The problem I'm trying to solve is about the best allocation for electric vehicles (EVs) in the electrical power grid. My grid has 20 possible positions (busbar) allowed to receive one EV each. Each chromosome has length 20 and its genes can be 0 or 1, where 0 means no EV and 1 means there´s an EV at that position (busbar).
I start my population (100 individuals) with a fixed number of EVs (5, for instance) allocated randomly. And let them evolve through my GA. The GA utilizes tournament selection, 2-points crossover and flip-bit mutation. Each chromosome/individual is evaluated through a fitness function that calculate the power losses between bars (sum of RI^2). The best chromosome is the one with the lowest power losses.
The problem is that utilizing 2-points crossover and flip-bit mutation changes the fixed number of EVs that must be in the grid. I would like to know what are the best techniques for my GA operations. Besides this, I get this weird looking graphic of the most fitness chromosome throughout generations 1
I would appreciate any help/suggestions. Thanks.
You want to define your state space in such a way where the mutations you've chosen can't create an illegal configuration.
This is probably not a great fit for a genetic algorithm. If you want to pick 5 from 20, there are ~15k possibilities. Testing a population of 100 over 50 generations already gives you enough computations to have done 1/3 of the brute force work.
If you have N EV to assign on your grid, you can use chromosomes of size N, each gene being an integer representing the position of an EV. For the crossover, you first need to separate the values that are the same in both parents from the rest and apply a classic (1 or 2 points) crossover on the parts that differ, and mutate a gene randomly picking a valid available position.
Related
I am using a GLMM model to determine differences in soil compaction across 3 locations and 2 seasons in undisturbed and disturbed sites. I used location and seas as random effects. My teacher says to use the compaction reading divided by its upper bound as the Y value against the different sites (fixed effect). (I was previously using disturbed and undisturbed sites as 1,0 as Y against the compaction reading - so the opposite way around.) The random variables are minimal. I was using both glmer (glmer to determine AIC and therefore best model fit (but this cannot be done in glmmPQL)) while glmmPQL provides all amounts of variation which glmer does not. So while these outcomes are very similar when using disturbed and undisturbed as Y (as well as matching the graphs) only glmmPQL is similar to the graphs when using proportion of compaction reading. glmer using proportions is totally different. Additionally my teacher says I need to validate my model choice with a chi-squared value and if over-dispersed use a quasi binomial. But I cannot find any way to do this in glmmPQL and with glmer showing strange results using proportions as Y I am unsure if this is correct. I also cannot use quasi binomial in either glmer or glmmPQL.
My response was the compaction reading which is measured from 0 to 6 (kg per cm squared) inclusive. The explanatory variable was Type (diff soil either disturbed and not disturbed = 4 categories because some were artificially disturbed to pull out differences). All compaction readings were divided by 6 to make them a proportion and so a continuous variable bounded by 0 and 1 but containing values of both 0 and 1. (I also tried the reverse and coded disturbed as 1 and undisturbed as 0 and compared these groups separately across all Types (due to 4 Types) and left compaction readings as original). Using glmer with code:
model1 <- glmer(comp/6 ~ Type +(1|Loc/Seas), data=mydata,
family = "binomial")
model2 <- glmer(comp/6~Type +(1|Loc) , data=mydata, family="binomial")
and using glmmPQL:
mod1 <-glmmPQL(comp/6~Type, random=~1|Loc, family = binomial, data=mydata)
mod2 <- glmmPQL(comp/6~Type, random=~1|Loc/Seas, family = binomial, data=mydata)
I could compare models in glmer but not in glmmPQL but the latter gave me the variance for all random effects plus residual variance whereas glmer did not provide the residual variance (so was left wondering what was the total amount and what proportion were these random effects responsible for)
When I used glmer this way, the results were completely different to glmmPQL as in no there was no sig difference at all in glmer but very much a sig diff in glmmPQL. (However if I do the reverse and code by disturbed and undisturbed these do provide similar results between glmer and glmmPQL and what is suggested by the graphs - but my supervisor said this is not strictly correct (eg: mod3 <- glmmPQL(Status~compaction, random=~1|Loc/Seas, family = binomial, data=mydata) where Status is 1 or 0 according to disturbed or undisturbed) plus my supervisor would like me to provide a chi squared goodness of fit for the model chosen - so can only use glmer here ?). Additionally, the random effects variance is minimal, and glmer model choice removes these as non significant (although keeping one in provides a smaller AIC). Removing them (as suggested by the chi-squared test (but not AIC) and running as only a glm is consistent to both results from glmmPQL and what is observed on the graph. Sorry if this seems very pedantic, but I am trying to do what is correct for my supervisor and for the species I am researching. I know there are differences.. they are seen, observed, eyeballing the data suggests so and so do the graphs.. Maybe I should just run the glm ? Thank you for answering me. I will find some output to post.
This question combines math and programming. I will first describe the general problem and then give an example that is (hopefully) simpler to understand.
General Question: Consider a Markov-chain process of N-states with transition matrix Π. Each state is associated with a value x_n (n in {1,…,n}). Our goal is to find the unconditional average of the first two moments (mean and var) along T-period paths conditional on (i) the path starts in a subset of states, N_0, (ii) it ends in a subset of states, N_T, and (iii) it is not going through a subset of states, N_not, in any of the periods between 1 to T-1. By saying we are interested in the unconditional average of these two moments, I basically mean what would be the average of these two moments in the stationary distribution. To be more concrete, let me illustrate the goal of the exercise in a simple case.
Simple Example: Consider a 3-state Markov-chain process with transition matrix Π, and let the three state be denoted by A, B, and C. Each of these states are associated with some value (x_A, x_B, and x_C), respectively. We are interested in what happens along paths that satisfy the following condition. The path starts at point A, after 3 periods are in either points B or C, and between periods 1 to 3 never go again through point A. Denote this condition by (#). So, for example, a path which we are interested in would be {A,B,B,C} with the associated values {x_A, x_B, x_B, x_C}. We are interested in the average and standard deviation along such paths. In particular, we would like to find the unconditional average of these first two moments in paths that satisfy (#).
Let me now propose a solution based on simulating the process. Since both T and N are quite large, this solution is too slow for my purpose.
Simulation Solution: Starting from some initial point simulate the process for a very long time period, and drop the first τ periods. Extract all paths along the simulation that satisfy condition (#) and compute the mean and std along each of these paths. Finally, simply take the average across these paths.
I’m hoping there is a better and more efficient way to achieve the goal. Since I want the solution to be accurate and the size of T and N the simulation takes a long time.
I would love to hear your thoughts and if you know of efficient methods to achieve this goal. Please let me know if something is not clear and I'll try to clarify it.
Thank you!!!
I think I know how to do this if N_0 consists of one state, let's call that state A.
The long run probability of being in A is pi(A) and can be obtained by solving pi = pi*P, with P the transition matrix.
The other thing you need to calculate is the probability of those transient paths. You probably need to introduce a modified P, where all states i in the set N_not are absorbing (i.e. P[i,i]=1 and P[i,j]=0 for j is not i). Then starting from a vector p(0) which has a 1 in the element corresponding to state A and 0 otherwise, you can keep calculating p(n) = p(n-1)*P to get the probabilities of your transient paths.
Multiply the result of that by pi(A) to get the unconditional probability.
You can probably do something like this as well when N_0 is a set, but I don't know how you should select p(0) in that case.
I've read a few ideas on the correct sample size for Feed Forward Neural networks. x5, x10, and x30 the # of weights. This part I'm not overly concerned about, what I am concerned about is can I reuse my training data (randomly).
My data is broken up like so
5 independent vars and 1 dependent var per sample.
I was planning on feeding 6 samples in (6x5 = 30 input neurons), confirm the 7th samples dependent variable (1 output neuron.
I would train on neural network by running say 6 or 7 iterations. before trying to predict the next iteration outside of my training data.
Say I have
each sample = 5 independent variables & 1 dependent variables (6 vars total per sample)
output = just the 1 dependent variable
sample:sample:sample:sample:sample:sample->output(dependent var)
Training sliding window 1:
Set 1: 1:2:3:4:5:6->7
Set 2: 2:3:4:5:6:7->8
Set 3: 3:4:5:6:7:8->9
Set 4: 4:5:6:7:8:9->10
Set 5: 5:6:7:6:9:10->11
Set 6: 6:7:8:9:10:11->12
Non training test:
7:8:9:10:11:12 -> 13
Training Sliding Window 2:
Set 1: 2:3:4:5:6:7->8
Set 2: 3:4:5:6:7:8->9
...
Set 6: 7:8:9:10:11:12->13
Non Training test: 8:9:10:11:12:13->14
I figured I would randomly run through my set's per training iteration say 30 times the number of my weights. I believe in my network I have about 6 hidden neurons (i.e. sqrt(inputs*outputs)). So 36 + 6 + 1 + 2 bias = 45 weights. So 44 x 30 = 1200 runs?
So I would do a randomization of the 6 sets 1200 times per training sliding window.
I figured due to the small # of data, I was going to do simulation runs (i.e. rerun over the same problem with new weights). So say 1000 times, of which I do 1140 runs over the sliding window using randomization.
I have 113 variables, this results in 101 training "sliding window".
Another question I have is if I'm trying to predict up or down movement (i.e. dependent variable). Should I match to an actual # or just if I guessed up/down movement correctly? I'm thinking I should shoot for an actual number, but as part of my analysis do a % check on if this # is guessed correctly as up/down.
If you have a small amount of data, and a comparatively large number of training iterations, you run the risk of "overtraining" - creating a function which works very well on your test data but does not generalize.
The best way to avoid this is to acquire more training data! But if you cannot, then there are two things you can do. One is to split the training data into test and verification data - using say 85% to train and 15% to verify. Verification means compute the fitness of the learner on the training set, without adjusting the weights/training. When the verification data fitness (which you are not training on) stops improving (in general it will be noisy), and your training data fitness continues improving - stop training. If on the other hand you use a "sliding window", you may not have a good criterion to know when to stop training - the fitness function will bounce around in unpredictable ways (you might slowly make the effect of each training iteration have less effect on the parameters, however, to give you convergence... maybe not the best approach but some training regimes do this) The other thing you can do normalize out your node's weights via some metric to ensure some notion of 'smoothness' - if you visualize overfitting for a second you'll find that in the extreme case your fitness function sharply curves around your dataset positives...
As for the latter question - for the training to converge, you fitness function needs to be smooth. If you were to just use binary all-or-nothing fitness terms, most likely what would happen is that whatever algorithm you are using to train (backprop, BGFS, etc...) would not converge. In practice, the classification criterion should be an activation that is above for a positive result, less than or equal to for a negative result, and varies smoothly in your weight/parameter space. You can think of 0 as "I am certain that the answer is up" and 1 as "I am certain that the answer is down", and thus realize a fitness function that has a higher "cost" for incorrect guesses that were more certain... There are subtleties possible in how the function is shaped (for example you might have different ideas about how acceptable a false negative and false positive are) - and you may also introduce regions of "uncertain" where the result is closer to "zero weight" - but it should certainly be continuous/smooth.
You can re-use sliding window's.
It basically the same concept as bootstrapping (your training set); which in itself reduces training time, but don't know if it's really helpful in making the net more adaptive to anything other than the training data.
Below is an example of a sliding window in pictorial format (using spreadsheet magic)
http://i.imgur.com/nxhtgaQ.png
https://github.com/thistleknot/FredAPI/blob/05f74faf85d15f6898aa05b9b08d5363fe27c473/FredAPI/Program.cs
Line 294 shows how the code is ran using randomization, it resets the randomization at position 353 so the rest flows as normal.
I was also able to use a 1 (up) or 0 (down) as my target values and the network did converge.
How to use Morton Order in range search?
From the wiki, In the paragraph "Use with one-dimensional data structures for range searching",
it says
"the range being queried (x = 2, ..., 3, y = 2, ..., 6) is indicated
by the dotted rectangle. Its highest Z-value (MAX) is 45. In this
example, the value F = 19 is encountered when searching a data
structure in increasing Z-value direction. ......BIGMIN (36 in the
example).....only search in the interval between BIGMIN and MAX...."
My questions are:
1) why the F is 19? Why the F should not be 16?
2) How to get the BIGMIN?
3) Are there any web blogs demonstrate how to do the range search?
EDIT: The AWS Database Blog now has a detailed introduction to this subject.
This blog post does a reasonable job of illustrating the process.
When searching the rectangular space x=[2,3], y=[2,6]:
The minimum Z Value (12) is found by interleaving the bits of the lowest x and y values: 2 and 2, respectively.
The maximum Z value (45) is found by interleaving the bits of the highest x and y values: 3 and 6, respectively.
Having found the min and max Z values (12 and 45), we now have a linear range that we can iterate across that is guaranteed to contain all of the entries inside of our rectangular space. The data within the linear range is going to be a superset of the data we actually care about: the data in the rectangular space. If we simply iterate across the entire range, we are going to find all of the data we care about and then some. You can test each value you visit to see if it's relevant or not.
An obvious optimization is to try to minimize the amount of superfluous data that you must traverse. This is largely a function of the number of 'seams' that you cross in the data -- places where the 'Z' curve has to make large jumps to continue its path (e.g. from Z value 31 to 32 below).
This can be mitigated by employing the BIGMIN and LITMAX functions to identify these seams and navigate back to the rectangle. To minimize the amount of irrelevant data we evaluate, we can:
Keep a count of the number of consecutive pieces of junk data we've visited.
Decide on a maximum allowable value (maxConsecutiveJunkData) for this count. The blog post linked at the top uses 3 for this value.
If we encounter maxConsecutiveJunkData pieces of irrelevant data in a row, we initiate BIGMIN and LITMAX. Importantly, at the point at which we've decided to use them, we're now somewhere within our linear search space (Z values 12 to 45) but outside the rectangular search space. In the Wikipedia article, they appear to have chosen a maxConsecutiveJunkData value of 4; they started at Z=12 and walked until they were 4 values outside of the rectangle (beyond 15) before deciding that it was now time to use BIGMIN. Because maxConsecutiveJunkData is left to your tastes, BIGMIN can be used on any value in the linear range (Z values 12 to 45). Somewhat confusingly, the article only shows the area from 19 on as crosshatched because that is the subrange of the search that will be optimized out when we use BIGMIN with a maxConsecutiveJunkData of 4.
When we realize that we've wandered outside of the rectangle too far, we can conclude that the rectangle in non-contiguous. BIGMIN and LITMAX are used to identify the nature of the split. BIGMIN is designed to, given any value in the linear search space (e.g. 19), find the next smallest value that will be back inside the half of the split rectangle with larger Z values (i.e. jumping us from 19 to 36). LITMAX is similar, helping us to find the largest value that will be inside the half of the split rectangle with smaller Z values. The implementations of BIGMIN and LITMAX are explained in depth in the zdivide function explanation in the linked blog post.
It appears that the quoted example in the Wikipedia article has not been edited to clarify the context and assumptions. The approach used in that example is applicable to linear data structures that only allow sequential (forward and backward) seeking; that is, it is assumed that one cannot randomly seek to a storage cell in constant time using its morton index alone.
With that constraint, one's strategy begins with a full range that is the mininum morton index (16) and the maximum morton index (45). To make optimizations, one tries to find and eliminate large swaths of subranges that are outside the query rectangle. The hatched area in the diagram refers to what would have been accessed (sequentially) if such optimization (eliminating subranges) had not been applied.
After discussing the main optimization strategy for linear sequential data structures, it goes on to talk about other data structures with better seeking capability.
I'm working on a feed forward artificial neural network (ffann) that will take input in form of a simple calculation and return the result (acting as a pocket calculator). The outcome wont be exact.
The artificial network is trained using genetic algorithm on the weights.
Currently my program gets stuck at a local maximum at:
5-6% correct answers, with 1% error margin
30 % correct answers, with 10% error margin
40 % correct answers, with 20% error margin
45 % correct answers, with 30% error margin
60 % correct answers, with 40% error margin
I currently use two different genetic algorithms:
The first is a basic selection, picking two random from my population, naming the one with best fitness the winner, and the other the loser. The loser receives one of the weights from the winner.
The second is mutation, where the loser from the selection receives a slight modification based on the amount of resulting errors. (the fitness is decided by correct answers and incorrect answers).
So if the network outputs a lot of errors, it will receive a big modification, where as if it has many correct answers, we are close to a acceptable goal and the modification will be smaller.
So to the question: What are ways I can prevent my ffann from getting stuck at local maxima?
Should I modify my current genetic algorithm to something more advanced with more variables?
Should I create additional mutation or crossover?
Or Should I maybe try and modify my mutation variables to something bigger/smaller?
This is a big topic so if I missed any information that could be needed, please leave a comment
Edit:
Tweaking the numbers of the mutation to a more suited value has gotten be a better answer rate but far from approved:
10% correct answers, with 1% error margin
33 % correct answers, with 10% error margin
43 % correct answers, with 20% error margin
65 % correct answers, with 30% error margin
73 % correct answers, with 40% error margin
The network is currently a very simple 3 layered structure with 3 inputs, 2 neurons in the only hidden layer, and a single neuron in the output layer.
The activation function used is Tanh, placing values in between -1 and 1.
The selection type crossover is very simple working like the following:
[a1, b1, c1, d1] // Selected as winner due to most correct answers
[a2, b2, c2, d2] // Loser
The loser will end up receiving one of the values from the winner, moving the value straight down since I believe the position in the array (of weights) matters to how it performs.
The mutation is very simple, adding a very small value (currently somewhere between about 0.01 and 0.001) to a random weight in the losers array of weights, with a 50/50 chance of being a negative value.
Here are a few examples of training data:
1, 8, -7 // the -7 represents + (1+8)
3, 7, -3 // -3 represents - (3-7)
7, 7, 3 // 3 represents * (7*7)
3, 8, 7 // 7 represents / (3/8)
Use a niching techniche in the GA. A useful alternative is niching. The score of every solution (some form of quadratic error, I think) is changed in taking account similarity of the entire population. This maintains diversity inside the population and avoid premature convergence an traps into local optimum.
Take a look here:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.100.7342
A common problem when using GAs to train ANNs is that the population becomes highly correlated
as training progresses.
You could try increasing mutation chance and/or effect as the error-change decreases.
In English. The population becomes genetically similar due to crossover and fitness selection as a local minim is approached. You can introduce variation by increasing the chance of mutation.
You can do a simple modification to the selection scheme: the population can be viewed as having a 1-dimensional spatial structure - a circle (consider the first and last locations to be adjacent).
The production of an individual for location i is permitted to involve only parents from i's local neighborhood, where the neighborhood is defined as all individuals within distance R of i. Aside from this restriction no changes are made to the genetic system.
It's only one or a few lines of code and it can help to avoid premature convergence.
References:
TRIVIAL GEOGRAPHY IN GENETIC PROGRAMMING (2005) - Lee Spector, Jon Klein