I am using the SymbolicTransformer of gplearn to generate some automated features. The issue is, when I inspect the expression of the features via looking at _best_programs after fitting, I find that most of the features have the same expression. I am wondering whether there is a way to ensure that we output different features using SymbolicTransformer after fitting?
I don't know if there is a way to explicitly enforce this but you can probably try to enforce more diverse populations each generation in the hopes that this leads to a a collection of more diverse _best_programs. In my opinion a few parameters you could look into are:
p_crossover
p_subtree_mutation
p_hoise_mutation
p_point_mutation
p_point_replace
If you increase the chance of crossover or mutation you will increase your expected diversity but you must not overdue it. There is a balance between a diverse population and an accurate one. The higher the crossover or mutation the more likely that you will take a strong individual candidate and change it into something meaningless.
Related
I am coding a spell-casting system where you draw a symbol with your wand (mouse), and it can recognize said symbol.
There are two methods I believe might work; neural networking and an "invisible grid system"
The problem with the neural networking system is that It would be (likely) suboptimal in Roblox Luau, and not be able to match the performance nor speed I wish for. (Although, I may just be lacking in neural networking knowledge. Please let me know whether I should continue to try implementing it this way)
For the invisible grid system, I thought of converting the drawing into 1s and 0s (1 = drawn, 0 = blank), then seeing if it is similar to one of the symbols. I create the symbols by making a dictionary like:
local Symbol = { -- "Answer Key" shape, looks like a tilted square
00100,
01010,
10001,
01010,
00100,
}
The problem is that user error will likely cause it to be inaccurate, like this "spell"'s blue boxes, showing user error/inaccuracy. I'm also sure that if I have multiple Symbols, comparing every value in every symbol will surely not be quick.
Do you know an algorithm that could help me do this? Or just some alternative way of doing this I am missing? Thank you for reading my post.
I'm sorry if the format on this is incorrect, this is my first stack-overflow post. I will gladly delete this post if it doesn't abide to one of the rules. ( Let me know if there are any tags I should add )
One possible approach to solving this problem is to use a template matching algorithm. In this approach, you would create a "template" for each symbol that you want to recognize, which would be a grid of 1s and 0s similar to what you described in your question. Then, when the user draws a symbol, you would convert their drawing into a grid of 1s and 0s in the same way.
Next, you would compare the user's drawing to each of the templates using a similarity metric, such as the sum of absolute differences (SAD) or normalized cross-correlation (NCC). The template with the lowest SAD or highest NCC value would be considered the "best match" for the user's drawing, and therefore the recognized symbol.
There are a few advantages to using this approach:
It is relatively simple to implement, compared to a neural network.
It is fast, since you only need to compare the user's drawing to a small number of templates.
It can tolerate some user error, since the templates can be designed to be tolerant of slight variations in the user's drawing.
There are also some potential disadvantages to consider:
It may not be as accurate as a neural network, especially for complex or highly variable symbols.
The templates must be carefully designed to be representative of the expected variations in the user's drawings, which can be time-consuming.
Overall, whether this approach is suitable for your use case will depend on the specific requirements of your spell-casting system, including the number and complexity of the symbols you want to recognize, the accuracy and speed you need, and the resources (e.g. time, compute power) that are available to you.
I want to integrate a Modelica variable over time, just for convenience in plotting and post-processing. The variable I want to integrate over time is the power of a compressor so that I get the total energy. The first idea would be to add these lines:
Modelica.Units.SI.Power P_comp;
Modelica.Units.SI.Energy E_comp;
equation
P_comp = der(E_comp);
Is that the recommended way, or are there (better?) alternatives? Is it expected to influence the selection of dynamic states?
Assuming that those two lines are the only ones using E_comp that should work.
Basically E_comp will be part of its own separate state-selection block and changes there shouldn't influence anything else.
However, state selection consists of a number of algorithms and heuristics so it is difficult to formally guarantee that any change does not influence it.
I could imagine some strange possibilities that would break this, but I don't think anyone has implemented them - and I don't see a use-case for them (except to mess up cases like this).
And if you instead of integrating want to differentiate a signal it is a lot messier.
I have estimated a complex hierarchical model with many random effects, but don't really know what the best approach is to checking for convergend. I have complex longitudinal data from a few hundred individuals and estimate quite a few parameters for every individual. Because of that, I have way to many traceplots to inspect visually. Or should I really spend a day going through all the traceplots? What would be a better way to check for convergence? Do I have to calculate Gelman and Rubin's Rhat for every parameter on the person level? And when can I conclude that the model converged? When absolutely all of the thousends of parameters reached convergence? Is it even sensible to expect that? Or is there something like "overall convergence"? And what does it mean when some person-level parameters did not converge? Does it make sense to use autorun.jags from the R2jags package with such a model or will it just run for ever? I know, these are a lot of question, but I just don't know how to approach that.
The measure I am using for convergence is a potential scale reduction factor (psrf)* using the gelman.diag function from the R package coda.
But nevertheless, I am also quickly visually inspecting all the traceplots, even though I also have tens/hundreds of them. It can be really fast if you put them in PNG files and then quickly go through them using e.g. IrfanView (let me know if you need me to expand on this).
The reason you should inspect the traceplots is pretty well described by an example from Marc Kery (author of great Bayesian books): see "Never blindly trust Rhat for convergence in a Bayesian analysis", here I include a self explanatory image from this email:
This is related to Rhat statistics while I use psrf, but it's pretty likely that psrf suffers from this too... and better to check the chains.
*) Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Stat. Sci. 7, 457–472 (1992).
At the moment, my problem has four metrics. Each of these measures something entirely different (each has different units, a different range, etc.) and each is weighted externally. I am using Drools for scoring.
I only have only one score level (SimpleLongScore) and I have to find a way to appropriately combine the individual scores of these metrics onto one long value
The most significant problem at the moment is that the range of values for the metrics can be wildly different.
So if, for example, after a move the score of a metric with a small possible range improves by, say, 10%, that could be completely dwarfed by an alternate move which improves the metric with a larger range's score by only 1% because OptaPlanner only considers the actual score value rather than the possible range of values and how changes affect them proportionally (to my knowledge).
So, is there a way to handle this cleanly which is already part of OptaPlanner that I cannot find?
Is the only feasible solution to implement Pareto scoring? Because that seems like a hack-y nightmare.
So far I have code/math to compute the best-possible and worst-possible scores for a metric that I access from within the Drools and then I can compute where in that range a move puts us, but this also feel quite hack-y and will cause issues with incremental scoring if we want to scale non-linearly within that range.
I keep coming back to thinking I should just just bite the bullet and implement Pareto scoring.
Thanks!
Take a look at #ConstraintConfiguration and #ConstraintWeight in the docs.
Also take a look at the chapter "explaning the score", which can exactly tell you which constraint had which score impact on the best solution found.
If, however, you need pareto optimization, so you need multiple best solutions that don't dominate each other, then know that OptaPlanner doesn't support that yet, but I know of 2 cases that implemented it in OptaPlanner by hacking BestSolutionRecaller.
That being said, 99% of the cases that think of pareto optimization, are 100% happy with #ConstraintWeight instead, because users don't want multiple best solutions (except during simulations), they just want one in production.
In MiniZinc it is possible to use the search annotation impact, it is explained as follows on the official website:
annotation impact
Choose the variable with the highest impact so far during the search
What does this mean in practice? What is the highest impact? How is this calculated?
To understand the impact based variable selection, you have to understand first_fail. In constraint programming we generally want to solve the hardest sub-problem first, failing quickly if no solution can be found. The problem with first_fail is that it doesn't take into account the number of constraints that a variable is involved in, more would indicate that the a decision for the variable "harder", or the effect that choices on the variable had in other parts of the search-tree.
As a sidenote, dom_w_deg is can be seen as compromise between first_fail and impact, where the constraints are taken into account, but the past decision are not.
impact variable selection is supposed to be an improvement on first_fail where not just domain sizes are considered, but also the constraints it's involved in and how much "impact" historical choices had. The variable with the highest impact is the one that is expected to be the hardest to assign the right value, taking all of this information into account.
As you've seen, MiniZinc does not provide an exact specification of how the variable choice has to made. It is up to solver implementer to select a heuristic that fit the solver. Note that it would be hard to provide an exact heuristic guideline as it would heavily depend on how the solver tracks its variables and constraints.
For ideas on possible implementations of impact based heuristics, I would suggest reading the paper "On the Efficiency of Impact Based Heuristics" by Marco Correia and Pedro Barahona. You can also check your specific MiniZinc/FlatZinc solver for their implementation of the heuristic.