RE : RE : RE : [rules-users] Re: [drools-solver] help for definingmy droolsmodel/ moves

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(a)lists.jboss.org de la part de Geoffrey De Smet Date: lun. 29/06/2009 21:25 À: rules-users(a)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(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 _______________________________________________ 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