Related
I have data of this form:
[(v1, A1, B1), (v2, A2, B2), (v3, A3, B3), ...]
The vs correspond to the data elements and the As and Bs to numerical values characterizing the vs.
A human looking at this data can look at it and see which tuple seems the best "match" according to the A and B values. I want a form of AI that I could train by picking one of these tuples as the best, and that would adjust the weights given to A and B.
Basically, each tuple represents an approximation to a value. A represents an error and B represents the complexity of each approximation. I want some compromise between error and complexity by assigning them different weightings. I want to run several trials with approximations to different values, and choose the one I think looks the best, and have the AI adjust the weightings correspondingly.
What you described is also known as a model selection problem, something often encountered in machine learning and statistics. You basically have some models that fit your data by some measure of goodness (typically measured as error or log likelihood) and those models have some complexity measure (typically the number of parameters in the model). You want to pick the best fitting model and penalize its complexity because that can be a sign of overfitting.
Typically, the degree to which overfitting can affect you is driven by the size of your data. But there are some measures that explicitly allow you to trade off model fitness and complexity:
Akaike information criterion
Bayesian information criterion
Regularization
Choose a model based on your data as above can bias the model choice toward the data. Thus, this is done typically using a validation set and then evaluated on a test set.
I don't know if your approach in having an algorithm solve this problem is a good one. Typically it is dependent on your data and some degree of intuition. The meta-machine-learning technique you described probably won't be too reliable, in my opinion. Better to start with some more principled and simpler ideas first.
What are the relevant differences, in terms of performance and use cases, between simulated annealing (with bean search) and genetic algorithms?
I know that SA can be thought as GA where the population size is only one, but I don't know the key difference between the two.
Also, I am trying to think of a situation where SA will outperform GA or GA will outperform SA. Just one simple example which will help me understand will be enough.
Well strictly speaking, these two things--simulated annealing (SA) and genetic algorithms are neither algorithms nor is their purpose 'data mining'.
Both are meta-heuristics--a couple of levels above 'algorithm' on the abstraction scale. In other words, both terms refer to high-level metaphors--one borrowed from metallurgy and the other from evolutionary biology. In the meta-heuristic taxonomy, SA is a single-state method and GA is a population method (in a sub-class along with PSO, ACO, et al, usually referred to as biologically-inspired meta-heuristics).
These two meta-heuristics are used to solve optimization problems, particularly (though not exclusively) in combinatorial optimization (aka constraint-satisfaction programming). Combinatorial optimization refers to optimization by selecting from among a set of discrete items--in other words, there is no continuous function to minimize. The knapsack problem, traveling salesman problem, cutting stock problem--are all combinatorial optimization problems.
The connection to data mining is that the core of many (most?) supervised Machine Learning (ML) algorithms is the solution of an optimization problem--(Multi-Layer Perceptron and Support Vector Machines for instance).
Any solution technique to solve cap problems, regardless of the algorithm, will consist essentially of these steps (which are typically coded as a single block within a recursive loop):
encode the domain-specific details
in a cost function (it's the
step-wise minimization of the value
returned from this function that
constitutes a 'solution' to the c/o
problem);
evaluate the cost function passing
in an initial 'guess' (to begin
iteration);
based on the value returned from the
cost function, generate a subsequent
candidate solution (or more than
one, depending on the
meta-heuristic) to the cost
function;
evaluate each candidate solution by
passing it in an argument set, to
the cost function;
repeat steps (iii) and (iv) until
either some convergence criterion is
satisfied or a maximum number of
iterations is reached.
Meta-heuristics are directed to step (iii) above; hence, SA and GA differ in how they generate candidate solutions for evaluation by the cost function. In other words, that's the place to look to understand how these two meta-heuristics differ.
Informally, the essence of an algorithm directed to solution of combinatorial optimization is how it handles a candidate solution whose value returned from the cost function is worse than the current best candidate solution (the one that returns the lowest value from the cost function). The simplest way for an optimization algorithm to handle such a candidate solution is to reject it outright--that's what the hill climbing algorithm does. But by doing this, simple hill climbing will always miss a better solution separated from the current solution by a hill. Put another way, a sophisticated optimization algorithm has to include a technique for (temporarily) accepting a candidate solution worse than (i.e., uphill from) the current best solution because an even better solution than the current one might lie along a path through that worse solution.
So how do SA and GA generate candidate solutions?
The essence of SA is usually expressed in terms of the probability that a higher-cost candidate solution will be accepted (the entire expression inside the double parenthesis is an exponent:
p = e((-highCost - lowCost)/temperature)
Or in python:
p = pow(math.e, (-hiCost - loCost) / T)
The 'temperature' term is a variable whose value decays during progress of the optimization--and therefore, the probability that SA will accept a worse solution decreases as iteration number increases.
Put another way, when the algorithm begins iterating, T is very large, which as you can see, causes the algorithm to move to every newly created candidate solution, whether better or worse than the current best solution--i.e., it is doing a random walk in the solution space. As iteration number increases (i.e., as the temperature cools) the algorithm's search of the solution space becomes less permissive, until at T = 0, the behavior is identical to a simple hill-climbing algorithm (i.e., only solutions better than the current best solution are accepted).
Genetic Algorithms are very different. For one thing--and this is a big thing--it generates not a single candidate solution but an entire 'population of them'. It works like this: GA calls the cost function on each member (candidate solution) of the population. It then ranks them, from best to worse, ordered by the value returned from the cost function ('best' has the lowest value). From these ranked values (and their corresponding candidate solutions) the next population is created. New members of the population are created in essentially one of three ways. The first is usually referred to as 'elitism' and in practice usually refers to just taking the highest ranked candidate solutions and passing them straight through--unmodified--to the next generation. The other two ways that new members of the population are usually referred to as 'mutation' and 'crossover'. Mutation usually involves a change in one element in a candidate solution vector from the current population to create a solution vector in the new population, e.g., [4, 5, 1, 0, 2] => [4, 5, 2, 0, 2]. The result of the crossover operation is like what would happen if vectors could have sex--i.e., a new child vector whose elements are comprised of some from each of two parents.
So those are the algorithmic differences between GA and SA. What about the differences in performance?
In practice: (my observations are limited to combinatorial optimization problems) GA nearly always beats SA (returns a lower 'best' return value from the cost function--ie, a value close to the solution space's global minimum), but at a higher computation cost. As far as i am aware, the textbooks and technical publications recite the same conclusion on resolution.
but here's the thing: GA is inherently parallelizable; what's more, it's trivial to do so because the individual "search agents" comprising each population do not need to exchange messages--ie, they work independently of each other. Obviously that means GA computation can be distributed, which means in practice, you can get much better results (closer to the global minimum) and better performance (execution speed).
In what circumstances might SA outperform GA? The general scenario i think would be those optimization problems having a small solution space so that the result from SA and GA are practically the same, yet the execution context (e.g., hundreds of similar problems run in batch mode) favors the faster algorithm (which should always be SA).
It is really difficult to compare the two since they were inspired from different domains..
A Genetic Algorithm maintains a population of possible solutions, and at each step, selects pairs of possible solution, combines them (crossover), and applies some random changes (mutation). The algorithm is based the idea of "survival of the fittest" where the selection process is done according to a fitness criteria (usually in optimization problems it is simply the value of the objective function evaluated using the current solution). The crossover is done in hope that two good solutions, when combined, might give even better solution.
On the other hand, Simulated Annealing only tracks one solution in the space of possible solutions, and at each iteration considers whether to move to a neighboring solution or stay in the current one according to some probabilities (which decays over time). This is different from a heuristic search (say greedy search) in that it doesn't suffer from the problems of local optimum since it can get unstuck from cases where all neighboring solutions are worst the current one.
I'm far from an expert on these algorithms, but I'll try and help out.
I think the biggest difference between the two is the idea of crossover in GA and so any example of a learning task that is better suited to GA than SA is going to hinge on what crossover means in that situation and how it is implemented.
The idea of crossover is that you can meaningfully combine two solutions to produce a better one. I think this only makes sense if the solutions to a problem are structured in some way. I could imagine, for example, in multi-class classification taking two (or many) classifiers that are good at classifying a particular class and combining them by voting to make a much better classifier. Another example might be Genetic Programming, where the solution can be expressed as a tree, but I find it hard to come up with a good example where you could combine two programs to create a better one.
I think it's difficult to come up with a compelling case for one over the other because they really are quite similar algorithms, perhaps having been developed from very different starting points.
I am running a physics simulation and applying a set of movement instructions to a simulated skeleton. I have a multiple sets of instructions for the skeleton consisting of force application to legs, arms, torso etc. and duration of force applied to their respective bone. Each set of instructions (behavior) is developed by testing its effectiveness performing the desired behavior, and then modifying the behavior with a genetic algorithm with other similar behaviors, and testing it again. The skeleton will have an array behaviors in its set list.
I have fitness functions which test for stability, speed, minimization of entropy and force on joints. The problem is that any given behavior will work for a specific context. One behavior works on flat ground, another works if there is a bump in front of the right foot, another if it's in front of the left, and so on. So the fitness of each behavior varies based on the context. Picking a behavior simply on its previous fitness level won't work because that fitness score doesn't apply to this context.
My question is, how do I program to have the skeleton pick the best behavior for the context? Such as picking the best walking behavior for a randomized bumpy terrain.
In a different answer I've given to this question, I assumed that the "terrain" information you have for your model was very approximate and large-grained, e.g., "smooth and flat", "rough", "rocky", etc. and perhaps only at a grid level. However, if the world model is in fact very detailed, such as from a simulated version of a 3-D laser range scanner, then algorithmic and computational path/motion planning approaches from robotics are likely to be more useful than a machine-learning classifier system.
PATH/MOTION PLANNING METHODS
There are a fairly large number of path and motion planning methods, including some perhaps more suited to walking/locomotion, but a few of the more general ones worth mentioning are:
Visibility graphs
Potential Fields
Sampling-based methods
The general solution approach would be use a path planning method to determine the walking trajectory that your skeleton should follow to avoid obstacles, and then use your GA-based controller to achieve the appropriate motion. This is very much at the core of robotics: sense the world and determine actions and motor control required to achieve some goal(s).
Also, a quick literature search turned up the following papers and a book as a source of ideas and starting points for further investigation. The paper on legged robot motion planning may be especially useful as it discusses several motion planning strategies.
Reading Suggestions
Steven Michael LaValle (2006). Planning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press.
Kris Hauser, Timothy Bretl, Jean-Claude Latombe, Kensuke Harada, Brian Wilcox (2008). "Motion Planning for Legged Robots on Varied Terrain", The International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 27, No. 11-12, 1325-1349,
DOI: 10.1177/0278364908098447
Guilherme N. DeSouza and Avinash C. Kak (2002). "Vision for Mobile Robot Navigation: A Survey", IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 24, No. 2, February, pp 237-267.
Why not test the behaviors against a randomized bumpy terrain? Just set the parameters of the GA so that it's a little forgiving, and won't condemn a behavior for one or two failures.
You have two problems:
Bipedal locomotion without senses is very difficult. I've seen good robotic locomotion over rough terrain without senses, but never with only two legs. So the best solution you can possibly find this way might not be very good.
Running a GA is as much art as science. There are a lot of knobs you can turn, and it's hard to find parameters that will allow novelty to grow without drowning it in noise.
Starting simple (e.g. crawling) will help with both of these.
EDIT:
Wait... you're training it over and over on the same randomized terrain? Well no wonder you're having trouble! It's optimizing for that particular layout of rocks and bumps, which is much easier than generalizing. Depending on how your GA works, you might get some benefit from making the course really long, but a better solution is to randomize the terrain for every pass. When it can no longer exploit specific features of the terrain, it will have an evolutionary incentive to generalize. Since this is a more difficult problem it will not learn as quickly as it did before, and it might not be able to get very good at all with its current parameters; be prepared to tinker.
There are three aspects to my answer: (1) control theory, (2) sensing, and (3) merging sensing and action.
CONTROL THEORY
The answer to your problem depends partially on what kind of control scheme you are using: is it feed-forward or feedback control? If the latter, what simulated real-time sensors do you have other than terrain information?
Simply having terrain information and incorporating it into your control strategy would not mean you are using feedback control. It is possible to use such information to select a feed-forward strategy, which seems closest to the problem that you have described.
SENSING
Whether you are using feed-forward or feedback control, you need to represent the terrain information and any other sensory data as an input space for your control system. Part of training your GA-based motion controller should be moving your skeleton through a broad range of random terrain in order to learn feature detectors. The feature detectors classify the terrain scenarios by segmenting the input space into regions critical to deciding what is the best action policy, i.e., what control behavior to employ.
How to best represent the input space depends on the level of granularity of the terrain information you have for your simulation. If it's just a discrete space of terrain type and/or obstacles in some grid space, you may be able to present it directly to your GA without transformation. If, however, the data is in a continuous space such as terrain type and obstacles at arbitrary range/direction, you may need to transform it into a space from which it may be easier to infer spatial relationships, such as coarse-coded range and direction, e.g., near, mid, far and forward, left-forward, left, etc. Gaussian and fuzzy classifiers can be useful for the latter approach, but discrete-valued coding can also work.
MERGING SENSING AND ACTION
Using one of the input-space-encoding approaches above, you have a few options for how to connect behavior selection search space and motion control search space:
Separate the two spaces into two learning problems and use a separate GA to evolve the parameters of a standard multi-layer perceptron neural network. The latter would have your sensor data (perhaps transformed) as inputs and your set of skeleton behaviors as outputs. Instead of using back-propagation or some other ANN-learning method to learn the network weights, your GA could use some fitness function to evolve the parameters over a series of simulated trials, e.g., fitness = distance traveled in a fixed time period toward point B starting from point A. This should evolve over successive generations from completely random selection of behaviors to something more coordinated and useful.
Merge the two search spaces (behavior selection and skeleton motor control) by linking a multi-layer perceptron network as described in (1) above into the existing GA-based controller framework that you have, using the skeleton behavior set as the linkage. The parameter space that will be evolved will be both the neural network weights and whatever your existing controller parameter space is. Assuming that you are using a multi-objective genetic algorithm, such as the NSGA-II algorithm, (since you have multiple fitness functions), the fitness functions would be stability, speed, minimization of entropy, force on joints, etc, plus some fitness function(s) targeted at learning the behavior-selection policy, e.g., distance moved toward point B starting from point A in a fixed time period.
The difference between this approach and (1) above is that you may be able to learn both better coordination of behaviors and finer-grain motor control since the parameter space is likely to be better explored when the two problems are merged as opposed to being separate. The downside is that it may take much longer to converge on reasonable parameter solutions(s), and not all aspects of motor control may be learned as well as they would if the two learning problems were kept separate.
Given that you already have working evolved solutions for the motor control problem, you are probably better off using approach (1) to learn the behavior-selection model with a separate GA. Also, there are many alternatives to the hybrid GA-ANN scheme I described above for learning the latter model, including not learning a model at all and instead using a path planning algorithm as described in a separate answer from me. I simply offered this approach since you are already familiar with GA-based machine learning.
The action selection problem is a robust area of research in both machine learning and autonomous robotics. It's probably well-worth reading up on this topic in itself to gain better perspective and insight into your current problem, and you may be able to devise a simpler strategy than anything I've suggested so far by viewing your problem through the lens of this paradigm.
You're using a genetic algorithm to modify the behavior, so that must mean you have devised a fitness function for each combination of factors. Is that your question?
If yes, the answer depends on what metrics you use to define best walking behavior:
Maximize stability
Maximize speed
Minimize forces on joints
Minimize energy or entropy production
Or do you just try a bunch of parameters, record the values, and then let the genetic algorithm drive you to the best solution?
If each behavior works well in one context and not another, I'd try quantifying how to sense and interpolate between contexts and blend the strategies to see if that would help.
It sounds like at this point you have just a classification problem. You want to map some knowledge about what you are currently walking on to one of a set of classes. Knowing the class of the terrain allows you to then invoke the proper subroutine. Is this correct?
If so, then there are a wide array of classification engines that you can use including neural networks, Bayesian networks, decision trees, nearest neighbor, etc. In order to pick the best fit, we will need more information about your problem.
First, what kind of input or sensory data do you have available to help you identify the behavior class you should invoke? Second, can you describe the circumstances in which you will be training this classifier and what the circumstances are during runtime when you deploy it, such as any limits on computational resources or requirements of robustness to noise?
EDIT: Since you have a fixed number of classes, and you have some parameterized model for generating all possible terrains, I would consider using k-means clustering. The principle is as follows. You cluster a whole bunch of terrains into k different classes, where each cluster is associated with one of your specialized subroutines that performs best for that cluster of terrains. Then when a new terrain comes in, it will probably fall near one of these clusters. You then invoke the corresponding specialized subroutine to navigate that terrain.
Do this offline: Generate enough random terrains to sufficiently sample the parameter space, map these terrains to your sensory space (but remember which points in sensory space correspond to which terrains), and then run k-means clustering on this sensory space corpus where k is the number of classes you want to learn. Your distance function between a class representative C and a point P in sensory space would be simply the fitness function of letting algorithm C navigate the terrain that generated P. You would then get a partitioning of your sensory space into k clusters, each cluster mapping to the best subroutine that you've got. Each cluster will have a representative point in sensory space.
Now during runtime: You will get some unlabeled point in sensory space. Use a different distance function to find the closest representative point to this new incoming point. That tells you what class the terrain is.
Note that the success of this method depends on the quality of the mapping from the parameter space of terrain generation to sensory space, from sensory space to your fitness functions, and the eventual distance function you use to compare points in sensory space.
Note also that if you had enough memory, instead of only using the k representative sensory points to tell you which class an unlabeled sensory point belongs to, you might go through your training set and label all points with the learned class. Then during runtime you pick the nearest neighbor, and conclude that your unlabeled point in sensory space is in the same class as that neighbor.
I would just like to know the various AI algorithms or logics used in arcade/strategy games for finding/selecting best target to attack for individual unit.
Because, I had to write an small AI logic, where their will be group of unit were attacked by an various tankers, so i am stuck in getting the better logic or algorithm for selecting an best target for unit to attack onto the tankers.
Data available are:
Tanker position, range, hitpoints, damage.
please anybody know the best suitable algorithm/logic for solving this problem, respond early.
Thanks in advance,
Ramanand.
I'm going to express this in a perspective similar to RPG gamers:
What character would you bring down first in order to strike a crippling blow to the rest of your enemies? It would be common sense to bring down the healers of the party, as they can heal the rest of the team. Once the healers are gone, the team needs to use medicine - which is limited in supply - and once medicine is exhausted, the party is screwed.
Similar logic would apply to the tank program. In your AI, you need to figure out which tanks provide the most strength and support to the user's fleet, and eliminate them first. Don't focus on any other tanks unless they become critical in achieving their goal: Kill the strongest, most useful members of the group first.
So I'm going to break down what I feel is most likely pertains to the attributes of your tanks.
RANGE: Far range tanks can hit from a distance but have weak STRENGTH in their attacks.
TANKER POSITION: Closer tanks are faster tanks, but have less STRENGTH in their attacks. Also low HITPOINTS because they're meant for SPEED, and not for DAMAGE.
TANKER HP: Higher HP means a slower-moving tank, as they're stronger. But they won't be close to the front lines.
DAMAGE: Higher DAMAGE means a STRONGER tank with lots of HP, but SLOWER as well to move.
So if I were you, I'd focus first on the tanks that have the highest HP/strongest attacks, followed by the closest ones, and then worry about the ranged tanks - you can't do anything to them anyway until they move into your attack radius :P
And the algorithm would be pretty simple. if you have a list of tanks in a party, create a custom sort for them (using CompareTo) and sort the tanks by class with the highest possible HP to the top of the list, followed by tanks with their focus being speed, and then range.
And then go through each item in the list. If it is possible to attack Tank(0), attack. If not, go to Tank(1).
The goal is to attack only one opponent at a time and receive fire from at most one enemy at a time (though, preferably, none).
Ideally, you would attack the tanks by remaining behind cover and flanking them with surprise attacks. This allows you to destroy the tanks one at a time, while receiving no or little fire.
If you don't have cover, then you should use the enemy as cover. Move into a position that puts the enemy behind the enemy. This also improves your chance to hit.
You can also use range to reduce fire from multiple enemies. Retreat until you are only within range of one enemy.
If the enemies can all fire on you, you want to attack one target until it is no longer a threat, then move on to the next target. The goal is to reduce the amount of fire that you receive as quickly as possible.
If more than one enemy can fire on you at the same time, and you can choose your target, you should fire at the one that allows you to reduce the most amount of damage for the least cost. Simply divide the hit points by the damage, and attack the one with the smallest result. You should also figure in any other relevant stats. Range probably affects you and the enemy equally, but considering the ability to maneuver out of the way of fire, closer enemies are more harmful and should be given some weight in the calculation.
If moving decreases the likelihood of being hit, then you should keep moving, typically by circling your opponent to stay at their flank.
Team tactics would mostly include flanking and diversions.
What's the ammo situation, and is it possible to miss a stationary target?
Based on your comments it sounds like you already have some adhoc set of rules or heuristics to give you something around 70% success based on your own measures, and you want to optimize this further to get a higher win rate.
As a general solution method I would use a hill-climbing algorithm. Since I don't know the details of your current algorithm that is responsible for the 70% success rate, I can only describe in abstract terms how to adapt hill-climbing to optimize your algorithm.
The general principle of hill-climbing is as follows. Hopefully, a small change in some numeric parameter of your current algorithm would be responsible for a small (hopefully linear) change in the resulting success rate. If this is true then you would first parameterize your current set of rules -- meaning you must decide in your current algorithm which numeric parameters may be tweaked and optimized to achieve a higher success rate. Once you've decided what they are, the learning process is straight-forward. Start with your current algorithm. Generate a variety of new algorithms with slightly tweaked parameters than before, and run your simulations to evaluate the performance of this new set of algorithms. Pick the best one as your next starting point. Repeat this process until the algorithm can't get any better.
If your algorithm is a set of if-then rules (this includes rule-matching systems), and improving the performance involves reordering or restructuring those rules, then you may want to consider genetic algorithms, which is a little more complex. To apply genetic algorithms, it is essential that you define the mutation and crossover operators such that a single application of mutation or crossover results in a small change in the overall performance while a many applications of mutation and crossover results in a large change in the overall performance of your algorithm. I'm not an expert in this field but there should be much that comes up when you google for "genetic algorithms on decision trees". The pitfall to avoid is that if you simply consider swapping branches in a decision tree for the mutation operator, a single application might modify the root of your decision tree, generating a huge performance difference. This typically adds too much noise for a genetic algorithm, so my advice in this approach is to be very careful about the encoding of your operators.
Note that these two methods are very popular AI methods for learning or improving your current algorithm. You would do all of these simulations and learning offline. Then you would simply deploy the resulting, learned algorithm.
I have thought of some heuristics for a big (higher dimensions) tic-tac-toe game. How do I check which of them are actually consistent?
What is meant by consistency anyways?
Heuristics produce some sort of cost value for a given state. Consistency in this context means the estimate for a state plus the cost of moving to the next state is less than or equal to the estimate for that new state. If this wasn't true then it would imply that - if the heuristic was accurate - that transitioning from one state to the next could incur negative cost, which is typically impossible or incorrect.
This is intuitive to prove when it comes to pathfinding, as you expect every step along the path to take some time, therefore the estimate at step 1 must be lower than the estimate at any step 2. It's probably a bit more complex for tic-tac-toe since you probably have to arbitrarily decide what constitutes a 'cost' in your system. If your heuristic can go both up or down as a result of playing a move - eg. because you encode good moves with positive numbers and bad moves with negative numbers - then your heuristic cannot be consistent.
However, lack of a consistent heuristic is not always a problem. You may not be guaranteed of reaching an optimal solution without one, but it may still speed up the search compared to a brute force state search.
EDITED: This answer confused admissibility and consistency. I have corrected it to refer to admissibility, but the original question was about consistency, and this answer does not fully answer the question.
You could do it analytically, by distinguishing all different cases and thereby proving that your heuristic is indeed admissible.
For informed search, a heuristic is admissible with a search problem (say, the search for the best move in a game) if and only if it underestimates the 'distance' to a suitable state.
EXAMPLE: Search for the shortest route to a target city via a network of highways between cities. Here, one could use the Eucidean distance as a heuristic: the length of a straight line to the goal is always shorter or equally long than the best possible way.
Admissibility is required by algorithms like A*, which then quarantuee you to be optimal (i.e. they will find the best 'route' to a goal state if one exists).
I would recommend to look the topic up in an AI textbook.