11:49 a.m.
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
7 p.m.
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
7:46 p.m.
New subject: RE : Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my drools model/ moves
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
9:25 p.m.
New subject: RE : Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my drools model/ 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
9:49 a.m.
New subject: RE : RE : Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my 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
8:06 p.m.
New subject: RE : RE : Re: [drools-solver] help for defining my droolsmodel/ moves
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(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
2:18 p.m.
New subject: RE : RE : RE : Re: [drools-solver] help for definingmy droolsmodel/ moves
Thanks a lot, it works now.
Some strange spaces inserted during copying/pasting
but not visible in eclipse.
Best regards
Michenaud Laurent
-------- Message d'origine--------
De: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org de la part de Geoffrey De Smet
Date: mar. 30/06/2009 20:06
À: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Objet : Re: RE : RE : [rules-users] Re: [drools-solver] help for definingmy droolsmodel/
moves
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(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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
5413
days inactive
5415
days old
6 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Geoffrey De Smet -
Laurent Michenaud