I had trouble solving a simple problem with gurobi:
e^x+x=lnP
x=1
In Gurobipy,it transforms into this form:
x+y=temp
y=e^x
lnP=temp
x=1
The result is here:
Variable X
x 1
P 749.103
y 2.71828
Temp 3.71828
The code is as follows:
from gurobipy import *
model = Model('Antoine')
P = model.addVar(vtype=GRB.CONTINUOUS, name='P',lb=0)
x = model.addVar(vtype=GRB.CONTINUOUS, name='x',lb=0)
y = model.addVar(vtype=GRB.CONTINUOUS, name='y',lb=-GRB.INFINITY)
temp = model.addVar(vtype=GRB.CONTINUOUS, name='Temp1',lb=-GRB.INFINITY)
model.addConstr(x == 1)
model.addGenConstrExp(x,y)
model.addConstr(x+y == temp)
model.addGenConstrLog(P,temp)
model.setObjective(P, GRB.MINIMIZE)
model.write("test.lp")
model.optimize()
I don't know why the result of P is wrong
Gurobi represents nonlinear functions by piecewise linear approximations. When I solve the original model on my computer using Gurobi Optimizer 9.5.2, I get the following warning:
Warning: max constraint violation (2.9006e+00) exceeds tolerance
Warning: max general constraint violation (2.9006e+00) exceeds tolerance
Piecewise linearization of function constraints often causes big violation.
Try to adjust the settings of the related parameters, such as FuncPieces.
This means the default automatic linearization is not sufficiently accurate for this model. As suggested in the warning message, adjust the FuncPieces parameter to get a more accurate representation for this model. For example, with model.Params.FuncPieces=-1 on my computer, I get this more accurate result:
Variable X
-------------------------
P 41.29
x 1
y 2.71828
Temp1 3.71828
Related
I would like to use pyomo to solve a multiple linear regression under constraint in pyomo.
to do so I have 3 matrices :
X (noted tour1 in the following code) My inputs (600x13)(bureaux*t1 in pyomo)
Y (noted tour2 in the following code) the matrix I want to predict (6003)(bureauxt2 inpyomo)
T (noted transfer In the code) (13x3)(t1*t2 in pyomo)
I would like to do the following
ypred = XT
minimize (ypred-y)**2
subject to
0<T<1
and Sum_i(Tij)=1
To that effect, I started the following code
from pyomo.environ import *
tour1=pd.DataFrame(np.random.random(size=(60,13)),columns=["X"+str(i) for i in range(13)],index=["B"+str(i) for i in range(60)])
tour2=pd.DataFrame(np.random.random(size=(60,3)),columns=["Y"+str(i) for i in range(3)],index=["B"+str(i) for i in range(60)])
def gettour1(model,i,j):
return tour1.loc[i,j]
def gettour2(model,i,j):
return tour2.loc[i,j]
def cost(model):
return sum((sum(model.tour1[i,k] * model.transfer[k,j] for k in model.t1) - model.tour2[i,j] )**2 for i in model.bureaux for j in model.tour2)
model = ConcreteModel()
model.bureaux = Set(initialize=tour1.index.tolist())
model.t1 = Set(initialize=tour1.columns)
model.t2 = Set(initialize=tour2.columns)
model.tour1 = Param(model.bureaux, model.t1,initialize=gettour1)
model.tour2 = Param(model.bureaux, model.t2,initialize=gettour2)
model.transfer = Var(model.t1,model.t2,bounds=[0,1])
model.obj=Objective(rule=cost, sense=minimize)
I unfortunately get an error at this stage :
KeyError: "Index '('X0', 'B0', 'Y0')' is not valid for indexed component 'transfer'"
anyone knows how I can calculate the objective ?
furthermore any help for the constrains would be appreciated :-)
A couple things...
First, the error you are getting. There is information in that error statement that should help identify the problem. The construction appears to be trying to index transfer with a 3-part index (x, b, y). That clearly is outside of t1 x t2. If you look at the sum equation you have, you are mistakenly using model.tour2 instead of model.t2.
Also, your bounds parameter needs to be a tuple.
While building the model, you should be pprint()-ing the model very frequently to look for these types of issues. That only works well if you have "small" data. 60 x 13 may be the normal problem size, but it is a total pain to troubleshoot. So, start with something tiny, maybe 3 x 4. Make a Set, pprint(). Make a Constraint, pprint()... Once the model computes/solves with "tiny" data, just pop in the real stuff.
I have used CVXPY and some of its LP solvers to determine whether a solution to an A*x <= b problem is feasible, and now I would like to try PySCIPOpt. I could not find an example of this in the docs, and I'm having trouble figuring out the right syntax. With CVXPY the code is simply:
def do_cvxpy(A, b, solver):
x = cvxpy.Variable(A.shape[1])
constraints = [A#x <= b] #The # denotes matrix multiplication in CVXPY
obj = cvxpy.Minimize(0)
prob = cvxpy.Problem(obj, constraints)
prob.solve(solver=solver)
return prob.status
I think with PySCIPOpt one cannot use matrix notation as above, but must treat vectors and matrices as collections of scalar variables, each of which has to be added individually, so I tried this:
def do_scip(A, b):
model = Model("XYZ")
x = {}
for i in range(A.shape[1]):
x[i] = model.addVar(vtype="C", name="x(%s)" % i)
model.setObjective(0) #Is this right for a feasibility-only problem?
model.addCons(A*x <= b) #This is certainly the wrong syntax
model.optimize()
return model.getStatus()
Could anyone please help me out with the correct form for the constraint in addCons() for this kind of problem, and confirm that an acceptable way to ask whether a solution is feasible is to simply pass 0 as the objective?
I'm still not positive about the setObjective(0), but at least I can get the code to run without errors by "unpacking" the A matrix and the b vector and adding each element as a constraint:
for i in range(ncols):
for j in range(nrows):
model.addCons(A[j,i]*x[i] <= b[i])
I also discovered that CVXPY actually has an interface to SCIP, but it gives me an error when I try to use it:
getSolObjVal cannot only be called in stage SOLVING without a valid solution
which seems to suggest that the interface cannot be used for feasibility-only problems.
I am trying to minimize a function defined as follows:
utility(decision) = decision * (risk - cost)
where variables take the following form:
decision = binary array
risk = array of floats
cost = constant
I know the solution will take the form of:
decision = 1 if (risk >= threshold)
decision = 0 otherwise
Therefore, in order to minimize this function I can assume that I transform the function utility to depend only on this threshold. My direct translation to scipy is the following:
def utility(threshold,risk,cost):
selection_list = [float(risk[i]) >= threshold for i in range(len(risk))]
v = np.array(risk.astype(float)) - cost
total_utility = np.dot(v, selection_list)
return -1.0*total_utility
result = minimize(fun=utility, x0=0.2, args=(r,c),bounds=[(0,1)], options={"disp":True} )
This gives me the following result:
fun: array([-17750.44298655]) hess_inv: <1x1 LbfgsInvHessProduct with
dtype=float64>
jac: array([0.])
message: b'CONVERGENCE: NORM_OF_PROJECTED_GRADIENT_<=_PGTOL'
nfev: 2
nit: 0 status: 0 success: True
x: array([0.2])
However, I know the result is wrong because in this case it must be equal to cost. On top of that, no matter what x0 I use, it always returns it as the result. Looking at the results I observe that jacobian=0 and does not compute 1 iteration correctly.
Looking more thoroughly into the function. I plot it and observe that it is not convex on the limits of the bounds but we can clearly see the minimum at 0.1. However, no matter how much I adjust the bounds to be in the convex part only, the result is still the same.
What could I do to minimize this function?
The error message tells you that the gradient was at some point too small and thus numerically the same as zero. This is likely due to the thresholding that you do when you calculate your selection_list. There you say float(risk[i]) >= threshold, which has derivative 0 almost everywhere. Hence, almost every starting value will give you the warning you receive.
A solution could be to apply some smoothing to the thresholding operation. So instead of float(risk[i]) >= threshold, you would use a continuous function:
def g(x):
return 1./(1+np.exp(-x))
With this function, you can express the thresholding operation as
g((risk[i] - threshold)/a), which a parameter a. The larger a, the closer is this modified error function to what you are doing so far. At something like a=20 or so, you would probably have pretty much the same that you have at the moment. You would therefore derive a sequence of solutions, where you start with a=1 and then take that solution as a starting value for the same problem with a=2, take that solution as a starting value for the problem with a=4, and so on. At some point, you will notice that changing a does no longer change the solution and you're done.
I am trying to understand the fisheye model by Scaramuzza, which is implemented in Matlab, see https://de.mathworks.com/help/vision/ug/fisheye-calibration-basics.html#mw_8aca38cc-44de-4a26-a5bc-10fb312ae3c5
The backprojection (uv to xyz) seems fairly straightforward according to the following equation:
, where rho=sqrt(u^2 +v^2)
However, how does the projection (from xyz to uv) work?! In my understanding we get a rather complex set of equations. Unfortunately, I don't find any details on that....
Okay, I believe I understand it now fully after analyzing the functions of the (windows) calibration toolbox by Scaramuzza, see https://sites.google.com/site/scarabotix/ocamcalib-toolbox/ocamcalib-toolbox-download-page
Method 1 found in file "world2cam.m"
For the projection, use the same equation above. In the projection case, the equation has three known (x,y,z) and three unknown variables (u,v and lambda). We first substitute lambda with rho by realizing that
u = x/lambda
v = y/lambda
rho=sqrt(u^2+v^2) = 1/lambda * sqrt(x^2+y^2) --> lambda = sqrt(x^2+y^2) / rho
After that, we have the unknown variables (u,v and rho)
u = x/lambda = x / sqrt(x^2+y^2) * rho
v = y/lambda = y / sqrt(x^2+y^2) * rho
z / lambda = z /sqrt(x^2+y^2) * rho = a0 + a2*rho^2 + a3*rho^3 + a4*rho^4
As you can see, the last equation now has only one unknown, namely rho. Thus, we can solve it easily using e.g. the roots function in matlab. However, the result does not always exist nor is it necessarily unique. After solving the unknown variable rho, calculating uv is very simple using the equation above.
This procedure needs to be performed for each point (x,y,z) separately and is thus rather computationally expensive for an image.
Method 2 found in file "world2cam_fast.m"
The last equation has the form rho(x,y,z). However, if we define m = z / sqrt(x^2+y^2) = tan(90°-theta), it only depends on one variable, namely rho(m).
Instead of solving this equation rho(m) for every new m, the authors "plot" the function for several values of m and fit an 8th order polynomial to these points. Using this polynomial they can calculate an approximate value for rho(m) much quicker in the following.
This becomes clear, because "world2cam_fast.m" makes use of ocam_model.pol, which is calculated in "undistort.m". "undistort.m" in turn makes use of "findinvpoly.m".
I'm learning AMPL to speed up a model currently in excel spreadsheet with excel solver. It basically based on the matrix multiplication result of a 1 x m variables and an m x n parameters. And it would find the variables to maximize the minimum of certain values in the result while keeping some other values in the same result satisfying a few constraints. How to do so in AMPL?
Given: P= m x n parameters
Variable: X= 1 x m variable we tried to solve
Calculate: R= X x P , result of matrix multiplication of X and P
Maximize: min(R[1..3]), the minimum value of the first 3 values in the result
Subject to: R[2]<R[4]
min(R[6..8])>20
R[5]-20>R[7]
X are all integers
I read several tutorials and look up the manual but can't find the solution to this seemingly straightforward problem. All I found is maximize a single value, which is the calculation result. And it was used only once and does not appear again in the constraint.
The usual approach for "maximize the minimum" problems in products like AMPL is to define an auxiliary variable and set linear constraints that effectively define it as the minimum, converting a nonlinear function (min) into linear rules.
For instance, suppose I have a bunch of decision variables x[i] with i ranging over an index set S, and I want to maximize the minimum over x[i]. AMPL syntax for that would be:
var x_min;
s.t. DefineMinimum{i in S}: x_min <= x[i];
maximize ObjectiveFunction: x_min;
The constraint only requires that x_min be less than or equal to the minimum of x[i]. However, since you're trying to maximize x_min and there are no other constraints on it, it should always end up exactly equal to that minimum (give or take machine-arithmetic epsilon considerations).
If you have parameters (i.e. values are known before you run the optimisation) and want to refer to their minimum, AMPL lets you do that more directly:
param p_min := min{j in IndexSet_P} p[j];
While AMPL also supports this syntax for variables, not all of the solvers used with AMPL are capable of accepting this type of constraint. For instance:
reset;
option solver gecode;
set S := {1,2,3};
var x{S} integer;
var x_min = min{s in S} x[s];
minimize OF: sum{s in S} x[s];
s.t. c1: x_min >= 5;
solve;
This will run and do what you'd expect it to do, because Gecode is programmed to recognise and deal with min-type constraints. However, if you switch the solver option to gurobi or cplex it will fail, since these only accept linear or quadratic constraints. To apply a minimum constraint with those solvers, you need to use something like the linearization trick I discussed above.