|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| The '''majority problem''', or '''density classification task''' is the problem of finding one-dimensional [[cellular automaton]] rules that accurately perform [[majority function|majority voting]].
| | Alyson is what my spouse enjoys to contact me but I don't like when people use my complete name. I've usually cherished living in Mississippi. To play lacross is something he would by no means give up. Distributing manufacturing is where her main income arrives from.<br><br>Also visit my web site; clairvoyant psychic ([http://afeen.fbho.net/v2/index.php?do=/profile-210/info/ mouse click the next document]) |
| | |
| Using local transition rules, cells cannot know the total count of all the ones in system. In order to count the number of ones (or, by symmetry, the number of zeros), the system requires a logarithmic number of bits in the total size of the system. It also requires the system send messages over a distance linear in the size of the system and for the system to recognize a non-[[regular language]]. Thus, this problem is an important test case in measuring the computational power of cellular automaton systems.
| |
| | |
| == Problem statement ==
| |
| | |
| Given a configuration of a two-state cellular automata with ''i'' + ''j'' cells total, ''i'' of which are in the zero state and ''j'' of which are in the one state, a correct solution to the voting problem must eventually set all cells to zero if ''i'' > ''j'' and must eventually set all cells to one if ''i'' < ''j''. The desired eventual state is unspecified if ''i'' = ''j''.
| |
| | |
| The problem can also be generalized to testing whether the proportion of zeros and ones is above or below some threshold other than 50%. In this generalization, one is also given
| |
| a threshold <math>\rho</math>; a correct solution to the voting problem must eventually set all cells to zero if <math>\tfrac{j}{i+j} < \rho</math> and must eventually set all cells to one if <math>\tfrac{j}{i+j} > \rho</math>. The desired eventual state is unspecified if <math>\tfrac{j}{i+j} = \rho</math>.
| |
| | |
| == Approximate solutions ==
| |
| Gács, Kurdyumov, and [[Leonid Levin|Levin]] found an automaton that, although it does not always solve the majority problem correctly, does so in many cases.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gács|first1=Péter|last2= Kurdyumov|first2=G. L.|author3-link=Leonid Levin|last3=Levin|first3=L. A.|year=1978|title=One dimensional uniform arrays that wash out finite islands|journal=Problemy Peredachi Informatsii|volume=14|pages=92–98|language=Russian|url=http://www.mathnet.ru/php/archive.phtml?wshow=paper&jrnid=ppi&paperid=1551&option_lang=eng}}</ref> In their approach to the problem,
| |
| the quality of a cellular automaton rule is measured by the fraction of the <math>2^{i+j}</math> possible starting configurations that it correctly classifies.
| |
| | |
| The rule proposed by Gacs, Kurdyumov, and Levin sets the state of each cell as follows. If a cell is 0, its next state is formed as the majority among the values of itself, its immediate neighbor to the left, and its neighbor three spaces to the left. If, on the other hand, a cell is 1, its next state is formed symmetrically, as the majority among the values of itself, its immediate neighbor to the right, and its neighbor three spaces to the right. In randomly generated instances, this achieves about 78% accuracy in correctly determining the majority.
| |
| | |
| Das, [[Melanie Mitchell|Mitchell]], and Crutchfield showed that it is possible to develop better rules using [[genetic algorithm]]s.<ref>{{cite conference|last1=Das|first1=Rajarshi|last2=Crutchfield|first2=J. P.|author3-link=Melanie Mitchell|last3=Mitchell|first3=Melanie|last4=Hanson|first4=J. E.|date=1995|title=Evolving globally synchronized cellular automata|editor-last=Eshelman|editor-first=Larry J.|booktitle=Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms|location=San Francisco|publisher=Morgan Kaufmann|url=http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~mm/EGSCA.pdf}}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Impossibility of a perfect classifier ==
| |
| | |
| In 1995, Land and Belew<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Land|first1=Mark|last2=Belew|first2=Richard|title=No perfect two-state cellular automata for density classification exists|journal=Physical Review Letters|volume=74|issue=25|year=1995|pages=1548–1550|doi=10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.5148|pmid=10058695|bibcode=1995PhRvL..74.5148L}}</ref> showed that no two-state rule with radius ''r'' and density ρ correctly solves the voting problem on all starting configurations when the number of cells is sufficiently large (larger than about 4''r''/ρ).
| |
| | |
| Their argument shows that because the system is [[Deterministic algorithm|deterministic]], every cell surrounded entirely by zeros or ones must then become a zero. Likewise, any perfect rule can never make the ratio of ones go above <math>\rho</math> if it was below (or vice-versa). They then show that any assumed perfect rule will either cause an isolated one that pushed the ratio over <math>\rho</math> to be cancelled out or, if the ratio of ones is less than <math>\rho</math>, will cause an isolated one to introduce spurious ones into a block of zeros causing the ratio of ones to be become greater than <math>\rho</math>.
| |
| | |
| ==Exact solution with alternative termination conditions==
| |
| As observed by Capcarrere, Sipper, and Tomassini,<ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | last1 = Capcarrere | first1= Mathieu S. | last2= Sipper | first2 = Moshe | last3= Tomassini | first3 = Marco
| |
| | title = Two-state, ''r'' = 1 cellular automaton that classifies density
| |
| | journal = Phys. Rev. Lett.
| |
| | year = 1996
| |
| | volume = 77
| |
| | pages = 4969–4971
| |
| | url = http://www.leitl.org/docs/density.ps.gz
| |
| | doi = 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4969
| |
| | pmid = 10062680
| |
| | issue = 24
| |
| | bibcode=1996PhRvL..77.4969C}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
| |
| | last = Sukumar | first = N.
| |
| | title = Effect of boundary conditions on cellular automata that classify density
| |
| | year = 1998
| |
| | arxiv=comp-gas/9804001|bibcode = 1998comp.gas..4001S }}</ref> the majority problem may be solved perfectly if one relaxes the definition by which the automaton is said to have recognized the majority. In particular, for the [[Rule 184]] automaton, when run on a finite universe with [[periodic boundary conditions|cyclic boundary conditions]], each cell will infinitely often remain in the majority state for two consecutive steps while only finitely many times being in the minority state for two consecutive steps.
| |
| | |
| Alternatively, a hybrid automaton that runs Rule 184 for a number of steps linear in the size of the array, and then switches to the majority rule (Rule 232), that sets each cell to the majority of itself and its neighbors, solves the majority problem with the standard recognition criterion of either all zeros or all ones in the final state. However, this machine is not itself a cellular automaton.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Solution of the density classification problem with two cellular automata rules|first=Henryk|last=Fukś|arxiv=comp-gas/9703001|journal=Physical Review E|volume=55|issue=3|year=1997|pages=2081–2084|bibcode = 1997comp.gas..3001F }}</ref>
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Cellular automata]]
| |
Alyson is what my spouse enjoys to contact me but I don't like when people use my complete name. I've usually cherished living in Mississippi. To play lacross is something he would by no means give up. Distributing manufacturing is where her main income arrives from.
Also visit my web site; clairvoyant psychic (mouse click the next document)