problem a "score trap".
>>
>> The problem is that your moves are to fine grained relatively to the
>> rewarding aspect of the score function.
>>
>> Here are some options:
>>
>> 1) You could introduce an extra bigger move (with a seperate movefactory
>> so you can configure relativeSelections independently of your currrent
>> movefactories and evaluate the union of those generated moves) which
>> creates a new availability and immediatly fills in appointments and
>> resources too.
>>
>> In the examination problem for example, you 'll see 3 moves:
>> RoomChangeMove & PeriodChangeMove (fine grained)
>> ExamSwitchMove (course grained as it moves 2 exams, both in room and period)
>>
>> 2) You could also change the rewarding aspect of your score function to
>> avoid score traps. Like a chosen availability with less then 5 resources
>> doesn't trigger the constraint.
>>
>> In the manners2009 problem for example, you 'll see the extra score rule
>> atLeastOneJobTypePerTableScoreGuider:
>> - twoSameJobTypePerTable: punish all tables without 2 of a profession
>> - atLeastOneJobTypePerTableScoreGuider: punish all tables with 1 of a
>> profession even harder
>> The SeatDesignationSwitchMove can only move 1 profession at a time at a
>> table, so without atLeastOneJobTypePerTableScoreGuider it would have no
>> insentive to move 1 profession to a table with 0 of that profession.
>>
>> 3) On trunk you can plug in a custom deciderScoreComparatorFactory and a
>> custom ScoreDefinition. Keep the annoying constraint separately in the
>> Score and make your deciderScoreComparatorFactory ignore it every 50
>> steps for a duration of 10 steps.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>> Geoffrey De Smet
>>
>>
>> Laurent Michenaud schreef:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is my test :
>>> I have an appointment to schedule on a customer availability.
>>> I have a list of customer availabilities.
>>> A customer availability is a period.
>>> An appointment needs an exact number of persons.
>>> A resource is composed of persons ( between 1 and n ) and has availabilities too.
>>>
>>> The problem is to schedule the appointment : it has to choose the
>>> right resource availabilities that matches one of the customer availabilities and
>>> the total number of persons inside chosen resources must match exactly the
>>> needed number of persons of the appointment.
>>>
>>> My moves are for the moment :
>>> - Change the customer availability.
>>> - Add a resource to the list of chosen resources.
>>>
>>> My init is :
>>> - One of the customer availability is taken
>>> - 0 resource taken.
>>>
>>> First, i don't know if my model and my init are ok.
>>> Secondly, the solver does the following :
>>>
>>> - At the beginning, the score is bad because there is no resource.
>>> So, it begins adding resource and the score is getting better
>>> but when it changes the availability, the score gets very bad either because
>>> the chosen resources don't match the new availability or it has no resource
>>> inside. The solver doesnot seem to interest in the new chosen availibity with no
>>> resource, but i wish it does.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your remarks/help
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
More information about the rules-users
mailing list