updated some stuff

diff --git a/code/benchmark.txt b/code/benchmark.txt
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..41d0019
--- /dev/null
+++ b/code/benchmark.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+-e screen      boxes   seconds steps
+screen.2000    1       0       8
+screen.101     3       4       104
+screen.102     3       0       57
+screen.103     3       4       61
+screen.104     3       0       33
+screen.105     3       2       125
+screen.107     3       3       90
+screen.111     3       3       89
+screen.112     3       2       99
+screen.113     3       1       47
+screen.114     3       1       41
+screen.115     3       1       70
+screen.116     3       1       60
+screen.117     3       4       58
+screen.118     3       1       63
+screen.119     3       0       56
+screen.120     3       1       48
+screen.121     3       0       105
+screen.122     3       1       47
+screen.123     3       0       47
+screen.124     3       2       67
+screen.125     3       1       59
+screen.126     3       5       73
+screen.127     3       0       45
+screen.128     3       2       64
+screen.129     3       1       49
+screen.130     3       4       63
+screen.131     3       1       82
+screen.132     3       1       70
+screen.133     3       1       47
+screen.134     3       1       69
+screen.135     3       1       54
+screen.136     3       2       45
+screen.137     3       2       52
+screen.138     3       6       92
+screen.139     3       0       44
+screen.140     3       3       107
+screen.141     3       1       48
+screen.142     3       5       75
+screen.143     3       4       62
+screen.144     3       4       65
+screen.145     3       1       70
+screen.146     3       6       56
+screen.147     3       0       46
+screen.148     3       1       71
+screen.149     3       3       88
+screen.150     3       1       42
+screen.151     3       1       67
+screen.152     3       2       60
+screen.153     3       3       70
+screen.154     3       9       66
+screen.155     3       1       56
+screen.156     3       8       70
+screen.157     3       1       54
+screen.158     3       1       100
+screen.159     3       0       56
+screen.160     3       2       55
+screen.161     3       5       70
+screen.162     3       4       69
+screen.365     3       4       93
+screen.366     3       3       108
+screen.403     3       3       64
+screen.411     3       12      107
+screen.453     3       9       126
+screen.457     3       5       113
+screen.460     3       15      118
+screen.478     3       3       76
+screen.490     3       12      153
+screen.501     3       83      196
+screen.503     3       94      227
+screen.605     3       40      134
+screen.642     3       2       52
+screen.756     3       3       59
+screen.758     3       26      113
+screen.763     3       5       70
+screen.772     3       4       110
+screen.777     3       10      77
+screen.106     4       971     143
+screen.367     4       139     69
+screen.368     4       38      73
+screen.373     4       1120    46
+screen.374     4       138     84
+screen.379     4       236     63
+screen.451     4       382     52
+screen.452     4       4892    212
+screen.454     4       235     110
+screen.458     4       215     90
+screen.459     4       548     212
+screen.463     4       130     131
+screen.464     4       190     165
+screen.465     4       1062    142

diff --git a/report1/Makefile b/report1/Makefile
index 0e1af92..3f5027c 100644 (file)
--- a/report1/Makefile
+++ b/report1/Makefile
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ DOCUMENT:=report1
 
 all: $(DOCUMENT).pdf
 
-%.pdf: %.tex %.fmt mart.tex alex.tex
+%.pdf: %.tex %.fmt mart.tex alex.tex intro.tex eval.tex
        $(LATEX) $<
        $(LATEX) $<
 

diff --git a/report1/eval.tex b/report1/eval.tex
index 131029e..77d924f 100644 (file)
--- a/report1/eval.tex
+++ b/report1/eval.tex
@@ -1,11 +1,23 @@
 \section{Conclusion}
-Detailed benchmarking and thorough comparison of the results still has to be done.
-%thoughts on the performance of the object-centered approach are needed here
-The coordinate-based approach revealed that the following factors affect the feasibility of solving a particular sokoban field:
+Detailed benchmarking and thorough comparison of the results still has to be
+done.
+
+The object-based approach shows to heavily depend on the number of boxes.
+Describing the goal state for $n$ boxes needs a formula of $n!$ size. The size
+of the encoding also increases with the number of free blocks. When a screen is
+circular the parser also parses the blocks on the sides to be free spaces
+whereas they can never be reached. By improving the parser to disregard those
+positions we can increase the performance too.
+
+The coordinate-based approach revealed that the following factors affect the
+feasibility of solving a particular \emph{sokoban} field:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item Overall size of a field
   \item Proximity of boxes to the man
   \item Number of boxes (to a lesser extent)
 \end{itemize}
-A possible improvement for the coordinate-based approach is the elimination of outer walls, which can reduce overal field sizes.\\
-In total, the material obtained by implementing two different ways to encode a sokoban solver might give the us the ability to approach the next assignment in a more elaborate way.
+A possible improvement for the coordinate-based approach is the elimination of
+outer walls, which can reduce overall field sizes.\\
+In total, the material obtained by implementing two different ways to encode a
+\emph{sokoban} solver might give the us the ability to approach the next
+assignment in a more elaborate way.

diff --git a/report1/intro.tex b/report1/intro.tex
index 141416a..0a06550 100644 (file)
--- a/report1/intro.tex
+++ b/report1/intro.tex
@@ -1,2 +1,11 @@
 \section{Introduction}
-During the initial discussion, we came to two ideas of possible NuSMV encoding of a sokoban solver: an object-centered approach and a coordinate-based one. According to our hypothesis, neither of them is universally superior. To be more precise, the object-centered solution might be advantageous in case of sokoban fields with fewer boxes, but with bigger empty spaces, whereas the coordinate-based encoding might not be that limited with amounts of boxes, being more limited on the sizes of fields. The following hypothesis motivated us to try both approaches and conduct benchmarks wich can help us building a more versatile hybrid solution later. For both approaches, fully automated model generators were made.
+During the initial discussion, we came to two ideas of possible \textsc{NuSMV}
+encoding of a \emph{sokoban} solver: an object-centered approach and a
+coordinate-based one. We hypothesized that neither of them is universally
+superior. To be more precise, the object-centered solution might be
+advantageous in case of \emph{sokoban} fields with fewer boxes, but with bigger
+empty spaces, whereas the coordinate-based encoding might not be that limited
+with amounts of boxes, being more limited on the sizes of fields. The following
+hypothesis motivated us to try both approaches and conduct benchmarks which can
+help us building a more versatile hybrid solution later. For both approaches,
+fully automated model generators were made.

diff --git a/report1/report1.tex b/report1/report1.tex
index 8ee5620..b4444ad 100644 (file)
--- a/report1/report1.tex
+++ b/report1/report1.tex
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 %&report1
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
-\section{Introduction}
-
+%Input
 \input{intro.tex}
 
 %Object centered approach
@@ -11,6 +10,7 @@
 %Coordinate centered approach
 \input{alex.tex}
 
+%Conclusion
 \input{eval.tex}
 
 \end{document}