Closed lujingqiao closed 3 years ago
@lujingqiao You're right on this point. DFTRC-2 found an orientation that maximize DFTR, and using VBO seems like ignoring the effort.
Actually, the paper implemented both options: using DFTRC-2 orientation directly, or using VBO to re-cal orientation. It turns out using VBO to generate random orientation is empirically better. Though the paper didn't elucidate on this result.
My explanation is that by generating random orientation, you add more randomness (noise) to the decoding procedure, hence bigger solution space (more chance to find better packing sequence). In a sense, the orientation that maximize DFTR isn't always better. By allowing random orientation, you may find a better solution.
thank you for reply
i'am sorry to ask you for one question: DFTRC-2 already get the best box orientation by maximize DFTRC, why later need to again re-cal orientation using VBO(first alternative)? re-cal box orientation can damage the calculated best box orientation? isn't it? thx in advance!