I am implementing a SPICE solver. I have the following problem: say I put two diodes and a current source in serial (standard diodes). I use MNA and Boost LU-decomposition. The problem is that the nodal matrix becomes very quickly near-singular. I think I have to scale the values but I don't know how and I couldn't find anything on the Internet. Any ideas how to do this scaling?
In the perspective of numerical, there is a scale technique for this kind of near-singular matrices. Basically, this technique is to divide each row of A by the sum (or maximum) of the absolute values in that row. You can find KLU which is a linear solver for circuit simulations for more details.
In perspective of SPICE simulation, it uses so-call Gmin stepping technique to iteratively compute and approach a real answer. You can find this in the documents of a SPICE project QUCS (Quite Universal Circuit Simulator).
Scaling does not help when the matrix has both very large and very small entries.
It is necessary to use some or all of the many tricks that were developed for circuit solver applications. A good start is clipping the range of the exponential and log function arguments to reasonable values -- in most circuits a diode forward voltage is never more than 1V and the diode reverse current not less than 1pA.
Actually, look at all library functions and wrap them in code that makes their arguments and results suitable for circuit-solving purposes. Simple clipping is sometimes good enough, but it is way better to make sure the functions stay (twice) differentiable and continuous.
Related
I'm trying to implement multi-channelt lattice RLS, i.e. the recursive least squares algorithm which performs noise cancellation with multiple inputs, but a single 'desired output'.
I have the basic RLS algorithm working with multiple components, but it's too inefficient and memory intensive for my purpose.
Wikipedia has an excellent example of lattice RLS, which works great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_least_squares_filter
However, the sources it cites do not go into much detail on how to extend this to the multi-channel case, and re-doing the full derivation is a bit beyond me.
Does anyone know a good source which describes or implements this algorithm in the multi-channel case? Many thanks.
Use separate parallel adaptive filters...one for each noise reference and combine these outputs to subtract from your noisy signal. LMS usually works best but RLS is fine. Problems arise if any of the noise references are heavily correlated with the desired signal.
When I use caffe for image classification, it often computes the image mean. Why is that the case?
Someone said that it can improve the accuracy, but I don't understand why this should be the case.
Refer to image whitening technique in Deep learning. Actually it has been proved that it improve the accuracy but not widely used.
To understand why it helps refer to the idea of normalizing data before applying machine learning method. which helps to keep the data in the same range. Actually there is another method now used in CNN which is Batch normalization.
Neural networks (including CNNs) are models with thousands of parameters which we try to optimize with gradient descent. Those models are able to fit a lot of different functions by having a non-linearity φ at their nodes. Without a non-linear activation function, the network collapses to a linear function in total. This means we need the non-linearity for most interesting problems.
Common choices for φ are the logistic function, tanh or ReLU. All of them have the most interesting region around 0. This is where the gradient either is big enough to learn quickly or where a non-linearity is at all in case of ReLU. Weight initialization schemes like Glorot initialization try to make the network start at a good point for the optimization. Other techniques like Batch Normalization also keep the mean of the nodes input around 0.
So you compute (and subtract) the mean of the image so that the first computing nodes get data which "behaves well". It has a mean of 0 and thus the intuition is that this helps the optimization process.
In theory, a network can be able to "subtract" the mean by itself. So if you train long enough, this should not matter too much. However, depending on the activation function "long enough" can be important.
For a university lecture I am looking for floating point algorithms with known asymptotic runtime, but potential for low-level (micro-)optimization. This means optimizations such as minimizing cache misses and register spillages, maximizing instruction level parallelism and taking advantage of SIMD (vector) instructions on new CPUs. The optimizations are going to be CPU-specific and will make use of applicable instruction set extensions.
The classic textbook example for this is matrix multiplication, where great speedups can be achieved by simply reordering the sequence of memory accesses (among other tricks). Another example is FFT. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to choose either of these.
Anyone have any ideas, or an algorithm/method that could use a boost?
I am only interested in algorithms where a per-thread speedup is conceivable. Parallelizing problems by multi-threading them is fine, but not the scope of this lecture.
Edit 1: I am taking the course, not teaching it. In the past years, there were quite a few projects that succeeded in surpassing the current best implementations in terms of performance.
Edit 2: This paper lists (from page 11 onwards) seven classes of important numerical methods and some associated algorithms that use them. At least some of the mentioned algorithms are candidates, it is however difficult to see which.
Edit 3: Thank you everyone for your great suggestions! We proposed to implement the exposure fusion algorithm (paper from 2007) and our proposal was accepted. The algorithm creates HDR-like images and consists mainly of small kernel convolutions followed by weighted multiresolution blending (on the Laplacian pyramid) of the source images. Interesting for us is the fact that the algorithm is already implemented in the widely used Enfuse tool, which is now at version 4.1. So we will be able to validate and compare our results with the original and also potentially contribute to the development of the tool itself. I will update this post in the future with the results if I can.
The simplest possible example:
accumulation of a sum. unrolling using multiple accumulators and vectorization allow a speedup of (ADD latency)*(SIMD vector width) on typical pipelined architectures (if the data is in cache; because there's no data reuse, it typically won't help if you're reading from memory), which can easily be an order of magnitude. Cute thing to note: this also decreases the average error of the result! The same techniques apply to any similar reduction operation.
A few classics from image/signal processing:
convolution with small kernels (especially small 2d convolves like a 3x3 or 5x5 kernel). In some sense this is cheating, because convolution is matrix multiplication, and is intimately related to the FFT, but in reality the nitty-gritty algorithmic techniques of high-performance small kernel convolutions are quite different from either.
erode and dilate.
what image people call a "gamma correction"; this is really evaluation of an exponential function (maybe with a piecewise linear segment near zero). Here you can take advantage of the fact that image data is often entirely in a nice bounded range like [0,1] and sub-ulp accuracy is rarely needed to use much cheaper function approximations (low-order piecewise minimax polynomials are common).
Stephen Canon's image processing examples would each make for instructive projects. Taking a different tack, though, you might look at certain amenable geometry problems:
Closest pair of points in moderately high dimension---say 50000 or so points in 16 or so dimensions. This may have too much in common with matrix multiplication for your purposes. (Take the dimension too much higher and dimensionality reduction silliness starts mattering; much lower and spatial data structures dominate. Brute force, or something simple using a brute-force kernel, is what I would want to use for this.)
Variation: For each point, find the closest neighbour.
Variation: Red points and blue points; find the closest red point to each blue point.
Welzl's smallest containing circle algorithm is fairly straightforward to implement, and the really costly step (check for points outside the current circle) is amenable to vectorisation. (I suspect you can kill it in two dimensions with just a little effort.)
Be warned that computational geometry stuff is usually more annoying to implement than it looks at first; don't just grab a random paper without understanding what degenerate cases exist and how careful your programming needs to be.
Have a look at other linear algebra problems, too. They're also hugely important. Dense Cholesky factorisation is a natural thing to look at here (much more so than LU factorisation) since you don't need to mess around with pivoting to make it work.
There is a free benchmark called c-ray.
It is a small ray-tracer for spheres designed to be a benchmark for floating-point performance.
A few random stackshots show that it spends nearly all its time in a function called ray_sphere that determines if a ray intersects a sphere and if so, where.
They also show some opportunities for larger speedup, such as:
It does a linear search through all the spheres in the scene to try to find the nearest intersection. That represents a possible area for speedup, by doing a quick test to see if a sphere is farther away than the best seen so far, before doing all the 3-d geometry math.
It does not try to exploit similarity from one pixel to the next. This could gain a huge speedup.
So if all you want to look at is chip-level performance, it could be a decent example.
However, it also shows how there can be much bigger opportunities.
The answer would seem to be no, because raymarching is highly conditional i.e. each ray follows a unique execution path, since on each step we check for opacity, termination etc. that will vary based on the direction of the individual ray.
So it would seem that SIMD would largely not be able to accelerate this; rather, MIMD would be required for acceleration.
Does this make sense? Or am I missing something(s)?
As stated already, you could probably get a speedup from implementing your
vector math using SSE instructions (be aware of the effects discussed
here - also for the other approach). This approach would allow the code
stay concise and maintainable.
I assume, however, your question is about "packet traversal" (or something
like it), in other words to process multiple scalar values each of a
different ray:
In principle it should be possible deferring the shading to another pass.
The SIMD packet could be repopulated with a new ray once the bare marching
pass terminates and the temporary result is stored as input for the shading
pass. This will allow to parallelize a certain, case-dependent percentage
of your code exploting all four SIMD lanes.
Tiling the image and indexing the rays within it in Morton-order might be
a good idea too in order to avoid cache pressure (unless your geometry is
strictly procedural).
You won't know whether it pays off unless you try. My guess is, that if it
does, the amount of speedup might not be worth the complication of the code
for just four lanes.
Have you considered using an SIMT architecture such as a programmable GPU?
A somewhat up-to-date programmable graphics board allows you to perform
raymarching at interactive rates (see it happen in your browser here).
The last days I built a software-based raymarcher for a menger sponge. At the moment without using SIMD and I also used no special algorithm. I just trace from -1 to 1 in X and Y, which are U and V for the destination texture. Then I got a camera position and a destination which I use to calculate the increment vector for the raymarch.
After that I use a constant value of iterations to perform, in which only one branch decides if there's an intersection with the fractal volume. So if my camera eye is E and my direction vector is D I have to find the smallest t. If I found that or reached a maximal distance I break the loop. At the end I have t - from that I calculate the fragment color.
In my opinion it should be possible to parallelize these operations by SSE1/2, because one can solve the branch by null'ing the field in the vector (__m64 / __m128), so further SIMD operations won't apply here. It really depends on what you raymarch/-cast but if you just calculate a fragment color from a function (like my fractal curve here is) and don't access memory non-linearly there are some tricks to make it possible.
Sure, this answer contains speculation, but I will keep you informed when I've parallelized this routine.
Only insofar as SSE, for instance, lets you do operations on vectors in parallel.
I'm looking for algorithms to find a "best" set of parameter values. The function in question has a lot of local minima and changes very quickly. To make matters even worse, testing a set of parameters is very slow - on the order of 1 minute - and I can't compute the gradient directly.
Are there any well-known algorithms for this kind of optimization?
I've had moderate success with just trying random values. I'm wondering if I can improve the performance by making the random parameter chooser have a lower chance of picking parameters close to ones that had produced bad results in the past. Is there a name for this approach so that I can search for specific advice?
More info:
Parameters are continuous
There are on the order of 5-10 parameters. Certainly not more than 10.
How many parameters are there -- eg, how many dimensions in the search space? Are they continuous or discrete - eg, real numbers, or integers, or just a few possible values?
Approaches that I've seen used for these kind of problems have a similar overall structure - take a large number of sample points, and adjust them all towards regions that have "good" answers somehow. Since you have a lot of points, their relative differences serve as a makeshift gradient.
Simulated
Annealing: The classic approach. Take a bunch of points, probabalistically move some to a neighbouring point chosen at at random depending on how much better it is.
Particle
Swarm Optimization: Take a "swarm" of particles with velocities in the search space, probabalistically randomly move a particle; if it's an improvement, let the whole swarm know.
Genetic Algorithms: This is a little different. Rather than using the neighbours information like above, you take the best results each time and "cross-breed" them hoping to get the best characteristics of each.
The wikipedia links have pseudocode for the first two; GA methods have so much variety that it's hard to list just one algorithm, but you can follow links from there. Note that there are implementations for all of the above out there that you can use or take as a starting point.
Note that all of these -- and really any approach to this large-dimensional search algorithm - are heuristics, which mean they have parameters which have to be tuned to your particular problem. Which can be tedious.
By the way, the fact that the function evaluation is so expensive can be made to work for you a bit; since all the above methods involve lots of independant function evaluations, that piece of the algorithm can be trivially parallelized with OpenMP or something similar to make use of as many cores as you have on your machine.
Your situation seems to be similar to that of the poster of Software to Tune/Calibrate Properties for Heuristic Algorithms, and I would give you the same advice I gave there: consider a Metropolis-Hastings like approach with multiple walkers and a simulated annealing of the step sizes.
The difficulty in using a Monte Carlo methods in your case is the expensive evaluation of each candidate. How expensive, compared to the time you have at hand? If you need a good answer in a few minutes this isn't going to be fast enough. If you can leave it running over night, it'll work reasonably well.
Given a complicated search space, I'd recommend a random initial distributed. You final answer may simply be the best individual result recorded during the whole run, or the mean position of the walker with the best result.
Don't be put off that I was discussing maximizing there and you want to minimize: the figure of merit can be negated or inverted.
I've tried Simulated Annealing and Particle Swarm Optimization. (As a reminder, I couldn't use gradient descent because the gradient cannot be computed).
I've also tried an algorithm that does the following:
Pick a random point and a random direction
Evaluate the function
Keep moving along the random direction for as long as the result keeps improving, speeding up on every successful iteration.
When the result stops improving, step back and instead attempt to move into an orthogonal direction by the same distance.
This "orthogonal direction" was generated by creating a random orthogonal matrix (adapted this code) with the necessary number of dimensions.
If moving in the orthogonal direction improved the result, the algorithm just continued with that direction. If none of the directions improved the result, the jump distance was halved and a new set of orthogonal directions would be attempted. Eventually the algorithm concluded it must be in a local minimum, remembered it and restarted the whole lot at a new random point.
This approach performed considerably better than Simulated Annealing and Particle Swarm: it required fewer evaluations of the (very slow) function to achieve a result of the same quality.
Of course my implementations of S.A. and P.S.O. could well be flawed - these are tricky algorithms with a lot of room for tweaking parameters. But I just thought I'd mention what ended up working best for me.
I can't really help you with finding an algorithm for your specific problem.
However in regards to the random choosing of parameters I think what you are looking for are genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are generally based on choosing some random input, selecting those, which are the best fit (so far) for the problem, and randomly mutating/combining them to generate a next generation for which again the best are selected.
If the function is more or less continous (that is small mutations of good inputs generally won't generate bad inputs (small being a somewhat generic)), this would work reasonably well for your problem.
There is no generalized way to answer your question. There are lots of books/papers on the subject matter, but you'll have to choose your path according to your needs, which are not clearly spoken here.
Some things to know, however - 1min/test is way too much for any algorithm to handle. I guess that in your case, you must really do one of the following:
get 100 computers to cut your parameter testing time to some reasonable time
really try to work out your parameters by hand and mind. There must be some redundancy and at least some sanity check so you can test your case in <1min
for possible result sets, try to figure out some 'operations' that modify it slightly instead of just randomizing it. For example, in TSP some basic operator is lambda, that swaps two nodes and thus creates new route. Your can be shifting some number up/down for some value.
then, find yourself some nice algorithm, your starting point can be somewhere here. The book is invaluable resource for anyone who starts with problem-solving.