Say we have 2 stochastic optimization algorithms (Genetic Algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimization, Cuckoo Search, etc.), A and B, and we want to find the global maxima of a function. Then, if algorithm A performs better than algorithm B at optimizing function F on a 1-dimensional search space does it also perform better than B at optimizing function F on a N-dimensional search space?
I shall refer to function F in N dimensions by F_ND.
Note that F_1D and F_ND is the same function, except in a different number of dimensions; the "landscape" is exactly the same, only of different dimensionality.
Ex: for the DeJong function we have:
F_1D(x) = x[0]*x[0]
F_5D(x) = x[0]*x[0] + x[1]*x[1] + x[2]*x[2] + x[3]*x[3] + x[4]*x[4]
F_1D and F_5D have the same "type"/"aspect"
...put otherwise:
If general_performance(A,F_1D) > general_performance(B,F_1D) then does general_performance(A,F_ND) > general_performance(B,F_ND) (for a larger N, of course) hold also?
It is currently not known if such a property would hold. The No Free Lunch theorem (NFL) does not fully apply here since you're talking about a very restricted set of problems. The problem that you have drawn is still independent in higher dimensions (one can optimize every variable separately and reach the global optimum). In this case one could argue that you could divide that problem into 5 problems of 1 dimension and solve each dimension separately. This should be always cheaper than solving them combined (assuming that no dimensions are free).
I think it depends a lot on the type of problem, but in general I would not believe that such a property holds and that for some problem and some N you can find an algorithm B such that A is better than B <=> dimension < N and B is better than A <=> dimension >= N.
Related
I'm looking at listing/counting the number of integer points in R^N (in the sense of Euclidean space), within certain geometric shapes, such as circles and ellipses, subject to various conditions, for small N. By this I mean that N < 5, and the conditions are polynomial inequalities.
As a concrete example, take R^2. One of the queries I might like to run is "How many integer points are there in an ellipse (parameterised by x = 4 cos(theta), y = 3 sin(theta) ), such that y * x^2 - x * y = 4?"
I could implement this in Haskell like this:
ghci> let latticePoints = [(x,y) | x <- [-4..4], y <-[-3..3], 9*x^2 + 16*y^2 <= 144, y*x^2 - x*y == 4]
and then I would have:
ghci> latticePoints
[(-1,2),(2,2)]
Which indeed answers my question.
Of course, this is a very naive implementation, but it demonstrates what I'm trying to achieve. (I'm also only using Haskell here as I feel it most directly expresses the underlying mathematical ideas.)
Now, if I had something like "In R^5, how many integer points are there in a 4-sphere of radius 1,000,000, satisfying x^3 - y + z = 20?", I might try something like this:
ghci> :{
Prelude| let latticePoints2 = [(x,y,z,w,v) | x <-[-1000..1000], y <- [-1000..1000],
Prelude| z <- [-1000..1000], w <- [-1000..1000], v <-[1000..1000],
Prelude| x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2 + v^2 <= 1000000, x^3 - y + z == 20]
Prelude| :}
so if I now type:
ghci> latticePoints2
Not much will happen...
I imagine the issue is because it's effectively looping through 2000^5 (32 quadrillion!) points, and it's clearly unreasonably of me to expect my computer to deal with that. I can't imagine doing a similar implementation in Python or C would help matters much either.
So if I want to tackle a large number of points in such a way, what would be my best bet in terms of general algorithms or data structures? I saw in another thread (Count number of points inside a circle fast), someone mention quadtrees as well as K-D trees, but I wouldn't know how to implement those, nor how to appropriately query one once it was implemented.
I'm aware some of these numbers are quite large, but the biggest circles, ellipses, etc I'd be dealing with are of radius 10^12 (one trillion), and I certainly wouldn't need to deal with R^N with N > 5. If the above is NOT possible, I'd be interested to know what sort of numbers WOULD be feasible?
There is no general way to solve this problem. The problem of finding integer solutions to algebraic equations (equations of this sort are called Diophantine equations) is known to be undecidable. Apparently, you can write equations of this sort such that solving the equations ends up being equivalent to deciding whether a given Turing machine will halt on a given input.
In the examples you've listed, you've always constrained the points to be on some well-behaved shape, like an ellipse or a sphere. While this particular class of problem is definitely decidable, I'm skeptical that you can efficiently solve these problems for more complex curves. I suspect that it would be possible to construct short formulas that describe curves that are mostly empty but have a huge bounding box.
If you happen to know more about the structure of the problems you're trying to solve - for example, if you're always dealing with spheres or ellipses - then you may be able to find fast algorithms for this problem. In general, though, I don't think you'll be able to do much better than brute force. I'm willing to admit that (and in fact, hopeful that) someone will prove me wrong about this, though.
The idea behind the kd-tree method is that you recursive subdivide the search box and try to rule out whole boxes at a time. Given the current box, use some method that either (a) declares that all points in the box match the predicate (b) declares that no points in the box match the predicate (c) makes no declaration (one possibility, which may be particularly convenient in Haskell: interval arithmetic). On (c), cut the box in half (say along the longest dimension) and recursively count in the halves. Obviously the method can choose (c) all the time, which devolves to brute force; the goal here is to do (a) or (b) as much as possible.
The performance of this method is very dependent on how it's instantiated. Try it -- it shouldn't be more than a couple dozen lines of code.
For nicely connected region, assuming your shape is significantly smaller than your containing search space, and given a seed point, you could do a growth/building algorithm:
Given a seed point:
Push seed point into test-queue
while test-queue has items:
Pop item from test-queue
If item tests to be within region (eg using a callback function):
Add item to inside-set
for each neighbour point (generated on the fly):
if neighbour not in outside-set and neighbour not in inside-set:
Add neighbour to test-queue
else:
Add item to outside-set
return inside-set
The trick is to find an initial seed point that is inside the function.
Make sure your set implementation gives O(1) duplicate checking. This method will eventually break down with large numbers of dimensions as the surface area exceeds the volume, but for 5 dimensions should be fine.
I have a simple algorithmic question. I would be grateful if you could help me.
We have some 2 dimensional points. A positive weight is associated to them (a sample problem is attached). We want to select a subset of them which maximizes the weights and neither of two selected points overlap each other (for example, in the attached file, we cannot select both A and C because they are in the same row, and in the same way we cannot select both A and B, because they are in the same column.) If there is any greedy (or dynamic) approach I can use. I'm aware of non-overlapping interval selection algorithm, but I cannot use it here, because my problem is 2 dimensional.
Any reference or note is appreciated.
Regards
Attachment:
A simple sample of the problem:
A (30$) -------- B (10$)
|
|
|
|
C (8$)
If you are OK with a good solution, and do not demand the best solution - you can use heuristical algorithms to solve this.
Let S be the set of points, and w(s) - the weightening function.
Create a weight function W:2^S->R (from the subsets of S to real numbers):
W(U) = - INFINITY is the solution is not feasible
Sigma(w(u)) for each u in U otherwise
Also create a function next:2^S -> 2^2^S (a function that gets a subset of S, and returns a set of subsets of S)
next(U) = V you can get V from U by adding/removing one element to/from U
Now, given that data - you can invoke any optimization algorithm in the Artificial Intelligence book, such as Genetic Algorithm or Hill Climbing.
For example, Hill Climbing with random restarts, will be something like that:
1. best<- -INFINITY
2. while there is more time
3. choose a random subset s
4. NEXT <- next(s)
5. if max{ W(v) | for each v in NEXT} < W(s): //s is a local maximum
5.1. if W(s) > best: best <- W(s) //if s is better then the previous result - store it.
5.2. go to 2. //restart the hill climbing from a different random point.
6. else:
6.1. s <- max { NEXT }
6.2. goto 4.
7. return best //when out of time, return the best solution found so far.
The above algorithm is anytime - meaning it will produce better results if given more time.
This can be treated as a linear assignment problem, which can be solved using an algorithm like the Hungarian algorithm. The algorithm tries to minimize the sum of costs, so just negate your weights, and use them as the costs. The assignment of rows to columns will give you the subset of points that you need. There are sparse variants for cases where not every (row,column) pair has an associated point, but you can also just use a large positive cost for these.
Well you can think of this as a binary constraint optimization problem, and there are various algorithms. The easiest algorithm for this problem is backtracking and arc propogation. However, it takes exponential time in the worst case. I am not sure if there are any specific algorithms to take advantage of the geometrical nature of the problem.
This can be solved by a pretty straight forward dynamic programming approach with a exponential time complexity
s = {A, B, C ...}
getMaxSum(s) = max( A.value + getMaxSum(compatibleSubSet(s, A)),
B.value + getMaxSum(compatibleSubSet(s, B)),
...)
where compatibleSubSet(s, A) gets the subset of s that does not overlap with A
To optimize it, you can memorize the result for each subset
Some way to do it:
Write a function that generates subsets ordered from the subset off maximum weight to the subset off minimum weight while ignoring the constraints.
Then call this function repeatedly until a subset that honors the constraints pops up.
In order to improve the performance, you can write a not so dumb generator function that for instance honors the not-on-the-same-row constraint but that ignores the not-on-the-same-column one.
I have lots of large (around 5000 x 5000) matrices that I need to invert in Matlab. I actually need the inverse, so I can't use mldivide instead, which is a lot faster for solving Ax=b for just one b.
My matrices are coming from a problem that means they have some nice properties. First off, their determinant is 1 so they're definitely invertible. They aren't diagonalizable, though, or I would try to diagonlize them, invert them, and then put them back. Their entries are all real numbers (actually rational).
I'm using Matlab for getting these matrices and for this stuff I need to do with their inverses, so I would prefer a way to speed Matlab up. But if there is another language I can use that'll be faster, then please let me know. I don't know a lot of other languages (a little but of C and a little but of Java), so if it's really complicated in some other language, then I might not be able to use it. Please go ahead and suggest it, though, in case.
I actually need the inverse, so I can't use mldivide instead,...
That's not true, because you can still use mldivide to get the inverse. Note that A-1 = A-1 * I. In MATLAB, this is equivalent to
invA = A\speye(size(A));
On my machine, this takes about 10.5 seconds for a 5000x5000 matrix. Note that MATLAB does have an inv function to compute the inverse of a matrix. Although this will take about the same amount of time, it is less efficient in terms of numerical accuracy (more info in the link).
First off, their determinant is 1 so they're definitely invertible
Rather than det(A)=1, it is the condition number of your matrix that dictates how accurate or stable the inverse will be. Note that det(A)=∏i=1:n λi. So just setting λ1=M, λn=1/M and λi≠1,n=1 will give you det(A)=1. However, as M → ∞, cond(A) = M2 → ∞ and λn → 0, meaning your matrix is approaching singularity and there will be large numerical errors in computing the inverse.
My matrices are coming from a problem that means they have some nice properties.
Of course, there are other more efficient algorithms that can be employed if your matrix is sparse or has other favorable properties. But without any additional info on your specific problem, there is nothing more that can be said.
I would prefer a way to speed Matlab up
MATLAB uses Gauss elimination to compute the inverse of a general matrix (full rank, non-sparse, without any special properties) using mldivide and this is Θ(n3), where n is the size of the matrix. So, in your case, n=5000 and there are 1.25 x 1011 floating point operations. So on a reasonable machine with about 10 Gflops of computational power, you're going to require at least 12.5 seconds to compute the inverse and there is no way out of this, unless you exploit the "special properties" (if they're exploitable)
Inverting an arbitrary 5000 x 5000 matrix is not computationally easy no matter what language you are using. I would recommend looking into approximations. If your matrices are low rank, you might want to try a low-rank approximation M = USV'
Here are some more ideas from math-overflow:
https://mathoverflow.net/search?q=matrix+inversion+approximation
First suppose the eigen values are all 1. Let A be the Jordan canonical form of your matrix. Then you can compute A^{-1} using only matrix multiplication and addition by
A^{-1} = I + (I-A) + (I-A)^2 + ... + (I-A)^k
where k < dim(A). Why does this work? Because generating functions are awesome. Recall the expansion
(1-x)^{-1} = 1/(1-x) = 1 + x + x^2 + ...
This means that we can invert (1-x) using an infinite sum. You want to invert a matrix A, so you want to take
A = I - X
Solving for X gives X = I-A. Therefore by substitution, we have
A^{-1} = (I - (I-A))^{-1} = 1 + (I-A) + (I-A)^2 + ...
Here I've just used the identity matrix I in place of the number 1. Now we have the problem of convergence to deal with, but this isn't actually a problem. By the assumption that A is in Jordan form and has all eigen values equal to 1, we know that A is upper triangular with all 1s on the diagonal. Therefore I-A is upper triangular with all 0s on the diagonal. Therefore all eigen values of I-A are 0, so its characteristic polynomial is x^dim(A) and its minimal polynomial is x^{k+1} for some k < dim(A). Since a matrix satisfies its minimal (and characteristic) polynomial, this means that (I-A)^{k+1} = 0. Therefore the above series is finite, with the largest nonzero term being (I-A)^k. So it converges.
Now, for the general case, put your matrix into Jordan form, so that you have a block triangular matrix, e.g.:
A 0 0
0 B 0
0 0 C
Where each block has a single value along the diagonal. If that value is a for A, then use the above trick to invert 1/a * A, and then multiply the a back through. Since the full matrix is block triangular the inverse will be
A^{-1} 0 0
0 B^{-1} 0
0 0 C^{-1}
There is nothing special about having three blocks, so this works no matter how many you have.
Note that this trick works whenever you have a matrix in Jordan form. The computation of the inverse in this case will be very fast in Matlab because it only involves matrix multiplication, and you can even use tricks to speed that up since you only need powers of a single matrix. This may not help you, though, if it's really costly to get the matrix into Jordan form.
Suppose you are given a function of a single variable and arguments a and b and are asked to find the minimum value that the function takes on the interval [a, b]. (You can assume that the argument is a double, though in my application I may need to use an arbitrary-precision library.)
In general this is a hard problem because functions can be weird. A simple version of this problem would be to minimize the function assuming that it is continuous (no gaps or jumps) and single-peaked (there is a unique minimum; to the left of the minimum the function is decreasing and to the right it is increasing). Is there a good way to solve this easier (but perhaps not easy!) problem?
Assume that the function may be difficult to calculate but not particularly expensive to store an answer that you've computed. (Obviously, it's better if you don't have to make giant arrays of key/value pairs.)
Bonus points for good ideas on improving the algorithm in the fortunate case in which it's nice (e.g.: derivative exists, function is smooth/analytic, derivative can be computed in closed form, derivative can be computed at no cost when the function is evaluated).
The version you describe, with a single minimum, is easy to solve.
The idea is this. Suppose that I have 3 points with a < b < c and f(b) < f(a) and f(b) < f(c). Then the true minimum is between a and c. Furthermore if I pick another point d somewhere in the interval, then I can throw away one of a or d and still have an interval with the true minimum in the middle. My approximations will improve exponentially quickly as I do more iterations.
We don't quite start with this. We start with 2 points, a and b, and know that the answer is somewhere in the middle. Take the mid-point. If f there is below the end points, we're into the case I discussed above. Otherwise it must be below one of the end points, and above the other. We can throw away the higher end point and repeat.
If the function is nice, i.e., single-peaked and strictly monotonic (i.e., strictly decreasing to the left of the minimum and strictly increasing to the right), then you can find the minimum with binary search:
Set x = (b-a)/2
test whether x is to the right of the minimum or to the left
if x is left of the minimum:b = x
if x is right of the minimum:a = x
repeat from start until you get bored
the minimum is at x
To test whether x is left/right of the minimum, invent a small value epsilon and check whether f(x - epsilon) < f(x + epsilon). If it is, the minimum is to the left, otherwise it's to the right. By "until you get bored", I mean: invent another small value delta and stop if fabs(f(x - epsilon) - f(x + epsilon)) < delta.
Note that in the general case where you don't know anything about the behavior of a function f, it's not possible to decide a non-trivial property of f. Well, unless you're willing to try all possible inputs. See Rice's Theorem for details.
The Boost project has an implementation of Brent's algorithm that may be useful.
It seems to assume that the function is continuous, and has no maxima (only a minimum) in the input interval.
Not a direct answer but a pointer to more reading:
scipy.optimize: http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/optimize.html
section e04 of naglib: http://www.nag.co.uk/numeric/cl/nagdoc_cl09/html/genint/libconts.html
For the special case where the function is differentiable twice (and the two derivatives can be calculated easily), one can use Newton's method for optimization, i.e. essentially finding the roots of the first derivative (which is a necessary condition for the minimum).
Concerning the general case, note that the extreme case of 'weird' is a function which is continuous nowhere and for which it is very hard if not impossible to find the minimum (in finite time). So I guess you should try to make at least some assumptions about the function you are trying to minimize.
What you want is to optimize an Unimodal function. The correct algorithm is similar to btilly's but you need extra points.
Take 4 points a < b < c < d.
We want to minimize f in [a,d].
If f(b) < f(c) we know the minimum is in [a, c]
If f(b) > f(c) " " " " is in [b, d]
This can give an algorithm by itself, but there is a nice trick involving the golden ratio that allows you to reuse the intermediate values (in a way you only need to compute f once per iteration instead of twice)
If you have an expression for the function, there are global optimization algorithms based on interval analysis.
I have a set of n real numbers. I also have a set of functions,
f_1, f_2, ..., f_m.
Each of these functions takes a list of numbers as its argument. I also have a set of m ranges,
[l_1, u_1], [l_2, u_2], ..., [l_m, u_m].
I want to repeatedly choose a subset {r_1, r_2, ..., r_k} of k elements such that
l_i <= f_i({r_1, r_2, ..., r_k}) <= u_i for 1 <= i <= m.
Note that the functions are smooth. Changing one element in {r_1, r_2, ..., r_k} will not change f_i({r_1, r_2, ..., r_k}) by much. average and variance are two f_i that are commonly used.
These are the m constraints that I need to satisfy.
Moreover I want to do this so that the set of subsets I choose is uniformly distributed over the set of all subsets of size k that satisfy these m constraints. Not only that, but I want to do this in an efficient manner. How quickly it runs will depend on the density of solutions within the space of all possible solutions (if this is 0.0, then the algorithm can run forever). (Assume that f_i (for any i) can be computed in a constant amount of time.)
Note that n is large enough that I cannot brute-force the problem. That is, I cannot just iterate through all k-element subsets and find which ones satisfy the m constraints.
Is there a way to do this?
What sorts of techniques are commonly used for a CSP like this? Can someone point me in the direction of good books or articles that talk about problems like this (not just CSPs in general, but CSPs involving continuous, as opposed to discrete values)?
Assuming you're looking to write your own application and use existing libraries to do this, there are choices in many languages, like Python-constraint, or Cream or Choco for Java, or CSP for C++. The way you've described the problem it sound like you're looking for a general purpose CSP solver. Are there any properties of your functions that may help reduce the complexity, such as being monotonic?
Given the problem as you've described it, you can pick from each range r_i uniformly and throw away any m-dimensional point that fails to meet the criterion. It will be uniformly distributed because the original is uniformly distributed and the set of subsets is a binary mask over the original.
Without knowing more about the shape of f, you can't make any guarantees about whether time is polynomial or not (or even have any idea of how to hit a spot that meets the constraint). After all, if f_1 = (x^2 + y^2 - 1) and f_2 = (1 - x^2 - y^2) and the constraints are f_1 < 0 and f_2 < 0, you can't satisfy this at all (and without access to the analytic form of the functions, you could never know for sure).
Given the information in your message, I'm not sure it can be done at all...
Consider:
numbers = {1....100}
m = 1 (keep it simple)
F1 = Average
L1 = 10
U1 = 50
Now, how many subset of {1...100} can you come up with that produces an average between 10 & 50?
This looks like a very hard problem. For the simplest case with linear functions you could take a look at linear programming.