Hi Christian, Thank you for your reply.
I didn't use the word Stall properly. Sorry ... What I mean is that Gecode will get keep searching forever! I am wondering if there is anything can be improved in search strategy. Please note that for values less than 1200 we get instant solution and as soon as we increase the range by 1, then suddenly Gecode will keep searching forever (I left the computer on for 5 days!). I studied the example for perfect square. The only difference between my code and perfect square code is that I am not using custom made propagator. Should I start doing that? And could you kindly point me for more reading on propagator topic (I am still reading MPG chapter 22)? Thank you, Navid On Jan 20, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Christian Schulte <cschu...@kth.se> wrote: > What does stall mean, again? Is it still searching (you can observe that in > Gist), that is making progress? Or is it dead. > > To improve your model, check the perfect square example that comes with > Gecode and/or search for square packing on Helmut Simonis’ webpage: > http://4c.ucc.ie/~hsimonis/ > > Christian > > > -- > Christian Schulte, www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte > > From: users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf Of > Navid Mohaghegh > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 09:23 PM > To: cschu...@kth.se; users@gecode.org > Subject: Re: [gecode-users] Possible Bug - Increase IntVars Range and Gecode > Stalls > > Hi Christian, > > Thank you for your reply. > > I originally didn't use that as I didn't want to add another set of variables > for finishing corner of rectangles (Gecode nooverlap API has a simple version > that use fixed int width and int height). > > Per your suggestion, I added two array variables for finishing corner that I > can employ the nooverlap API: > -defined integer array variables for starting point of rectangles (e.g. top > left corner): I called it vxs and vys (e.g. X0 and Y0 in Gecode MPG manual) > -defined integer array variables for width and height of rectangles: I called > it vw and vh (e.g. W and H in Gecode MPG manual) > -defined integer array variables for finishing point of rectangles (e.g. > lower right corner): I called it vxf and vyf (e.g. X1 and Y1 in Gecode MPG > manual) > -I removed all manual non-overllaping contraint that I manually added myself > and add the following: > > //starting point width and hight will give us the finishing point > for (i =0 ; i < this->n_vars; i++) > { > rel(*this, ( (vxs[i] + vw[i] == vxf[i]) && (vys[i] + > vh[i] == vyf[i]) ) ); > } > //add nooverlap for all rectangles > nooverlap(*this, vxs,vw,vxf, vys,vh,vyf); > > > My code gets solved for lower ranges of X vars (e.g. vxs < 1000 and vxf<1200) > and the moment I change the x range to values greater than 1500 gecode stalls. > > I appreciate your feedback. > > Thank you, > Navid > > > On Jan 16, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Christian Schulte <cschu...@kth.se> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Just very quick: did you look at the nooverlap constraint in Gecode? > > Cheers > Christian > > -- > Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, > www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/ > > From: Navid Mohaghegh [mailto:na...@navid.ca] > Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:32 PM > To: users@gecode.org > Cc: cschu...@kth.se > Subject: Re: [gecode-users] Possible Bug - Increase IntVars Range and Gecode > Stalls > > Hi everyone, > > I tried Gist as Christian mentioned. Gist will not terminate for higher > ranges (attached screenshot shows that I had to stop Gist manually for range > 1535). > > Could you please point me in the right direction about what I have to more > efficient for this problem: > -Like bin-packing problem, we have bunch of rectangles that shouldn't overlap > with each other. > -Unlike bin-packing, the width and hight of the rectangles can be variable > (e.g. if we have more space in our sheet, we don't mind a rectangle gets > bigger). > -We have bunch of constraint for the size and location of rectangles. > -In below, 15 rectangles, 4 array of variables (2 arrays for X,Y location and > 2 variables for Width,Height which is for size) > > > Could you please let me know? > > Thank you, > Navid > <image001.png> > > On Jan 14, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Christian Schulte <cschu...@kth.se> wrote: > > > > The bug you refer to has been fixed. But try Gist, there you can see what > happens. > > Cheers > Christian > > -- > Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, > www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/ > > From: users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf Of > Navid Mohaghegh > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:39 PM > To: cschu...@kth.se > Cc: users@gecode.org > Subject: Re: [gecode-users] Possible Bug - Increase IntVars Range and Gecode > Stalls > > Hi Christian, > > Thank your for your reply. I didn't try Gist yet, I will go and look at > sample code to learn Gist and I will give it a shot. > > Could you kindly have a look at this comment in mailing list: "There seems to > be a trivial bug in INT_VALUES_MAX: SEL_VALUES_MIN is used instead of > SEL_VALUES_MAX. The attached patch fixes it." > I am asking this as mu space get solved by Gecode almost instantly (less than > 1ms on a 128 GB ram, quad CPU, 64 cores workstation) for values like 1199. > And the moment it goes to 1200 it will stalls. After all it should get slow > (I agree with you), but not stall/freeze for 5 days. That is the main reason > I suspect a tiny bug somewhere. > > I will also look at Gist as well as you instructed. > > Thank you, > Navid > > > On Jan 14, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Christian Schulte <cschu...@kth.se> wrote: > > > > > Did you try it in Gist to see how large the search trees get or whether > Gecode just hangs? > > After all, you exponentially increase the search space! > > Christian > > -- > Christian Schulte, Professor of Computer Science, KTH, > www.ict.kth.se/~cschulte/ > > From: users-boun...@gecode.org [mailto:users-boun...@gecode.org] On Behalf Of > Navid Mohaghegh > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 5:04 PM > To: users@gecode.org > Subject: [gecode-users] Possible Bug - Increase IntVars Range and Gecode > Stalls > Importance: High > > Hi Everyone, > > My question: > I am wondering what is happening in below and why Gecode stalls stall whenI > increase the range of my IntegerVars (while its CPU utilization goes very > high) despite the fact that our constraints are not changed? > > Background (http://navid.ca/gecode/test.cpp): > We are trying to solve a space. We can easily solve the space when our > variable ranges are small (e.g. 0 to 800). As soon as the range goes higher > (e.g. 0-1535) Gecode will stall and can not produce a solution for the space > with exactly the same constraints as before. > > We have 4 groups of integer_array variables. They are called vars_a, vars_b, > vars_c and vars_d. And inside each of them, we have 15 integer variables. > NavidTest(int n, int vars_a_max_, int vars_b_max_, int vars_c_max_, int > vars_d_max_, int vcost_max_); > NavidTest* m = new NavidTest(15, 800, 500, 410, 60, 2000000000); means: > n = 15 > vars_a[0] ... vars_a[15] can have values from zero to vars_a_max_ = 800 > vars_b[0] ... vars_b[15] can have values from zero to vars_b_max_ = 500 > vars_c[0] ... vars_c[15] can have values from zero to vars_c_max_ = 410 > vars_d[0] ... vars_d[15] can have values from zero to vars_d_max_ = 60 > our cost variable can be have values from zero to vcost_max_ = 2,000,000,000 > As we have quadratic cost functions and values can easily grow. > lift() method is where we add our constraints. > For demonstration purpose, we have a method that once used, Gecode can > produce solution: it is called "void the_one_works()" > And we have another one (called: void the_one_doesnot_work) that can not be > solved using Gecode (it is perfectly solvable and we test our solution in > verify_answer() method) > The only difference between the_one_works() and the_one_doesnot_work() is an > increase in vars_a max range from 800 to 1535. > > > > I have found a mailing list entry stating a possible bug: > ========== > From: victor.zverovich@... <victor.zverovich@...> > Subject: bug in INT_VALUES_MAX > Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.gecode.user > Date: 2013-06-21 22:20:18 GMT (29 weeks, 3 days, 17 hours and 17 minutes ago) > There seems to be a trivial bug in INT_VALUES_MAX: SEL_VALUES_MIN is used > instead of SEL_VALUES_MAX. The attached patch fixes it. > Victor > ========== > > Can someone have a look and let me know? > We are using Gecode 4.2.1 on Linux > GCC 4.7.2 and also latest 4.9 > Debian 64bit and CentOS 64bit > My code and how I compile and run is here: http://navid.ca/gecode/test.cpp > > Thank you, > Navid
_______________________________________________ Gecode users mailing list users@gecode.org https://www.gecode.org/mailman/listinfo/gecode-users
