I am having some trouble understanding the way windowing is implemented internally in Flink and could not find any article which explain this in depth. In my mind, there are two ways this can be done. Consider a simple window wordcount code as below
env.socketTextStream("localhost", 9999)
.flatMap(new Splitter())
.groupBy(0)
.window(Time.of(500, TimeUnit.SECONDS)).sum(1)
Method 1: Store all events for 500 seconds and at the end of the window, process all of them by applying the sum operation on the stored events.
Method 2: We use a counter to store a rolling sum for every window. As each event in a window comes, we do not store the individual events but keep adding 1 to previously stored counter and output the result at the end of the window.
Could someone kindly help to understand which of the above methods (or maybe a different approach) is used by Flink in reality. The reason is, there are pros and cons to both approach and is important to understand in order configure the resources for the cluster correctly.
eg: The Method 1 seems very close to batch processing and might potentially have issues related to spike in processing at every 500 sec interval while sitting idle otherwise etc while Method2 would need to maintain a common counter between all task managers.
sum is a reducing function as mentioned here(https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/dev/datastream/operators/windows/#reducefunction). Internally, Flink will apply reduce function to each input element, and simply save the reduced result in ReduceState.
For other windows functions, like windows.apply(WindowFunction). There is no aggregation so all input elements will be saved in the ListState.
This document(https://nightlies.apache.org/flink/flink-docs-master/docs/dev/datastream/operators/windows/#window-functions) about windows stream mentions about how the internal elements are handled in Flink.
I am beginner in this field and I am trying to implement an agent playing an adversarial game like chess. I create two agents that share the same neural network and experience buffer. In every step, the neural network will be updated by both agents (features order swapped).
Does my self-play approach make sense? And if it does, how will I reward the agent's behaviors?
More clearly, following this:
(0) state -> (1) agent0 action -> (2) reward -> (3) state -> (4) agent1 action -> (5) reward -> (6) state
Is the next state of agent0 after (1) would be (3) or (6)? And is the corresponding reward (2) or (5) or something else (for example (2) - (5))?
Here is my understanding. You start with two randomized initialized networks. Please don't share the network. Then you train one of them and only that one. When the network under training begins to show some progress, you stop this match and you make a copy of the good network to be the new opponent. Then you continue. This way you bootstrap yourself and the opponents. You don't try to learn against an expert, but rather against someone who is more or less equal to you.
Above I've described saving only one copy of a previous you, but you can of course keep the last 10 instances and play against all of those.
I have a Azure Logic app that will pull all messages of a queue once a day. In the Loop action, I can extract the amount and convert to float to extract the value, however, I am not sure how to create a running total of all of the messages in the queue. To be clear, so if there are 10 messages in the queue, and each message has an amount of $1, the running total at the end should be $10. Does anyone know how to do this ?
I have tried using the Math function add(variables('TotalPayments'), variables('PaymentAmount'))
TotalPayments - Running Total
PaymentAmount - current Payment extracted from the current Message.
Found a solution to this, What I used was to implement a increment variable and assigned the value from the current message to this variable. There could be an easier way of doing this, however, It achieves the desired result, and I spent far too much time on it. Microsoft may have meant some other way, but isn't forthcoming in the documentation (that I could find, would be gladly told otherwise). Like I indicated above, I was using the Math function add which seemed logical to me to use but that didn't work.
I am writing a Time table generator in java, using AI approaches to satisfy the hard constraints and help find an optimal solution. So far I have implemented and Iterative construction (a most-constrained first heuristic) and Simulated Annealing, and I'm in the process of implementing a genetic algorithm.
Some info on the problem, and how I represent it then :
I have a set of events, rooms , features (that events require and rooms satisfy), students and slots
The problem consists in assigning to each event a slot and a room, such that no student is required to attend two events in one slot, all the rooms assigned fulfill the necessary requirements.
I have a grading function that for each set if assignments grades the soft constraint violations, thus the point is to minimize this.
The way I am implementing the GA is I start with a population generated by the iterative construction (which can leave events unassigned) and then do the normal steps: evaluate, select, cross, mutate and keep the best. Rinse and repeat.
My problem is that my solution appears to improve too little. No matter what I do, the populations tends to a random fitness and is stuck there. Note that this fitness always differ, but nevertheless a lower limit will appear.
I suspect that the problem is in my crossover function, and here is the logic behind it:
Two assignments are randomly chosen to be crossed. Lets call them assignments A and B. For all of B's events do the following procedure (the order B's events are selected is random):
Get the corresponding event in A and compare the assignment. 3 different situations might happen.
If only one of them is unassigned and if it is possible to replicate
the other assignment on the child, this assignment is chosen.
If both of them are assigned, but only one of them creates no
conflicts when assigning to the child, that one is chosen.
If both of them are assigned and none create conflict, on of
them is randomly chosen.
In any other case, the event is left unassigned.
This creates a child with some of the parent's assignments, some of the mother's, so it seems to me it is a valid function. Moreover, it does not break any hard constraints.
As for mutation, I am using the neighboring function of my SA to give me another assignment based on on of the children, and then replacing that child.
So again. With this setup, initial population of 100, the GA runs and always tends to stabilize at some random (high) fitness value. Can someone give me a pointer as to what could I possibly be doing wrong?
Thanks
Edit: Formatting and clear some things
I think GA only makes sense if part of the solution (part of the vector) has a significance as a stand alone part of the solution, so that the crossover function integrates valid parts of a solution between two solution vectors. Much like a certain part of a DNA sequence controls or affects a specific aspect of the individual - eye color is one gene for example. In this problem however the different parts of the solution vector affect each other making the crossover almost meaningless. This results (my guess) in the algorithm converging on a single solution rather quickly with the different crossovers and mutations having only a negative affect on the fitness.
I dont believe GA is the right tool for this problem.
If you could please provide the original problem statement, I will be able to give you a better solution. Here is my answer for the present moment.
A genetic algorithm is not the best tool to satisfy hard constraints. This is an assigment problem that can be solved using integer program, a special case of a linear program.
Linear programs allow users to minimize or maximize some goal modeled by an objective function (grading function). The objective function is defined by the sum of individual decisions (or decision variables) and the value or contribution to the objective function. Linear programs allow for your decision variables to be decimal values, but integer programs force the decision variables to be integer values.
So, what are your decisions? Your decisions are to assign students to slots. And these slots have features which events require and rooms satisfy.
In your case, you want to maximize the number of students that are assigned to a slot.
You also have constraints. In your case, a student may only attend at most one event.
The website below provides a good tutorial on how to model integer programs.
http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~mastjjb/jeb/or/moreip.html
For a java specific implementation, use the link below.
http://javailp.sourceforge.net/
SolverFactory factory = new SolverFactoryLpSolve(); // use lp_solve
factory.setParameter(Solver.VERBOSE, 0);
factory.setParameter(Solver.TIMEOUT, 100); // set timeout to 100 seconds
/**
* Constructing a Problem:
* Maximize: 143x+60y
* Subject to:
* 120x+210y <= 15000
* 110x+30y <= 4000
* x+y <= 75
*
* With x,y being integers
*
*/
Problem problem = new Problem();
Linear linear = new Linear();
linear.add(143, "x");
linear.add(60, "y");
problem.setObjective(linear, OptType.MAX);
linear = new Linear();
linear.add(120, "x");
linear.add(210, "y");
problem.add(linear, "<=", 15000);
linear = new Linear();
linear.add(110, "x");
linear.add(30, "y");
problem.add(linear, "<=", 4000);
linear = new Linear();
linear.add(1, "x");
linear.add(1, "y");
problem.add(linear, "<=", 75);
problem.setVarType("x", Integer.class);
problem.setVarType("y", Integer.class);
Solver solver = factory.get(); // you should use this solver only once for one problem
Result result = solver.solve(problem);
System.out.println(result);
/**
* Extend the problem with x <= 16 and solve it again
*/
problem.setVarUpperBound("x", 16);
solver = factory.get();
result = solver.solve(problem);
System.out.println(result);
// Results in the following output:
// Objective: 6266.0 {y=52, x=22}
// Objective: 5828.0 {y=59, x=16}
I would start by measuring what's going on directly. For example, what fraction of the assignments are falling under your "any other case" catch-all and therefore doing nothing?
Also, while we can't really tell from the information given, it doesn't seem any of your moves can do a "swap", which may be a problem. If a schedule is tightly constrained, then once you find something feasible, it's likely that you won't be able to just move a class from room A to room B, as room B will be in use. You'd need to consider ways of moving a class from A to B along with moving a class from B to A.
You can also sometimes improve things by allowing constraints to be violated. Instead of forbidding crossover from ever violating a constraint, you can allow it, but penalize the fitness in proportion to the "badness" of the violation.
Finally, it's possible that your other operators are the problem as well. If your selection and replacement operators are too aggressive, you can converge very quickly to something that's only slightly better than where you started. Once you converge, it's very difficult for mutations alone to kick you back out into a productive search.
I think there is nothing wrong with GA for this problem, some people just hate Genetic Algorithms no matter what.
Here is what I would check:
First you mention that your GA stabilizes at a random "High" fitness value, but isn't this a good thing? Does "high" fitness correspond to good or bad in your case? It is possible you are favoring "High" fitness in one part of your code and "Low" fitness in another thus causing the seemingly random result.
I think you want to be a bit more careful about the logic behind your crossover operation. Basically there are many situations for all 3 cases where making any of those choices would not cause an increase in fitness at all of the crossed-over individual, but you are still using a "resource" (an assignment that could potentially be used for another class/student/etc.) I realize that a GA traditionally will make assignments via crossover that cause worse behavior, but you are already performing a bit of computation in the crossover phase anyway, why not choose one that actually will improve fitness or maybe don't cross at all?
Optional Comment to Consider : Although your iterative construction approach is quite interesting, this may cause you to have an overly complex Gene representation that could be causing problems with your crossover. Is it possible to model a single individual solution as an array (or 2D array) of bits or integers? Even if the array turns out to be very long, it may be worth it use a more simple crossover procedure. I recommend Googling "ga gene representation time tabling" you may find an approach that you like more and can more easily scale to many individuals (100 is a rather small population size for a GA, but I understand you are still testing, also how many generations?).
One final note, I am not sure what language you are working in but if it is Java and you don't NEED to code the GA by hand I would recommend taking a look at ECJ. Maybe even if you have to code by hand, it could help you develop your representation or breeding pipeline.
Newcomers to GA can make any of a number of standard mistakes:
In general, when doing crossover, make sure that the child has some chance of inheriting that which made the parent or parents winner(s) in the first place. In other words, choose a genome representation where the "gene" fragments of the genome have meaningful mappings to the problem statement. A common mistake is to encode everything as a bitvector and then, in crossover, to split the bitvector at random places, splitting up the good thing the bitvector represented and thereby destroying the thing that made the individual float to the top as a good candidate. A vector of (limited) integers is likely to be a better choice, where integers can be replaced by mutation but not by crossover. Not preserving something (doesn't have to be 100%, but it has to be some aspect) of what made parents winners means you are essentially doing random search, which will perform no better than linear search.
In general, use much less mutation than you might think. Mutation is there mainly to keep some diversity in the population. If your initial population doesn't contain anything with a fractional advantage, then your population is too small for the problem at hand and a high mutation rate will, in general, not help.
In this specific case, your crossover function is too complicated. Do not ever put constraints aimed at keeping all solutions valid into the crossover. Instead the crossover function should be free to generate invalid solutions and it is the job of the goal function to somewhat (not totally) penalize the invalid solutions. If your GA works, then the final answers will not contain any invalid assignments, provided 100% valid assignments are at all possible. Insisting on validity in the crossover prevents valid solutions from taking shortcuts through invalid solutions to other and better valid solutions.
I would recommend anyone who thinks they have written a poorly performing GA to conduct the following test: Run the GA a few times, and note the number of generations it took to reach an acceptable result. Then replace the winner selection step and goal function (whatever you use - tournament, ranking, etc) with a random choice, and run it again. If you still converge roughly at the same speed as with the real evaluator/goal function then you didn't actually have a functioning GA. Many people who say GAs don't work have made some mistake in their code which means the GA converges as slowly as random search which is enough to turn anyone off from the technique.
Is it a good idea to call a recursive function inside a thread ?
I am creating 10 threads, the thread function in turn call a recursive function . The bad part is
ThreadFunc( )
{
for( ;condn ; )
recursiveFunc(objectId);
}
bool recursiveFunc(objectId)
{
//Get a instance to the database connection
// Query for attibutes of this objectId
if ( attibutes satisfy some condition)
return true;
else
recursiveFunc(objectId) // thats the next level of objectId
}
The recursive function has some calls to the database
My guess is that a call to recursive function inside a loop is causing a performance degradation. Can anyone confirm
Calling a function recursively inside a thread is not a bad idea per se. The only thing you have to be aware of is to limit the recursion depth, or you may produce a (wait for it...) stack overflow. This is not specific to multithreading but applies in any case where you use recursion.
In this case, I would recommend against recursion because it's not necessary. Your code is an example of tail recursion, which can always be replaced with a loop. This eliminates the stack overflow concern:
bool recursiveFunc(objectId)
{
do
{
// Get an instance to the database connection
// Query for attributes of this objectId
// Update objectId if necessary (not sure what the "next level of objectId" is)
}
while(! attributes satisfy some condition);
return true;
}
There's no technical reason why this wouldn't work - it's perfectly legal.
Why is this code the "bad part"?
You'll need to debug/profile this and recursiveFunc to see where the performance degradation is.
Going by the code you've posted have you checked that condn is ever satisfied so that your loop terminates. If not it will loop for ever.
Also what does recursiveFunc actually do?
UPDATE
Based on your comment that each thread performs 15,000 iterations the first thing I'd do would be to move the Get an instance to the database connection code outside recursiveFunc so that you are only getting it once per thread.
Even if you rewrite into a loop (as per Martin B's answer) you would still want to do this.
It depends on how the recursive function talks to the database. If each (or many) level of recursion reopens the database that can be the reason for degradation. If they all share the same "connection" to the database the problem is not in recursion but in the number of threads concurrently accessing the database.
The only potential problem I see with the posted code is that it can represent an infinite loop, and that's usually not what you want (so you'd have to force break somewhere on known reachable conditions to avoid having to abend the application in order to break out of the thread (and subsequently the thread).
Performance degradation can happen with both threading, recursion, and database access for a variety of reasons.
Whether any or all of them are at fault for your problems is impossible to ascertain from the little you're showing us.