Related
below is a snippet of code from my program.
import CVXPY as cp
X = cp.Variable(shape=(10,4), boolean = True)
y = cp.exp(X[0,1])
objective = cp.Minimize(cp.sum(X))
constraint = [y <= 0]
prob = cp.Problem(objective, constraints)
result = prob.solve(solver = cp.MOSEK)
My question is that Mosek says that the number of exponential cones in my model is 40 instead of 1. Why is that the case?
Using CVXPY 1.0.25 and Mosek 9.1.10 I see only one cone, as expected:
Problem
Name :
Objective sense : min
Type : CONIC (conic optimization problem)
Constraints : 4
Cones : 1
Scalar variables : 44
Matrix variables : 0
Integer variables : 40
(after fixing small typos in your code).
I have to optimize the coefficients for three numpy arrays which maximizes my evaluation function.
I have a target array called train['target'] and three predictions arrays named array1, array2 and array3.
I want to put the best linear coefficients i.e., x,y,z for these three arrays which will maximize the function
roc_aoc_curve(train['target'], xarray1 + yarray2 +z*array3)
the above function would be maximum when prediction is closer to the target.
i.e, xarray1 + yarray2 + z*array3 should be closer to train['target'].
The range of x,y,z >=0 and x,y,z <= 1
Basically I am trying to put the weights x,y,z for each of the three arrays which would make the function
xarray1 + yarray2 +z*array3 closer to the train['target']
Any help in getting this would be appreciated.
I used pulp.LpProblem('Giapetto', pulp.LpMaximize) to do the maximization. It works for normal numbers, integers etc, however failing while trying to do with arrays.
import numpy as np
import pulp
# create the LP object, set up as a maximization problem
prob = pulp.LpProblem('Giapetto', pulp.LpMaximize)
# set up decision variables
x = pulp.LpVariable('x', lowBound=0)
y = pulp.LpVariable('y', lowBound=0)
z = pulp.LpVariable('z', lowBound=0)
score = roc_auc_score(train['target'],x*array1+ y*array2 + z*array3)
prob += score
coef = x+y+z
prob += (coef==1)
# solve the LP using the default solver
optimization_result = prob.solve()
# make sure we got an optimal solution
assert optimization_result == pulp.LpStatusOptimal
# display the results
for var in (x, y,z):
print('Optimal weekly number of {} to produce: {:1.0f}'.format(var.name, var.value()))
Getting error at the line
score = roc_auc_score(train['target'],x*array1+ y*array2 + z*array3)
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'int' and 'LpVariable'
Can't progress beyond this line when using arrays. Not sure if my approach is correct. Any help in optimizing the function would be appreciated.
When you add sums of array elements to a PuLP model, you have to use built-in PuLP constructs like lpSum to do it -- you can't just add arrays together (as you discovered).
So your score definition should look something like this:
score = pulp.lpSum([train['target'][i] - (x * array1[i] + y * array2[i] + z * array3[i]) for i in arr_ind])
A few notes about this:
[+] You didn't provide the definition of roc_auc_score so I just pretended that it equals the sum of the element-wise difference between the target array and the weighted sum of the other 3 arrays.
[+] I suspect your actual calculation for roc_auc_score is nonlinear; more on this below.
[+] arr_ind is a list of the indices of the arrays, which I created like this:
# build array index
arr_ind = range(len(array1))
[+] You also didn't include the arrays, so I created them like this:
array1 = np.random.rand(10, 1)
array2 = np.random.rand(10, 1)
array3 = np.random.rand(10, 1)
train = {}
train['target'] = np.ones((10, 1))
Here is my complete code, which compiles and executes, though I'm sure it doesn't give you the result you are hoping for, since I just guessed about target and roc_auc_score:
import numpy as np
import pulp
# create the LP object, set up as a maximization problem
prob = pulp.LpProblem('Giapetto', pulp.LpMaximize)
# dummy arrays since arrays weren't in OP code
array1 = np.random.rand(10, 1)
array2 = np.random.rand(10, 1)
array3 = np.random.rand(10, 1)
# build array index
arr_ind = range(len(array1))
# set up decision variables
x = pulp.LpVariable('x', lowBound=0)
y = pulp.LpVariable('y', lowBound=0)
z = pulp.LpVariable('z', lowBound=0)
# dummy roc_auc_score since roc_auc_score wasn't in OP code
train = {}
train['target'] = np.ones((10, 1))
score = pulp.lpSum([train['target'][i] - (x * array1[i] + y * array2[i] + z * array3[i]) for i in arr_ind])
prob += score
coef = x + y + z
prob += coef == 1
# solve the LP using the default solver
optimization_result = prob.solve()
# make sure we got an optimal solution
assert optimization_result == pulp.LpStatusOptimal
# display the results
for var in (x, y,z):
print('Optimal weekly number of {} to produce: {:1.0f}'.format(var.name, var.value()))
Output:
Optimal weekly number of x to produce: 0
Optimal weekly number of y to produce: 0
Optimal weekly number of z to produce: 1
Process finished with exit code 0
Now, if your roc_auc_score function is nonlinear, you will have additional troubles. I would encourage you to try to formulate the score in a way that is linear, possibly using additional variables (for example, if you want the score to be an absolute value).
I am using cvxpy to do a simple portfolio optimization.
I implemented the following dummy code
from cvxpy import *
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(1)
n = 10
Sigma = np.random.randn(n, n)
Sigma = Sigma.T.dot(Sigma)
orig_weight = [0.15,0.25,0.15,0.05,0.20,0,0.1,0,0.1,0]
w = Variable(n)
mu = np.abs(np.random.randn(n, 1))
ret = mu.T*w
lambda_ = Parameter(sign='positive')
lambda_ = 5
risk = quad_form(w, Sigma)
constraints = [sum_entries(w) == 1, w >= 0, sum_entries(abs(w-orig_weight)) <= 0.750]
prob = Problem(Maximize(ret - lambda_ * risk), constraints)
prob.solve()
print 'Solver Status : ',prob.status
print('Weights opt :', w.value)
I am constraining on being fully invested, long only and to have a turnover of <= 75%. However I would like to use turnover as a "soft" constraint in the sense that the solver will use as little as possible but as much as necessary, currently the solver will almost fully max out turnover.
I basically want something like this which is convex and doesn't violate the DCP rules
sum_entries(abs(w-orig_weight)) >= 0.05
I would assume this should set a minimum threshold (5% here) and then use as much turnover until it finds a feasible solution.
I tried rewriting my objective function to
prob = Problem(Maximize(lambda_ * ret - risk - penalty * max(sum_entries(abs(w-orig_weight))+0.9,0)) , constraints)
where penalty is e.g. 2 and my constraint object still looks like
constraints = [sum_entries(w) == 1, w >= 0, sum_entries(abs(w-orig_weight)) <= 0.9]
I have never used soft-constraints and any explanation would be highly appreciated.
EDIT: Intermediate solution
from cvxpy import *
import numpy as np
np.random.seed(1)
n = 10
Sigma = np.random.randn(n, n)
Sigma = Sigma.T.dot(Sigma)
w = Variable(n)
mu = np.abs(np.random.randn(n, 1))
ret = mu.T*w
risk = quad_form(w, Sigma)
orig_weight = [0.15,0.2,0.2,0.2,0.2,0.05,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0]
min_weight = [0.35,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0,0.0,0,0.0,0.0]
max_weight = [0.35,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0]
lambda_ret = Parameter(sign='positive')
lambda_ret = 5
lambda_risk = Parameter(sign='positive')
lambda_risk = 1
penalty = Parameter(sign='positive')
penalty = 100
penalized = True
if penalized == True:
print '-------------- RELAXED ------------------'
constraints = [sum_entries(w) == 1, w >= 0, w >= min_weight, w <= max_weight]
prob = Problem(Maximize(lambda_ * ret - lambda_ * risk - penalty * max_entries(sum_entries(abs(w-orig_weight)))-0.01), constraints)
else:
print '-------------- HARD ------------------'
constraints = [sum_entries(w) == 1, w >= 0, w >= min_weight, w <= max_weight, sum_entries(abs(w-orig_weight)) <= 0.40]
prob = Problem(Maximize(lambda_ret * ret - lambda_risk * risk ),constraints)
prob.solve()
print 'Solver Status : ',prob.status
print('Weights opt :', w.value)
all_in = []
for i in range(n):
all_in.append(np.abs(w.value[i][0] - orig_weight[i]))
print 'Turnover : ', sum(all_in)
The above code will force a specific increase in weight for item[0], here +20%, in order to maintain the sum() =1 constraint that has to be offset by a -20% decrease, therefore I know it will need a minimum of 40% turnover to do that, if one runs the code with penalized = False the <= 0.4 have to be hardcoded, anything smaller than that will fail. The penalized = True case will find the minimum required turnover of 40% and solve the optimization. What I haven't figured out yet is how I can set a minimum threshold in the relaxed case, i.e. do at least 45% (or more if required).
I found some explanation around the problem here, in chapter 4.6 page 37.
Boyed Paper
I am using cvxpy to work on some simple portfolio optimisation problem. The only constraint I can't get my head around is the cardinality constraint for the number non-zero portfolio holdings. I tried two approaches, a MIP approach and a traditional convex one.
here is some dummy code for a working traditional example.
import numpy as np
import cvxpy as cvx
np.random.seed(12345)
n = 10
k = 6
mu = np.abs(np.random.randn(n, 1))
Sigma = np.random.randn(n, n)
Sigma = Sigma.T.dot(Sigma)
w = cvx.Variable(n)
ret = mu.T*w
risk = cvx.quad_form(w, Sigma)
objective = cvx.Maximize(ret - risk)
constraints = [cvx.sum_entries(w) == 1, w>= 0, cvx.sum_smallest(w, n-k) >= 0, cvx.sum_largest(w, k) <=1 ]
prob = cvx.Problem(objective, constraints)
prob.solve()
print prob.status
output = []
for i in range(len(w.value)):
output.append(round(w[i].value,2))
print 'Number of non-zero elements : ',sum(1 for i in output if i > 0)
I had the idea to use, sum_smallest and sum_largest (cvxpy manual) my thought was to constraint the smallest n-k entries to 0 and let my target range k sum up to one, I know I can't change the direction of the inequality in order to stay convex, but maybe anyone knows about a clever way of constraining the problem while still keeping it simple.
My second idea was to make this a mixed integer problem, s.th along the lines of
import numpy as np
import cvxpy as cvx
np.random.seed(12345)
n = 10
k = 6
mu = np.abs(np.random.randn(n, 1))
Sigma = np.random.randn(n, n)
Sigma = Sigma.T.dot(Sigma)
w = cvx.Variable(n)
binary = cvx.Bool(n)
integer = cvx.Int(n)
ret = mu.T*w
risk = cvx.quad_form(w, Sigma)
objective = cvx.Maximize(ret - risk)
constraints = [cvx.sum_entries(w) == 1, w>= 0, cvx.sum_entries(binary) == k ]
prob = cvx.Problem(objective, constraints)
prob.solve()
print prob.status
output = []
for i in range(len(w.value)):
output.append(round(w[i].value,2))
print sum(1 for i in output if i > 0)
for i in range(len(w.value)):
print round(binary[i].value,2)
print output
looking at my binary vector it seems to be doing the right thing but the sum_entries constraint doesn't work, looking into the binary vector values I noticed that 0 isn't 0 it's very small e.g xxe^-20 I assume this will mess things up. Anyone can give me any guidance if this is the right way to go? I can use the standard solvers, as well as Mosek if that helps. I would prefer to have a non MIP implementation as I understand this is a combinatorial problem and will get very slow for larger problems. Ultimately I would like to either constraint on exact number of target holdings or a range e.g. 20-30.
Also the documentation in cvxpy around MIP is very short. thanks
A bit chaotic, this question.
So first: this kind of cardinality-constraint is NP-hard. This means, you can't express it using cvxpy without using Integer-programming (or else it would implicate P=NP)!
That beeing said, it would have been nicer, if there would be a pure version of the code without trying to formulate this constraint. I just assume it's the first code without the sum_smallest and sum_largest constraints.
So let's tackle the MIP-approach:
Your code trying to do this makes no sense at all
You introduce some binary-vars, but they have no connection to any other variable at all (so a constraint on it's sum is useless)!
You introduce some integer-vars, but they don't have any use at all!
So here is a MIP-approach:
import numpy as np
import cvxpy as cvx
np.random.seed(12345)
n = 10
k = 6
mu = np.abs(np.random.randn(n, 1))
Sigma = np.random.randn(n, n)
Sigma = Sigma.T.dot(Sigma)
w = cvx.Variable(n)
ret = mu.T*w
risk = cvx.quad_form(w, Sigma)
objective = cvx.Maximize(ret - risk)
binary = cvx.Bool(n) # !!!
constraints = [cvx.sum_entries(w) == 1, w>= 0, w - binary <= 0., cvx.sum_entries(binary) == k] # !!!
prob = cvx.Problem(objective, constraints)
prob.solve(verbose=True)
print(prob.status)
output = []
for i in range(len(w.value)):
output.append(round(w[i].value,2))
print('Number of non-zero elements : ',sum(1 for i in output if i > 0))
So we just added some binary-variables and connected them to w to indicate if w is nonzero or not.
If w is nonzero:
w will be > 0 because of constraint w>= 0
binary needs to be 1, or else constraint w - binary <= 0. is not fulfilled
So it's just introducing these binaries and this one indicator-constraint.
Now the cvx.sum_entries(binary) == k does what it should do.
Be careful with the implication-direction we used here. It might be relevant when chaging the constraint on k (like <=).
Keep in mind, that the default MIP-solver is awful. I also fear that Mosek's interface (sub-optimal within cvxpy) won't solve this, but i might be wrong.
Edit: Your in-range can easily be formulated using two more indicators for:
(k >= a) <= ind_0
(k <= b) <= ind_1
and adding a constraint which equals a logical_and:
ind_0 + ind_1 >= 2
I've had a similar problem where my weights could be negative and did not need to sum to 1 (but still need to be bounded), so I've modified sascha's example to accommodate relaxing these constraints using the CVXpy absolute value function. This should allow for a more general approach to tackling cardinality constraints with MIP
import numpy as np
import cvxpy as cvx
np.random.seed(12345)
n = 10
k = 6
mu = np.abs(np.random.randn(n, 1))
Sigma = np.random.randn(n, n)
Sigma = Sigma.T.dot(Sigma)
w = cvx.Variable(n)
ret = mu.T*w
risk = cvx.quad_form(w, Sigma)
objective = cvx.Maximize(ret - risk)
binary = cvx.Variable(n,boolean=True) # !!!
maxabsw=2
constraints = [ w>= -maxabsw,w<=maxabsw, cvx.abs(w)/maxabsw - binary <= 0., cvx.sum(binary) == k] # !!!
prob = cvx.Problem(objective, constraints)
prob.solve(verbose=True)
print(prob.status)
output = []
for i in range(len(w.value)):
output.append(round(w[i].value,2))
print('Number of non-zero elements : ',sum(1 for i in output if i > 0))
I want to solve the following non-linear system of equations.
Notes
the dot between a_k and x represents dot product.
the 0 in the first equation represents 0 vector and 0 in the second equation is scaler 0
all the matrices are sparse if that matters.
Known
K is an n x n (positive definite) matrix
each A_k is a known (symmetric) matrix
each a_k is a known n x 1 vector
N is known (let's say N = 50). But I need a method where I can easily change N.
Unknown (trying to solve for)
x is an n x 1 a vector.
each alpha_k for 1 <= k <= N a scaler
My thinking.
I am thinking of using scipy root to find x and each alpha_k. We essentially have n equations from each row of the first equation and another N equations from the constraint equations to solve for our n + N variables. Therefore we have the required number of equations to have a solution.
I also have a reliable initial guess for x and the alpha_k's.
Toy example.
n = 4
N = 2
K = np.matrix([[0.5, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0],[0,0,1,0], [0,0,0,0.5]])
A_1 = np.matrix([[0.98,0,0.46,0.80],[0,0,0.56,0],[0.93,0.82,0,0.27],[0,0,0,0.23]])
A_2 = np.matrix([[0.23, 0,0,0],[0.03,0.01,0,0],[0,0.32,0,0],[0.62,0,0,0.45]])
a_1 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
a_2 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
We are trying to solve for
x = [x1, x2, x3, x4] and alpha_1, alpha_2
Questions:
I can actually brute force this toy problem and feed it to the solver. But how do I do I solve this toy problem in such a way that I can extend it easily to the case when I have let's say n=50 and N=50
I will probably have to explicitly compute the Jacobian for larger matrices??.
Can anyone give me any pointers?
I think the scipy.optimize.root approach holds water, but steering clear of the trivial solution might be the real challenge for this system of equations.
In any event, this function uses root to solve the system of equations.
def solver(x0, alpha0, K, A, a):
'''
x0 - nx1 numpy array. Initial guess on x.
alpha0 - nx1 numpy array. Initial guess on alpha.
K - nxn numpy.array.
A - Length N List of nxn numpy.arrays.
a - Length N list of nx1 numpy.arrays.
'''
# Establish the function that produces the rhs of the system of equations.
n = K.shape[0]
N = len(A)
def lhs(x_alpha):
'''
x_alpha is a concatenation of x and alpha.
'''
x = np.ravel(x_alpha[:n])
alpha = np.ravel(x_alpha[n:])
lhs_top = np.ravel(K.dot(x))
for k in xrange(N):
lhs_top += alpha[k]*(np.ravel(np.dot(A[k], x)) + np.ravel(a[k]))
lhs_bottom = [0.5*x.dot(np.ravel(A[k].dot(x))) + np.ravel(a[k]).dot(x)
for k in xrange(N)]
lhs = np.array(lhs_top.tolist() + lhs_bottom)
return lhs
# Solve the system of equations.
x0.shape = (n, 1)
alpha0.shape = (N, 1)
x_alpha_0 = np.vstack((x0, alpha0))
sol = root(lhs, x_alpha_0)
x_alpha_root = sol['x']
# Compute norm of residual.
res = sol['fun']
res_norm = np.linalg.norm(res)
# Break out the x and alpha components.
x_root = x_alpha_root[:n]
alpha_root = x_alpha_root[n:]
return x_root, alpha_root, res_norm
Running on the toy example, however, only produces the trivial solution.
# Toy example.
n = 4
N = 2
K = np.matrix([[0.5, 0, 0, 0], [0, 1, 0, 0],[0,0,1,0], [0,0,0,0.5]])
A_1 = np.matrix([[0.98,0,0.46,0.80],[0,0,0.56,0],[0.93,0.82,0,0.27],
[0,0,0,0.23]])
A_2 = np.matrix([[0.23, 0,0,0],[0.03,0.01,0,0],[0,0.32,0,0],
[0.62,0,0,0.45]])
a_1 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
a_2 = np.matrix(scipy.rand(4,1))
A = [A_1, A_2]
a = [a_1, a_2]
x0 = scipy.rand(n, 1)
alpha0 = scipy.rand(N, 1)
print 'x0 =', x0
print 'alpha0 =', alpha0
x_root, alpha_root, res_norm = solver(x0, alpha0, K, A, a)
print 'x_root =', x_root
print 'alpha_root =', alpha_root
print 'res_norm =', res_norm
Output is
x0 = [[ 0.00764503]
[ 0.08058471]
[ 0.88300129]
[ 0.85299622]]
alpha0 = [[ 0.67872815]
[ 0.69693346]]
x_root = [ 9.88131292e-324 -4.94065646e-324 0.00000000e+000
0.00000000e+000]
alpha_root = [ -4.94065646e-324 0.00000000e+000]
res_norm = 0.0