Related
Suppose we're given some sort of graph where the feasible region of our optimization problem is given. For example: here is an image
How would I go on about constructing these constraints in an integer optimization problem? Anyone got any tips? Thanks!
Mate, I agree with the others that you should be a little more specific than that paint-ish picture ;). In particular you are neither specifying any objective/objective direction nor are you giving any context, what about this graph should be integer-variable related, except for the existence of disjunctive feasible sets, which may be modeled by MIP-techniques. It seems like your problem is formalization of what you conceptualized. However, in case you are just being lazy and are just interested in modelling disjunctive regions, you should be looking into disjunctive programming techniques, such as "big-M" (Note: big-M reformulations can be problematic). You should be aiming at some convex-hull reformulation if you can attain one (fairly easily).
Back to your picture, it is quite clear that you have a problem in two real dimensions (let's say in R^2), where the constraints bounding the feasible set are linear (the lines making up the feasible polygons).
So you know that you have two dimensions and need two real continuous variables, say x[1] and x[2], to formulate each of your linear constraints (a[i,1]*x[1]+a[i,2]<=rhs[i] for some index i corresponding to the number of lines in your graph). Additionally your variables seem to be constrained to the first orthant so x[1]>=0 and x[2]>=0 should hold. Now, to add disjunctions you want some constraints that only hold when a certain condition is true. Therefore, you can add two binary decision variables, say y[1],y[2] and an additional constraint y[1]+y[2]=1, to tell that only one set of constraints can be active at the same time. You should be able to implement this with the help of big-M by reformulating the constraints as follows:
If you bound things from above with your line:
a[i,1]*x[1]+a[i,2]-rhs[i]<=M*(1-y[1]) if i corresponds to the one polygon,
a[i,1]*x[1]+a[i,2]-rhs[i]<=M*(1-y[2]) if i corresponds to the other polygon,
and if your line bounds things from below:
-M*(1-y[1])<=-a[i,1]*x[1]-a[i,2]+rhs[i] if i corresponds to the one polygon,
-M*(1-y[1])<=-a[i,1]*x[1]-a[i,2]+rhs[i] if i corresponds to the other polygon.
It is important that M is sufficiently large, but not too large to cause numerical issues.
That being said, I am by no means an expert on these disjunctive programming techniques, so feel free to chime in, add corrections or make things clearer.
Also, a more elaborate question typically yields more elaborate and satisfying answers ;) If you had gone to the effort of making up a true small example problem you likely would have gotten a full formulation of your problem or even an executable piece of code in no time.
In Haskell or some other functional programming language, how would you implement a heuristic search?
Take as an example search space, the nine-puzzle, that is a 3x3 grid with 8 tiles and 1 hole, and you move tiles into the hole until you have correctly assembled a picture. The heuristic is the "Manhattan heuristic", which evaluates a board position adding up the distance each tile is from its target position, taking as the distance the number of squares horizontally plus the number of squares vertically each tile needs to be moved to get to the correct location.
I have been reading John Hughes paper on pretty printing as I know that pretty printer back-tracks to find better solutions. I am trying to understand how to generalise a heuristic search along these lines.
===
Note that my ultimate aim here is not to write a solver for the 9-puzzle, but to learn some general techniques for writing efficient heuristic searches in FP languages. I am also interested to learn if there is code that can be generalised and re-used across a wider class of such problems, rather than solving any specific problem.
For example, a search space can be characterised by a function that maps a State to a List of States together with some 'operation' that describes how one state is transitioned into another. There could also be a goal function, mapping a State to Bool, indicating when a goal State has been reached. And of course, the heuristic function mapping a State to a Number reflecting how well it is estimated to score. Other descriptions of the search are possible.
I don't think it's necessarily very specific to FP or Haskell (unless you utilize lists as "multiple possibility" monads, as in Learn You A Haskell For Great Good).
One way to do it would be by writing a recursive function taking the following:
the current state (that is the board configuration)
possibly some path metadata, e.g., the number of steps from the initial configuration (which is just the recursion depth), or a memoization-map of all the states already considered
possibly some decision, metadata, e.g., a pesudo-random number generator
Within each recursive call, the function would take the state, and check if it is the required result. If not it would
if it uses a memoization map, check if a choice was already considered
If it uses a recursive-step count, check whether to pursue the choices further
If it decides to recursively call itself on the possible choices emanating from this state (e.g., if there are different tiles which can be pushed into the hole), it could do so in the order based on the heuristic (or possibly pseudo-randomly based on the order based on the heuristic)
The function would return whether it succeeded, and, if they are used, updated versions of the memoization map and/or pseudo-random number generator.
I want to implement an AST in Haskell. I need a parent reference so it seems impossible to use a functional data structure. I've seen the following in an article. We define a node as:
type Tree = Node -> Node
Node allows us to get attribute by key of type Key a.
Is there anything to read about such a pattern? Could you give me some further links?
If you want a pure data structure with cyclic self-references, then as delnan says in the comments the usual term for that is "tying the knot". Searching for that term should give you more information.
Do note that data structures built by tying the knot are difficult (or impossible) to "update" in the usual manner--with a non-cyclic structure you can keep pieces of the original when building a new structure based on it, but changing any piece of a cycle requires you to rebuild the entire cycle as well. Depending on what you're doing, this may or may not be a problem, of course.
A while ago, I ran across an article on FingerTrees (See Also an accompanying Stack Overflow Question) and filed the idea away. I have finally found a reason to make use of them.
My problem is that the Data.FingerTree package seems to have a little bit rot around the edges. Moreover, Data.Sequence in the Containers package which makes use of the data structure re-implements a (possibly better) version, but doesn't export it.
As theoretically useful as this structure seems to be, it doesn't seem to get a lot of actual use or attention. Have people found that FingerTrees are not useful as a practical matter, or is this a case not enough attention?
further explanation:
I'm interested in building a data structure holding text that has good concatenation properties. Think about building an HTML document from assorted fragments. Most pre-built solutions use bytestrings, but I really want something that deals with Unicode text properly. My plan at the moment is to layer Data.Text fragments into a FingerTree.
I would also like to borrow the trick from Data.Vector of taking slices without copying using (offset,length) manipulation. Data.Text.Text has this built in to the data type, but only uses it for efficient uncons and unsnoc opperations. In FingerTree this information could very easily becomes the v or annotation of the tree.
To answer your question about finger trees in particular, I think the problem is that they have relatively high constant costs compared to arrays, and are more complex than other ways of achieving efficient concatenation. A Builder has a more efficient interface for just appending chunks, and they're usually readily available (see the links in #informatikr's answer). Suppose that Data.Text.Lazy is implemented with a linked list of chunks, and you're creating a Data.Text.Lazy from a builder. Unless you have a lot of chunks (probably more than 50), or are accessing data near the end of the list repeatedly, the high constant cost of a finger tree probably isn't worth it.
The Data.Sequence implementation is specialized for performance reasons, and isn't as general as the full interface provided by the fingertree package. That's why it isn't exported; it's not really possible to use it for anything other than a Sequence.
I also suspect that many programmers are at a loss as to how to actually use the monoidal annotation, as it's behind a fairly significant abstraction barrier. So many people wouldn't use it because they don't see how it can be useful compared to other data types.
I didn't really get it until I read Chung-chieh Shan's blog series on word numbers (part2, part3, part4). That's proof that the idea can definitely be used in practical code.
In your case, if you need to both inspect partial results and have efficient appends, using a fingertree may be better than a builder. Depending on the builder's implementation, you may end up doing a lot of repeated work as you convert to Text, add more stuff to the builder, convert to Text again, etc. It would depend on your usage pattern though.
You might be interested in my splaytree package, which provides splay trees with monoidal annotations, and several different structures build upon them. Other than the splay tree itself, the Set and RangeSet modules have more-or-less complete API's, the Sequence module is mostly a skeleton I used for testing. It's not a "batteries included" solution to what you're looking for (again, #informatikr's answer provides those), but if you want to experiment with monoidal annotations it may be more useful than Data.FingerTree. Be aware that a splay tree can get unbalanced if you traverse all the elements in sequence (or continually snoc onto the end, or similar), but if appends and lookups are interleaved performance can be excellent.
In addition to John Lato's answer, I'll add some specific details about the performance of finger trees, since I spent some time looking at that in the past.
The broad summary is:
Data.Sequence has great constant factors and asymptotics: it is almost as fast as [] when accessing the front of the list (where both data structures have O(1) asymptotics), and much faster elsewhere in the list (where Data.Sequence's logarithmic asymptotics trounce []'s linear asymptotics).
Data.FingerTree has the same asymptotics as Data.Sequence, but is about an order of magnitude slower.
Just like lists, finger trees have high per-element memory overheads, so they should be combined with chunking for better memory and cache use. Indeed, a few packages do this (yi, trifecta, rope). If Data.FingerTree could be brought close to Data.Sequence in performance, I would hope to see a Data.Text.Sequence type, which implemented a finger tree of Data.Text values. Such a type would lose the streaming behaviour of Data.Text.Lazy, but benefit from improved random access and concatenation performance. (Similarly, I would want to see Data.ByteString.Sequence and Data.Vector.Sequence.)
The obstacle to implementing these now is that no efficient and generic implementation of finger trees exists (see below where I discuss this further). To produce efficient implementations of Data.Text.Sequence one would have to completely reimplement finger trees, specialised to Text - just as Data.Text.Lazy completely reimplements lists, specialised to Text. Unfortunately, finger trees are much more complex than lists (especially concatenation!), so this is a considerable amount of work.
So as I see it the answer is:
specialised finger trees are great, but a lot of work to implement
chunked finger trees (e.g. Data.Text.Sequence) would be great, but at present the poor performance of Data.FingerTree means they are not a viable alternative to chunked lists in the common case
builders and chunked lists achieve many of the benefits of chunked finger trees, and so they suffice for the common case
in the uncommon case where builders and chunked lists don't suffice, we grit our teeth and put up with the poor constant factors of chunked finger trees (e.g. in yi and trifecta).
Obstacles to an efficient and generic finger tree
Much of the performance gap between Data.Sequence and Data.FingerTree is due to two optimisations in Data.Sequence:
The measure type is specialised to Int, so measure manipulations will compile down to efficient integer arithmetic rather
The measure type is unpacked into the Deep constructor, which saves pointer dereferences in the inner loops of the tree operations.
It is possible to apply these optimisations in the general case of Data.FingerTree by using data families for generic unpacking and by exploiting GHC's inliner and specialiser - see my fingertree-unboxed package, which brings generic finger tree performance almost up to that of Data.Sequence. Unfortunately, these techniques have some significant problems:
data families for generic unpacking is unpleasant for the user, because they have to define lots of instances. There is no clear solution to this problem.
finger trees use polymorphic recursion, which GHC's specialiser doesn't handle well (1, 2). This means that, to get sufficient specialisation on the measure type, we need lots of INLINE pragmas, which causes GHC to generate huge amounts of code.
Due to these problems, I never released the package on Hackage.
Ignoring your Finger Tree question and only responding to your further explanation: did you look into Data.Text.Lazy.Builder or, specifically for building HTML, blaze-html?
Both allow fast concatenation. For slicing, if that is important for solving your problem, they might not have ideal performance.
I am a big fan of Stephen Wolfram, but he is definitely one not shy of tooting his own horn. In many references, he extols Mathematica as a different symbolic programming paradigm. I am not a Mathematica user.
My questions are: what is this symbolic programming? And how does it compare to functional languages (such as Haskell)?
When I hear the phrase "symbolic programming", LISP, Prolog and (yes) Mathematica immediately leap to mind. I would characterize a symbolic programming environment as one in which the expressions used to represent program text also happen to be the primary data structure. As a result, it becomes very easy to build abstractions upon abstractions since data can easily be transformed into code and vice versa.
Mathematica exploits this capability heavily. Even more heavily than LISP and Prolog (IMHO).
As an example of symbolic programming, consider the following sequence of events. I have a CSV file that looks like this:
r,1,2
g,3,4
I read that file in:
Import["somefile.csv"]
--> {{r,1,2},{g,3,4}}
Is the result data or code? It is both. It is the data that results from reading the file, but it also happens to be the expression that will construct that data. As code goes, however, this expression is inert since the result of evaluating it is simply itself.
So now I apply a transformation to the result:
% /. {c_, x_, y_} :> {c, Disk[{x, y}]}
--> {{r,Disk[{1,2}]},{g,Disk[{3,4}]}}
Without dwelling on the details, all that has happened is that Disk[{...}] has been wrapped around the last two numbers from each input line. The result is still data/code, but still inert. Another transformation:
% /. {"r" -> Red, "g" -> Green}
--> {{Red,Disk[{1,2}]},{Green,Disk[{3,4}]}}
Yes, still inert. However, by a remarkable coincidence this last result just happens to be a list of valid directives in Mathematica's built-in domain-specific language for graphics. One last transformation, and things start to happen:
% /. x_ :> Graphics[x]
--> Graphics[{{Red,Disk[{1,2}]},{Green,Disk[{3,4}]}}]
Actually, you would not see that last result. In an epic display of syntactic sugar, Mathematica would show this picture of red and green circles:
But the fun doesn't stop there. Underneath all that syntactic sugar we still have a symbolic expression. I can apply another transformation rule:
% /. Red -> Black
Presto! The red circle became black.
It is this kind of "symbol pushing" that characterizes symbolic programming. A great majority of Mathematica programming is of this nature.
Functional vs. Symbolic
I won't address the differences between symbolic and functional programming in detail, but I will contribute a few remarks.
One could view symbolic programming as an answer to the question: "What would happen if I tried to model everything using only expression transformations?" Functional programming, by contrast, can been seen as an answer to: "What would happen if I tried to model everything using only functions?" Just like symbolic programming, functional programming makes it easy to quickly build up layers of abstractions. The example I gave here could be easily be reproduced in, say, Haskell using a functional reactive animation approach. Functional programming is all about function composition, higher level functions, combinators -- all the nifty things that you can do with functions.
Mathematica is clearly optimized for symbolic programming. It is possible to write code in functional style, but the functional features in Mathematica are really just a thin veneer over transformations (and a leaky abstraction at that, see the footnote below).
Haskell is clearly optimized for functional programming. It is possible to write code in symbolic style, but I would quibble that the syntactic representation of programs and data are quite distinct, making the experience suboptimal.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, I advocate that there is a distinction between functional programming (as epitomized by Haskell) and symbolic programming (as epitomized by Mathematica). I think that if one studies both, then one will learn substantially more than studying just one -- the ultimate test of distinctness.
Leaky Functional Abstraction in Mathematica?
Yup, leaky. Try this, for example:
f[x_] := g[Function[a, x]];
g[fn_] := Module[{h}, h[a_] := fn[a]; h[0]];
f[999]
Duly reported to, and acknowledged by, WRI. The response: avoid the use of Function[var, body] (Function[body] is okay).
You can think of Mathematica's symbolic programming as a search-and-replace system where you program by specifying search-and-replace rules.
For instance you could specify the following rule
area := Pi*radius^2;
Next time you use area, it'll be replaced with Pi*radius^2. Now, suppose you define new rule
radius:=5
Now, whenever you use radius, it'll get rewritten into 5. If you evaluate area it'll get rewritten into Pi*radius^2 which triggers rewriting rule for radius and you'll get Pi*5^2 as an intermediate result. This new form will trigger a built-in rewriting rule for ^ operation so the expression will get further rewritten into Pi*25. At this point rewriting stops because there are no applicable rules.
You can emulate functional programming by using your replacement rules as function. For instance, if you want to define a function that adds, you could do
add[a_,b_]:=a+b
Now add[x,y] gets rewritten into x+y. If you want add to only apply for numeric a,b, you could instead do
add[a_?NumericQ, b_?NumericQ] := a + b
Now, add[2,3] gets rewritten into 2+3 using your rule and then into 5 using built-in rule for +, whereas add[test1,test2] remains unchanged.
Here's an example of an interactive replacement rule
a := ChoiceDialog["Pick one", {1, 2, 3, 4}]
a+1
Here, a gets replaced with ChoiceDialog, which then gets replaced with the number the user chose on the dialog that popped up, which makes both quantities numeric and triggers replacement rule for +. Here, ChoiceDialog as a built-in replacement rule along the lines of "replace ChoiceDialog[some stuff] with the value of button the user clicked".
Rules can be defined using conditions which themselves need to go through rule-rewriting in order to produce True or False. For instance suppose you invented a new equation solving method, but you think it only works when the final result of your method is positive. You could do the following rule
solve[x + 5 == b_] := (result = b - 5; result /; result > 0)
Here, solve[x+5==20] gets replaced with 15, but solve[x + 5 == -20] is unchanged because there's no rule that applies. The condition that prevents this rule from applying is /;result>0. Evaluator essentially looks the potential output of rule application to decide whether to go ahead with it.
Mathematica's evaluator greedily rewrites every pattern with one of the rules that apply for that symbol. Sometimes you want to have finer control, and in such case you could define your own rules and apply them manually like this
myrules={area->Pi radius^2,radius->5}
area//.myrules
This will apply rules defined in myrules until result stops changing. This is pretty similar to the default evaluator, but now you could have several sets of rules and apply them selectively. A more advanced example shows how to make a Prolog-like evaluator that searches over sequences of rule applications.
One drawback of current Mathematica version comes up when you need to use Mathematica's default evaluator (to make use of Integrate, Solve, etc) and want to change default sequence of evaluation. That is possible but complicated, and I like to think that some future implementation of symbolic programming will have a more elegant way of controlling evaluation sequence
As others here already mentioned, Mathematica does a lot of term rewriting. Maybe Haskell isn't the best comparison though, but Pure is a nice functional term-rewriting language (that should feel familiar to people with a Haskell background). Maybe reading their Wiki page on term rewriting will clear up a few things for you:
http://code.google.com/p/pure-lang/wiki/Rewriting
Mathematica is using term rewriting heavily. The language provides special syntax for various forms of rewriting, special support for rules and strategies. The paradigm is not that "new" and of course it's not unique, but they're definitely on a bleeding edge of this "symbolic programming" thing, alongside with the other strong players such as Axiom.
As for comparison to Haskell, well, you could do rewriting there, with a bit of help from scrap your boilerplate library, but it's not nearly as easy as in a dynamically typed Mathematica.
Symbolic shouldn't be contrasted with functional, it should be contrasted with numerical programming. Consider as an example MatLab vs Mathematica. Suppose I want the characteristic polynomial of a matrix. If I wanted to do that in Mathematica, I could do get an identity matrix (I) and the matrix (A) itself into Mathematica, then do this:
Det[A-lambda*I]
And I would get the characteristic polynomial (never mind that there's probably a characteristic polynomial function), on the other hand, if I was in MatLab I couldn't do it with base MatLab because base MatLab (never mind that there's probably a characteristic polynomial function) is only good at calculating finite-precision numbers, not things where there are random lambdas (our symbol) in there. What you'd have to do is buy the add-on Symbolab, and then define lambda as its own line of code and then write this out (wherein it would convert your A matrix to a matrix of rational numbers rather than finite precision decimals), and while the performance difference would probably be unnoticeable for a small case like this, it would probably do it much slower than Mathematica in terms of relative speed.
So that's the difference, symbolic languages are interested in doing calculations with perfect accuracy (often using rational numbers as opposed to numerical) and numerical programming languages on the other hand are very good at the vast majority of calculations you would need to do and they tend to be faster at the numerical operations they're meant for (MatLab is nearly unmatched in this regard for higher level languages - excluding C++, etc) and a piss poor at symbolic operations.