In an MPC application, sometimes the optimizer will make the decision of moving a valve by 0.2% on a possible scale of 0-100%. Rather than moving valves a very small amount (which is not really contributing that much besides adding movement to the valves) I would like the optimizer to only move the valve if it will go above a certain threshold (say 5%). So, only if the optimizer would move the valve >= 5% would it make the decision to move the valve.
DMAX, DMAXHI, and DMAXLO can prescribe how much you can move the variable, but do not prevent insignificant movements. There is always the option of clipping the output of the optimizer, but it would be more ideal if the optimizer could factor it into its prediction.
Because this is a real-time application, the solution cannot contain binary integer variables that would slow down the solution time.
One possible method is to use a hierarchical approach where you repeatedly solve the problem and fix the value of MVs that don't move appreciably:
Solve the optimization problem and identify which MVs have moved but not enough to be outside the threshold for insignificance
Turn off the status for those MVs and fix them at their previous values
Re-solve the problem, and then check for any additional MVs that have moved but not enough to be significant
You can repeat this cycle as many times as you'd like depending on the number of MVs you have and the time it takes to solve your optimization problem. Depending on how frequently you need to solve it, this approach could be a viable strategy, and is likely to be faster than using a MINLP solver.
Related
We aim to identify predictors that may influence the risk of a relatively rare outcome.
We are using a semi-large clinical dataset, with data on nearly 200,000 patients.
The outcome of interest is binary (i.e. yes/no), and quite rare (~ 5% of the patients).
We have a large set of nearly 1,200 mostly dichotomized possible predictors.
Our objective is not to create a prediction model, but rather to use the boosted trees algorithm as a tool for variable selection and for examining high-order interactions (i.e. to identify which variables, or combinations of variables, that may have some influence on the outcome), so we can target these predictors more specifically in subsequent studies. Given the paucity of etiological information on the outcome, it is somewhat possible that none of the possible predictors we are considering have any influence on the risk of developing the condition, so if we were aiming to develop a prediction model it would have likely been a rather bad one. For this work, we use the R implementation of XGBoost/lightgbm.
We have been having difficulties tuning the models. Specifically when running cross validation to choose the optimal number of iterations (nrounds), the CV test score continues to improve even at very high values (for example, see figure below for nrounds=600,000 from xgboost). This is observed even when increasing the learning rate (eta), or when adding some regularization parameters (e.g. max_delta_step, lamda, alpha, gamma, even at high values for these).
As expected, the CV test score is always lower than the train score, but continuous to improve without ever showing a clear sign of over fitting. This is true regardless of the evaluation metrics that is used (example below is for logloss, but the same is observed for auc/aucpr/error rate, etc.). Relatedly, the same phenomenon is also observed when using a grid search to find the optimal value of tree depth (max_depth). CV test scores continue to improve regardless of the number of iterations, even at depth values exceeding 100, without showing any sign of over fitting.
Note that owing to the rare outcome, we use a stratified CV approach. Moreover, the same is observed when a train/test split is used instead of CV.
Are there situations in which over fitting happens despite continuous improvements in the CV-test (or test split) scores? If so, why is that and how would one choose the optimal values for the hyper parameters?
Relatedly, again, the idea is not to create a prediction model (since it would be a rather bad one, owing that we don’t know much about the outcome), but to look for a signal in the data that may help identify a set of predictors for further exploration. If boosted trees is not the optimal method for this, are there others to come to mind? Again, part of the reason we chose to use boosted trees was to enable the identification of higher (i.e. more than 2) order interactions, which cannot be easily assessed using more conventional methods (including lasso/elastic net, etc.).
welcome to Stackoverflow!
In the absence of some code and representative data it is not easy to make other than general suggestions.
Your descriptive statistics step may give some pointers to a starting model.
What does existing theory (if it exists!) suggest about the cause of the medical condition?
Is there a male/female difference or old/young age difference that could help get your foot in the door?
Your medical data has similarities to the fraud detection problem where one is trying to predict rare events usually much rarer than your cases.
It may pay you to check out the use of xgboost/lightgbm in the fraud detection literature.
So I have a very simple NN script written in Tensorflow, and I am having a hard time trying to trace down where some "randomness" is coming in from.
I have recorded the
Weights,
Gradients,
Logits
of my network as I train, and for the first iteration, it is clear that everything starts off the same. I have a SEED value both for how data is read in, and a SEED value for initializing the weights of the net. Those I never change.
My problem is that on say the second iteration of every re-run I do, I start to see the gradients diverge, (by a small amount, like say, 1e-6 or so). However over time, this of course leads to non-repeatable behaviour.
What might the cause of this be? I dont know where any possible source of randomness might be coming from...
Thanks
There's a good chance you could get deterministic results if you run your network on CPU (export CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=), with single-thread in Eigen thread pool (tf.Session(config=tf.ConfigProto(intra_op_parallelism_threads=1)), one Python thread (no multi-threaded queue-runners that you get from ops like tf.batch), and a single well-defined operation order. Also using inter_op_parallelism_threads=1 may help in some scenarios.
One issue is that floating point addition/multiplication is non-associative, so one fool-proof way to get deterministic results is to use integer arithmetic or quantized values.
Barring that, you could isolate which operation is non-deterministic, and try to avoid using that op. For instance, there's tf.add_n op, which doesn't say anything about the order in which it sums the values, but different orders produce different results.
Getting deterministic results is a bit of an uphill battle because determinism is in conflict with performance, and performance is usually the goal that gets more attention. An alternative to trying to have exact same numbers on reruns is to focus on numerical stability -- if your algorithm is stable, then you will get reproducible results (ie, same number of misclassifications) even though exact parameter values may be slightly different
The tensorflow reduce_sum op is specifically known to be non-deterministic. Furthermore, reduce_sum is used for calculating bias gradients.
This post discusses a workaround to avoid using reduce_sum (ie taking the dot product of any vector w/ a vector of all 1's is the same as reduce_sum)
I have faced the same problem..
The working solution for me was to:
1- use tf.set_random_seed(1) in order to make all tf functions have the same seed every new run
2- Training the model using CPU not the GPU to avoid GPU non-deterministic operations due to precision.
When is the right time to use the Elite\Elitist mode in a Genetic Algorithm? I have no idea when to use it. What kind problems can be solved using this?
All I know is an elitist model is where you choose the elite (the solution with highest fitness function) and they have a reserve slot for the next generation, and they are the one up for crossover.
You pretty much always use some form of elitism. What varies is the percentage (p) of best performers that you allow to survive to the next generation. So no elitism is basically saying p=0.
The higher p, the more your algorithm will have a tendency to find local peaks of fitness. i.e. once it finds a chromosome with a good fitness, it'll tend to focus more on optimizing it than trying to find new completely different solutions. On the contrary, if it's smaller, your GA will look for possible solutions all over the place and won't zero in as fast once it finds something close to the optimum solution.
So setting p correctly is going to have a direct impact on your algorithm's performance. But it depends on what you're after and your problem space. Play around with it a bit to adjust properly. I typically use 20% for the problems I work with, to give enough room for innovation. It works ok for me.
I understand that each particle is a solution to a specific function, and each particle and the swarm is constantly searching for the best solution. If the global best is found after the first iteration, and no new particles are being added to the mix, shouldn't the loop just quit and the first global best found be the most fitting solution? If this is the case what makes PSO better than just iterating through a list.
Your terminology is a bit off. Simple PSO is a search for a vector x that minimizes some scalar objective function E(x). It does this by creating many candidate vectors. Call them x_i. These are the "particles". They are initialized randomly in both position and rate of change, also called velocity, which is consistent with the idea of a moving particle, even though that particle may have many more than 3 dimensions.
Simple rules describe how the position and velocity change over time. The rules are chosen so that each particle x_i tends randomly to move in directions that reduce E(x_i).
The rules usually involve tracking the "single best x_i value seen so far" and are tuned so that all particles tend to head generally toward that best value with random variations. So the particles swarm like buzzing bees, heading as a group toward a common goal, but with many deviations by individual bees that, over time, cause the common goal to change.
It's unfortunate that some of the literature calls this goal or best particle value seen so far "the global minimum." In optimization, global minimum has a different meaning. A global minimum (there can be more than one when there are "ties" for best) is a value of x that - out of the entire domain of possible x values - produces the unique minimum possible value of E(x).
In no way is PSO guaranteed to find a global minimum. In fact, your question is a bit nonsensical in that one generally never knows when a global minimum has been found. How would you? In most problems you don't even know the gradient of E (which gives the direction taking E to smaller values, i.e. downhill). This is why you are using PSO in the first place. If you know the gradient, you can almost certainly use numerical techniques that will find an answer more quickly than PSO. Without a gradient, you can't even be sure you've found a local minimum, let alone a global one.
Rather, the best you can usually do is "guess" when a local minimum has been found. You do this by letting the system run while watching how often and by how much the "best particle seen so far" is being updated. When the changes become infrequent and/or small, you declare victory.
Another way of putting this is that PSO is used on problems where reducing E(x) is always good and "you'll take anything you can get" regardless of whether you have any confidence that what you got is the best possible. E.g. you're Walmart and any way of locating your stores that saves/makes more dollars is interesting.
With all this as background, let's recap your specific questions:
If the global best is found after the first iteration, and no new particles are being added to the mix, shouldn't the loop just quit and the first global best found be the most fitting solution?
There's no answer because there's no way to determine a global best has been found. The swarm of buzzing particles might find a new best in the next iteration or ten trillion iterations from now. You seldom know.
If this is the case what makes PSO better than just iterating through a list?
I don't exactly grok what you mean by this. The PSO is emulating the way swarms of biological entities like bugs and herd animals behave. In this manner it resembles genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, neural networks, and other families of solution finders that use the following logic: Nature, both physical and biological, has known-good optimization processes. Let's take advantage of them and do our best to emulate them in software. We are using nature to do better than any simple iteration we might devise ourselves.
Given a function, a particle swarm attempts to find the solution (a vector) that will minimize (or sometimes maximize, depending on the problem) the value to that function.
If you happen to know the minimum of the solution (suppose for argument sake, it is 0) AND
if you are lucky enough to generate the solution that gives you 0 on the first step, then you can exit the loop and stop the algorithm.
That said; the probability of you randomly generating that solution on initialization is infinitely small.
In most practical terms, when you would want to use a PSO to solve, it is most likely that you will not know the minimum value, so you wont be able to use that as a stopping condition.
The particle swarm optimization, the optimization process is not in the way the random initial step occurs, but rather the modification that occurs by adapting the initial solution with the velocity determined by social and cognitive component.
The social component consists of the current evaluated global best solution of the swarm
The cognitive component consists of a the best location seen by the current solution.
This adjustment will move the particle along a line between the global best and the current best - in hope there is a better solution between them.
I hope that answers the question in some way
Just to add some piece in answering, your problem seems to be linked to the common issue of "when should I stop my PSO?" A question everyone is faced when launching a swarm since (as clearly explained above) you never know if you reached the global best solution (except in very specific objective functions).
Usual tricks already present in most PSO implementation:
1- just limit a number of iterations since there is always a limit in processing time (and you could implement different ways to convert the iterations number into a time limit by self assessment of time spent to evaluate the objective).
2- stop the algorithm when the progress in optimization starts to be insignificant.
I am working on a PID Control software simulator for teaching PID Control concepts interactively.
I am working on an example for a Velocity controller. I have the example working, but I really want the input to my process to be in percentage instead of the output I am getting which is a fixed value that the process should increase by.
Right now I have to interpolate the output increase by the max acceleration for a sample step and then scale the output to a percentage. The problem is that the rate of acceleration is non-linear depending on the speed and current gearing of the drive train.
This works but isn't very flexible or adaptable, for instance, it makes everything accelerate at maximum until it gets near the setpoint velocity and then either overshoots and oscillates a few periods or takes an equally long time to get that last little bit without over shooting.
Sometimes you will want this maximum acceleration behavior, sometimes you will want to manage the battery/fuel source and accelerate at maximum efficiency; sometimes you want a bit of both.
Scaling the output like I am doing now is brute force and not very subtle. I would rather inject a output modifier into the calculation of the output by dynamically tuning the P, I and D gains, but I am not sure which ones to focus on and in what order?
When I tune them manually one at a time I can get really good results, but when I try and start automatically tuning them everything goes crazy.
I have spent the last week reading about control theory and auto tuning and the math notation just gets to cryptic for me, I understand the math if I can find some implementation in code; regardless of language.
I have tried applying Z-N heuristics, but I still get wild swings and it is really hard to compensate for overshoot; is hard to tolerate much overshoot when you can only decelerate at a fraction of the rate you can accelerate. imagine a system with no active braking and only relying on passive drag to slow down
What is a good approach to injecting dynamic gain tuning for velocity control?