I've written a simple A* path finding algorithm to quickly find a way through a tile based dungeon in which the tiles contain the information of walls.
An example of a dungeon (only 1 path for simplicity):
However now I'd like to add a variable amount of "Bombs" to the algorithm which would allow the path-finding to ignore 1 wall. However now it doesn't find the best paths anymore,
for example with use of only 1 bomb the generated path looks like the first image here:
Edit: actually it would look like this: https://i.stack.imgur.com/kPoAA.png
While the correct path would be the second image
The problem is that "Closed Nodes" now interfere with possible paths. Any ideas of how to tackle this problem would be greatly appreciated!
Your "game state" will no longer only be defined by your location, but also by an integer representing the number of bombs you have left. If you're following the pseudocode of A* on wikipedia, this means you cannot simply implement the closedSet as a grid of booleans. It should probably be implemented as, for example, a hash map / hash set, where every entry holds the following data:
x coordinate
y coordinate
number of bombs left
By visiting a certain position in the search process, you'll no longer mark just that position as closed. You'll mark the combination of position + number of bombs left as closed. That way, if later on in the same search process you run into a position where you're at the same location, but have more bombs left, you will not ignore it as closed but will actually continue searching that possibility.
Note that, if the maximum possible number of bombs is relatively low, you could also implement the closedSet as an array of boolean grids, where you first index by number of bombs, then by x and y coordinates to find out if a specific position is closed or not.
Doesn't this mean that you just pretend to not have any walls at all?
Use A* to find the shortest path from start to end and then check how many walls you'd have to go through. If you have enough bombs, you can use the path. Otherwise, try the next longest path and so on.
By the way: you might want to check http://gamedev.stackexchange.com for questions like this one.
You need to tweak the cost function to cost something for a bomb, then run the algorithm normally with an infinite cost for a second bomb. To get the bomb approximately halfway, play about with cost function, it should probably cost about the heuristic A-B distance times the cost for an empty tile. If you have two bombs, half the cost and of course then use of three bombs costs infinite.
But don't expect very good results. A* isn't designed for that kind of optimisation.
I have a undirected graph with about 100 nodes and about 200 edges. One node is labelled 'start', one is 'end', and there's about a dozen labelled 'mustpass'.
I need to find the shortest path through this graph that starts at 'start', ends at 'end', and passes through all of the 'mustpass' nodes (in any order).
( http://3e.org/local/maize-graph.png / http://3e.org/local/maize-graph.dot.txt is the graph in question - it represents a corn maze in Lancaster, PA)
Everyone else comparing this to the Travelling Salesman Problem probably hasn't read your question carefully. In TSP, the objective is to find the shortest cycle that visits all the vertices (a Hamiltonian cycle) -- it corresponds to having every node labelled 'mustpass'.
In your case, given that you have only about a dozen labelled 'mustpass', and given that 12! is rather small (479001600), you can simply try all permutations of only the 'mustpass' nodes, and look at the shortest path from 'start' to 'end' that visits the 'mustpass' nodes in that order -- it will simply be the concatenation of the shortest paths between every two consecutive nodes in that list.
In other words, first find the shortest distance between each pair of vertices (you can use Dijkstra's algorithm or others, but with those small numbers (100 nodes), even the simplest-to-code Floyd-Warshall algorithm will run in time). Then, once you have this in a table, try all permutations of your 'mustpass' nodes, and the rest.
Something like this:
//Precomputation: Find all pairs shortest paths, e.g. using Floyd-Warshall
n = number of nodes
for i=1 to n: for j=1 to n: d[i][j]=INF
for k=1 to n:
for i=1 to n:
for j=1 to n:
d[i][j] = min(d[i][j], d[i][k] + d[k][j])
//That *really* gives the shortest distance between every pair of nodes! :-)
//Now try all permutations
shortest = INF
for each permutation a[1],a[2],...a[k] of the 'mustpass' nodes:
shortest = min(shortest, d['start'][a[1]]+d[a[1]][a[2]]+...+d[a[k]]['end'])
print shortest
(Of course that's not real code, and if you want the actual path you'll have to keep track of which permutation gives the shortest distance, and also what the all-pairs shortest paths are, but you get the idea.)
It will run in at most a few seconds on any reasonable language :)
[If you have n nodes and k 'mustpass' nodes, its running time is O(n3) for the Floyd-Warshall part, and O(k!n) for the all permutations part, and 100^3+(12!)(100) is practically peanuts unless you have some really restrictive constraints.]
run Djikstra's Algorithm to find the shortest paths between all of the critical nodes (start, end, and must-pass), then a depth-first traversal should tell you the shortest path through the resulting subgraph that touches all of the nodes start ... mustpasses ... end
This is two problems... Steven Lowe pointed this out, but didn't give enough respect to the second half of the problem.
You should first discover the shortest paths between all of your critical nodes (start, end, mustpass). Once these paths are discovered, you can construct a simplified graph, where each edge in the new graph is a path from one critical node to another in the original graph. There are many pathfinding algorithms that you can use to find the shortest path here.
Once you have this new graph, though, you have exactly the Traveling Salesperson problem (well, almost... No need to return to your starting point). Any of the posts concerning this, mentioned above, will apply.
Actually, the problem you posted is similar to the traveling salesman, but I think closer to a simple pathfinding problem. Rather than needing to visit each and every node, you simply need to visit a particular set of nodes in the shortest time (distance) possible.
The reason for this is that, unlike the traveling salesman problem, a corn maze will not allow you to travel directly from any one point to any other point on the map without needing to pass through other nodes to get there.
I would actually recommend A* pathfinding as a technique to consider. You set this up by deciding which nodes have access to which other nodes directly, and what the "cost" of each hop from a particular node is. In this case, it looks like each "hop" could be of equal cost, since your nodes seem relatively closely spaced. A* can use this information to find the lowest cost path between any two points. Since you need to get from point A to point B and visit about 12 inbetween, even a brute force approach using pathfinding wouldn't hurt at all.
Just an alternative to consider. It does look remarkably like the traveling salesman problem, and those are good papers to read up on, but look closer and you'll see that its only overcomplicating things. ^_^ This coming from the mind of a video game programmer who's dealt with these kinds of things before.
This is not a TSP problem and not NP-hard because the original question does not require that must-pass nodes are visited only once. This makes the answer much, much simpler to just brute-force after compiling a list of shortest paths between all must-pass nodes via Dijkstra's algorithm. There may be a better way to go but a simple one would be to simply work a binary tree backwards. Imagine a list of nodes [start,a,b,c,end]. Sum the simple distances [start->a->b->c->end] this is your new target distance to beat. Now try [start->a->c->b->end] and if that's better set that as the target (and remember that it came from that pattern of nodes). Work backwards over the permutations:
[start->a->b->c->end]
[start->a->c->b->end]
[start->b->a->c->end]
[start->b->c->a->end]
[start->c->a->b->end]
[start->c->b->a->end]
One of those will be shortest.
(where are the 'visited multiple times' nodes, if any? They're just hidden in the shortest-path initialization step. The shortest path between a and b may contain c or even the end point. You don't need to care)
Andrew Top has the right idea:
1) Djikstra's Algorithm
2) Some TSP heuristic.
I recommend the Lin-Kernighan heuristic: it's one of the best known for any NP Complete problem. The only other thing to remember is that after you expanded out the graph again after step 2, you may have loops in your expanded path, so you should go around short-circuiting those (look at the degree of vertices along your path).
I'm actually not sure how good this solution will be relative to the optimum. There are probably some pathological cases to do with short circuiting. After all, this problem looks a LOT like Steiner Tree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steiner_tree and you definitely can't approximate Steiner Tree by just contracting your graph and running Kruskal's for example.
Considering the amount of nodes and edges is relatively finite, you can probably calculate every possible path and take the shortest one.
Generally this known as the travelling salesman problem, and has a non-deterministic polynomial runtime, no matter what the algorithm you use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_salesman_problem
The question talks about must-pass in ANY order. I have been trying to search for a solution about the defined order of must-pass nodes. I found my answer but since no question on StackOverflow had a similar question I'm posting here to let maximum people benefit from it.
If the order or must-pass is defined then you could run dijkstra's algorithm multiple times. For instance let's assume you have to start from s pass through k1, k2 and k3 (in respective order) and stop at e. Then what you could do is run dijkstra's algorithm between each consecutive pair of nodes. The cost and path would be given by:
dijkstras(s, k1) + dijkstras(k1, k2) + dijkstras(k2, k3) + dijkstras(k3, 3)
How about using brute force on the dozen 'must visit' nodes. You can cover all the possible combinations of 12 nodes easily enough, and this leaves you with an optimal circuit you can follow to cover them.
Now your problem is simplified to one of finding optimal routes from the start node to the circuit, which you then follow around until you've covered them, and then find the route from that to the end.
Final path is composed of :
start -> path to circuit* -> circuit of must visit nodes -> path to end* -> end
You find the paths I marked with * like this
Do an A* search from the start node to every point on the circuit
for each of these do an A* search from the next and previous node on the circuit to the end (because you can follow the circuit round in either direction)
What you end up with is a lot of search paths, and you can choose the one with the lowest cost.
There's lots of room for optimization by caching the searches, but I think this will generate good solutions.
It doesn't go anywhere near looking for an optimal solution though, because that could involve leaving the must visit circuit within the search.
One thing that is not mentioned anywhere, is whether it is ok for the same vertex to be visited more than once in the path. Most of the answers here assume that it's ok to visit the same edge multiple times, but my take given the question (a path should not visit the same vertex more than once!) is that it is not ok to visit the same vertex twice.
So a brute force approach would still apply, but you'd have to remove vertices already used when you attempt to calculate each subset of the path.
So let's say I got a matrix with two types of cells: 0 and 1. 1 is not passable.
I want to find a point, from which I can run paths (say, A*) to a bunch of destinations (don't expect it to be more than 4). And I want the length of these paths to be such that l1/l2/l3/l4 = 1 or as close to 1 as possible.
For two destinations is simple: run a path between them and take the midpoint. For more destinations, I imagine I can run paths between each pair, then they will create a sort of polygon, and I could grab the centroid (or average of all path point coordinates)? Or would it be better to take all midpoints of paths between each pair and then use them as vertices in a polygon which will contain my desired point?
It seems you want to find the point with best access to multiple endpoints. For other readers, this is like trying to found an ideal settlement to trade with nearby cities; you want them to be as accessible as possible. It appears to be a variant of the Weber Problem applied to pathfinding.
The best solution, as you can no longer rely on exploiting geometry (imagine a mountain path or two blocking the way), is going to be an iterative approach. I don't imagine it will be easy to find an optimal solution because you'll need to check every square; you can't guess by pathing between endpoints anymore. In nearly any large problem space, you will need to path from each possible centroid to all endpoints. A suboptimal solution will be fairly fast. I recommend these steps:
try to estimate the centroid using geometry, forming a search area
Use a modified A* algorithm from each point S in the search area to all your target points T to generate a perfect path from S to each T.
Add the length of each path S -> T together to get Cost (probably stored in a matrix for all sample points)
Select the lowest Cost from all your samples in the matrix (or the entire population if you didn't cull the search space).
The algorithm above can also work without estimating a centroid and limiting solutions. If you choose to search the entire space, the search will be much longer, but you can find a perfect solution even in a labyrinth. If you estimate the centroid and start the search near it, you'll find good answers faster.
I mentioned earlier that you should use a modified A* algorithm... Rather than repeating a generic A* search S->Tn for every T, code A* so that it seeks multiple target locations, storing the paths to each one and stopping when it has found them all.
If you really want a perfect solution to the problem, you'll be waiting a long time, so I recommend that you use any exploit you can to reduce wasteful calculations. Even go so far as to store found paths in a lookup table for each T, and see if a point already exists along any of those paths.
To put it simply, finding the point is easy. Finding it fast-enough might take lots of clever heuristics (cost-saving measures) and stored data.
What I'm considering is this: when a node becomes the current node, compute "on the fly" the cost to each neighbor, where the cost is a function of the complete path to arrive at the current node. I can't think how this would break the assumptions of the algorithm, but I have a feeling it might.
I'm doing the on the fly computation for storage reasons anyway, but the new thing would be having the costs be a function of more than the two nodes involved. Could it work?
As far as I see, it doesn't break the assumptions of the Dijsktra algorithm, i.e. you can still continue to use it. However, when you want to do so, it does require you to completely refigure your graph.
More detailed, you can't simply use Node-Indices {1,...,N} anymore, but then your state rather needs to be something like {(1,all-ways-to-get-there), ... , (N,all-ways-to-get-there)}. This will bring in a bad exponential scaling.
The reason for this is that the Dijkstra algorithm -- like Dynamic programming -- relies on the fact that the problem can be split in parts and solved there, which is not the case here.
Here is an example why it can't be done by "normal" Dijkstra: say your function which assigns a cost to a given way {node_1, node_2, ..., node_N} is called f and is assumed arbitrary. Then it is completely irrelevant what your current best costs or best path {node_1, ..., node_{N-1}} is at the moment, as you can't make any implication on that -- all you can do is to work out each possible path, which grows exponentially and is hopeless for large graphs.
In case your function fulfills some requirements, however, there might be better things to do. For example, in the simplest case when your function is linear, f({path1} + {path2}) = f({path1}) + f({path2})], the "original" Dijkstra algorithm is recovered.
If it's possible to pre-compute the cost of travelling between each pair of nodes, then there is absolutely no reason you can't use Dijkstra or A*, as long as none of your edge weights can be negative.
If it's not possible to pre-compute the cost, then it's likely that you're doing something wrong in your pathfinding, as it likely depends on the state of the search. :)
I am trying to develop a pathfinding algorithm that finds the closest path to a point by tracing a line from the initial position to the final position. Then I test for intersections with obstacles ( all of them in my game are rectangular ) and then draw two new lines, one to each of the visible corners of the obstacle. Then, I draw lines from those two corners to the endpoint and repeat the intersection test for each branch of the path.
My question is this: how do I propagate my branching paths in Lua without recursion? It seems like it would be pretty easy with recursion, but I don't want to risk a stack overflow and a crash if my path gets too long.
If there is a technical term for the technique I am using, please tell me. I like to do my own research when I can.
There is recursion and iteration. Lua supports "infinite recursion" via tail calls, so if you can express your recursion in terms of tail calls there is no risk of stack overflow. Example:
function f(x)
if x==0 then return 0 end -- end recursion
.... Do stuff ...
return f(x-1)
end
Section 6.3 of Programming in Lua (available online) discusses this.
If you can't determine a way to do this with tail calls then you have to use iteration. For example start with one path, using a while loop test how many intersections (exit loop when 0); the loop calls a function that computes two new paths; each path is added to a list; the while loop is in a paths loop (since the # of paths increases); the path length can be computed simultaneously; some paths will be dead end and will be dropped; some will be cyclical and should be dropped; and the rest will arrive at destination. You then keep the one with shortest path or travel time (not necessarily the same).