I want to be able to reuse constraints found by the CLPFD library in SWI-Prolog. I can get these from the top level, but seemingly not within a predicate. For example, I can pose a query like the one below and find out the simplified constraint is 2*X+8, as below.
Y = 0+1+X+5+(X+1)+1, RealY #= Y. Y = 0+1+X+5+(X+1)+1, RealY#=2*X+8.
I would like to be able to use this result in further computations.
I have tried copy_term/3, ie doing things like
copy_term(RealY,RealY,Constraints)
to access the constraints themselves. But then it seems I have to use term_string to output these to a file in a form that I can then read back in, and then I can reuse the constraints. It seems there has to be a simpler way of doing this!
Any hints or help would be greatly appreciated.
Related
Firstly, I am totally out of my expertise zone so please bear with me.
I developed a fluid dynamic engine with 5 exposed parameters (say A,B,C,D,E). When you give this engine these 5 parameters, it does magic and give out a value 'Z'.
I want to write a script which can explore which combinations of A-E give lowest (or close to lowest) value of Z.
I know optimization algorithm exists, but from all of my search for examples, they use some function.
So I guess my function would simply be minimize Z? But where do A-E go?
Not really an answer, but some questions and ideas that might help you think through the best way to address this. We have no understanding of how big a range of values needs to be explored for those parameters, or how Z behaves, so this is very vague...
If you look at the values of Z for given values of A...E, does the value of Z jump around a lot for small changes on the parameter values, or does the Z value change reasonably smoothly?
If the Z value is not too eratic you could try some kind of gradient descent approach using calculated values of Z for some values of the parameters to approximate the gradient - suppose changing the value of 'A' from 1 to 2 gives a better change in the Z value than a similar size change in the other parameters, then try other values of A while keeping the other parameters fixed until you find a value of A that gives the best value of Z. Then try changing the other parameter values to see which one gives the steepest descent and try to find some better value for that parameter. Repeat this process until you can't find any improvement and you will have found a (local) minimum. You could then start at a different place in your parameter space and try again - you will probably find several local minima, and may just choose the best of those. Not provably optimal but may be good enough. Of course you can get clever and use things like conjugate gradients, Newton-Raphson or similar if Z is smooth enough.
If the Z values are very eratic, then you might have to just do some sampling of the possible combinations of A...E to get values of Z and choose the best you can find. Again you might do that in some systematic way (e.g. points on a grid in your parameter space) or entirely at random, or a combination of both.
If you find that there are 'clusters' of good solutions with similar values of the parameters then maybe some kind of local search would help - the idea is that there is often a better solution in the local neighbourhood of a known good solution. So maybe try perturbing your parameter values a bit from a known solution to see if that can lead to a better solution - either by some gradient descent method or by random sampling.
Unfortunately, if your Z calculation is complex, then any method using it as a black box will likely be slow as it will need to be re-evaluated many times.
You could use a Genetic Algorithm, where your chromosomes are formed with the 5 candidate values of the variables you have to optimize, to minimize Z, and your optimization/fitness "function" is the simulation itself outputting Z.
Other viable alternatives are Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm or Ant Colony Optimization. All of those are usable algortihms for that kind of optimization problem.
Here is what I want to do:
keep a reference curve unchanged (only shift and stretch a query curve)
constrain how many elements are duplicated
keep both start and end open
I tried:
dtw(ref_curve,query_curve,step_pattern=asymmetric,open_end=True,open_begin=True)
but I cannot constrain how the query curve is stretched
dtw(ref_curve,query_curve,step_pattern=mvmStepPattern(10))
it didn’t do anything to the curves!
dtw(ref_curve,query_curve,step_pattern=rabinerJuangStepPattern(4, "c"),open_end=True, open_begin=True)
I liked this one the most but in some cases it shifts the query curve more than needed...
I read the paper (https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v031i07) and the API but still don't quite understand how to achieve what I want. Any other options to constrain number of elements that are duplicated? I would appreciate your help!
to clarify: we are talking about functions provided by the DTW suite packages at dynamictimewarping.github.io. The question is in fact language-independent (and may be more suited to the Cross-validated Stack Exchange).
The pattern rabinerJuangStepPattern(4, "c") you have found does in fact satisfy your requirements:
it's asymmetric, and each step advances the reference by exactly one step
it's slope-limited between 1/2 and 2
it's type "c", so can be normalized in a way that allows open-begin and open-end
If you haven't already, check out dtw.rabinerJuangStepPattern(4, "c").plot().
It goes without saying that in all cases you are getting is the optimal alignment, i.e. the one with the least accumulated distance among all allowed paths.
As an alternative, you may consider the simpler asymmetric recursion -- as your first attempt above -- constrained with a global warping window: see dtw.window and the window_type argument. This provides constraints of a different shape (and flexible size), which might suit your specific case.
PS: edited to add that the asymmetricP2 recursion is also similar to RJ-4c, but with a more constrained slope.
I would like to plot the direction field for a system of 3 or more equations in SageMath using Maxima. I know how to do this for a system of 2 equations. I don't know what to modify so that I extend it to 3 or more equations. I tried the following example for a system of two equations
maxima('plotdf([x,-y],[x,y],[x,-2,2],[y,-2,2])')
I was thinking for the three or more equations I simply have to add more varibles like
maxima('plotdf([x,-y,z],[x,y,z],[x,-2,2],[y,-2,2],[z,-2,2])')
but its not working. I dont know what am missing.
The Maxima documentation for plotdf makes the syntax clear. I'm not sure what a slope/direction field would look like for more equations unless you had more variables, but then it would have to be in three dimensions, which is not supported.
In any case I'm surprised this worked from within Sage; you must have had wxmaxima or something analogous already there.
Finally, note that SageMath has slope fields natively, though this may not correspond with your workflow.
I have a model implemented in OPL. I want to use this model to implement a local search in java. I want to initialize solutions with some heuristics and give these initial solutions to cplex find a better solution based on the model, but also I want to limit the search to a specific neighborhood. Any idea about how to do it?
Also, how can I limit the range of all variables? And what's the best: implement these heuristics and local search in own opl or in java or even C++?
Thanks in advance!
Just to add some related observations:
Re Ram's point 3: We have had a lot of success with approach b. In particular it is simple to add constraints to fix the some of the variables to values from a known solution, and then re-solve for the rest of the variables in the problem. More generally, you can add constraints to limit the values to be similar to a previous solution, like:
var >= previousValue - 1
var <= previousValue + 2
This is no use for binary variables of course, but for general integer or continuous variables can work well. This approach can be generalised for collections of variables:
sum(i in indexSet) var[i] >= (sum(i in indexSet) value[i])) - 2
sum(i in indexSet) var[i] <= (sum(i in indexSet) value[i])) + 2
This can work well for sets of binary variables. For an array of 100 binary variables of which maybe 10 had the value 1, we would be looking for a solution where at least 8 have the value 1, but not more than 12. Another variant is to limit something like the Hamming distance (assume that the vars are all binary here):
dvar int changed[indexSet] in 0..1;
forall(i in indexSet)
if (previousValue[i] <= 0.5)
changed[i] == (var[i] >= 0.5) // was zero before
else
changed[i] == (var[i] <= 0.5) // was one before
sum(i in indexSet) changed[i] <= 2;
Here we would be saying that out of an array of e.g. 100 binary variables, only a maximum of two would be allowed to have a different value from the previous solution.
Of course you can combine these ideas. For example, add simple constraints to fix a large part of the problem to previous values, while leaving some other variables to be re-solved, and then add constraints on some of the remaining free variables to limit the new solution to be near to the previous one. You will notice of course that these schemes get more complex to implement and maintain as we try to be more clever.
To make the local search work well you will need to think carefully about how you construct your local neighbourhoods - too small and there will be too little opportunity to make the improvements you seek, while if they are too large they take too long to solve, so you don't get to make so many improvement steps.
A related point is that each neighbourhood needs to be reasonably internally connected. We have done some experiments where we fixed the values of maybe 99% of the variables in a model and solved for the remaining 1%. When the 1% was clustered together in the model (e.g. all the allocation variables for a subset of resources) we got good results, while in comparison we got nowhere by just choosing 1% of the variables at random from anywhere in the model.
An often overlooked idea is to invert these same limits on the model, as a way of forcing some changes into the solution to achieve a degree of diversification. So you could add a constraint to force a specific value to be different from a previous solution, or ensure that at least two out of an array of 100 binary variables have a different value from the previous solution. We have used this approach to get a sort-of tabu search with a hybrid matheuristic model.
Finally, we have mainly done this in C++ and C#, but it would work perfectly well from Java. Not tried it much from OPL, but it should be fine too. The key for us was being able to traverse the problem structure and use problem knowledge to choose the sets of variables we freeze or relax - we just found that easier and faster to code in a language like C#, but then the modelling stuff is more difficult to write and maintain. We are maybe a bit "old-school" and like to have detailed fine-grained control of what we are doing, and find we need to create many more arrays and index sets in OPL to achieve what we want, while we can achieve the same effect with more intelligent loops etc without creating so many data structures in a language like C#.
Those are several questions. So here are some pointers and suggestions:
In Cplex, you give your model an initial solution with the use of IloOplCplexVectors()
Here's a good example in IBM's documentation of how to alter CPLEX's solution.
Within OPL, you can do the same. You basically set a series of values for your variables, and hand those over to CPLEX. (See this example.)
Limiting the search to a specific neighborhood: There is no easy way to respond without knowing the details. But there are two ways that people do this:
a. change the objective to favor that 'neighborhood' and make other areas unattractive.
b. Add constraints that weed out other neighborhoods from the search space.
Regarding limiting the range of variables in OPL, you can do it directly:
dvar int supply in minQty..maxQty;
Or for a whole array of decision variables, you can do something along the lines of:
range CreditsAllowed = 3..12;
dvar int credits[student] in CreditsAllowed;
Hope this helps you move forward.
Y
I have 6 parameters for which I know maxi and mini values. I have a complex function that includes the 6 parameters and return a 7th value (say Y). I say complex because Y is not directly related to the 6 parameters; there are many embeded functions in between.
I would like to find the combination of the 6 parameters which returns the highest Y value. I first tried to calculate Y for every combination by constructing an hypercube but I have not enough memory in my computer. So I am looking for kinds of markov chains which progress in the delimited parameter space, and are able to overpass local peaks.
when I give one combination of the 6 parameters, I would like to know the highest local Y value. I tried to write a code with an iterative chain like a markov's one, but I am not sure how to process when the chain reach an edge of the parameter space. Obviously, some algorythms should already exist for this.
Question: Does anybody know what are the best functions in R to do these two things? I read that optim() could be appropriate to find the global peak but I am not sure that it can deal with complex functions (I prefer asking before engaging in a long (for me) process of code writing). And fot he local peaks? optim() should not be able to do this
In advance, thank you for any lead
Julien from France
Take a look at the Optimization and Mathematical Programming Task View on CRAN. I've personally found the differential evolution algorithm to be very fast and robust. It's implemented in the DEoptim package. The rgenoud package is another good candidate.
I like to use the Metropolis-Hastings algorithm. Since you are limiting each parameter to a range, the simple thing to do is let your proposal distribution simply be uniform over the range. That way, you won't run off the edges. It won't be fast, but if you let it run long enough, it will do a good job of sampling your space. The samples will congregate at each peak, and will spread out around them in a way that reflects the local curvature.