I can get the number of variables using _nvars. Then, I tried _niters and _niterations but don't work.
I have also searched it in the manual unsuccessfully.
Is there a simple way to get the number of iterations, other than extracting it from solve_message (e.g. with regular expressions)?
To the best of my knowledge there is no built-in parameter representing a number of iterations in AMPL. In fact, this is very solver specific and different solvers and even different algorithms within a single solver may have multiple different iteration counts, such as MIP iterations, Simplex iterations, master iterations when using decomposition, etc. Your best bet is probably to parse the solver message.
Related
I am not able to get what does the parameter parallel_iterations stand for in sampling multiple chains during MCMC.
The documentation for mcmc.sample_chain() doesn't give much details, it just says that
The parallel iterations are the number of iterations allowed to run in parallel. It must be a positive integer.
I am running a NUTS sampler with multiple chains while specifying parallel_iterations=8.
Does it mean that the chains are strictly run in parallel? Is the parallel execution dependent on multi-core support? If so, what is a good value (based on the number of cores) to set parallel_iterations? Should I naively set it to some higher value?
TensorFlow can unroll iterations of while loops to execute in parallel, when some parts of the data flow (I.e. iteration condition) can be computed faster than other parts. If you don't have a special preference (i.e. reproducibility with legacy stateful samplers), leave it at default.
Whenever I try to solve a convergence issue in one of my glmer models with the help of a different optimizer, I repeat the entire model optimization procedure with the new optimizer. That is, I re-run all the models I've computed so far with the new optimizer and again conduct comparisons with anova (). I do this because as far as I know different optimizers may lead to differences in AICs and log-lik ratios for one and the same model, making comparisons between two models that use different optimizers problematic.
In my most recent analysis, I've increased the number of iterations with optCtrl=list(maxfun=100000) to avoid convergence errors. I'm now wondering whether this can also lead to differences in AIC/log-lik etc. for one and the same model? Is it equally problematic to compare two models that differ with regard to the inclusion of the optCtrl=list(maxfun=100000) argument?
I actually thought that increasing the number of iterations would simply lead to longer computation times (rather than different results), but I was unable to verify this online. Any hint/explanation is appreciated.
As far as I know, you should be fine. As long as the models were fit with the same number of observations you should be able to compare them using the AIC. Hopefully someone else can comment on the nuances of the computations of the AIC itself, but I just fit a bunch of models with the same formula and dataset and different number of max iterations, getting the AIC each time. It didn't change as a function of the iterations. The iterations are just the time the model fitting process can take to maximize the likelihood, which for complex models can be tricky. Once a model is fit, and has converged on an answer, the number of iterations shouldn't change anything about the model itself.
If you look at this question, the top answer explains the AIC quite well:https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/232465/how-to-compare-models-on-the-basis-of-aic
I'm working with point clouds taken with a Kinect. My goal is the total registration for 3D mapping of places or crops. I'm using the multiway registration code.
I'm wondering if there is a way to change the number of iterations of this code? I've seen that it only does 30 iterations by default.
What kind of iterations do you mean, the iterations performed by ICP for registration or the iterations performed during global optimization?
You can change the number of iterations for global optimization by adjusting the global optimization convergence criteria.
Instead of typing
o3d.registration.global_optimization(
pose_graph, o3d.registration.GlobalOptimizationLevenbergMarquardt(),
o3d.registration.GlobalOptimizationConvergenceCriteria(), option)
write
o3d.registration.global_optimization(
pose_graph, o3d.registration.GlobalOptimizationLevenbergMarquardt(),
o3d.registration.GlobalOptimizationConvergenceCriteria(max_iteration_lm=number_of_iterations), option)
For ICP, it works in a similar way by adjusting the ICP convergence criteria:
result_icp = o3d.registration.registration_icp(source, target,
max_correspondence_distance_coarse, np.identity(4),
o3d.registration.TransformationEstimationPointToPlane(),
o3d.registration.ICPConvergenceCriteria(max_iteration=number_of_iterations))
Hope this could help!
I'm developing machine learning algorithms which classify images based on training data.
During the image preprocessing stages, there are several parameters which I can modify that affect the data I feed my algorithms (for example, I can change the Hessian Threshold when extracting SURF features). So the flow thus far looks like:
[param1, param2, param3...] => [black box] => accuracy %
My problem is: with so many parameters at my disposal, how can I systematically pick values which give me optimized results/accuracy? A naive approach is to run i nested for-loops (assuming i parameters) and just iterate through all parameter combinations, but if it takes 5 minute to calculate an accuracy from my "black box" system this would take a long, long time.
This being said, are there any algorithms or techniques which can search for optimal parameters in a black box system? I was thinking of taking a course in Discrete Optimization but I'm not sure if that would be the best use of my time.
Thank you for your time and help!
Edit (to answer comments):
I have 5-8 parameters. Each parameter has its own range. One parameter can be 0-1000 (integer), while another can be 0 to 1 (real number). Nothing is stopping me from multithreading the black box evaluation.
Also, there are some parts of the black box that have some randomness to them. For example, one stage is using k-means clustering. Each black box evaluation, the cluster centers may change. I run k-means several times to (hopefully) avoid local optima. In addition, I evaluate the black box multiple times and find the median accuracy in order to further mitigate randomness and outliers.
As a partial solution, a grid search of moderate resolution and range can be recursively repeated in the areas where the n-parameters result in the optimal values.
Each n-dimensioned result from each step would be used as a starting point for the next iteration.
The key is that for each iteration the resolution in absolute terms is kept constant (i.e. keep the iteration period constant) but the range decreased so as to reduce the pitch/granular step size.
I'd call it a ‘contracting mesh’ :)
Keep in mind that while it avoids full brute-force complexity it only reaches exhaustive resolution in the final iteration (this is what defines the final iteration).
Also that the outlined process is only exhaustive on a subset of the points that may or may not include the global minimum - i.e. it could result in a local minima.
(You can always chase your tail though by offsetting the initial grid by some sub-initial-resolution amount and compare results...)
Have fun!
Here is the solution to your problem.
A method behind it is described in this paper.
I have two questions with executing discrim knn in Stata.
1) How do you properly code the command? I've tried various versions, but seem to always get an error that there are too many variables specified.
The vector with the correct result is buy.
I am trying: discrim knn buy, group(train test) k(1)
2) My understanding with KNN was that factor variables (binary) were fine for using KNN, even encouraged. However I get the error message that factor variables and time-series operators not allowed.
Lastly, though I know this isn't the best space for this question, should each vector be normalized for knn? I've heard conflicting responses.
I'm guessing that the error you're getting is
group(): too many variables specified
This is because you can only group by 1 variable with knn. knn performs discriminant analysis based on a single grouping variable, in your case, distinguishing the training from the test. I imagine your train and test variables are binary, in which case using only one of the variables is enough, as they are merely logical opposites of each other. A single variable has enough information to distinguish the two groups.