Archive for the ‘Algorithms’ Category

Connect6

October 23, 2007

pic48005_t.jpg

I’ve been enjoying playing the game Connect6 with my son Adam. The game was invented and introduced by Professor I-Chen Wu, from National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan. Connect6 is played with a Go board and stones. The object is to place six stones in a row, diagonally, horizontally, or vertically. On the first turn, Black places a single stone; after that each player places two stones per turn. Because each player will always have placed one more stone than his or her opponent after each turn, the game appears to be balanced.

One potential concern about this notion of balance is that perhaps the second player should place his or her stones far from the first stone, to get a two-stone advantage somewhere else on the board, and possibly forcing the first player to follow in that part of the board. Fortunately, Wu and a colleague demonstrated that this initial break-away strategy is unlikely to be good for White in this paper.

Anyways, it’s not clear whether with perfect play the game should be a win for the first player, a win for the second player, or a draw (with neither player ever able to achieve six-in-a-row.) If I had to guess, I would venture a draw, even on an infinite board, but on the other hand my actual games have all ended in victory for somebody.

The game is very similar to Gomoku (also known as Connect 5), where one tries to get five stones in a row, but each player only places one stone at a time. Of course, that game favors the first player, and in fact it has apparently been demonstrated that the first player wins with perfect play.

Renju is an older and much less elegant approach to balancing Gomoku. In Renju, the first player is restricted from making moves which make certain types of threats. Looking at all the complications in the Renju rules, I find it surprising that it took so long for Connect6 to be introduced.

In fact, aside from the issues of fairness and elegance of rules, I also find that Connect6 has a more dynamic feel than Gomoku or Renju; I definitely prefer it.

Because of the large number of possible moves each side can make each turn, and the difficulty of evaluating a position, it’s not easy to program a computer to play Connect6 well; I don’t think any programs exist yet that play as well as humans. You can play Connect6 against some relatively weak bots and other humans at Vying Games, which also features other interesting turn-based strategy games (currently Checkers, Pente, Keryo-Pente, Phutball, Breakthrough, Othello, Kalah, Oware, and Footsteps).

Using Unambiguous Notation

October 19, 2007

I’ve mentioned their book the “Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics” a couple times already; today I’d like to recommend that you read a wonderful short paper by Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom, called “The Role of Programming in the Formulation of Ideas,” which helps explain why understanding physics and the other mathematical sciences can sometimes be so difficult. The basic point is that our notation is often an absolute mess, caused by the fact that we use equations like we use natural language, in a highly ambiguous way:

“It is necessary to present the science in the language of mathematics. Unfortunately, when we teach science we use the language of mathematics in the same way that we use our natural language. We depend upon a vast amount of shared knowledge and culture, and we only sketch an idea using mathematical idioms.”

The solution proposed is to develop notation that can be understood by computers, which do not tolerate ambiguity:

“One way to become aware of the precision required to unambiguously communicate a mathematical idea is to program it for a computer. Rather than using canned programs purely as an aid to visualization or numerical computation, we use computer programming in a functional style to encourage clear thinking. Programming forces one to be precise and formal, without being excessively rigorous. The computer does not tolerate vague descriptions or incomplete constructions. Thus the act of programming makes one keenly aware of one’s errors of reasoning or unsupported conclusions.”

Sussman and Wisdom then focus on one highly illuminating example, the Lagrange equations. These equations can be derived from the fundamental principle of least action. This principle tells you that if you have a classical system that begins in a configuration C1 at time t1 and arrives at a configuration C2 at time t2, the path it traces out between t1 and t2 will be the one that is consistent with the initial and final configurations and minimizes the integral over time of the Lagrangian for the system, where the Lagrangian is given by the kinetic energy minus the potential energy.

Physics textbooks tell us that if we apply the calculus of variations to the integral of the Lagrangian (called the “action”) we can derive that the true path satisfies the Lagrange equations, which are traditionally written as:

lagrange001.jpg

Here L is the Lagrangian, t is the time, annd qi are the coordinates of the system.

These equations (and many others like them) have confused and bewildered generations of physics students. What is the problem? Well, there are all sorts of fundamental problems in interpreting these equations, detailed in Sussman and Wisdom’s paper. As they point out, basic assumptions like whether a coordinate and its derivative are independent variables are not consistent within the same equation. And shouldn’t this equation refer to the path somewhere, since the Lagrange equations are only correct for the true path? I’ll let you read Sussman and Wisdom’s full laundry list of problems yourself. But let’s turn to the psychological effects of using such equations:

“Though such statements (and derivations that depend upon them) seem very strange to students, they are told that if they think about them harder they will understand. So the student must either come to the conclusion that he/she is dumb and just accepts it, or that the derivation is correct, with some appropriate internal rationalization. Students often learn to carry out these manipulations without really understanding what they are doing.”

Is this true? I believe it certainly is (my wife agrees: she gave up on mathematics, even though she always received excellent grades, because she never felt she truly understood). The students who learn to successfully rationalize such ambiguous equations, and forget about the equations that they can’t understand at all, are the ones who might go on to be successful physicists. Here’s an example, from the review of Sussman and Wisdom’s book by Piet Hut, a very well-regarded physicist who is now a professor at the Institute for Advanced Studies:

“… I went through the library in search of books on the variational principle in classical mechanics. I found several heavy tomes, borrowed them all, and started on the one that looked most attractive. Alas, it didn’t take long for me to realize that there was quite a bit of hand-waving involved. There was no clear definition of the procedure used for computing path integrals, let alone for the operations of differentiating them in various ways, by using partial derivatives and/or using an ordinary derivative along a particular path. And when and why the end points of the various paths had to be considered fixed or open to variation also was unclear, contributing to the overall confusion.

Working through the canned exercises was not very difficult, and from an instrumental point of view, my book was quite clear, as long as the reader would stick to simple examples. But the ambiguity of the presentation frustrated me, and I started scanning through other, even more detailed books. Alas, nowhere did I find the clarity that I desired, and after a few months I simply gave up. Like generations of students before me, I reluctantly accepted the dictum that ‘you should not try to understand quantum mechanics, since that will lead you astray for doing physics’, and going even further, I also gave up trying to really understand classical mechanics! Psychological defense mechanisms turned my bitter sense of disappointment into a dull sense of disenchantment.”

Sussman and Wisdom do show how the ambiguous conventional notation can be replaced with unambiguous notation that can even be used to program a computer. Because it’s new, it will feel alien at first; the Lagrange equations look like this:

functional002.jpg

It’s worth learning Sussman and Wisdom’s notation for the clarity it ultimately provides. It’s even more important to learn to always strive for clear understanding.

One final point: although mathematicians do often use notation that is superior to physicists’, they shouldn’t feel too smug; Sussman and Wisdom had similar things to say about differential geometry in this paper.

SICM on Mac OS X

October 17, 2007

“Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics,” (SICM) by Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom, with Meinhard Mayer, is a fascinating book, revisiting classical mechanics from the point of view that everything must be computationally explicit. I already mentioned the book in a previous post.

The book is available online, and all the software is freely available on-line as well. The software is written in Scheme, and a very extensive library called “scmutils” was developed to support computations in classical mechanics, including implementations of many symbolic and numerical algorithms.

I think that many scientists and programmers could find the “scmutils” library to be generally useful, even if they are not particularly interested in classical mechanics. If you are using the GNU/Linux operating system, there’s no problem in getting the library working. However, if you want to use it on Mac OS X (or Windows), the instructions leave the impression that it’s not possible, and Googling turned up some useful information, but no complete instructions, and also some people that seemed to be at a loss about how to do it.

Well, it is possible to get MIT-Scheme with the scmutils library running on Mac OS X (and you can probably modify my instructions to make it work on Windows too):

Click here for my instructions for running scmutils on Mac OS X.

LDPC Decoders and PyCodes

October 15, 2007

I already wrote about Gallager’s LDPC error-correcting codes, but I didn’t explain very much about how they work, aside from pointing you to some good references. I want to use this post to say a little about their decoders, which use the belief propagation algorithm, and also to make you aware of some freely available LDPC software, in case you want to study or simulate these codes.

The decoders typically work by message-passing (although decoders based on linear programming have also been studied). One represents the codes using a “Tanner graph,” that looks like the figure shown below, which is actually a Tanner graph for the famous Hamming code.

ldpc001.jpg

The circles in the Tanner graph represent the bits that are transmitted. For this Hamming code, only 7 bits are transmitted in a block, but more practical codes will have hundreds or thousands of bits in a block.

The squares with a “+” inside of them represent the parity check constraints. Each parity check constraint enforces that the bits that it is connected to must sum to 0 modulo 2, or equivalently the sum of the bits is even. For example, in the code above, there are three parity check constraints, and the first parity check constraint forces the first, second, third, plus fifth bit to sum to an even number. Even in codes with large number of bits, each check will only be connected to a small number of bits; that’s what makes the codes “low density.”

The plain squares represent the information from the channel about each bit. For example, if a binary symmetric channel with a flip probability of f was used, and the first bit was received as a 0, the first square would be a function that said that the first bit had a probability of 1-f of being a 0, and a probability of f of being a 1.

The belief propagation decoders for LDPC codes (there are actually various variants) work by passing messages back and forth between the bit nodes and the parity check nodes in the factor graph. The bit nodes start by sending their beliefs about what values they have to their neighboring check nodes. I.e., a message would say something like “bit 1 believes it has a 90% chance of being a 0, and a 10% chance of being a 1.”

The check nodes look at their incoming messages, and send out appropriate messages in response. For example, if a check node is connected to four bits, and the first three bits think that they are a 0, a 0, and a 1, respectively, the fourth bit will get a message to be a 1 (so that the sum will be even), with a probability that depends on how strongly the three other bits believe that they have those values.

When the bits get messages back from the check nodes, they update their beliefs appropriately and iterate. Eventually, if we’re lucky, the bits have beliefs which are consistent (when they are thresholded to their most likely value) with all the parity checks, and the decoder can output a codeword. Again, you should check out the references in my previous post about LDPC codes for more mathematical details about the algorithms.

If you want to implement LDPC codes, you might want to use the PyCodes package developed by Dr. Emin Martinian while he was at Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs (MERL). PyCodes is written in C, and linked into Python, so you can call it within Python as an ordinary module, but it still runs very fast.

Emin began writing PyCodes when he was my intern, and continued when he became a full-time employee at MERL. It’s very well-written code that I use a lot; Emin was a professional software developer before he was a graduate student, and the software is professional-quality. PyCodes is free for non-commercial use; see the license for more details.

For other software for error-correcting codes, see “the Error Correcting Codes Page.”

Gallager’s LDPC error-correcting codes

September 28, 2007

Error-correcting codes are a technology that most people don’t think much about, if they even know they exist, but these codes work quietly in the background to enable such things as cell phones and other wireless technology, cable and satellite TV, and also the internet, including DSL, fiber-optic communications, and good old-fashioned dial-up modems. The modern communications revolution could not have begun without these codes.

So what’s the idea behind these codes? There’s a lot to say, and many textbooks have been written on the subject, so I’ll only give the briefest of introductions. [Some excellent textbooks I recommend include MacKay’s textbook which I’ve already reviewed, McEliece’s “Theory of Information and Coding”, and Lin and Costello’s “Error Control Coding.” See also this post for two forthcoming books available online.] EDIT: I’ve added some more information about LDPC decoders, with pointers to available software, in this post.

The basic idea is that we want to transmit some bits which represent some piece of text or picture or something. Unfortunately, when we transmit those bits, they need to travel through some channel (say a wire or through the air) and when they are received, the receiver only gets a noisy version of each bit. For example, each bit might be flipped independently from a 0 to a 1 or vice versa with some small probability (this is called the binary symmetric channel; many other channel models exist too).

To combat this noise, we send extra bits; so instead of sending say the 1000 bits that represent our message, we might send 2000, where the extra 1000 “check” bits have some known relationship to the original 1000. Both the transmitter and receiver agree on that relationship ahead of time; that is the “code.” Of course, all 2000 bits are now subject to the noise, so some of those extra bits could be flipped. Nevertheless, if the noise is small enough, the receiver can try to “decode” the original 1000 bits by finding the configuration of the 2000 bits which obeys all the constraints and is most probable.

In 1948, Claude Shannon proved a theorem that essentially said that if the noise in the channel was small enough, and if the number of extra bits that you were willing to send per original bit was large enough, that one could design very long codes, that if optimally decoded, would always remove all the noise and recover the transmitted message.

(By the way, it is this amazing property that codes can remove 100% of the noise that means that we can watch crystal-clear high-definition TV coming in over the airwaves, something I very much appreciate when I watch a football game these days. When advertisers talk about “digital this” or “digital that,” they really mean “error-corrected digital”.)

As an example of Shannon’s theorem, if one was willing to use one extra bit for every original bit, and the percentage of flipped bits in your binary symmetric channel was less than the Shannon limit of about 11%, his theorem tells you that codes exist that will reliably remove all the noise. However, Shannon’s proof was non-constructive; he didn’t tell us what these wonderful codes were. Shannon also proved a theorem that if the noise was higher than the “Shannon limit,” no codes exist that can reliably correct the noise.

So error-correcting coding theory deals with the problems of designing codes, and efficient encoders and decoders for those codes, that work as close to the Shannon limit as possible. Many theorists invented many interesting and useful codes and encoders and decoders over the years, but until the 1990’s, it still seemed a distant dream to most coding theorists that we would be able to find practical codes that performed near the Shannon limit.

What is very strange is that the best codes and decoders that were discovered in the 1990’s were actually a rediscovery of codes and decoders invented by Robert Gallager in the early 1960’s, for his Ph.D. thesis. Gallager’s thesis introduced “low density parity check” (LDPC) codes, and their decoding algorithm, the famous “belief propagation” decoding algorithm. His thesis also introduced many other important ideas in coding theory, including “density evolution,” simplified “bit-flipping decoders,” and analysis methods for optimal LDPC decoders. It is a truly remarkable work, that every aspiring coding theorist should read. Fortunately, it’s available online.

images.jpg

How is it possible that this work was forgotten? Well, in 1968, Robert Gallager wrote a magnificent textbook on information theory, called “Information Theory and Reliable Communication,” where he explained most of the information and coding theory known at the time, but neglected to talk about LDPC codes! I’m not sure why. Possibly he thought that he’d already covered the material in the 1963 monograph that was made from his thesis, or perhaps he didn’t think LDPC codes were practical at the time. In fact, the decoder was too complex for 1960’s technology, but Moore’s Law took care of that, although only now are LDPC codes widely replacing previously-developed codes in communications systems.

So the moral of the story is: if you write a ground-breaking Ph.D. thesis about a remarkable technology that is 30 years ahead of its time, please don’t forget to mention it in your classic textbook a few years later. Not a moral too many of us have to worry about, but still…

Talking about Probabilistic Robotics

September 23, 2007

Sebastian Thrun is a professor of computer science and electrical engineering at Stanford, and director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. He was the leader of Stanford’s team which won the $2 million first prize in the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge, which was a race of driver-less robotic cars across the desert, and also leads Stanford’s entry into the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge.

One of the ingredients in the Stanford team’s win was their use of “probabilistic robotics,” which is an approach based on the recognition that all sensor readings and models of the world are inherently subject to uncertainty and noise. Thrun, together with Wolfram Burgard and Dieter Fox have written the definitive text on probabilistic robotics, which will be a standard for years to come. If you are seriously interested in robotics, you should read this book. (The introductory first chapter, which clearly explains the basic ideas of probabilistic robotics is available as a download here.)

The Laboratory of Intelligent Systems at the Swiss École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) hosts the superb “Talking Robots” web-site, which consists of a series of podcast interviews with leading robotics researchers. I noticed that the latest interview is with Thrun, and liked it quite a bit; it is well worth downloading to your iPod or computer.

You can watch Thrun speaking about the DARPA Grand Challenge at this Google TechTalk.

Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

September 20, 2007

images.jpeg

“Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach,” by Stuart Russell (professor of computer science at UC Berkeley) and Peter Norvig (head of research at Google) is the best-known and most-used textbook about artificial intelligence, and for good reason; it’s a great book! The first edition of this book was my guide to the field when I was switching over from physics research to computer science.

I feel almost embarrassed to recommend it, because I suspect nearly everybody interested in AI already knows about it. So I’m going to tell you about a couple related resources that are maybe not as well-known.

First, there is the online code repository to the algorithms in the book, in Java, Python, and Lisp. Many of the algorithms are useful beyond AI, so you may find for example that the search or optimization algorithm that you are interested in has already been written for you. I personally have used the Python code, and it’s really model code from which you can learn good programming style.

Second, if you haven’t ever visited Peter Norvig’s web-site, you really should. I particularly recommend his essays “Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years,” “Solving Every Sudoku Puzzle,” and “The Gettysburg Powerpoint Presentation.”

Multicellular Logic Circuits, Part II: Cells

September 18, 2007

In my post “Multicellular Logic Circuits, Part I: Evolution,” I discussed evolution and genetic algorithms; I want to continue that discussion here.

There are two salient facts of biology that are completely inescapable. The first is that all organisms are shaped by the process of evolution. The second is that all organisms are constructed from cells.

Furthermore, all complex multicellular organisms begin life as a single cell, and undergo a process of development through cell division to mature into an adult. And no matter how different any two organisms may be on the gross macroscopic level that we are used to, inside their cells the chemical processes of life are fundamentally very similar.

080534635x.jpg 0815340729.jpg

Thus it is no accident that the titles of the two leading textbooks in molecular biology are The Molecular Biology of the Gene by Watson, et. al. and The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et. al. [These are both great books. This link to the first chapter of MBOC is an excellent entry point into modern biology. And if you are serious about learning biology, I also strongly recommend the companion Molecular Biology of the Cell: A Problems Approach, by Wilson and Hunt, which will force you to think more actively about the material.]

It therefore seems reasonable that if we want to construct artificial systems that achieve the performance of natural ones, we should consider artificially evolving a system constructed from cells.

Although there are typically many different cell types in a mature multi-cellular organism, all the different cells of the organism, with the exception of sperm and egg cells, share an identical genetic specification in their DNA. The different behavior of cells with identical genetic specifications is the result of the cells having different histories and being subjected to different environments.

More specifically, the behavior of a biological cell is controlled by complex genetic regulatory mechanisms that determine which genes are transcribed into messenger RNA and then translated into proteins. One very important regulatory mechanism is provided by the proteins called “transcription factors” that bind to DNA regulatory regions upstream of the protein coding regions of genes, and participate in the promotion or inhibition of the transcription of DNA into RNA. The different histories of two cells might lead to one having a large concentration of a particular transcription factor, and the other having a low concentration, and thus the two cells would express different genes, even though they had identical DNA.

Another important mechanism that controls the differential development of different types of cells in a multi-cellular organism is the biochemical signaling sent between cells. Signals such as hormones have the effect of directing a cell down a particular developmental pathway.

In general, the transcription factors, hormones, and multitude of other control mechanisms used in biological cells are organized into a network which can be represented as a “circuit” where the state of the system is characterized by the concentrations of the different biochemical ingredients. In fact, biologists are now using wiring diagrams to help summarize biological circuits; see for example, the “Biotapestry editor” developed by Eric Davidson’s lab at Caltech.

books.jpeg books2.jpeg

[I strongly recommend Davidson’s recent book The Regulatory Genome: Gene Regulatory Networks in Development and Evolution for an exciting introduction to the burgeoning “evo-devo” field; if you don’t have any background in biology, you may prefer The Coiled Spring, by Ethan Bier for a somewhat more popular account.]

Turning to the problem of designing artifical systems, a natural question is what theoretical advantages exist, from the point of view of designing with evolution, to using an identical genetic specification for all the cells in a multi-cellular organism.

One potential advantage is that relatively small changes to the genetic specification of the organism can concurrently alter the behavior of many different kinds of cells at many different times during the development of the organism. Therefore, if there is the possibility of an advantageous change to the circuitry controlling a cell, then it can be found once and used many times instead of needing to find the same advantageous mutation repeatedly for each of the cells in the organism.

Another related potential advantage is that a highly complicated organism can be specified in a relatively compact way. If each of the trillions of cells in a complex organism like a human had to be separately specified, then the overall amount of information required to describe the human genome would be multiplied more than a trillion-fold. Clearly, it is much more efficient to re-use the identical circuitry in many different types of cells.

In other words, biology uses a strategy of specifying a complex multi-cellular organism by just specifying a single cell–all the other cells in the mature organism are grown organically out of the developmental process. This seems like a strategy worth imitating.

On the other hand, the constraint that each cell in an organism should share an identical genetic specification clearly causes complications from the point of view of design. For example, it is important that genes that are designed to function in one type of cell at one point in development not cause problems for different type of cell at a different point in development. Clearly, good design of the control logic that turns genes on and off is essential to the proper functioning of a multi-cellular organism.

In the next post in this series, I will turn to the construction of a concrete model for multi-cellular circuits that tries to capture, as simply as possible, the essence of what is happening in biology. 

Two Draft Books

September 13, 2007

If you’re interested in learning about statistical mechanics, graphical models, information theory, error-correcting codes, belief propagation, constraint satisfaction problems, or the connections between all those subjects, you should know about a couple of books that should be out soon, but for which you can already download extensive draft versions.

The first is Information, Physics, and Computation by Marc Mézard and Andrea Montanari.

The second is Modern Coding Theory by Tom Richardson and Ruediger Urbanke.

I also recommend the tutorial on Modern Coding Theory: the Statistical Mechanics and Computer Science Points of View, by Montanari and Urbanke, from the lectures they gave at the 2006 Les Houches summer school.