I'm trying to perform some calculations on a non-directed, cyclic, weighted graph, and I'm looking for a good function to calculate an aggregate weight.
Each edge has a distance value in the range [1,∞). The algorithm should give greater importance to lower distances (it should be monotonically decreasing), and it should assign the value 0 for the distance ∞.
My first instinct was simply 1/d, which meets both of those requirements. (Well, technically 1/∞ is undefined, but programmers tend to let that one slide more easily than do mathematicians.) The problem with 1/d is that the function cares a lot more about the difference between 1/1 and 1/2 than the difference between 1/34 and 1/35. I'd like to even that out a bit more. I could use √(1/d) or ∛(1/d) or even ∜(1/d), but I feel like I'm missing out on a whole class of possibilities. Any suggestions?
(I thought of ln(1/d), but that goes to -∞ as d goes to ∞, and I can't think of a good way to push that up to 0.)
Later:
I forgot a requirement: w(1) must be 1. (This doesn't invalidate the existing answers; a multiplicative constant is fine.)
perhaps:
exp(-d)
edit: something along the lines of
exp(k(1-d)), k real
will fit your extra requirement (I'm sure you knew that but what the hey).
How about 1/ln (d + k)?
Some of the above answers are versions of a Gaussian distribution which I agree is a good choice. The Gaussian or normal distribution can be found often in nature. It is a B-Spline basis function of order-infinity.
One drawback to using it as a blending function is its infinite support requires more calculations than a finite blending function. A blend is found as a summation of product series. In practice the summation may stop when the next term is less than a tolerance.
If possible form a static table to hold discrete Gaussian function values since calculating the values is computationally expensive. Interpolate table values if needed.
How about this?
w(d) = (1 + k)/(d + k) for some large k
d = 2 + k would be the place where w(d) = 1/2
It seems you are in effect looking for a linear decrease, something along the lines of infinity - d. Obviously this solution is garbage, but since you are probably not using a arbitrary precision data type for the distance, you could use yourDatatype.MaxValue - d to get a linear decreasing function for this.
In fact you might consider using (yourDatatype.MaxValue - d) + 1 you are using doubles, because you could then assign the weight of 0 if your distance is "infinity" (since doubles actually have a value for that.)
Of course you still have to consider implementation details like w(d) = double.infinity or w(d) = integer.MaxValue, but these should be easy to spot if you know the actual data types you are using ;)
Related
In an upcoming simulation project, I will come in a situation where I will have to draw one random element from a huge vector in a weighted sense. For most elements of the vector, the assigned weight will be zero. I also need to draw only one element, so the replacement or no replacement function is irrelevant.
This random picking step will be the bottleneck for my simulation, so getting the best efficiency and speed will be critical.
Are there any hacks/tips on what is best to do? Are there any important savings possible in the context of my project?
PS: Is randsample reliable on huge vectors?
Knowing that most weights are equal to zero you can rewrite a faster implementation of randsample from Octave source. In my timing it is 6X-7X faster than the original implementation:
function y = randsample_fast(v, w)
f = find(w);
w = w(f);
w = w / sum(w);
w = [0 cumsum(w)];
y = f(lookup (w , rand));
%y = f(find (w <= rand, 1, "last"));
y = v(y);
end
Inputs are assumed to be row vectors.
Changing find to lookup may slightly improve the performance.
Have a look at the source code of randsample.m in the statistics package. It's actually quite a simple implementation. It creates a normalised cumulative weights vector from the weights vector, and then effectively samples it via standard inverse sampling.
I don't know what you mean by 'huge', but as long as the weights vector can fit in memory, there is no reason why this shouldn't be fast.
If by 'huge' you mean something that does not fit in memory, then you could create a 'huge version' of this function that splits the cumulative weights vector into predictable 'bins' saved on disk, and only performs inverse sampling from the right bin.
The only thing I'd add to this is, given the implementation and that you're only interested in a single draw, then you would probably benefit from speed if you specified 'replacement' as 'true' explicitly, since the default is 'false' (i.e. without replacement), and sampling with replacement seems to avoid a lot of unnecessary and expensive steps (permutations etc).
I need a robust integration algorithm for f(x)exp(-x) between x=0 and infinity, with f(x) a positive, differentiable function.
I do not know the array x a priori (it's an intermediate output of my routine). The x array is typically ~log-equispaced, but highly irregular.
Currently, I'm using the Simpson algorithm, buy my problem is that often the domain is highly undersampled by the x array, which produces unrealistic values for the integral.
On each run of my code I need to do this integration thousands of times (each with a different set of x values), so I need to find an efficient and robust way to integrate this function.
More details:
The x array can have between 2 and N points (N known). The first value is always x[0] = 0.0. The last point is always a value greater than a tunable threshold x_max (such that exp(x_max) approx 0). I only know the values of f at the points x[i] (though the function is a smooth function).
My first idea was to do a Laguerre-Gauss quadrature integration. However, this algorithm seems to be highly unreliable when one does not use the optimal quadrature points.
My current idea is to add a set of auxiliary points, interpolating f, such that the Simpson algorithm becomes more stable. If I do this, is there an optimal selection of auxiliary points?
I'd appreciate any advice,
Thanks.
Set t=1-exp(-x), then dt = exp(-x) dx and the integral value is equal to
integral[ f(-log(1-t)) , t=0..1 ]
which you can evaluate with the standard Simpson formula and hopefully get good results.
Note that piecewise linear interpolation will always result in an order 2 error for the integral, as the result amounts to a trapezoid formula even if the method was Simpson. For better errors in the Simpson method you will need higher interpolation degrees, ideally cubic splines. Cubic Bezier polynomials with estimated derivatives to compute the control points could be a fast compromise.
I've been trying to figure out how to efficiently calculate the covariance in a moving window, i.e. moving from a set of values (x[0], y[0])..(x[n-1], y[n-1]) to a new set of values (x[1], y[1])..(x[n], y[n]). In other words, the value (x[0], y[0]) gets replaces by the value (x[n], y[n]). For performance reasons I need to calculate the covariance incrementally in the sense that I'd like to express the new covariance Cov(x[1]..x[n], y[1]..y[n]) in terms of the previous covariance Cov(x[0]..x[n-1], y[0]..y[n-1]).
Starting off with the naive formula for covariance as described here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_for_calculating_variance#Covariance][1]
All I can come up with is:
Cov(x[1]..x[n], y[1]..y[n]) =
Cov(x[0]..x[n-1], y[0]..y[n-1]) +
(x[n]*y[n] - x[0]*y[0]) / n -
AVG(x[1]..x[n]) * AVG(y[1]..y[n]) +
AVG(x[0]..x[n-1]) * AVG(y[0]..y[n-1])
I'm sorry about the notation, I hope it's more or less clear what I'm trying to express.
However, I'm not sure if this is sufficiently numerically stable. Dealing with large values I might run into arithmetic overflows or other (for example cancellation) issues.
Is there a better way to do this?
Thanks for any help.
It looks like you are trying some form of "add the new value and subtract the old one". You are correct to worry: this method is not numerically stable. Keeping sums this way is subject to drift, but the real killer is the fact that at each step you are subtracting a large number from another large number to get what is likely a very small number.
One improvement would be to maintain your sums (of x_i, y_i, and x_i*y_i) independently, and recompute the naive formula from them at each step. Your running sums would still drift, and the naive formula is still numerically unstable, but at least you would only have one step of numerical instability.
A stable way to solve this problem would be to implement a formula for (stably) merging statistical sets, and evaluate your overall covariance using a merge tree. Moving your window would update one of your leaves, requiring an update of each node from that leaf to the root. For a window of size n, this method would take O(log n) time per update instead of the O(1) naive computation, but the result would be stable and accurate. Also, if you don't need the statistics for each incremental step, you can update the tree once per each output sample instead of once per input sample. If you have k input samples per output sample, this reduces the cost per input sample to O(1 + (log n)/k).
From the comments: the wikipedia page you reference includes a section on Knuth's online algorithm, which is relatively stable, though still prone to drift. You should be able to do something comparable for covariance; and resetting your computation every K*n samples should limit the drift at minimal cost.
Not sure why no one has mentioned this, but you can use the Welford online algorithm which relies on the running mean:
The equations should look like:
the online mean given by:
I'm observing a sinusoidally-varying source, i.e. f(x) = a sin (bx + d) + c, and want to determine the amplitude a, offset c and period/frequency b - the shift d is unimportant. Measurements are sparse, with each source measured typically between 6 and 12 times, and observations are at (effectively) random times, with intervals between observations roughly between a quarter and ten times the period (just to stress, the spacing of observations is not constant for each source). In each source the offset c is typically quite large compared to the measurement error, while amplitudes vary - at one extreme they are only on the order of the measurement error, while at the other extreme they are about twenty times the error. Hopefully that fully outlines the problem, if not, please ask and i'll clarify.
Thinking naively about the problem, the average of the measurements will be a good estimate of the offset c, while half the range between the minimum and maximum value of the measured f(x) will be a reasonable estimate of the amplitude, especially as the number of measurements increase so that the prospects of having observed the maximum offset from the mean improve. However, if the amplitude is small then it seems to me that there is little chance of accurately determining b, while the prospects should be better for large-amplitude sources even if they are only observed the minimum number of times.
Anyway, I wrote some code to do a least-squares fit to the data for the range of periods, and it identifies best-fit values of a, b and d quite effectively for the larger-amplitude sources. However, I see it finding a number of possible periods, and while one is the 'best' (in as much as it gives the minimum error-weighted residual) in the majority of cases the difference in the residuals for different candidate periods is not large. So what I would like to do now is quantify the possibility that the derived period is a 'false positive' (or, to put it slightly differently, what confidence I can have that the derived period is correct).
Does anybody have any suggestions on how best to proceed? One thought I had was to use a Monte-Carlo algorithm to construct a large number of sources with known values for a, b and c, construct samples that correspond to my measurement times, fit the resultant sample with my fitting code, and see what percentage of the time I recover the correct period. But that seems quite heavyweight, and i'm not sure that it's particularly useful other than giving a general feel for the false-positive rate.
And any advice for frameworks that might help? I have a feeling this is something that can likely be done in a line or two in Mathematica, but (a) I don't know it, an (b) don't have access to it. I'm fluent in Java, competent in IDL and can probably figure out other things...
This looks tailor-made for working in the frequency domain. Apply a Fourier transform and identify the frequency based on where the power is located, which should be clear for a sinusoidal source.
ADDENDUM To get an idea of how accurate is your estimate, I'd try a resampling approach such as cross-validation. I think this is the direction that you're heading with the Monte Carlo idea; lots of work is out there, so hopefully that's a wheel you won't need to re-invent.
The trick here is to do what might seem at first to make the problem more difficult. Rewrite f in the similar form:
f(x) = a1*sin(b*x) + a2*cos(b*x) + c
This is based on the identity for the sin(u+v).
Recognize that if b is known, then the problem of estimating {a1, a2, c} is a simple LINEAR regression problem. So all you need to do is use a 1-variable minimization tool, working on the value of b, to minimize the sum of squares of the residuals from that linear regression model. There are many such univariate optimizers to be found.
Once you have those parameters, it is easy to find the parameter a in your original model, since that is all you care about.
a = sqrt(a1^2 + a2^2)
The scheme I have described is called a partitioned least squares.
If you have a reasonable estimate of the size and the nature of your noise (e.g. white Gaussian with SD sigma), you can
(a) invert the Hessian matrix to get an estimate of the error in your position and
(b) should be able to easily derive a significance statistic for your fit residues.
For (a), compare http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phys6720/handouts/curve_fit/curve_fit/node6.html
For (b), assume that your measurement errors are independent and thus the variance of their sum is the sum of their variances.
Does anyone have experience with algorithms for evaluating hypergeometric functions? I would be interested in general references, but I'll describe my particular problem in case someone has dealt with it.
My specific problem is evaluating a function of the form 3F2(a, b, 1; c, d; 1) where a, b, c, and d are all positive reals and c+d > a+b+1. There are many special cases that have a closed-form formula, but as far as I know there are no such formulas in general. The power series centered at zero converges at 1, but very slowly; the ratio of consecutive coefficients goes to 1 in the limit. Maybe something like Aitken acceleration would help?
I tested Aitken acceleration and it does not seem to help for this problem (nor does Richardson extrapolation). This probably means Pade approximation doesn't work either. I might have done something wrong though, so by all means try it for yourself.
I can think of two approaches.
One is to evaluate the series at some point such as z = 0.5 where convergence is rapid to get an initial value and then step forward to z = 1 by plugging the hypergeometric differential equation into an ODE solver. I don't know how well this works in practice; it might not, due to z = 1 being a singularity (if I recall correctly).
The second is to use the definition of 3F2 in terms of the Meijer G-function. The contour integral defining the Meijer G-function can be evaluated numerically by applying Gaussian or doubly-exponential quadrature to segments of the contour. This is not terribly efficient, but it should work, and it should scale to relatively high precision.
Is it correct that you want to sum a series where you know the ratio of successive terms and it is a rational function?
I think Gosper's algorithm and the rest of the tools for proving hypergeometric identities (and finding them) do exactly this, right? (See Wilf and Zielberger's A=B book online.)