Get Time
Search | Watch Thread  |  My Post History  |  My Watches  |  User Settings
View: Flat (newest first)  | Threaded  | Tree
Previous Thread  |  Next Thread
[ 1 2 ]    NEXT >
Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link | Reply
Standings link:

I don't have a great approach. I just sort circles by m[i] * min(largest_R / r[i], 2.0) then I place them 1 by 1.

- if it's possible to place at x[i], y[i] place there
- otherwise, look at already placed circles and try to place tangent to one of the already placed circle, keep the best and use it.

Now, when I try to place tangent to a circle I try different points with a step of largest_r * 0.02.

This gave me: 853879.07 but it was simple to implement.

I also tried, when placing a new circle place it tangent to 2 existing circles or tangent to 1 existing circle (keep the closest one). But it did worse.

So, I was wondering if you guys implemented a brute force approach to try different orderings of placing the circles.

My Example results(not that great):
0) 10.735300222325122
1) 2.546551103616857
2) 11.932169145913829
3) 15.376061095510833
4) 3.919390685449052
5) 44.34142745907761
6) 8.344246022798208
7) 13.156488574528526
8) 28.697320431475593
9) 2.334204192864087

What did you guys get for examples? What about seed 6? I expect you got 36. Do you have pic of your seed 6?

Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
0) Score: 9.120012747689668 Run Time: 9902 ms
1) Score: 2.01592057122776 Run Time: 9902 ms
2) Score: 9.017862352013779 Run Time: 9901 ms
3) Score: 12.849787934352145 Run Time: 9903 ms
4) Score: 3.1596556605729846 Run Time: 9901 ms
5) Score: 40.3706636383075 Run Time: 9903 ms
6) Score: 7.496552182433127 Run Time: 9900 ms
7) Score: 11.626996478039311 Run Time: 9901 ms
8) Score: 25.77671270140845 Run Time: 9901 ms
9) Score: 1.9845133068999108 Run Time: 9902 ms

I used a mix of simulated annealing and local search.

For 9.9s, for each trial:
(1) For 40% of cases, switch places of circle A and circle B. (Let's assume B is larger than A)
score = m[a] * dist(A->a) + m[b] * dist(B->b) - m[a] * dist(A->b) - m[b] * dist(B->a) + m[A] * (r[B] - r[A]) (large number is good, details omitted)
Do simulated annealing using this score.

(2) For remaining 60% of cases, pick a circle A and move it a little. Moving distance is reciprocal to mass.

25% of these cases are 'hyper mode'. In this mode moving distance is multiplied by 6. Also, if the move makes score worse, don't move.
Remaining 75% is 'normal mode'. Move randomly.
For 100% of hyper mode and 40% of normal mode, if vector inner mult of moving direction and desired direction is less then 0, just reverse moving direction.


I spent tremendous time to optimize speed and parameters. As a result I run 47M~60M iterations for each case(but it was impossible to remove sqrt function) and I also think parameters are near their best position.

I discovered method (1) last week and it gave +40000 points, so I decided to hide 30000 points thereafter.

What I didn't try was physical simulation. I thought it should require at least O(n^2) iterations, so didn't bother to try. I don't know what's Milanin's method, but I think his method will far surpass my method. :)
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by ainu7) | Reply
ainu7: Could you please share image result of each sample case?
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by izhari) | Reply
It's meaningless - the result varies widely. Also, I think I'm 37000 points from optimal solution, and time doubling gave me 7000 points. That means giving enough time to my solution will produce beautiful picture.

So I'll just paste my code -
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by ainu7) | Reply
Thank you, I can use it to generate the picture :)

My approach similar to vlad_D, unless I only sort it by mass to get initial placement. Just changed sorting function and it improves the score by 1.2 point in average, while I was struggling even by doing permutation on each group of circle and only improves by 0.5 point :(

Example scores:
0) 11,95984718
1) 2,404699585
2) 11,75694583
3) 16,63423429
4) 4,025934067
5) 48,46106581
6) 8,853877537
7) 13,67477326
8) 33,17574101
9) 2,308209985
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
I place the circles in order in "the closest to desired position", then randomly pick one of the badly scoring circles and move it forward in the order and try again, until timeout.

The initial order is the best scoring of by mass, by mass - radius * various constants [0.25 - 4], by mass / radius.

I need a fast method to find "the closest to desired position" for each circle so, as the circles are placed, I maintain a Delaunay Triangulation of the circle origins (Here's an example for seed 1). Circles are placed either at their target, at the closest point on the edge of the circle the target is in, or touching two of the circles connected by the Delaunay triangulation. To speed up further, the lines in the triangulation track the smallest circle they can't support, and circle hit testing is speeded up with a coarse lookup grid. This can test an average of 750 different placement orders per test case on my laptop.

Example scores:
0) 10.675224699854525
1) 2.211154882666937
2) 11.084050375168653
3) 15.46523400072363
4) 3.515548148160953
5) 45.7243121067743
6) 7.890486175536647
7) 12.34389898018933
8) 29.128212765861633
9) 2.1627343462661255

I tried adding a gravity collapse sim, which hardly ever did anything. I guess the circles were already locked too tightly. I also tried tracking and testing all other lines that connected circles through free space, but that had no extra benefit.
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
-I sorted the circles by m[i] / (R[i]*R[i]), where R[i] is the radius of the circle if radius > median radius, otherwise R[i] = median radius.

-Then I placed them one by one at the "best" position by scanning in a 180 deg. arc around each target point.

-Next the algorithm performs a min cost max flow on similar size circles.

-Perform physics based simulation where a force is applied to each circle in the target direction. Applied only for 10-50 iterations.

-Fix the collisions by performing collision response on collisions.

-Randomly swap 2 similar size circles, or move a randomish circle towards its target. Swapping very similar to ainu7 metric, but without the last term.

-Repeat the physics simulation

-mutate a bit and repeat

Example scores:
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
I start by generating a few random starting arrangement on which I later do a physical simulation. A starting arrangement is generated by placing circles one by one in order of their priority such that they don't intersect. The priority is chosen using a complicated formula making sure that heavier circles are placed first and large circles are placed last. Moreover, I don't place a circle at the starting position minimizing the penalty for this circle but I also consider the distance to the center of the 0-1-square. The aim of this phase is not to construct good scoring solutions but to have a solution that we take as a starting point for the physical simulation.

The physical simulation is done by alternating two steps:
1a swap circles of similar radii and increase the score by this swap
1b move circles in the direction of their original position, heavier circles are moved faster
(this generates a position that is that is not a valid solution as it overlaps)
2 repair this invalid solution by iteratively moving circles away from the circle they overlap with. For a fixed circle and each overlapping circle we calculate a direction vector in which to move these two circles. This vector is proportional to the length of their overlap and a factor h. The direction in which a circle is moved is then the sum of these vectors.
If in such a step the total squared overlap (energy of the physical system) would be increased, h is decreased.

This process is repeated for several starting positions. As a final step the best solution obtained is repaired in a rather stupid way by moving around circles one by one and decreasing the score.

Example scores for the final submission:

0) 9.43041268485833
1) 2.097164218285335
2) 9.236476862550473
3) 12.292901522493885
4) 3.123938527313803
5) 40.61225325940782
6) 7.443487634026825
7) 11.474405514674993
8) 25.957235459462254
9) 2.004992725976793

All in all, it was a great problem and it seems like one could get even better solutions if one combined the ideas of all participants! As usual, the two weeks we had to solve the problem were too long and too short at the same time:).

@ainu7: I noticed that your last submission decreased both your and also all other participant's score. Is the reason that the score of your solution is rather unstable or did I just miss something?
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
Main approach:
- Sort circles by (some logic).
- For each circle, try all angles that are a multiple of 12 (Using 360 degrees). Find the angle that yields the best distance that doesn't overlap with other already-placed circles. Then try the 22 angles that are nearby this optimal multiple of 12.

- I try three orderings for the circles in the first three iterations and remember the best.
-- m[i] * sqrt(m[i]) * (1.5 - sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy) ) * (m[i] / ( sum of m[i]s of overlapping circles));
-- (Previous formula) / r[i]
-- good old plain m[i]

With the best of the three orderings I run a simple Hill Climbing. Swap two circles in the ordering, run and if it succeeds, keep the new order.

To get the best position I needed plenty of geometry optimizations, basically it is amortized O(n) per circle. N=50 can reach 6953 iterations, (too bad most of them are wasted because I reach a local minimum with around 1500 iterations). For N=250, I have ~484 iterations and for N=500, 140~ iterations.

I forgot to get example results for my latest two submissions. Here is the best one I found:

0) 10.900192579178476
1) 2.3446874747567223
2) 12.361248850444047
3) 15.845480739133398
4) 3.74082569843475
5) 47.19399157282644
6) 8.295640499961547
7) 13.322852758827
8) 30.01982267017501
9) 2.169410729752234
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by blackmath) | Reply
Note: ainu7 Didn't use a fixed seed in his solution. I ran it locally on seed 6 for a couple of times and it gets different scores (even 1 point diff).

So it looks unstable...
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
I see. Moreover, it seems like his latest submission improved on cases where he already was best and slightly decreased on the other ones which together with the relative scoring and some instability would explain the effect.
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
My approach is very similar to vlad_D.

Placing order:
1. Total circles area > 1.8, sort circles by m[i] / (r[i] + average of radius)
Let k be the smallest number satisfy total area of the first k circles is greater than 1.
Sort the first k circles by the distance between their centers and point(0.5, 0.5).
2. Total circles area <= 1.8, sort circles by m[i].

- if it's possible to place at x[i], y[i] place there
- place it tangent to 2 existing circles or tangent to 1 existing circle (keep the closest one). Remove the new circle and the tangent circles(keep other circles on the board), change their order, check whether this improves score.

Example result:
0) 9.343426726578059
1) 2.1101101389049024
2) 9.698986323399945
3) 13.544550258493306
4) 3.231182461879404
5) 40.61366297723801
6) 7.5087235284067955
7) 11.562695316149599
8) 26.28751187669101
9) 1.999275882270547
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by ainu7) | Reply
I also used simulated annealing with 1) and 2). The difference is that I could only run a few thousand iterations of this, unlike you. Hence much lower score for me. I think most of my time was spent on checking whether a new move creates any overlap and then rejecting it if it does. Can you please describe how you optimized your solution?
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by vlad_D) | Reply
0) 8.994385535614441
1) 2.076966260115919
2) 8.930881877174073
3) 12.407427496955517
4) 3.1626556234753025
5) 39.741906448989056
6) 7.388810391717014
7) 11.452531301470533
8) 25.71246349900386
9) 2.0048946583692375

My solution is:

Find some pseudo valid position by 400 iterations of repulsion.

While (time < 9)

Find a perfect matching of minimal weight between circles and points they are situated. Assigning cost of circle i to point j is:

cost[i][j] = mass[i] * distance(point[j], startposition[i]) / pow(radius[i], 2)

2000 iterations of repulsion.

Update the best answer.

End while

After all find for each circle the best position it can take touching two other circles.

Repulsion means:

Suppose circle i takes a position p[i]. And d[i] is a vector at which the circle i will change its position after iteration of repulsion (p[i] += d[i], at the end). We are going to calculate d[i] for all circles at particular iteration of repulsion. For each pair (i, j) of intersecting circles i and j their d[i] and d[j] update to

d[i] += (p[i] - p[j]) * dist * mass[j] / (mass[i] + mass[j])
d[j] += (p[j] - p[i]) * dist * mass[i] / (mass[i] + mass[j])
dist = (radius[i] + radius[j] - distance(p[i], p[j])) / distance(p[i], p[j])

If iteration number is less then 1000 then for each circle i add to d[i] some vector which performs pulling to its starting position

d[i] += (startposition[i] - p[i]) / distance(startposition[i], p[i]) * mass[i] / sqrt (N * radius[i]) * f(iteration number)
f(iter) - monotone decreasing function. I used pow(1 - (iter + 1000) / 2000, 3)

Then I perform some kind of transmission of d[i] to the neighbors of circle i.

At the end add all d[i] to corresponding p[i].

The main loop executes about 5 times at N=500 and 150 times at N=50 (It seems 5 is lucky number everywhere except the rank list).
Re: Example Results & Post Your Approach & Standings Link (response to post by Milanin) | Reply
@Milanin - good job! I was thinking about similar approaches, but did not manage to implement it properly.

It was very interesting problem, big thanks to the writer and organizers!
[ 1 2 ]    NEXT >