Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson
The "results" in this context might mean different things to different people. The actual alliance pairings are almost certain to differ from run to run, but the statistical nature of those pairings seems to be pretty consistent. Those statistics are what the algorithm was designed to produce, and that's the "results" we've been asked to assess.
|
Yes - But. That approach makes things harder than they need to be. Once a suitable schedule exists for a large number of matches for any/each desired number of teams, you can choose to be done for the rest of eternity.
Just randomize the assignment of actual teams to the hypothetical teams in the approrpiately-sized, precomputed schedule each time an event's staff knows the final team list for the event.
I think doing this would be "best for FIRST" because teams could come to events already knowing the pattern in each pre-computed schedule and could fill in the actual team assignments quickly once the event staff announces them. That would mean that teams could create elegant tools for scouting and related matters, and could use them at events without having to waste time punching a jilliion numbers (the match pairings) into them at the events.
I think doing this would be best for FIRST because it would eliminate the need to be able to execute a program to create match schedules. Instead anyone with a text editor and a printer could produce a fine schedule quickly. A simple, optional, runs-almost-anywhere, Java program could make the process nearly painless, would be more portable than a .net program, and would ice the cake.
Blake
PS: Maybe you were asked to evaluate the statistics of a simulated annealer's outputs; but I don't recall seeing that question posted here. Scheduling approaches exist that are deterministic, and given that I prefer them (for the reasons given above), I hope you can better understand my line of questioning.
PPS: I'm not sure that the current algorithm satisfies the criteria Mark listed. It does minimize and maximize appropriate features of the schedules it produces; but I don't think that we can claim yet that it produces schedules that exhibit the minimum and maximum values of those features (requested in Mark's criteria).
We might be able to come up with a set of deterministic heuristics that do produce true minimum numbers of repeats, etc. MM and I are already reasonably close (but can not guarantee success) for the 2-teams-per-alliance version of the problem.