Related
I'm solving a pair of non-linear equations for each voxel in a dataset of a ~billion voxels using fsolve() in MATLAB 2016b.
I have done all the 'easy' optimizations that I'm aware of. Memory localization is OK, I'm using parfor, the equations are in fairly numerically simple form. All discontinuities of the integral are fed to integral(). I'm using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm with good starting values and a suitable starting damping constant, it converges on average with 6 iterations.
I'm now at ~6ms per voxel, which is good, but not good enough. I'd need a order of magnitude reduction to make the technique viable. There's only a few things that I can think of improving before starting to hammer away at accuracy:
The splines in the equation are for quick sampling of complex equations. There are two for each equation, one is inside the 'complicated nonlinear equation'. They represent two equations, one which is has a large amount of terms but is smooth and has no discontinuities and one which approximates a histogram drawn from a spectrum. I'm using griddedInterpolant() as the editor suggested.
Is there a faster way to sample points from pre-calculated distributions?
parfor i=1:numel(I1)
sols = fsolve(#(x) equationPair(x, input1, input2, ...
6 static inputs, fsolve options)
output1(i) = sols(1); output2(i) = sols(2)
end
When calling fsolve, I'm using the 'parametrization' suggested by Mathworks to input the variables. I have a nagging feeling that defining a anonymous function for each voxel is taking a large slice of the time at this point. Is this true, is there a relatively large overhead for defining the anonymous function again and again? Do I have any way to vectorize the call to fsolve?
There are two input variables which keep changing, all of the other input variables stay static. I need to solve one equation pair for each input pair so I can't make it a huge system and solve it at once. Do I have any other options than fsolve for solving pairs of nonlinear equations?
If not, some of the static inputs are the fairly large. Is there a way to keep the inputs as persistent variables using MATLAB's persistent, would that improve performance? I only saw examples of how to load persistent variables, how could I make it so that they would be input only once and future function calls would be spared from the assumedly largish overhead of the large inputs?
EDIT:
The original equations in full form look like:
Where:
and:
Everything else is known, solving for x_1 and x_2. f_KN was approximated by a spline. S_low (E) and S_high(E) are splines, the histograms they are from look like:
So, there's a few things I thought of:
Lookup table
Because the integrals in your function do not depend on any of the parameters other than x, you could make a simple 2D-lookup table from them:
% assuming simple (square) range here, adjust as needed
[x1,x2] = meshgrid( linspace(0, xmax, N) );
LUT_high = zeros(size(x1));
LUT_low = zeros(size(x1));
for ii = 1:N
LUT_high(:,ii) = integral(#(E) Fhi(E, x1(1,ii), x2(:,ii)), ...
0, E_high, ...
'ArrayValued', true);
LUT_low(:,ii) = integral(#(E) Flo(E, x1(1,ii), x2(:,ii)), ...
0, E_low, ...
'ArrayValued', true);
end
where Fhi and Flo are helper functions to compute those integrals, vectorized with scalar x1 and vector x2 in this example. Set N as high as memory will allow.
Those lookup tables you then pass as parameters to equationPair() (which allows parfor to distribute the data). Then just use interp2 in equationPair():
F(1) = I_high - interp2(x1,x2,LUT_high, x(1), x(2));
F(2) = I_low - interp2(x1,x2,LUT_low , x(1), x(2));
So, instead of recomputing the whole integral every time, you evaluate it once for the expected range of x, and reuse the outcomes.
You can specify the interpolation method used, which is linear by default. Specify cubic if you're really concerned about accuracy.
Coarse/Fine
Should the lookup table method not be possible for some reason (memory limitations, in case the possible range of x is too big), here's another thing you could do: split up the whole procedure in 2 parts, which I'll call coarse and fine.
The intent of the coarse method is to improve your initial estimates really quickly, but perhaps not so accurately. The quickest way to approximate that integral by far is via the rectangle method:
do not approximate S with a spline, just use the original tabulated data (so S_high/low = [S_high/low#E0, S_high/low#E1, ..., S_high/low#E_high/low]
At the same values for E as used by the S data (E0, E1, ...), evaluate the exponential at x:
Elo = linspace(0, E_low, numel(S_low)).';
integrand_exp_low = exp(x(1)./Elo.^3 + x(2)*fKN(Elo));
Ehi = linspace(0, E_high, numel(S_high)).';
integrand_exp_high = exp(x(1)./Ehi.^3 + x(2)*fKN(Ehi));
then use the rectangle method:
F(1) = I_low - (S_low * Elo) * (Elo(2) - Elo(1));
F(2) = I_high - (S_high * Ehi) * (Ehi(2) - Ehi(1));
Running fsolve like this for all I_low and I_high will then have improved your initial estimates x0 probably to a point close to "actual" convergence.
Alternatively, instead of the rectangle method, you use trapz (trapezoidal method). A tad slower, but possibly a bit more accurate.
Note that if (Elo(2) - Elo(1)) == (Ehi(2) - Ehi(1)) (step sizes are equal), you can further reduce the number of computations. In that case, the first N_low elements of the two integrands are identical, so the values of the exponentials will only differ in the N_low + 1 : N_high elements. So then just compute integrand_exp_high, and set integrand_exp_low equal to the first N_low elements of integrand_exp_high.
The fine method then uses your original implementation (with the actual integral()s), but then starting at the updated initial estimates from the coarse step.
The whole objective here is to try and bring the total number of iterations needed down from about 6 to less than 2. Perhaps you'll even find that the trapz method already provides enough accuracy, rendering the whole fine step unnecessary.
Vectorization
The rectangle method in the coarse step outlined above is easy to vectorize:
% (uses R2016b implicit expansion rules)
Elo = linspace(0, E_low, numel(S_low));
integrand_exp_low = exp(x(:,1)./Elo.^3 + x(:,2).*fKN(Elo));
Ehi = linspace(0, E_high, numel(S_high));
integrand_exp_high = exp(x(:,1)./Ehi.^3 + x(:,2).*fKN(Ehi));
F = [I_high_vector - (S_high * integrand_exp_high) * (Ehi(2) - Ehi(1))
I_low_vector - (S_low * integrand_exp_low ) * (Elo(2) - Elo(1))];
trapz also works on matrices; it will integrate over each column in the matrix.
You'd call equationPair() then using x0 = [x01; x02; ...; x0N], and fsolve will then converge to [x1; x2; ...; xN], where N is the number of voxels, and each x0 is 1×2 ([x(1) x(2)]), so x0 is N×2.
parfor should be able to slice all of this fairly easily over all the workers in your pool.
Similarly, vectorization of the fine method should also be possible; just use the 'ArrayValued' option to integral() as shown above:
F = [I_high_vector - integral(#(E) S_high(E) .* exp(x(:,1)./E.^3 + x(:,2).*fKN(E)),...
0, E_high,...
'ArrayValued', true);
I_low_vector - integral(#(E) S_low(E) .* exp(x(:,1)./E.^3 + x(:,2).*fKN(E)),...
0, E_low,...
'ArrayValued', true);
];
Jacobian
Taking derivatives of your function is quite easy. Here is the derivative w.r.t. x_1, and here w.r.t. x_2. Your Jacobian will then have to be a 2×2 matrix
J = [dF(1)/dx(1) dF(1)/dx(2)
dF(2)/dx(1) dF(2)/dx(2)];
Don't forget the leading minus sign (F = I_hi/lo - g(x) → dF/dx = -dg/dx)
Using one or both of the methods outlined above, you can implement a function to compute the Jacobian matrix and pass this on to fsolve via the 'SpecifyObjectiveGradient' option (via optimoptions). The 'CheckGradients' option will come in handy there.
Because fsolve usually spends the vast majority of its time computing the Jacobian via finite differences, manually computing a value for it manually will normally speed the algorithm up tremendously.
It will be faster, because
fsolve doesn't have to do extra function evaluations to do the finite differences
the convergence rate will increase due to the improved precision of the Jacobian
Especially if you use the rectangle method or trapz like above, you can reuse many of the computations you've already done for the function values themselves, meaning, even more speed-up.
Rody's answer was the correct one. Supplying the Jacobian was the single largest factor. Especially with the vectorized version, there were 3 orders of magnitude of difference in speed with the Jacobian supplied and not.
I had trouble finding information about this subject online so I'll spell it out here for future reference: It is possible to vectorize independant parallel equations with fsolve() with great gains.
I also did some work with inlining fsolve(). After supplying the Jacobian and being smarter about the equations, the serial version of my code was mostly overhead at ~1*10^-3 s per voxel. At that point most of the time inside the function was spent passing around a options -struct and creating error-messages which are never sent + lots of unused stuff assumedly for the other optimization functions inside the optimisation function (levenberg-marquardt for me). I succesfully butchered the function fsolve and some of the functions it calls, dropping the time to ~1*10^-4s per voxel on my machine. So if you are stuck with a serial implementation e.g. because of having to rely on the previous results it's quite possible to inline fsolve() with good results.
The vectorized version provided the best results in my case, with ~5*10^-5 s per voxel.
I'm using octave 3.8.1 which works like matlab.
I have an array of thousands of values I've only included three groupings as an example below:
(amp1=0.2; freq1=3; phase1=1; is an example of one grouping)
t=0;
amp1=0.2; freq1=3; phase1=1; %1st grouping
amp2=1.4; freq2=2; phase2=1.7; %2nd grouping
amp3=0.8; freq3=5; phase3=1.5; %3rd grouping
The Octave / Matlab code below solves for Y so I can plug it back into the equation to check values along with calculating values not located in the array.
clear all
t=0;
Y=0;
a1=[.2,3,1;1.4,2,1.7;.8,5,1.5]
for kk=1:1:length(a1)
Y=Y+a1(kk,1)*cos ((a1(kk,2))*t+a1(kk,3))
kk
end
Y
PS: I'm not trying to solve for Y since it's already solved for I'm trying to solve for Phase
The formulas located below are used to calculate Phase but I'm not sure how to put it into a for loop that will work in an array of n groupings:
How would I write the equation / for loop for finding the phase if I want to find freq=2.5 and amp=.23 and the phase is unknown I've looked online and it may require writing non linear equations which I'm not sure how to convert what I'm trying to do into such an equation.
phase1_test=acos(Y/amp1-amp3*cos(2*freq3*pi*t+phase3)/amp1-amp2*cos(2*freq2*pi*t+phase2)/amp1)-2*freq1*pi*t
phase2_test=acos(Y/amp2-amp3*cos(2*freq3*pi*t+phase3)/amp2-amp1*cos(2*freq1*pi*t+phase1)/amp2)-2*freq2*pi*t
phase3_test=acos(Y/amp3-amp2*cos(2*freq2*pi*t+phase2)/amp3-amp1*cos(2*freq1*pi*t+phase1)/amp3)-2*freq2*pi*t
Image of formula below:
I would like to do a check / calculate phases if given a freq and amp values.
I know I have to do a for loop but how do I convert the phase equation into a for loop so it will work on n groupings in an array and calculate different values not found in the array?
Basically I would be given an array of n groupings and freq=2.5 and amp=.23 and use the formula to calculate phase. Note: freq will not always be in the array hence why I'm trying to calculate the phase using a formula.
Ok, I think I finally understand your question:
you are trying to find a set of phase1, phase2,..., phaseN, such that equations like the ones you describe are satisfied
You know how to find y, and you supply values for freq and amp.
In Matlab, such a problem would be solved using, for example fsolve, but let's look at your problem step by step.
For simplicity, let me re-write your equations for phase1, phase2, and phase3. For example, your first equation, the one for phase1, would read
amp1*cos(phase1 + 2 freq1 pi t) + amp2*cos(2 freq2 pi t + phase2) + amp3*cos(2 freq3 pi t + phase3) - y = 0
Note that ampX (X is a placeholder for 1, 2, 3) are given, pi is a constant, t is given via Y (I think), freqX are given.
Hence, you are, in fact, dealing with a non-linear vector equation of the form
F(phase) = 0
where F is a multi-dimensional (vector) function taking a multi-dimensional (vector) input variable phase (comprised of phase1, phase2,..., phaseN). And you are looking for the set of phaseX, where all of the components of your vector function F are zero. N.B. F is a shorthand for your functions. Therefore, the first component of F, called f1, for example, is
f1 = amp1*cos(phase1+...) + amp2*cos(phase2+...) + amp3*cos(phase3+...) - y = 0.
Hence, f1 is a one-dimensional function of phase1, phase2, and phase3.
The technical term for what you are trying to do is find a zero of a non-linear vector function, or find a solution of a non-linear vector function. In Matlab, there are different approaches.
For a one-dimensional function, you can use fzero, which is explained at http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/fzero.html?refresh=true
For a multi-dimensional (vector) function as yours, I would look into using fsolve, which is part of Matlab's optimization toolbox (which means I don't know how to do this in Octave). The function fsolve is explained at http://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/fsolve.html
If you know an approximate solution for your phases, you may also look into iterative, local methods.
In particular, I would recommend you look into the Newton's Method, which allows you to find a solution to your system of equations F. Wikipedia has a good explanation of Newton's Method at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method . Newton iterations are very simple to implement and you should find a lot of resources online. You will have to compute the derivative of your function F with respect to each of your variables phaseX, which is very simple to compute since you're only dealing with cos() functions. For starters, have a look at the one-dimensional Newton iteration method in Matlab at http://www.math.colostate.edu/~gerhard/classes/331/lab/newton.html .
Finally, if you want to dig deeper, I found a textbook on this topic from the society for industrial and applied math: https://www.siam.org/books/textbooks/fr16_book.pdf .
As you can see, this is a very large field; Newton's method should be able to help you out, though.
Good luck!
I'm trying to implement gradient calculation for neural networks using backpropagation.
I cannot get it to work with cross entropy error and rectified linear unit (ReLU) as activation.
I managed to get my implementation working for squared error with sigmoid, tanh and ReLU activation functions. Cross entropy (CE) error with sigmoid activation gradient is computed correctly. However, when I change activation to ReLU - it fails. (I'm skipping tanh for CE as it retuls values in (-1,1) range.)
Is it because of the behavior of log function at values close to 0 (which is returned by ReLUs approx. 50% of the time for normalized inputs)?
I tried to mitiage that problem with:
log(max(y,eps))
but it only helped to bring error and gradients back to real numbers - they are still different from numerical gradient.
I verify the results using numerical gradient:
num_grad = (f(W+epsilon) - f(W-epsilon)) / (2*epsilon)
The following matlab code presents a simplified and condensed backpropagation implementation used in my experiments:
function [f, df] = backprop(W, X, Y)
% W - weights
% X - input values
% Y - target values
act_type='relu'; % possible values: sigmoid / tanh / relu
error_type = 'CE'; % possible values: SE / CE
N=size(X,1); n_inp=size(X,2); n_hid=100; n_out=size(Y,2);
w1=reshape(W(1:n_hid*(n_inp+1)),n_hid,n_inp+1);
w2=reshape(W(n_hid*(n_inp+1)+1:end),n_out, n_hid+1);
% feedforward
X=[X ones(N,1)];
z2=X*w1'; a2=act(z2,act_type); a2=[a2 ones(N,1)];
z3=a2*w2'; y=act(z3,act_type);
if strcmp(error_type, 'CE') % cross entropy error - logistic cost function
f=-sum(sum( Y.*log(max(y,eps))+(1-Y).*log(max(1-y,eps)) ));
else % squared error
f=0.5*sum(sum((y-Y).^2));
end
% backprop
if strcmp(error_type, 'CE') % cross entropy error
d3=y-Y;
else % squared error
d3=(y-Y).*dact(z3,act_type);
end
df2=d3'*a2;
d2=d3*w2(:,1:end-1).*dact(z2,act_type);
df1=d2'*X;
df=[df1(:);df2(:)];
end
function f=act(z,type) % activation function
switch type
case 'sigmoid'
f=1./(1+exp(-z));
case 'tanh'
f=tanh(z);
case 'relu'
f=max(0,z);
end
end
function df=dact(z,type) % derivative of activation function
switch type
case 'sigmoid'
df=act(z,type).*(1-act(z,type));
case 'tanh'
df=1-act(z,type).^2;
case 'relu'
df=double(z>0);
end
end
Edit
After another round of experiments, I found out that using a softmax for the last layer:
y=bsxfun(#rdivide, exp(z3), sum(exp(z3),2));
and softmax cost function:
f=-sum(sum(Y.*log(y)));
make the implementaion working for all activation functions including ReLU.
This leads me to conclusion that it is the logistic cost function (binary clasifier) that does not work with ReLU:
f=-sum(sum( Y.*log(max(y,eps))+(1-Y).*log(max(1-y,eps)) ));
However, I still cannot figure out where the problem lies.
Every squashing function sigmoid, tanh and softmax (in the output layer)
means different cost functions.
Then makes sense that a RLU (in the output layer) does not match with the cross entropy cost function.
I will try a simple square error cost function to test a RLU output layer.
The true power of RLU is in the hidden layers of a deep net since it not suffer from gradient vanishing error.
If you use gradient descendent you need to derive the activation function to be used later in the back-propagation approach. Are you sure about the 'df=double(z>0)'?. For the logistic and tanh seems to be right.
Further, are you sure about this 'd3=y-Y' ? I would say this is true when you use the logistic function but not for the ReLu (the derivative is not the same and therefore will not lead to that simple equation).
You could use the softplus function that is a smooth version of the ReLU, which the derivative is well known (logistic function).
I think the flaw lies in comapring with the numerically computed derivatives. In your derivativeActivation function , you define the derivative of ReLu at 0 to be 0. Where as numerically computing the derivative at x=0 shows it to be
(ReLU(x+epsilon)-ReLU(x-epsilon)/(2*epsilon)) at x =0 which is 0.5. Therefore, defining the derivative of ReLU at x=0 to be 0.5 will solve the problem
I thought I'd share my experience I had with similar problem. I too have designed my multi classifier ANN in a way that all hidden layers use RELU as non-linear activation function and the output layer uses softmax function.
My problem was related to some degree to numerical precision of the programming language/platform I was using. In my case I noticed that if I used "plain" RELU not only does it kill the gradient but the programming language I used produced the following softmax output vectors (this is just a example sample):
⎡1.5068230536681645e-35⎤
⎢ 2.520367499064734e-18⎥
⎢3.2572859518007807e-22⎥
⎢ 1⎥
⎢ 5.020155103452967e-32⎥
⎢1.7620297760773188e-18⎥
⎢ 5.216008990667109e-18⎥
⎢ 1.320937038894421e-20⎥
⎢2.7854159049317976e-17⎥
⎣1.8091246170996508e-35⎦
Notice the values of most of the elements are close to 0, but most importantly notice the 1 value in the output.
I used a different cross-entropy error function than the one you used. Instead of calculating log(max(1-y, eps)) I stuck to the basic log(1-y). So given the output vector above, when I calculated log(1-y) I got the -Inf as a result of cross-entropy, which obviously killed the algorithm.
I imagine if your eps is not reasonably high enough so that log(max(1-y, eps)) -> log(max(0, eps)) doesn't yield way too small log output you might be in a similar pickle like myself.
My solution to this problem was to use Leaky RELU. Once I've started using it, I could carry on using the multi classifier cross-entropy as oppose to softmax-cost function you decided to try.
In Modelica, I have a variable x which is dependent on (a, b,c). For a given simulation time, its plot (x,time) looks smooth and continuous. I would like to have the slope of this curve without having to explicitly differentiate der(x) because I get errors regarding the partial derivatives with respect to a, b or c. Is this possible? In other words I want the slope of the final output, without having to differentiate what it is behind it.
You cannot do something like this in Modelica itself because you do not have any access to the integrator, previous time, or similar. You can get an approximation in Modelica code by using sampling, but this slightly changes simulation results and may be a performance bottleneck:
model M
Real signal = time;
Real approx_der(start=0);
discrete Real x(start=0);
discrete Real t(start=0);
equation
when sample(0.1,0.1) then
x = signal;
t = time;
approx_der = (x-pre(x)) / (t-pre(t));
end when;
end M;
It is easier to simply use post-processing. Load up the result-file in octave, matlab or similar and plot the approximate derivative:
plot(time(2:length(time)),diff(y) ./ diff(time))
Modelica.Blocks.Continuous.Derivative x_dot(start=1) This provides an approximation of the derivative. I gave the x as an input and got x_dot.y as the derivative with no problems.
I'm trying to do some parameter estimation and want to choose parameter estimates that minimize the square error in a predicted equation over about 30 variables. If the equation were linear, I would just compute the 30 partial derivatives, set them all to zero, and use a linear-equation solver. But unfortunately the equation is nonlinear and so are its derivatives.
If the equation were over a single variable, I would just use Newton's method (also known as Newton-Raphson). The Web is rich in examples and code to implement Newton's method for functions of a single variable.
Given that I have about 30 variables, how can I program a numeric solution to this problem using Newton's method? I have the equation in closed form and can compute the first and second derivatives, but I don't know quite how to proceed from there. I have found a large number of treatments on the web, but they quickly get into heavy matrix notation. I've found something moderately helpful on Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble translating it into code.
Where I'm worried about breaking down is in the matrix algebra and matrix inversions. I can invert a matrix with a linear-equation solver but I'm worried about getting the right rows and columns, avoiding transposition errors, and so on.
To be quite concrete:
I want to work with tables mapping variables to their values. I can write a function of such a table that returns the square error given such a table as argument. I can also create functions that return a partial derivative with respect to any given variable.
I have a reasonable starting estimate for the values in the table, so I'm not worried about convergence.
I'm not sure how to write the loop that uses an estimate (table of value for each variable), the function, and a table of partial-derivative functions to produce a new estimate.
That last is what I'd like help with. Any direct help or pointers to good sources will be warmly appreciated.
Edit: Since I have the first and second derivatives in closed form, I would like to take advantage of them and avoid more slowly converging methods like simplex searches.
The Numerical Recipes link was most helpful. I wound up symbolically differentiating my error estimate to produce 30 partial derivatives, then used Newton's method to set them all to zero. Here are the highlights of the code:
__doc.findzero = [[function(functions, partials, point, [epsilon, steps]) returns table, boolean
Where
point is a table mapping variable names to real numbers
(a point in N-dimensional space)
functions is a list of functions, each of which takes a table like
point as an argument
partials is a list of tables; partials[i].x is the partial derivative
of functions[i] with respect to 'x'
epilson is a number that says how close to zero we're trying to get
steps is max number of steps to take (defaults to infinity)
result is a table like 'point', boolean that says 'converged'
]]
-- See Numerical Recipes in C, Section 9.6 [http://www.nrbook.com/a/bookcpdf.php]
function findzero(functions, partials, point, epsilon, steps)
epsilon = epsilon or 1.0e-6
steps = steps or 1/0
assert(#functions > 0)
assert(table.numpairs(partials[1]) == #functions,
'number of functions not equal to number of variables')
local equations = { }
repeat
if Linf(functions, point) <= epsilon then
return point, true
end
for i = 1, #functions do
local F = functions[i](point)
local zero = F
for x, partial in pairs(partials[i]) do
zero = zero + lineq.var(x) * partial(point)
end
equations[i] = lineq.eqn(zero, 0)
end
local delta = table.map(lineq.tonumber, lineq.solve(equations, {}).answers)
point = table.map(function(v, x) return v + delta[x] end, point)
steps = steps - 1
until steps <= 0
return point, false
end
function Linf(functions, point)
-- distance using L-infinity norm
assert(#functions > 0)
local max = 0
for i = 1, #functions do
local z = functions[i](point)
max = math.max(max, math.abs(z))
end
return max
end
You might be able to find what you need at the Numerical Recipes in C web page. There is a free version available online. Here (PDF) is the chapter containing the Newton-Raphson method implemented in C. You may also want to look at what is available at Netlib (LINPack, et. al.).
As an alternative to using Newton's method the Simplex Method of Nelder-Mead is ideally suited to this problem and referenced in Numerical Recpies in C.
Rob
You are asking for a function minimization algorithm. There are two main classes: local and global. Your problem is least squares so both local and global minimization algorithms should converge to the same unique solution. Local minimization is far more efficient than global so select that.
There are many local minimization algorithms but one particularly well suited to least squares problems is Levenberg-Marquardt. If you don't have such a solver to hand (e.g. from MINPACK) then you can probably get away with Newton's method:
x <- x - (hessian x)^-1 * grad x
where you compute the inverse matrix multiplied by a vector using a linear solver.
Since you already have the partial derivatives, how about a general gradient-descent approach?
Maybe you think you have a good-enough solution, but for me, the easiest way to think about this is to understand it in the 1-variable case first, and then extend it to the matrix case.
In the 1-variable case, if you divide the first derivative by the second derivative, you get the (negative) step size to your next trial point, e.g. -V/A.
In the N-variable case, the first derivative is a vector and the second derivative is a matrix (the Hessian). You multiply the derivative vector by the inverse of the second derivative, and the result is the negative step-vector to your next trial point, e.g. -V*(1/A)
I assume you can get the 2nd-derivative Hessian matrix. You will need a routine to invert it. There are plenty of these around in various linear algebra packages, and they are quite fast.
(For readers who are not familiar with this idea, suppose the two variables are x and y, and the surface is v(x,y). Then the first derivative is the vector:
V = [ dv/dx, dv/dy ]
and the second derivative is the matrix:
A = [dV/dx]
[dV/dy]
or:
A = [ d(dv/dx)/dx, d(dv/dy)/dx]
[ d(dv/dx)/dy, d(dv/dy)/dy]
or:
A = [d^2v/dx^2, d^2v/dydx]
[d^2v/dxdy, d^2v/dy^2]
which is symmetric.)
If the surface is parabolic (constant 2nd derivative) it will get to the answer in 1 step. On the other hand, if the 2nd derivative is very not-constant, you could encounter oscillation. Cutting each step in half (or some fraction) should make it stable.
If N == 1, you'll see that it does the same thing as in the 1-variable case.
Good luck.
Added: You wanted code:
double X[N];
// Set X to initial estimate
while(!done){
double V[N]; // 1st derivative "velocity" vector
double A[N*N]; // 2nd derivative "acceleration" matrix
double A1[N*N]; // inverse of A
double S[N]; // step vector
CalculateFirstDerivative(V, X);
CalculateSecondDerivative(A, X);
// A1 = 1/A
GetMatrixInverse(A, A1);
// S = V*(1/A)
VectorTimesMatrix(V, A1, S);
// if S is small enough, stop
// X -= S
VectorMinusVector(X, S, X);
}
My opinion is to use a stochastic optimizer, e.g., a Particle Swarm method.