I have an 11 week game schedule for 11 teams (5 games each week). I need to try to select from that list 11 games (1 each week) that provide each of the 11 teams with a broadcast of one home and one away game. Ideally this would be code that I would be able to reuse for future years and that I could scale to more teams and weeks if necessary.
I know that the likelihood of finding a viable solution for a given, already created schedule is extremely low, and, in many cases there doesn't exist a solution. So, when a solution of the type listed above doesn't exist, I would like to get a schedule that come close. That is, one in which all the teams get two broadcasts, but some teams may get two home or two away games instead of one of each.
I've looked a several different approaches. I have a number of 5x2 (Away Team, Home Team) arrays (weekly matchups) that I've tried to run a sort/selection with conditions (like a_1 =\= a_j j>1 and a_i in {1..11}) on, but I can't figure out how to get the double restriction selection to work, and I can't figure out how to make it go back to a previous selection when it has no more viable selections. I've tried to brute force it, but 40 million possible combinations is more than I can handle.
I'm using MATLab to perform all the work. I can usually translate from C or C++ to MATLab usable code.
This seemed like a fun problem so I took a crack at formulating it as an IP.
Let J and T be the set of teams and weeks.
Let G be the set of all games; each element of G is a tuple (i,j,t) that indicates the away team (i), the home team (j), and the week (t).
Let H be the set of all home games; each element of H is a tuple (j,t) that indicates the home team (j) and the week (t).
Define the following binary decision variables:
w[j,t] = 1 if we broadcast the home game at j in week t, = 0 otherwise (defined for (j,t) in H)
x[j] = 1 if team j has an away-game broadcast, = 0 otherwise (defined for j in J)
y[j] = 1 if team j has a home-game broadcast, = 0 otherwise (defined for j in J)
z[j] = 1 if team j has both an away-game and a home-game broadcast, = 0 otherwise (defined for j in J)
Then the model is:
maximize sum {j in J} z[j]
subject to sum {j in J} w[j,t] = 1 for all t
x[j] <= sum {(i,t) in H: (j,i,t) in G} w[i,t] for all j
y[j] <= sum {t in T} w[j,t] for all j
z[j] <= (1/2) * (x[j] + y[j]) for all j
w[j,t], x[j], y[j], z[j] in {0,1}
The objective function calculates the total number of teams that get both a home and an away broadcast. The first constraint says we need exactly one broadcast per week. The second constraint says x[j] can't equal 1 unless there is some week when j's away game gets broadcast. The third constraint says the same for y[j] and the home broadcast. The fourth constraint says z[j] can't equal 1 unless both x[j] and y[j] equal 1. The last constraint says everything has to be binary.
I coded this model in Python/PuLP using an 11-game schedule. (Obviously you'd plug in your own schedule.)
from pulp import *
import numpy as np
# Number of teams, weeks, and games per week.
num_teams = 11
num_weeks = 11
num_games_per_week = 5
# Lists of teams and weeks.
teams = range(1, num_teams+1)
weeks = range(1, num_weeks+1)
# List of game tuples: (i, j, t) means team i plays at team j in week t.
games = [(1, 10, 1), (2, 9, 1), (3, 8, 1), (4, 7, 1), (5, 6, 1),
(6, 4, 2), (7, 3, 2), (8, 2, 2), (9, 1, 2), (10, 11, 2),
(2, 11, 3), (3, 10, 3), (4, 9, 3), (5, 8, 3), (6, 7, 3),
(7, 5, 4), (8, 4, 4), (9, 3, 4), (10, 2, 4), (11, 1, 4),
(3, 1, 5), (4, 11, 5), (5, 10, 5), (6, 9, 5), (7, 8, 5),
(8, 6, 6), (9, 5, 6), (10, 4, 6), (11, 3, 6), (1, 2, 6),
(4, 2, 7), (5, 1, 7), (6, 11, 7), (7, 10, 7), (8, 9, 7),
(9, 7, 8), (10, 6, 8), (11, 5, 8), (1, 4, 8), (2, 3, 8),
(5, 3, 9), (6, 2, 9), (7, 1, 9), (8, 11, 9), (9, 10, 9),
(10, 8, 10), (11, 7, 10), (1, 6, 10), (2, 5, 10), (3, 4, 10),
(11, 9, 11), (1, 8, 11), (2, 7, 11), (3, 6, 11), (4, 5, 11)]
# List of home games: (j, t) means there is a home game at j in week t.
home_games = [(j, t) for (i, j, t) in games]
# Initialize problem.
prob = LpProblem('Broadcast', LpMaximize)
# Generate decision variables.
w = LpVariable.dicts('w', home_games, 0, 1, LpInteger)
x = LpVariable.dicts('x', teams, 0, 1, LpInteger)
y = LpVariable.dicts('y', teams, 0, 1, LpInteger)
z = LpVariable.dicts('z', teams, 0, 1, LpInteger)
# Objective function.
prob += lpSum([z[j] for j in teams])
# Constraint: 1 broadcast per week.
for t in weeks:
prob += lpSum([w[j, t] for j in teams if (j, t) in home_games]) == 1
# Constraint: x[j] can only = 1 if we broadcast a game in which j is away team.
for j in teams:
prob += x[j] <= lpSum([w[i, t] for (i, t) in home_games if (j, i, t) in games])
# Constraint: y[j] can only = 1 if we broadcast a game in which j is home team.
for j in teams:
prob += y[j] <= lpSum(([w[j, t] for t in weeks if (j, t) in home_games]))
# Constraint: z[j] can only = 1 if x[j] and y[j] both = 1.
for j in teams:
prob += z[j] <= 0.5 * (x[j] + y[j])
# Solve problem.
prob.solve()
# Print status.
print("Status:", LpStatus[prob.status])
# Print optimal values of decision variables.
for v in prob.variables():
if v.varValue is not None and v.varValue > 0:
print(v.name, "=", v.varValue)
# Prettier print.
print("\nNumber of teams with both home and away broadcasts: {:.0f}".format(np.sum([z[j].value() for j in teams])))
for (i, j, t) in games:
if w[j, t].value() == 1:
print("Week {:2d}: broadcast team {:2d} at team {:2d}".format(t, i, j))
The results are:
Number of teams with both home and away broadcasts: 11
Week 1: broadcast team 1 at team 10
Week 2: broadcast team 10 at team 11
Week 3: broadcast team 5 at team 8
Week 4: broadcast team 8 at team 4
Week 5: broadcast team 6 at team 9
Week 6: broadcast team 11 at team 3
Week 7: broadcast team 4 at team 2
Week 8: broadcast team 9 at team 7
Week 9: broadcast team 7 at team 1
Week 10: broadcast team 2 at team 5
Week 11: broadcast team 3 at team 6
You can see that each team gets both a home and an away broadcast.
Related
I'm new to using Z3 and am trying to model an ILP, which I have already successfully done using the MILP Solver PuLP. I now implemented the same objective function (which is to be minimized) and the same constraints in Z3 and am experiencing strange behaviour. Mainly, that adding a constraint decreases the minimum.
My question is: How can that be? Is it a bug or can it be explained somehow?
More detail, in case needed:
I'm trying to solve a Teacher Assignment Problem. Courses are scheduled before a year and the teachers get the list of the courses. They then can select which courses they want to teach, with which priority they want to teach it, how many workdays (each course lasts several days) they desire to teach and a max and min number of courses they definitly want to teach. The program gets as input a list of possible teacher-assignments. A teacher-assignment is a tuple consisting of:
teacher-name
event-id
priority of teacher towards event
the distance between teacher and course
The goal of the program to find a combination of assignments that minimize:
the average relative deviation 'desired workdays <-> assigned workdays' of all teachers
the maximum relative deviation 'desired workdays <-> assigned workdays' of any teacher
the overall distance of courses to assigned teachers
the sum of priorities (higher priority means less willingness to teach)
Main Constraints:
number of teachers assigned to course must match needed amount of teachers
the number of assigned courses to a teacher must be within the specified min/max range
the courses to which a teacher is assigned may not overlap in time (a list of overlap-sets are given)
To track the average relative deviation and the maximum deviation of workdays two more 'helper-constraints' are introduced:
for each teacher: overload (delta_plus) - underload (delta_minus) = assigned workdays - desired workdays
for each teacher: delta_plus + delta_minus <= max relative deviation (DELTA)
Here you have this as Python code:
from z3 import *
def compute_optimum(a1, a2, a3, a4, worst_case_distance=0):
"""
Find the optimum solution with weights a1, a2, a3, a4
(average workday deviation, maximum workday deviation, cummulative linear distance, sum of priority 2 assignments)
Higher weight = More optimized (value minimized)
Returns all assignment-tuples which occur in the calculated optimal model.
"""
print("Powered by Z3")
print(f"\n\n\n\n ------- FINDING OPTIMUM TO WEIGHTS: a1={a1}, a2={a2}, a3={a3}, a4={a4} -------\n")
# key: assignment tuple value: z3-Bool
x = {assignment : Bool('e%i_%s' % (assignment[1], assignment[0])) for assignment in possible_assignments}
delta_plus = {teacher : Int('d+_%s' % teacher) for teacher in teachers}
delta_minus = {teacher : Int('d-_%s' % teacher) for teacher in teachers}
DELTA = Real('DELTA')
opt = Optimize()
# constraint1: number of teachers needed per event
num_available_per_event = {event : len(list(filter(lambda assignment: assignment[1] == event, possible_assignments))) for event in events}
for event in events:
num_teachers_to_assign = min(event_size[event], num_available_per_event[event])
opt.add(Sum( [If(x[assignment], 1, 0) for assignment in x.keys() if assignment[1] == event] ) == num_teachers_to_assign)
for teacher in teachers:
# constraint2: max and min number of events for each teacher
max_events = len(events)
min_events = 0
num_assigned_events = Sum( [If(x[assignment], 1, 0) for assignment in x.keys() if assignment[0] == teacher] )
opt.add(num_assigned_events >= min_events, num_assigned_events <= max_events)
# constraint3: teacher can't work in multiple overlapping events
for overlapping_events in event_overlap_sets:
opt.add(Sum( [If(x[assignment], 1, 0) for assignment in x.keys() if assignment[1] in overlapping_events and assignment[0] == teacher] ) <= 1)
# constraint4: delta (absolute over and underload of teacher)
num_teacher_workdays = Sum( [If(x[assignment], event_durations[assignment[1]], 0) for assignment in x.keys() if assignment[0] == teacher])
opt.add(delta_plus[teacher] >= 0, delta_minus[teacher] >= 0)
opt.add(delta_plus[teacher] - delta_minus[teacher] == num_teacher_workdays - desired_workdays[teacher])
# constraint5: DELTA (maximum relative deviation of wished to assigned workdays)
opt.add(DELTA >= ToReal(delta_plus[teacher] + delta_minus[teacher]) / desired_workdays[teacher])
#opt.add(DELTA <= 1) # adding this results in better optimum
average_rel_workday_deviation = Sum( [ToReal(delta_plus[teacher] + delta_minus[teacher]) / desired_workdays[teacher] for teacher in teachers]) / len(teachers)
overall_distance = Sum( [If(x[assignment], assignment[3], 0) for assignment in x.keys()])
num_prio2 = Sum( [If(x[assignment], assignment[2]-1, 0) for assignment in x.keys()])
obj_fun = opt.minimize(
a1 * average_rel_workday_deviation
+ a2 * DELTA
+ a3 * overall_distance
+ a4 * num_prio2
)
#print(opt)
if opt.check() == sat:
m = opt.model()
optimal_assignments = []
for assignment in x.keys():
if m.evaluate(x[assignment]):
optimal_assignments.append(assignment)
for teacher in teachers:
print(f"{teacher}: d+ {m.evaluate(delta_plus[teacher])}, d- {m.evaluate(delta_minus[teacher])}")
#print(m)
print("DELTA:::", m.evaluate(DELTA))
print("min value:", obj_fun.value().as_decimal(2))
return optimal_assignments
else:
print("Not satisfiable")
return []
compute_optimum(1,1,1,1)
Sample input:
teachers = ['fr', 'hö', 'pf', 'bo', 'jö', 'sti', 'bi', 'la', 'he', 'kl', 'sc', 'str', 'ko', 'ba']
events = [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]
event_overlap_sets = [{5, 6}, {8, 9}, {10, 11}, {11, 12}, {12, 13}]
desired_workdays = {'fr': 36, 'hö': 50, 'pf': 30, 'bo': 100, 'jö': 80, 'sti': 56, 'bi': 20, 'la': 140, 'he': 5.0, 'kl': 50, 'sc': 38, 'str': 42, 'ko': 20, 'ba': 20}
event_size = {5: 2, 6: 2, 7: 2, 8: 3, 9: 2, 10: 2, 11: 3, 12: 2}
event_durations = {5: 5.0, 6: 5.0, 7: 5.0, 8: 16, 9: 7.0, 10: 5.0, 11: 16, 12: 5.0}
# assignment: (teacher, event, priority, distance)
possible_assignments = [('he', 5, 1, 11), ('sc', 5, 1, 48), ('str', 5, 1, 199), ('ko', 6, 1, 53), ('jö', 7, 1, 317), ('bo', 9, 1, 56), ('sc', 10, 1, 25), ('ba', 11, 1, 224), ('bo', 11, 1, 312), ('jö', 11, 1, 252), ('kl', 11, 1, 248), ('la', 11, 1, 303), ('pf', 11, 1, 273), ('str', 11, 1, 228), ('kl', 5, 2, 103), ('la', 5, 2, 16), ('pf', 5, 2, 48), ('bi', 6, 2, 179), ('la', 6, 2, 16), ('pf', 6, 2, 48), ('sc', 6, 2, 48), ('str', 6, 2, 199), ('sc', 7, 2, 354), ('sti', 7, 2, 314), ('bo', 8, 2, 298), ('fr', 8, 2, 375), ('hö', 9, 2, 95), ('jö', 9, 2, 119), ('sc', 9, 2, 37), ('sti', 9, 2, 95), ('bi', 10, 2, 211), ('hö', 11, 2, 273), ('bi', 12, 2, 408), ('bo', 12, 2, 318), ('ko', 12, 2, 295), ('la', 12, 2, 305), ('sc', 12, 2, 339), ('str', 12, 2, 218)]
Output (just the delta+ and delta-):
------- FINDING OPTIMUM TO WEIGHTS: a1=1, a2=1, a3=1, a4=1 -------
fr: d+ 17, d- 37
hö: d+ 26, d- 69
pf: d+ 0, d- 25
bo: d+ 41, d- 120
jö: d+ 0, d- 59
sti: d+ 27, d- 71
bi: d+ 0, d- 15
la: d+ 0, d- 119
he: d+ 0, d- 0
kl: d+ 0, d- 50
sc: d+ 0, d- 33
str: d+ 0, d- 32
ko: d+ 0, d- 20
ba: d+ 10, d- 14
DELTA::: 19/10
min value: 3331.95?
What I observe that does not make sense to me:
often, neither delta_plus nor delta_minus for a teacher equals 0, DELTA is bigger than 1
adding constraint 'DELTA <= 1' results in a smaller objective function value, faster computation and observation 1 cannot be observed anymore
Also: the computation takes forever (although this is not the point of this)
I am happy for any sort of help!
Edit:
Like suggested by alias, changing the delta+/- variables to Real and removing the two ToReal() statements yields the desired result. If you look at the generated expressions of my sample input, there are in fact slight differences (also besides the different datatype and missing to_real statements).
For example, when looking at the constraint, which is supposed to constrain that delta_plus - delta_minus of 'fri' is equals to 16 - 36 if he works for event 8, 0 - 36 if he doesn't.
My old code using integers and ToReal-conversions produces this expression:
(assert (= (- d+_fr d-_fr) (- (+ (ite e8_fr 16 0)) 36)))
The code using Reals and no type-conversions produces this:
(assert (let ((a!1 (to_real (- (+ (ite e8_fr 16 0)) 36))))
(= (- d+_fr d-_fr) a!1)))
Also the minimization expressions are slightly different:
My old code using integers and ToReal-conversions produces this expression:
(minimize (let (
(a!1 ...)
(a!2 (...))
(a!3 (...))
)
(+ (* 1.0 (/ a!1 14.0)) (* 1.0 DELTA) a!2 a!3)))
The code using Reals and no type-conversions produces this:
(minimize (let (
(a!1 (/ ... 14.0))
(a!2 (...))
(a!3 (...))
)
(+ (* 1.0 a!1) (* 1.0 DELTA) a!2 a!3)))
Sadly I don't know really know how to read this but it seems quite the same to me.
Notice in the new versions of Z3, the model only prints the arguments to the function that have a value other than the default. Is there a way to return to the old method of receiving all instances, including those that map to the default value?
Code:
import z3
config_init = z3.Function('config_init', z3.IntSort(), z3.IntSort(), z3.IntSort(), z3.IntSort())
def fooY(W, X, Y, Z):
return config_init(W, X, Y) == Z
s = z3.Solver()
s.add(fooY(1, 2, 3, 4))
s.add(fooY(2, 3, 4, 5))
s.add(fooY(1, 2, 8, 4))
s.add(fooY(2, 3, 9, 5))
print("Z3 Version", z3.get_version())
if s.check() == z3.sat:
mod = s.model()
print(mod)
else:
print('failed')
print(s.unsat_core())
Old Z3 Output
('Z3 Version', (4L, 5L, 1L, 0L))
[config_init = [(1, 2, 3) -> 4,
(2, 3, 4) -> 5,
(1, 2, 8) -> 4,
(2, 3, 9) -> 5,
else -> 4]]
New Z3 Output
Z3 Version (4, 8, 7, 0)
[config_init = [(2, 3, 4) -> 5, (2, 3, 9) -> 5, else -> 4]]
Let us assume there are 5-time slots and at each time slot, I have 4 options to choose from, each with a known reward, for eg. rewards = [5, 2, 1, -3]. At every time step, at least 1 of the four options must be selected, with a condition that, if option 3 (with reward -3) is chosen at a time t, then for the remaining time steps, none of the options should be selected. As an example, considering the options are indexed from 0, both [2, 1, 1, 0, 3] and [2, 1, 1, 3, 99] are valid solutions with the second solution having option 3 selected in the 3rd time step and 99 is some random value representing no option was chosen.
The Z3py code I tried is here:
T = 6 #Total time slots
s = Solver()
pick = [[Bool('t%d_ch%d' %(j, i)) for i in range(4)] for j in range(T)]
# Rewards of each option
Rewards = [5, 2, 1, -3]
# Select at most one of the 4 options as True
for i in range(T):
s.add(Or(Not(Or(pick[i][0], pick[i][1], pick[i][2], pick[i][3])),
And(Xor(pick[i][0],pick[i][1]), Not(Or(pick[i][2], pick[i][3]))),
And(Xor(pick[i][2],pick[i][3]), Not(Or(pick[i][0], pick[i][1])))))
# If option 3 is picked, then none of the 4 options should be selected for the future time slots
# else, exactly one should be selected.
for i in range(len(pick)-1):
for j in range(4):
s.add(If(And(j==3,pick[i][j]),
Not(Or(pick[i+1][0], pick[i+1][1], pick[i+1][2], pick[i+1][3])),
Or(And(Xor(pick[i+1][0],pick[i+1][1]), Not(Or(pick[i+1][2], pick[i+1][3]))),
And(Xor(pick[i+1][2],pick[i+1][3]), Not(Or(pick[i+1][0], pick[i+1][1]))))))
if s.check()==False:
print("unsat")
m=s.model()
print(m)
With this implementation, I am not getting solutions such as [2, 1, 1, 3, 99]. All of them either do not have option 3 or have it in the last time slot.
I know there is an error inside the If part but I'm unable to figure it out. Is there a better way to achieve such solutions?
It's hard to decipher what you're trying to do. From a basic reading of your description, I think this might be an instance of the XY problem. See https://xyproblem.info/ for details on that, and try to cast your question in terms of what your original goal is; instead of a particular solution, you're trying to implement. (It seems to me that the solution you came up with is unnecessarily complicated.)
Having said that, you can solve your problem as stated if you get rid of the 99 requirement and simply indicate -3 as the terminator. Once you pick -3, then all the following picks should be -3. This can be coded as follows:
from z3 import *
T = 6
s = Solver()
Rewards = [5, 2, 1, -3]
picks = [Int('pick_%d' % i) for i in range(T)]
def pickReward(p):
return Or([p == r for r in Rewards])
for i in range(T):
if i == 0:
s.add(pickReward(picks[i]))
else:
s.add(If(picks[i-1] == -3, picks[i] == -3, pickReward(picks[i])))
while s.check() == sat:
m = s.model()
picked = []
for i in picks:
picked += [m[i]]
print(picked)
s.add(Or([p != v for p, v in zip(picks, picked)]))
When run, this prints:
[5, -3, -3, -3, -3, -3]
[1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1]
[1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1]
[2, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1]
[2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 1]
[2, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1]
[1, 1, 5, 5, 5, 1]
[2, 1, 5, 5, 5, 2]
[2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 2]
[2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5]
[2, 5, 5, 5, 5, -3]
[2, 1, 5, 5, 5, 5]
...
I interrupted the above as it keeps enumerating all the possible picks. There are a total of 1093 of them in this particular case.
(You can get different answers depending on your version of z3.)
Hope this gets you started. Stating what your original goal is directly is usually much more helpful, should you have further questions.
Let's say I have the following Inventory table.
id item_id stock_amount Date
(1, 1, 10, '2020-01-01T00:00:00')
(2, 1, 9, '2020-01-02T00:00:00')
(3, 1, 8, '2020-01-02T10:00:00')
(4, 3, 11, '2020-01-03T00:00:00')
(5, 3, 13, '2020-01-04T00:00:00')
(6, 4, 7, '2020-01-05T00:00:00')
(7, 2, 12, '2020-01-06T00:00:00')
Basically, per each day, I want to get the sum of stock_amount for each unique item_id but it should exclude the current day's stock amount. The item_id chosen should be the latest one. This is to calculate the starting stock on each day. So the response in this case would be:
Date starting_amount
'2020-01-01T00:00:00' 0
'2020-01-02T00:00:00' 10
'2020-01-03T00:00:00' 8
'2020-01-04T00:00:00' 19 -- # -> 11 + 8 (id 5 + id 3)
'2020-01-05T00:00:00' 21 -- # -> 13 + 8
'2020-01-06T00:00:00' 28 -- # -> 7 + 13 + 8
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Using nested subqueries like this:
select
Date,
coalesce(sum(stock_amount), 0) starting_amount
from
(
select
row_number() over(partition by i1.Date, item_id order by i2.Date desc) i,
i1.Date,
i2.item_id,
i2.stock_amount
from
(select distinct date_trunc('day', Date) as Date from Inventory) i1
left outer join
Inventory i2
on i2.Date < i1.Date
) s
where i = 1
group by Date
order by Date
This query sorts in descending order and uses the first row.
I'm learning Erlang and have come across/trying to understand list comprehension. I've discovered that you can make Cartesian products quite easily using it.
Basically I though of a deck of cards and that if you multiply the unique values by the number of suits, you will result will every possible combination - creating a full deck of cards. However, what if I wish to add the 2 jokers to the deck - but jokers do not belong to a suit. How do we solve that issue?
The code below is what I have so far and will output the possible combinations without the jokers.
CardValues = [ace, king, queen, jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2],
CardSuits = [spades,hearts,clubs,diamonds],
CartesianList = [{X, Y} || X <- CardValues, Y <- CardSuits ],
io:format("\nCartesianList:~p\n",[CartesianList]).
Would there be a better way of achieving/how would you achieve this?
I expect the output for the jokers would be something like {joker, nosuit}
Thanks,
Snelly.
If you really want to get it directly from a list comprehension, you may use filters:
CardValues = [joker,joker,ace, king, queen, jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2],
CardSuits = [spades,hearts,clubs,diamonds,nosuit],
CartesianList = [{X, Y} || X <- CardValues, Y <- CardSuits, ((X == joker)andalso(Y==nosuit))orelse((X =/= joker)andalso(Y=/=nosuit)) ],
io:format("\nCartesianList:~p\n",[CartesianList]).
But it is really weird, artificial and inefficient, I would add them manually:
CardValues = [ace, king, queen, jack, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2],
CardSuits = [spades,hearts,clubs,diamonds],
CartesianList = [{joker,nosuit},{joker,nosuit}|[{X, Y} || X <- CardValues, Y <- CardSuits ]]],
io:format("\nCartesianList:~p\n",[CartesianList]).