Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Partial score calculation with bailout/shortcut #1216

Open
ge0ffrey opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Partial score calculation with bailout/shortcut #1216

ge0ffrey opened this issue Nov 20, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request process/needs triage Requires initial assessment of validity, priority etc.

Comments

@ge0ffrey
Copy link
Contributor

ge0ffrey commented Nov 20, 2024

Currently, a score is always calculated entirely (all-or-nothing).
For example, when a move changes shift A to Beth, but Beth doesn't have the right skill for A, it will calculate all the hard and soft constraints.

So if there's 40 constraints, and the first 1 constraint breaks a hard constraint, it will still calculate 39 other constraints and then throw away the move. So maybe it can be made up to 40 times faster?

But it could be more:
Some constraints are cheap. For example forEach().filter().penalize().
Other constraints are expensive. For example forEach().join().join().filter().penalize().

We could run the cheap hard constraints first.
For each constraint, we know the number of join/groupBy/... nodes at bootstrap time.
For each constraint, we know the penalty, so we can filter out the hard ones.
It's far from perfect, but it can give a good enough automatic sorting of the constraints by estimated speed.

Why was calculateScore() always all-or-nothing?
Because it's a design decision that unfeasible moves can be foraged to escape local optima.
No idea if that ever happens. In this "partial score calc mode" this would be impossible.

So just bail out when a hard penalty occurs?
Not really. In allowsUnassigned=false (the default) cases, the output can be -123hard/-45soft, with the last 10 CH steps doing hard breaking moves all the time. That must still work.
So instead of bailing out when a hard impact happens, we should bail out only if the hard score gets worse AND if there is an initial solution (= in Local Search only, not in CH).

Would it always do partial score calculation?
No, score analysis and many other functions will keep calling a full (= normal) scoring. Probably all of CH too.

What if there are .reward(HARD)?
Don't do partial score calculations. You can't guarantee there won't be a false positive bailout. And you must!

Should we do it for medium too?
No. We have a design decision that Score.isFeasible() separates the score into. In HardMediumSoftScore, it separates the hard score from the medium+soft score. This applies to BendableScore etc too. Good thing we forces users to tell us that declaratively all those years ago.

How does incremental score calculation work if a bailout happens?
No idea yet. Good luck with that. :)

Current situation

interface ScoreDirctor {

    Score calculateScore();
    
}

Proposal A

interface ScoreDirctor {

    Score calculateScore();
    
    Tuple<Boolean,Score> calculateScoreWithBailout(Score minScore); // boolean is true if bailout happened because it guarantees a score below minScore
}
@ge0ffrey ge0ffrey added enhancement New feature or request process/needs triage Requires initial assessment of validity, priority etc. labels Nov 20, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request process/needs triage Requires initial assessment of validity, priority etc.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant