Related
Suppose there are three variables that take on discrete integer values, say w1 = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}, w2 = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}, and w3 = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}. The task is to pick one value from each set such that the resulting triplet minimizes some (black box, computationally expensive) cost function.
I've tried the surrogate optimization in Matlab but I'm not sure it is appropriate. I've also heard about simulated annealing but found no implementation applied to this instance.
Which algorithm, apart from exhaustive search, can solve this combinatorial optimization problem?
Any help would be much appreciated.
The requirement/benefit of Simulated Annealing (SA), is that the objective surface is somewhat smooth, that is, we can be close to a solution.
For a completely random spiky surface- you might as well do a random search
If it is anything smooth, or even sometimes, it makes sense to try SA.
The idea is that (sometimes) changing only 1 of the 3 values, we have little effect on out blackbox function.
Here is a basic example to do this with Simulated Annealing, using frigidum in Python
import numpy as np
w1 = np.array( [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] )
w2 = np.array( [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] )
w3 = np.array( [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12] )
W = np.array([w1,w2,w3])
LENGTH = 12
I define a black-box using the Rastrigin function.
def rastrigin_function_n( x ):
"""
N-dimensional Rastrigin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastrigin_function
x_i is in [-5.12, 5.12]
"""
A = 10
n = x.shape[0]
return A*n + np.sum( x**2- A*np.cos(2*np.pi * x) )
def black_box( x ):
"""
Transform from domain [1,12] to [-5,5]
to be able to push to rastrigin
"""
x = (x - 6.5) * (5/5.5)
return rastrigin_function_n(x)
Simulated Annealing needs to modify state X. Instead of taking/modifying values directly, we keep track of indices. This simplifies creating new proposals as an index is always an integer we can simply add/subtract 1 modulo LENGTH.
def random_start():
"""
returns 3 random indices
"""
return np.random.randint(0, LENGTH, size=3)
def random_small_step(x):
"""
change only 1 index
"""
d = np.array( [1,0,0] )
if np.random.random() < .5:
d = np.array( [-1,0,0] )
np.random.shuffle(d)
return (x+d) % LENGTH
def random_big_step(x):
"""
change 2 indici
"""
d = np.array( [1,-1,0] )
np.random.shuffle(d)
return (x+d) % LENGTH
def obj(x):
"""
We have a triplet of indici,
1. Calculate corresponding values in W = [w1,w2,w3]
2. Push the values in out black-box function
"""
indices = x
values = W[np.array([0,1,2]), indices]
return black_box(values)
And throw a SA Scheme at it
import frigidum
local_opt = frigidum.sa(random_start=random_start,
neighbours=[random_small_step, random_big_step],
objective_function=obj,
T_start=10**4,
T_stop=0.000001,
repeats=10**3,
copy_state=frigidum.annealing.naked)
I am not sure what the minimum for this function should be, but it found a objective with 47.9095 with indicis np.array([9, 2, 2])
Edit:
For frigidum to change the cooling schedule, use alpha=.9. My experience is that all the work of experiment which cooling scheme works best doesn't out-weight simply let it run a little longer. The multiplication you proposed, (sometimes called geometric) is the standard one, also implemented in frigidum. So to implement Tn+1 = 0.9*Tn you need a alpha=.9. Be aware this cooling step is done after N repeats, so if repeats=100, it will first do 100 proposals before lowering the temperature with factor alpha
Simple variations on current state often works best. Since its best practice to set the initial temperature high enough to make most proposals (>90%) accepted, it doesn't matter the steps are small. But if you fear its soo small, try 2 or 3 variations. Frigidum accepts a list of proposal functions, and combinations can enforce each other.
I have no experience with MINLP. But even if, so many times experiments can surprise us. So if time/cost is small to bring another competitor to the table, yes!
Try every possible combination of the three values and see which has the lowest cost.
This code is working correctly as expected. But it takes a lot of time for large dataframes.
for i in excel_df['name_of_college_school'] :
for y in mysql_df['college_name'] :
if SequenceMatcher(None, i.lower(), y.lower() ).ratio() > 0.8:
excel_df.loc[excel_df['name_of_college_school'] == i, 'dupmark4'] = y
I guess, I can not use a function on join clause to compare values like this.
How do I vectorize this?
Update:
Is it possible to update with the highest score? This loop will overwrite the earlier match and it is possible that the earlier match was more relevant than current one.
What you are looking for is fuzzy merging.
a = excel_df.as_matrix()
b = mysql_df.as_matrix()
for i in a:
for j in b:
if SequenceMatcher(None,
i[college_index_a].lower(), y[college_index_b].lower() ).ratio() > 0.8:
i[dupmark_index] = j
Never use loc in a loop, it has a huge overhead. And btw, get the index of the respective columns, (the numerical one). Use this -
df.columns.get_loc("college name")
You could avoid one of the loops using apply and instead of MxN .loc operations, now it'll be M operations.
for y in mysql_df['college_name']:
match = excel_df['name_of_college_school'].apply(lambda x: SequenceMatcher(
None, x.lower(), y.lower()).ratio() > 0.8)
excel_df.loc[match, 'dupmark4'] = y
I looking for an elegant way to select a subset of a torch tensor which satisfies some constrains.
For example, say I have:
A = torch.rand(10,2)-1
and S is a 10x1 tensor,
sel = torch.ge(S,5) -- this is a ByteTensor
I would like to be able to do logical indexing, as follows:
A1 = A[sel]
But that doesn't work.
So there's the index function which accepts a LongTensor but I could not find a simple way to convert S to a LongTensor, except the following:
sel = torch.nonzero(sel)
which returns a K x 2 tensor (K being the number of values of S >= 5). So then I have to convert it to a 1 dimensional array, which finally allows me to index A:
A:index(1,torch.squeeze(sel:select(2,1)))
This is very cumbersome; in e.g. Matlab all I'd have to do is
A(S>=5,:)
Can anyone suggest a better way?
One possible alternative is:
sel = S:ge(5):expandAs(A) -- now you can use this mask with the [] operator
A1 = A[sel]:unfold(1, 2, 2) -- unfold to get back a 2D tensor
Example:
> A = torch.rand(3,2)-1
-0.0047 -0.7976
-0.2653 -0.4582
-0.9713 -0.9660
[torch.DoubleTensor of size 3x2]
> S = torch.Tensor{{6}, {1}, {5}}
6
1
5
[torch.DoubleTensor of size 3x1]
> sel = S:ge(5):expandAs(A)
1 1
0 0
1 1
[torch.ByteTensor of size 3x2]
> A[sel]
-0.0047
-0.7976
-0.9713
-0.9660
[torch.DoubleTensor of size 4]
> A[sel]:unfold(1, 2, 2)
-0.0047 -0.7976
-0.9713 -0.9660
[torch.DoubleTensor of size 2x2]
There are two simpler alternatives:
Use maskedSelect:
result=A:maskedSelect(your_byte_tensor)
Use a simple element-wise multiplication, for example
result=torch.cmul(A,S:gt(0))
The second one is very useful if you need to keep the shape of the original matrix (i.e A), for example to select neurons in a layer at backprop. However, since it puts zeros in the resulting matrix whenever the condition dictated by the ByteTensor doesn't apply, you can't use it to compute the product (or median, etc.). The first one only returns the elements that satisfy the condittion, so this is what I'd use to compute products or medians or any other thing where I don't want zeros.
I need to find ranges in order to create a Uniform histogram
i.e: ages
to 4 ranges
data_set = [18,21,22,24,27,27,28,29,30,32,33,33,42,42,45,46]
is there a function that gives me the ranges so the histogram is uniform?
in this case
ranges = [(18,24), (27,29), (30,33), (42,46)]
This example is easy, I'd like to know if there is an algorithm that deals with complex data sets as well
thanks
You are looking for the quantiles that split up your data equally. This combined with cutshould work. So, suppose you want n groups.
set.seed(1)
x <- rnorm(1000) # Generate some toy data
n <- 10
uniform <- cut(x, c(-Inf, quantile(x, prob = (1:(n-1))/n), Inf)) # Determine the groups
plot(uniform)
Edit: now corrected to yield the correct cuts in the ends.
Edit2: I don't quite understand the downvote. But this also works in your example:
data_set = c(18,21,22,24,27,27,28,29,30,32,33,33,42,42,45,46)
n <- 4
groups <- cut(data_set, breaks = c(-Inf, quantile(data_set, prob = 1:(n-1)/n), Inf))
levels(groups)
With some minor renaming nessesary. For slightly better level names, you could also put in min(x) and max(x) instead of -Inf and Inf.
I've created a codebook using k-means of size 4000x300 (4000 centroids, each with 300 features). Using the codebook, I then want to label an input vector (for purposes of binning later on). The input vector is of size Nx300, where N is the total number of input instances I receive.
To compute the labels, I calculate the closest centroid for each of the input vectors. To do so, I compare each input vector against all centroids and pick the centroid with the minimum distance. The label is then just the index of that centroid.
My current Matlab code looks like:
function labels = assign_labels(centroids, X)
labels = zeros(size(X, 1), 1);
% for each X, calculate the distance from each centroid
for i = 1:size(X, 1)
% distance of X_i from all j centroids is: sum((X_i - centroid_j)^2)
% note: we leave off the sqrt as an optimization
distances = sum(bsxfun(#minus, centroids, X(i, :)) .^ 2, 2);
[value, label] = min(distances);
labels(i) = label;
end
However, this code is still fairly slow (for my purposes), and I was hoping there might be a way to optimize the code further.
One obvious issue is that there is a for-loop, which is the bane of good performance on Matlab. I've been trying to come up with a way to get rid of it, but with no luck (I looked into using arrayfun in conjunction with bsxfun, but haven't gotten that to work). Alternatively, if someone know of any other way to speed this up, I would be greatly appreciate it.
Update
After doing some searching, I couldn't find a great solution using Matlab, so I decided to look at what is used in Python's scikits.learn package for 'euclidean_distance' (shortened):
XX = sum(X * X, axis=1)[:, newaxis]
YY = Y.copy()
YY **= 2
YY = sum(YY, axis=1)[newaxis, :]
distances = XX + YY
distances -= 2 * dot(X, Y.T)
distances = maximum(distances, 0)
which uses the binomial form of the euclidean distance ((x-y)^2 -> x^2 + y^2 - 2xy), which from what I've read usually runs faster. My completely untested Matlab translation is:
XX = sum(data .* data, 2);
YY = sum(center .^ 2, 2);
[val, ~] = max(XX + YY - 2*data*center');
Use the following function to calculate your distances. You should see an order of magnitude speed up
The two matrices A and B have the columns as the dimenions and the rows as each point.
A is your matrix of centroids. B is your matrix of datapoints.
function D=getSim(A,B)
Qa=repmat(dot(A,A,2),1,size(B,1));
Qb=repmat(dot(B,B,2),1,size(A,1));
D=Qa+Qb'-2*A*B';
You can vectorize it by converting to cells and using cellfun:
[nRows,nCols]=size(X);
XCell=num2cell(X,2);
dist=reshape(cell2mat(cellfun(#(x)(sum(bsxfun(#minus,centroids,x).^2,2)),XCell,'UniformOutput',false)),nRows,nRows);
[~,labels]=min(dist);
Explanation:
We assign each row of X to its own cell in the second line
This piece #(x)(sum(bsxfun(#minus,centroids,x).^2,2)) is an anonymous function which is the same as your distances=... line, and using cell2mat, we apply it to each row of X.
The labels are then the indices of the minimum row along each column.
For a true matrix implementation, you may consider trying something along the lines of:
P2 = kron(centroids, ones(size(X,1),1));
Q2 = kron(ones(size(centroids,1),1), X);
distances = reshape(sum((Q2-P2).^2,2), size(X,1), size(centroids,1));
Note
This assumes the data is organized as [x1 y1 ...; x2 y2 ...;...]
You can use a more efficient algorithm for nearest neighbor search than brute force.
The most popular approach are Kd-Tree. O(log(n)) average query time instead of the O(n) brute force complexity.
Regarding a Maltab implementation of Kd-Trees, you can have a look here