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)); end

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(a)lists.jboss.org de la part de Geoffrey De Smet Date: lun. 29/06/2009 19:00 À: rules-users(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users