Suppose, I an algorithm, whose runtime depends on two parameters. I want to find the best set of parameters that minimizes the runtime. The two parameters are continuous double values in the range of 0 to INFINITY.
Therefore, for two parameters a,b: I want to find the best values of a and b that minimize the runtime. I think this is pretty standard practice, but I could not find good literature on this. I found few literature such as MLE, Least Squares, etc. but they talk about distribution.
First use your brains to understand the possible functional relationship between those parameters and the running time, in a qualitative way. This means having a first idea on the number and positions of possible maxima, smoothness of the function, asymptotic behavior and any other clue that you can find.
Then make up your mind about a reasonable range of values where it makes sense to sample the function values. If those ranges are very wide, it is preferable to sample using a geometric progression rather than arithmetic (say, powers of 2).
Then measure and observe the function values with a graphical viewer and confirm your intuitions. It is likely that this will be enough to spot the gross location of the absolute maximum. Finding an accurate position might be useless if it gives you the last percents of improvement. It is also very likely that the location of the optimum will depend on the particular dataset, making accurate location even less useful.
Related
Initially I modeled my objective function as follows:
argmin var(f(x),g(x))+var(c(x),d(x))
where f,g,c,d are linear functions
in order to be able to use linear solvers I modeled the problem as follows
argmin abs(f(x),g(x))+abs(c(x),d(x))
is it correct to change variance to absolute value in this context, I'm pretty sure they imply the same meaning as having the least difference between two functions
You haven't given enough context to answer the question. Even though your question doesn't seem to be about regression, in many ways it is similar to the question of choosing between least squares and least absolute deviations approaches to regression. If that term in your objective function is in any sense an error term then the most appropriate way to model the error depends on the nature of the error distribution. Least squares is better if there is normally distributed noise. Least absolute deviations is better in the nonparametric setting and is less sensitive to outliers. If the problem has nothing to do with probability at all then other criteria need to be brought in to decide between the two options.
Having said all this, the two ways of measuring distance are broadly similar. One will be fairly small if and only if the other is -- though they won't be equally small. If they are similar enough for your purposes then the fact that absolute values can be linearized could be a good motivation to use it. On the other hand -- if the variance-based one is really a better expression of what you are interested in then the fact that you can't use LP isn't sufficient justification to adopt absolute values. After all -- quadratic programming is not all that much harder than LP, at least below a certain scale.
To sum up -- they don't imply the same meaning, but they do imply similar meanings; and, whether or not they are similar enough depends upon your purposes.
Decision problems are not suited for use in evolutionary algorithms since a simple right/wrong fitness measure cannot be optimized/evolved. So, what are some methods/techniques for converting decision problems to optimization problems?
For instance, I'm currently working on a problem where the fitness of an individual depends very heavily on the output it produces. Depending on the ordering of genes, an individual either produces no output or perfect output - no "in between" (and therefore, no hills to climb). One small change in an individual's gene ordering can have a drastic effect on the fitness of an individual, so using an evolutionary algorithm essentially amounts to a random search.
Some literature references would be nice if you know of any.
Application to multiple inputs and examination of percentage of correct answers.
True, a right/wrong fitness measure cannot evolve towards more rightness, but an algorithm can nonetheless apply a mutable function to whatever input it takes to produce a decision which will be right or wrong. So, you keep mutating the algorithm, and for each mutated version of the algorithm you apply it to, say, 100 different inputs, and you check how many of them it got right. Then, you select those algorithms that gave more correct answers than others. Who knows, eventually you might see one which gets them all right.
There are no literature references, I just came up with it.
Well i think you must work on your fitness function.
When you say that some Individuals are more close to a perfect solution can you identify this solutions based on their genetic structure?
If you can do that a program could do that too and so you shouldn't rate the individual based on the output but on its structure.
I am trying to implement a function approximator (aggregation) using a rule-based fuzzy control system. So as to simplify my implementation (and have better understanding) I am trying to approximate y=x^2 (the simplest non-linear function). As far as i understand i have to map my input (e.g. uniform samples over [-1,1]) to fuzzy sets (fuzzyfication) and then use a defuzzyfication method to take crisp values. Is there any simple explanation of this procedure because fuzzy control system literature is a bit mess.
This is sort of a broad question, but I'll give it a go since it has sat unanswered for so long.
First, I believe you need to refine your objective (at least as it stated here). I would hesitate to use the term "function approximation" in this context. If I follow your question correctly, the objective is map a non-linear function into another domain via fuzzy methods.
To do so, you first need to define your fuzzy set membership functions. (This link is a good example of the process.) Without additional information, the I recommend the triangular function due to its ease in implementation. The number of fuzzy sets, their placement and width (or support), and degree of overlap is application specific. You've indicated that your input domain is [-1,1], so you might find that three fuzzy sets does the trick, i.e Negative, Zero, and Positive.
From there, you need to craft a set of rules, i.e. if x is Negative then...
With rules in place, you can then define the defuzzification process. In short, this step weights the activation of each rule according to the needs of the application.
I don't believe I can contribute more fully until the output is better defined. You state "use a defuzzyfication method to take crisp values." - what does this set of crisp values mean? What is the range? Etc. Furthermore, you'll get more a response if you can identify the areas in which you are stuck (i.e. more specific questions).
I'm looking for ideas/experiences/references/keywords regarding an adaptive-parameter-control of search algorithm parameters (online-learning) in combinatorial-optimization.
A bit more detail:
I have a framework, which is responsible for optimizing a hard combinatorial-optimization-problem. This is done with the help of some "small heuristics" which are used in an iterative manner (large-neighborhood-search; ruin-and-recreate-approach). Every algorithm of these "small heuristics" is taking some external parameters, which are controlling the heuristic-logic in some extent (at the moment: just random values; some kind of noise; diversify the search).
Now i want to have a control-framework for choosing these parameters in a convergence-improving way, as general as possible, so that later additions of new heuristics are possible without changing the parameter-control.
There are at least two general decisions to make:
A: Choose the algorithm-pair (one destroy- and one rebuild-algorithm) which is used in the next iteration.
B: Choose the random parameters of the algorithms.
The only feedback is an evaluation-function of the new-found-solution. That leads me to the topic of reinforcement-learning. Is that the right direction?
Not really a learning-like-behavior, but the simplistic ideas at the moment are:
A: A roulette-wheel-selection according to some performance-value collected during the iterations (near past is more valued than older ones).
So if heuristic 1 did find all the new global best solutions -> high probability of choosing this one.
B: No idea yet. Maybe it's possible to use some non-uniform random values in the range (0,1) and i'm collecting some momentum of the changes.
So if heuristic 1 last time used alpha = 0.3 and found no new best solution, then used 0.6 and found a new best solution -> there is a momentum towards 1
-> next random value is likely to be bigger than 0.3. Possible problems: oscillation!
Things to remark:
- The parameters needed for good convergence of one specific algorithm can change dramatically -> maybe more diversify-operations needed at the beginning, more intensify-operations needed at the end.
- There is a possibility of good synergistic-effects in a specific pair of destroy-/rebuild-algorithm (sometimes called: coupled neighborhoods). How would one recognize something like that? Is that still in the reinforcement-learning-area?
- The different algorithms are controlled by a different number of parameters (some taking 1, some taking 3).
Any ideas, experiences, references (papers), keywords (ml-topics)?
If there are ideas regarding the decision of (b) in a offline-learning-manner. Don't hesitate to mention that.
Thanks for all your input.
Sascha
You have a set of parameter variables which you use to control your set of algorithms. Selection of your algorithms is just another variable.
One approach you might like to consider is to evolve your 'parameter space' using a genetic algorithm. In short, GA uses an analogue of the processes of natural selection to successively breed ever better solutions.
You will need to develop an encoding scheme to represent your parameter space as a string, and then create a large population of candidate solutions as your starting generation. The genetic algorithm itself takes the fittest solutions in your set and then applies various genetic operators to them (mutation, reproduction etc.) to breed a better set which then become the next generation.
The most difficult part of this process is developing an appropriate fitness function: something to quantitatively measure the quality of a given parameter space. Your search problem may be too complex to measure for each candidate in the population, so you will need a proxy model function which might be as hard to develop as the ideal solution itself.
Without understanding more of what you've written it's hard to see whether this approach is viable or not. GA is usually well suited to multi-variable optimisation problems like this, but it's not a silver bullet. For a reference start with Wikipedia.
This sounds like hyper heuristics which you're trying to do. Try looking for that keyword.
In Drools Planner (open source, java) I have support for tabu search and simulated annealing out the box.
I haven't implemented the ruin-and-recreate-approach (yet), but that should be easy, although I am not expecting better results. Challenge: Prove me wrong and fork it and add it and beat me in the examples.
Hyper heuristics are on my TODO list.
Are there any good online resources for how to create, maintain and think about writing test routines for numerical analysis code?
One of the limitations I can see for something like testing matrix multiplication is that the obvious tests (like having one matrix being the identity) may not fully test the functionality of the code.
Also, there is the fact that you are usually dealing with large data structures as well. Does anyone have some good ideas about ways to approach this, or have pointers to good places to look?
It sounds as if you need to think about testing in at least two different ways:
Some numerical methods allow for some meta-thinking. For example, invertible operations allow you to set up test cases to see if the result is within acceptable error bounds of the original. For example, matrix M-inverse times the matrix M * random vector V should result in V again, to within some acceptable measure of error.
Obviously, this example exercises matrix inverse, matrix multiplication and matrix-vector multiplication. I like chains like these because you can generate quite a lot of random test cases and get statistical coverage that would be a slog to have to write by hand. They don't exercise single operations in isolation, though.
Some numerical methods have a closed-form expression of their error. If you can set up a situation with a known solution, you can then compare the difference between the solution and the calculated result, looking for a difference that exceeds these known bounds.
Fundamentally, this question illustrates the problem that testing complex methods well requires quite a lot of domain knowledge. Specific references would require a little more specific information about what you're testing. I'd definitely recommend that you at least have Steve Yegge's recommended book list on hand.
If you're going to be doing matrix calculations, use LAPACK. This is very well-tested code. Very smart people have been working on it for decades. They've thought deeply about issues that the uninitiated would never think about.
In general, I'd recommend two kinds of testing: systematic and random. By systematic I mean exploring edge cases etc. It helps if you can read the source code. Often algorithms have branch points: calculate this way for numbers in this range, this other way for numbers in another range, etc. Test values close to the branch points on either side because that's where approximation error is often greatest.
Random input values are important too. If you rationally pick all the test cases, you may systematically avoid something that you don't realize is a problem. Sometimes you can make good use of random input values even if you don't have the exact values to test against. For example, if you have code to calculate a function and its inverse, you can generate 1000 random values and see whether applying the function and its inverse put you back close to where you started.
Check out a book by David Gries called The Science of Programming. It's about proving the correctness of programs. If you want to be sure that your programs are correct (to the point of proving their correctness), this book is a good place to start.
Probably not exactly what you're looking for, but it's the computer science answer to a software engineering question.