I am new to the field of optimization and I need help in the following optimization problem. I have tried to solve it using normal coding to make sure that I got he correct results. However, the results I got are different and I am not sure my way of analysis is correct or not. This is a short description of the problem:
The objective function shown in the picture is used to find the optimal temperature of the insulating system that minimizes the total cost over a given horizon.
[This image provides the mathematical description of the objective function and the constraints] (https://i.stack.imgur.com/yidrO.png)
The data of the problems are as follow:
1-
Problem data:
A=1.07×10^8
h=1
T_ref=87.5
N=20
p1=0.001;
p2=0.0037;
This is the curve I want to obtain
2- Optimization variable:
u_t
3- Model type:
The model is a nonlinear cost function with non-linear constraints and it is solved using non-linear solver SNOPT.
4-The meaning of the symbols in the objective and constrained functions
The optimization is performed over a prediction horizon of N years.
T_ref is The reference temperature.
Represent the degree of polymerization in the kth year.
X_DP Represents the temperature of the insulating system in the kth year.
h is the time step (1 year) of the discrete-time model.
R is the ratio of the load loss at the rated load to the no-load loss.
E is the activation energy.
A is the pre-exponential constant.
beta is a linear coefficient representing the cost due to the decrement of the temperature.
I have developed the source code in MATLAB, this code is used to check if my analysis is correct or not.
I have tried to initialize the Ut value in its increasing or decreasing states so that I can have the curves similar to the original one. [This is the curve I obtained] (https://i.stack.imgur.com/KVv2q.png)
I have tried to simulate the problem using conventional coding without optimization and I got the figure shown above.
close all; clear all;
h=1;
N=20;
a=250;
R=8.314;
A=1.07*10^8;
E=111000;
Tref=87.5;
p1=0.0019;
p2=0.0037;
p3=0.0037;
Utt=[80,80.7894736842105,81.5789473684211,82.3684210526316,83.1578947368421,... % The value of Utt given here represent the temperature increament over a predictive horizon.
83.9473684210526,84.7368421052632,85.5263157894737,86.3157894736842,...
87.1052631578947,87.8947368421053,88.6842105263158,89.4736842105263,...
90.2631578947369,91.0526315789474,91.8421052631579,92.6315789473684,...
93.4210526315790,94.2105263157895,95];
Utt1 = [95,94.2105263157895,93.4210526315790,92.6315789473684,91.8421052631579,... % The value of Utt1 given here represent the temperature decreament over a predictive horizon.
91.0526315789474,90.2631578947369,89.4736842105263,88.6842105263158,...
87.8947368421053,87.1052631578947,86.3157894736842,85.5263157894737,...
84.7368421052632,83.9473684210526,83.1578947368421,82.3684210526316,...
81.5789473684211,80.7894736842105,80];
Ut1=zeros(1,N);
Ut2=zeros(1,N);
Xdp =zeros(N,N);
Xdp(1,1)=1000;
Xdp1 =zeros(N,N);
Xdp1(1,1)=1000;
for L=1:N-1
for k=1:N-1
%vt(k+L)=Ut(k-L+1);
Xdq(k+1,L) =(1/Xdp(k,L))+A*exp((-1*E)/(R*(Utt(k)+273)))*24*365*h;
Xdp(k+1,L)=1/(Xdq(k+1,L));
Xdp(k,L+1)=1/(Xdq(k+1,L));
Xdq1(k+1,L) =(1/Xdp1(k,L))+A*exp((-1*E)/(R*(Utt1(k)+273)))*24*365*h;
Xdp1(k+1,L)=1/(Xdq1(k+1,L));
Xdp1(k,L+1)=1/(Xdq1(k+1,L));
end
end
% MATLAB code
for j =1:N-1
Ut1(j)= -p1*(Utt(j)-Tref);
Ut2(j)= -p2*(Utt1(j)-Tref);
end
sum00=sum(Ut1);
sum01=sum(Ut2);
X1=1./Xdp(:,1);
Xf=1./Xdp(:,20);
Total= table(X1,Xf);
Tdiff =a*(Total.Xf-Total.X1);
X22=1./Xdp1(:,1);
X2f=1./Xdp1(:,20);
Total22= table(X22,X2f);
Tdiff22 =a*(Total22.X2f-Total22.X22);
obj=(sum00+(Tdiff));
ob1 = min(obj);
obj2=sum01+Tdiff22;
ob2 = min(obj2);
plot(Utt,obj,'-o');
hold on
plot(Utt1,obj)
Related
I'm analysing longitudinal panel data, in which individuals transition between different states in a Markov chain. I'm modelling the transition rates between states using a series of multinomial logistic regressions. This means that I end up with a very large number of regression slopes.
For each regression slope, I obtain a posterior distribution (using WinBUGS). From the posterior distribution, we get the mean, standard deviation, and 95% credible interval associated with the slope in question.
The value I am ultimately interested in is the expected first passage time ('hitting time') through the Markov chain. This is a function of all the different predictor variables, and so is built from the many regression slopes produced by the multinomial logistic regressions.
A simple approach would be to take the mean of each posterior distribution as a point-estimate for each regression slope, and solve for the expected first passage time at a series of different values of the predictor variables. I have now done this, but it is potentially misleading because it doesn't show the uncertainty around the predicted values of expected first passage time.
My question is: how can I calculate a credible interval for the expected first passage time?
My first thought was to approximate the error via simulation, by sampling individual values for the regression slopes from each posterior distribution, obtaining the expected first passage time given those values, and then plotting the standard deviation of all these simulated values. However, I feel like (a) this would make a statistician scream and (b) it doesn't take into account the fact that different posterior distributions will be correlated (it samples from each one independently).
In WinBUGS, you can actually obtain the correlations between the posterior distributions. So if the simulation idea is appropriate, I could in theory simulate the regression slope coefficients incorporating these correlations.
Is there a more direct and less approximate way to find the uncertainty? Could I, for instance, use WinBUGS to find the posterior distribution of the expected first passage time for a given set of values of the predictor variables? Rather like the answer to this question: define a new node and monitor it. I would imagine defining a series of new nodes, where each one is for a different set of actual predictor values, and monitoring each one. Does this make good statistical sense?
Any thoughts about this would be really appreciated!
I'm trying to use the scipy.optimize.slsqp for an industrial-related constrained optimization. A highly non-linear FE model is used to generate the objective and the constraint functions, and their derivatives/sensitivities.
The objective function is in the form:
obj=a number calculated from the FE model
A series of constraint functions are set, and most of them are in the form:
cons = real number i - real number j (calculated from the FE model)
I would like to try to restrict the design variables to integers as that would be what input into the plant machine.
Another consideration is to have a log file recording what design variable have been tried. if a set of design variable (integer) is already tried for, skip the calculation, perturb the design variable and try again. By limiting the design variable to integers, we are able to limit the number of trials (while leaving the design variable to real, a change in the e.g. 8th decimal point could be regarded as untried values).
I'm using SLSQP as it is one of the SQP method (please correct me if I am wrong), and the it is said to be powerful to deal with nonlinear problems. I understand the SLSQP algorithm is a gradient-based optimizer and there is no way I can implement the restriction of the design variables being integer in the algorithm coded in FORTRAN. So instead, I modified the slsqp.py file to the following (where it calls the python extension built from the FORTRAN algorithm):
slsqp(m, meq, x, xl, xu, fx, c, g, a, acc, majiter, mode, w, jw)
for i in range(len(x)):
x[i]=int(x[i])
The code stops at the 2nd iteration and output the following:
Optimization terminated successfully. (Exit mode 0)
Current function value: -1.286621577077517
Iterations: 7
Function evaluations: 0
Gradient evaluations: 0
However, one of the constraint function is violated (value at about -5.2, while the default convergence criterion of the optimization code = 10^-6).
Questions:
1. Since the FE model is highly nonlinear, I think it's safe to assume the objective and constraint functions will be highly nonlinear too (regardless of their mathematical form). Is that correct?
2. Based on the convergence criterion of the slsqp algorithm(please see below), one of which requires the sum of all constraint violations(absolute values) to be less than a very small value (10^-6), how could the optimization exit with successful termination message?
IF ((ABS(f-f0).LT.acc .OR. dnrm2_(n,s,1).LT.acc).AND. h3.LT.acc)
Any help or advice is appreciated. Thank you.
I have implemented an algorithm that uses two other algorithms for calculating the shortest path in a graph: Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford. Based on the time complexity of the these algorithms, I can calculate the running time of my implementation, which is easy giving the code.
Now, I want to experimentally verify my calculation. Specifically, I want to plot the running time as a function of the size of the input (I am following the method described here). The problem is that I have two parameters - number of edges and number of vertices.
I have tried to fix one parameter and change the other, but this approach results in two plots - one for varying number of edges and the other for varying number of vertices.
This leads me to my question - how can I determine the order of growth based on two plots? In general, how can one experimentally determine the running time complexity of an algorithm that has more than one parameter?
It's very difficult in general.
The usual way you would experimentally gauge the running time in the single variable case is, insert a counter that increments when your data structure does a fundamental (putatively O(1)) operation, then take data for many different input sizes, and plot it on a log-log plot. That is, log T vs. log N. If the running time is of the form n^k you should see a straight line of slope k, or something approaching this. If the running time is like T(n) = n^{k log n} or something, then you should see a parabola. And if T is exponential in n you should still see exponential growth.
You can only hope to get information about the highest order term when you do this -- the low order terms get filtered out, in the sense of having less and less impact as n gets larger.
In the two variable case, you could try to do a similar approach -- essentially, take 3 dimensional data, do a log-log-log plot, and try to fit a plane to that.
However this will only really work if there's really only one leading term that dominates in most regimes.
Suppose my actual function is T(n, m) = n^4 + n^3 * m^3 + m^4.
When m = O(1), then T(n) = O(n^4).
When n = O(1), then T(n) = O(m^4).
When n = m, then T(n) = O(n^6).
In each of these regimes, "slices" along the plane of possible n,m values, a different one of the terms is the dominant term.
So there's no way to determine the function just from taking some points with fixed m, and some points with fixed n. If you did that, you wouldn't get the right answer for n = m -- you wouldn't be able to discover "middle" leading terms like that.
I would recommend that the best way to predict asymptotic growth when you have lots of variables / complicated data structures, is with a pencil and piece of paper, and do traditional algorithmic analysis. Or possibly, a hybrid approach. Try to break the question of efficiency into different parts -- if you can split the question up into a sum or product of a few different functions, maybe some of them you can determine in the abstract, and some you can estimate experimentally.
Luckily two input parameters is still easy to visualize in a 3D scatter plot (3rd dimension is the measured running time), and you can check if it looks like a plane (in log-log-log scale) or if it is curved. Naturally random variations in measurements plays a role here as well.
In Matlab I typically calculate a least-squares solution to two-variable function like this (just concatenates different powers and combinations of x and y horizontally, .* is an element-wise product):
x = log(parameter_x);
y = log(parameter_y);
% Find a least-squares fit
p = [x.^2, x.*y, y.^2, x, y, ones(length(x),1)] \ log(time)
Then this can be used to estimate running times for larger problem instances, ideally those would be confirmed experimentally to know that the fitted model works.
This approach works also for higher dimensions but gets tedious to generate, maybe there is a more general way to achieve that and this is just a work-around for my lack of knowledge.
I was going to write my own explanation but it wouldn't be any better than this.
I have a set of first 25 Zernike polynomials. Below are shown few in Cartesin co-ordinate system.
z2 = 2*x
z3 = 2*y
z4 = sqrt(3)*(2*x^2+2*y^2-1)
:
:
z24 = sqrt(14)*(15*(x^2+y^2)^2-20*(x^2+y^2)+6)*(x^2-y^2)
I am not using 1st since it is piston; so I have these 24 two-dim ANALYTICAL functions expressed in X-Y Cartesian co-ordinate system. All are defined over unit circle, as they are orthogonal over unit circle. The problem which I am describing here is relevant to other 2D surfaces also apart from Zernike Polynomials.
Suppose that origin (0,0) of the XY co-ordinate system and the centre of the unit circle are same.
Next, I take linear combination of these 24 polynomials to build a 2D wavefront shape. I use 24 random input coefficients in this combination.
w(x,y) = sum_over_i a_i*z_i (i=2,3,4,....24)
a_i = random coefficients
z_i = zernike polynomials
Upto this point, everything is analytical part which can be done on paper.
Now comes the discretization!
I know that when you want to re-construct a signal (1Dim/2Dim), your sampling frequency should be at least twice the maximum frequency present in the signal (Nyquist-Shanon principle).
Here signal is w(x,y) as mentioned above which is nothing but a simple 2Dim
function of x & y. I want to represent it on computer now. Obviously I can not take all infinite points from -1 to +1 along x axis and same for y axis.
I have to take finite no. of data points (which are called sample points or just samples) on this analytical 2Dim surface w(x,y)
I am measuring x & y in metres, and -1 <= x <= +1; -1 <= y <= +1.
e.g. If I divide my x-axis from -1 to 1, in 50 sample points then dx = 2/50= 0.04 metre. Same for y axis. Now my sampling frequency is 1/dx i.e. 25 samples per metre. Same for y axis.
But I took 50 samples arbitrarily; I could have taken 10 samples or 1000 samples. That is the crux of the matter here: how many samples points?How will I determine this number?
There is one theorem (Nyquist-Shanon theorem) mentioned above which says that if I want to re-construct w(x,y) faithfully, I must sample it on both axes so that my sampling frequency (i.e. no. of samples per metre) is at least twice the maximum frequency present in the w(x,y). This is nothing but finding power spectrum of w(x,y). Idea is that any function in space domain can be represented in spatial-frequency domain also, which is nothing but taking Fourier transform of the function! This tells us how many (spatial) frequencies are present in your function w(x,y) and what is the maximum frequency out of these many frequencies.
Now my question is first how to find out this maximum sampling frequency in my case. I can not use MATLAB fft2() or any other tool since it means already I have samples taken across the wavefront!! Obviously remaining option is find it analytically ! But that is time consuming and difficult since I have 24 polynomials & I will have to use then continuous Fourier transform i.e. I will have to go for pen and paper.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thanks
Key Assumptions
You want to use the "Nyquist-Shanon" theorem to determine sampling frequency
Obviously remaining option is find it analytically ! But that is time
consuming and difficult since I have 21 polynomials & I have to use
continuous Fourier transform i.e. done by analytically.
Given the assumption I have made (and noting that consideration of other mathematical techniques is out of scope for StackOverflow), you have no option but to calculate the continuous Fourier Transform.
However, I believe you haven't considered all the options for calculating the transform other than a laborious paper exercise e.g.
Numerical approximation of the continuous F.T. using code
Symbolic Integration e.g. Wolfram Alpha
Surely a numerical approximation of the Fourier Transform will be adequate for your solution?
I am assuming this is for coursework or research rather, so all you really care about as a physicist is a solution that is the quickest solution that is accurate within the scope of your problem.
So to conclude, IMHO, don't waste time searching for a more mathematically elegant solution or trick and just solve the problem with one of the above methods
so I am making a simple simulation of different planets with individual velocity flying around space and orbiting each other.
I plan to simulate their pull on each other by considering each planet as projecting their own "gravity vector field." Each time step I'm going to add the vectors outputted from each planets individual vector field equation (V = -xj + (-yj) or some notation like it) except the one being effected in the calculation, and use the effected planets position as input to the equations.
However this would inaccurate, and does not consider the gravitational pull as continuous and constant. Bow do I calculate the movement of my planets if each is continuously effecting the others?
Thanks!
In addition to what Blender writes about using Newton's equations, you need to consider how you will be integrating over your "acceleration field" (as you call it in the comment to his answer).
The easiest way is to use Euler's Method. The problem with that is it rapidly diverges, but it has the advantage of being easy to code and to be reasonably fast.
If you are looking for better accuracy, and are willing to sacrifice some performance, one of the Runge-Kutta methods (probably RK4) would ordinarily be a good choice. I'll caution you that if your "acceleration field" is dynamic (i.e. it changes over time ... perhaps as a result of planets moving in their orbits) RK4 will be a challenge.
Update (Based on Comment / Question Below):
If you want to calculate the force vector Fi(tn) at some time step tn applied to a specific object i, then you need to compute the force contributed by all of the other objects within your simulation using the equation Blender references. That is for each object, i, you figure out how all of the other objects pull (apply force) and those vectors when summed will be the aggregate force vector applied to i. Algorithmically this looks something like:
for each object i
Fi(tn) = 0
for each object j ≠ i
Fi(tn) = Fi(tn) + G * mi * mj / |pi(tn)-pj(tn)|2
Where pi(tn) and pj(tn) are the positions of objects i and j at time tn respectively and the | | is the standard Euclidean (l2) normal ... i.e. the Euclidean distance between the two objects. Also, G is the gravitational constant.
Euler's Method breaks the simulation into discrete time slices. It looks at the current state and in the case of your example, considers all of the forces applied in aggregate to all of the objects within your simulation and then applies those forces as a constant over the period of the time slice. When using
ai(tn) = Fi(tn)/mi
(ai(tn) = acceleration vector at time tn applied to object i, Fi(tn) is the force vector applied to object i at time tn, and mi is the mass of object i), the force vector (and therefore the acceleration vector) is held constant for the duration of the time slice. In your case, if you really have another method of computing the acceleration, you won't need to compute the force, and can instead directly compute the acceleration. In either event, with the acceleration being held as constant, the position at time tn+1, p(tn+1) and velocity at time tn+1, v(tn+1), of the object will be given by:
pi(tn+1) = 0.5*ai(tn)*(tn+1-tn)2 + vi(tn)*(tn+1-tn)+pi(tn)
vi(tn+1) = ai(tn+1)*(tn+1-tn) + vi(tn)
The RK4 method fits the driver of your system to a 2nd degree polynomial which better approximates its behavior. The details are at the wikipedia site I referenced above, and there are a number of other resources you should be able to locate on the web. The basic idea is that instead of picking a single force value for a particular timeslice, you compute four force vectors at specific times and then fit the force vector to the 2nd degree polynomial. That's fine if your field of force vectors doesn't change between time slices. If you're using gravity to derive the vector field, and the objects which are the gravitational sources move, then you need to compute their positions at each of the four sub-intervals in order compute the force vectors. It can be done, but your performance is going to be quite a bit poorer than using Euler's method. On the plus side, you get more accurate motion of the objects relative to each other. So, it's a challenge in the sense that it's computationally expensive, and it's a bit of a pain to figure out where all the objects are supposed to be for your four samples during the time slice of your iteration.
There is no such thing as "continuous" when dealing with computers, so you'll have to approximate continuity with very small intervals of time.
That being said, why are you using a vector field? What's wrong with Newton?
And the sum of the forces on an object is that above equation. Equate the two and solve for a
So you'll just have to loop over all the objects one by one and find the acceleration on it.