Andras Schmelczer
171fbf1927
All checks were successful
Deploy to Pages / build (push) Successful in 26s
132 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
132 lines
8.3 KiB
Markdown
# Optimiser measurements
|
||
|
||
Run `npm run benchmark` for **Minimise cuts**, or `npm run benchmark -- --random` for
|
||
**Maximise randomness**. Both are compared with the original stock-first optimiser's
|
||
frozen results in `baseline.json`. The 84 inputs in `cases.ts` cover rectangular
|
||
remainders, fireplaces in both directions, room-order permutations, tight and exact
|
||
stagger limits, fractional stock, large floors, and both supplied angled rooms.
|
||
`--output=/tmp/results.json` saves a run; `--compare=/tmp/results.json` compares
|
||
against a previous iteration. Do not overwrite the baseline to hide regressions.
|
||
`h-pattern-baseline.json` separately freezes both options immediately before the
|
||
visual H-pattern correction, evaluated using the broader alignment metric below.
|
||
|
||
## Fixed metrics
|
||
|
||
- **Saw passes:** crosscuts actually required by the allocation, long-edge rips,
|
||
and additional shaping edges. Skirting includes bevel and coping operations.
|
||
- **Cut difficulty:** shaping passes, then rip passes, used to break equal saw-count
|
||
ties. This is an explicit proxy, not an estimate of minutes or tool-specific effort.
|
||
- **Legacy repetition:** the original penalty, evaluated independently
|
||
from the output rows. It penalises nearby repeating joints, similar consecutive
|
||
steps and staircases, including steps that wrap across a board length. Raw repeat,
|
||
similar-step and staircase counts are also reported. This stays unchanged for
|
||
historical comparisons, but its 3%-of-board-length alignment tolerance missed visible H patterns.
|
||
- **Near-H row pairs:** joints two rows apart separated by less than one board width,
|
||
capped at one sixth of the board length. This catches the 40–150 mm misalignments
|
||
that still look like an H. Current appearance cost is the legacy penalty plus
|
||
12 per near-H pair, so avoiding an H outweighs several same-direction steps.
|
||
- **Waste:** purchased stock minus installed material, including kerf. The report
|
||
gives board counts and waste percentages weighted by purchased stock.
|
||
- **Validity and runtime:** errors, elapsed time, p95 and maximum case time. Tests
|
||
separately verify coverage, non-overlapping row bands, minimum sizes, stagger,
|
||
factory ends, rounded stock consumption, cut accounting, references and input purity.
|
||
|
||
Minimise cuts orders `(passes, shaping, rips, appearance cost, boards)`.
|
||
Maximise randomness orders `(appearance cost, passes, shaping, rips, boards)`.
|
||
Validity precedes either objective. Skirting orders `(passes, waste)`.
|
||
|
||
## Measured results
|
||
|
||
Totals across the same 84 cases, September 2026:
|
||
|
||
| Metric | Original | Minimise cuts | Maximise randomness |
|
||
| ------------------- | -------: | ------------: | ------------------: |
|
||
| Flooring saw passes | 2,177 | **1,741** | **2,113** |
|
||
| Shaping passes | 192 | 184 | 188 |
|
||
| Rip passes | 414 | 402 | 409 |
|
||
| Legacy penalty | 265 | 2,207 | 346 |
|
||
| Flooring boards | 3,561 | 3,548 | 3,551 |
|
||
| Flooring waste | 8.20% | 7.85% | 7.94% |
|
||
| Invalid cases | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
||
|
||
Minimise cuts saves **20.0%** of saw passes. Maximise randomness saves **2.9%** of saw
|
||
passes against the original planner. For random flooring in the default
|
||
4,800 × 3,600 mm room, 38 passes become **24** or **31**, respectively; both options use 76
|
||
boards and have approximately 1.2% waste.
|
||
|
||
Skirting drops from **1,447 to 1,436 passes**. It uses 521 boards instead of 513:
|
||
cutting effort now takes precedence over waste, which rises from 9.28% to 10.68%.
|
||
Eight cases improve and 76 tie.
|
||
For flooring, 78 cut-priority cases improve and six tie against the original planner.
|
||
The bounded search does not establish global optimality.
|
||
|
||
## H-pattern correction
|
||
|
||
The first optimisation reported a 57% lower legacy penalty, but visual inspection
|
||
showed that the metric was too narrow. The default appearance-priority room still
|
||
had **11 near-H row pairs**, despite no repeats within the old 36 mm tolerance.
|
||
The candidate hash also generated almost identical offsets for adjacent candidate
|
||
numbers. A final bit-mixing step now spreads those candidates across the allowed range.
|
||
|
||
| Metric | Cuts before | Cuts now | Random before | Random now |
|
||
| ------------------------- | ----------: | -------: | ------------: | ---------: |
|
||
| Near-H row pairs | 515 | 247 | 557 | **6** |
|
||
| Saw passes | 1,741 | 1,741 | 1,994 | 2,113 |
|
||
| Boards | 3,537 | 3,548 | 3,579 | 3,551 |
|
||
| Waste | 7.57% | 7.85% | 8.66% | 7.94% |
|
||
| Default-room near-H pairs | 17 | 17 | 11 | **0** |
|
||
| Default-room saw passes | 24 | 24 | 30 | 31 |
|
||
|
||
Appearance priority removes **98.9%** of near-H pairs for **6.0%** more cuts than the
|
||
previous iteration. All six remaining pairs are in `forced-alternation`, whose
|
||
600 mm minimum pieces force alternating starts. It improves 79 cases and ties five
|
||
under the corrected objective. Ten additional room seeds also produce zero near-H pairs.
|
||
|
||
The tradeoff is explicit: the old direction-run/staircase score increases, and the
|
||
randomness option uses more cuts. Cuts-first retains its total saw count but three
|
||
individual cases use extra cuts (`two-rooms-reversed-6`, `angled`, `angled-f8`).
|
||
It can still show H patterns when avoiding them requires extra cuts; the UI explains
|
||
this beside the laying-pattern choice. Both frozen baselines remain unchanged.
|
||
|
||
## Iterations retained
|
||
|
||
1. Correct the objective order; measuring stock first contradicted the requested priorities.
|
||
2. Deduplicate the complete relevant state, including recent joint history. Stop
|
||
computing keys once the beam is full; share immutable exhausted stocks and avoid
|
||
searching offcuts for pieces requiring both factory ends.
|
||
3. Repack completed boundary blanks, reserving exact complementary factory ends
|
||
first. Preserve the original placement and cutting order within each source board.
|
||
4. Try bounded swaps of interchangeable rectangular rows. Accept only a lower
|
||
pattern penalty with unchanged cuts, stock and geometry coverage.
|
||
5. Polish all surviving completed candidates, retaining the best result.
|
||
6. Preserve end remnants during search instead of trimming them immediately.
|
||
This alone improves 56 cut-priority cases and saves another 99 passes after the
|
||
earlier improvements. Final packing can still combine non-exact blanks.
|
||
7. When repetition remains, compare an immediate-reuse search as well. This improves
|
||
five appearance-priority cases. All searches share their clipping cache, and the
|
||
two UI choices select from the completed results. Selection itself does not rerun
|
||
the optimiser.
|
||
8. Compare exact three-piece skirting fills with the original packing. This improves
|
||
two cases for a small additional calculation cost.
|
||
9. Add the board-scale H penalty and mix the offset hash. Search size and geometry
|
||
constraints stay unchanged. Before/after drawings were checked for the default
|
||
rectangle, fireplace and large floor, alongside the numeric metrics.
|
||
|
||
## Experiments rejected
|
||
|
||
Increasing beam widths from 5/2 to 12/4 roughly tripled search time, with regressions
|
||
in both modes. Carrying two room results into the next room worsened two appearance
|
||
cases for a single waste improvement. Expanding the offcut candidate pool with
|
||
distinct remnants had no cut-priority benefit and regressed a large-room result,
|
||
including after the end-preservation change. These variants were removed.
|
||
|
||
The original single-result benchmark took about 1.5 seconds for the corpus. Producing
|
||
both choices, including the conditional extra appearance search, takes about 3 seconds
|
||
on the same machine; p95 is around 110 ms and the most complex case around 0.7 seconds.
|
||
These are indicative timings, not CI thresholds. Ordinary option changes reuse the
|
||
already calculated plans. A separate 500-row, 2,000-board boundary check completes
|
||
without an error; temporary stock is repacked before enforcing the board limit.
|
||
|
||
Tests enforce aggregate cutting budgets, broad H avoidance and physical invariants.
|
||
The original metrics and cases remain fixed; the new H metric has its own frozen
|
||
baseline so the correction does not rewrite the earlier results.
|