I understand that there is an error with dimensions in line dr=(r-v*v/2)*dT . But I have little knowledge of Matlab. Help to fix it, please. The code is small and simple. Maybe someone will find time to look
function [optionPrice] = upAndOutCallOption(S,r,v,x,b,T,dT)
t = 0;
dr=[];
pert=[];
while (t < T) & (S < b)
t = t + dT;
dr = (r - v.*v./2).*dT;
pert = v.*sqrt( dT ).*randn();
S = S.*exp(dr + pert);
end
if S<b
% Within barrier, so price as for a European option.
optionPrice = exp(-r.*T).* max(0, S - x);
else
% Hit the barrier, so the option is withdrawn.
optionPrice = 0;
end
end
Call from another function of this kind:
for k=1:amountOfOptions
[optionPrices(k)] = upAndOutCallOption(stockPrice(k)*o,riskFreeRate(k)*o,... volatility(k)*o, strike(k)*o, barrier(k)*o, timeToExpiry(k)*o, sampleRate(k)*o);
result(k) = mean(optionPrices(k));
end
Therefore, any difficulties.
It's good that you know the problem is within dr = (r - v.*v./2).*dT;. The command itself has many possible problems which also related to dimensions:
Here you are doing element-wise multiplication (because of the .*) with matrices, which requires (in the case of your command) that r has the same number of rows AND columns as v (since because of element-wise, v.*v/2 has the same size as v).
Moreover, it is unnecessary to do element-wise division with scalar number, that means there is no need to have ./2 in Matlab.
And, finally, since it's element-wise multiplication again, the matrix (r - v.*v./2) must also have the same number of rows and columns as matrix dT.
Check here for more information about Matlab's matrix operations.
Related
So after beating my head against the wall for a few hours, I looked online for a solution to my problem, and it worked great. I just want to know what caused the issue with the way I was originally going about it.
here are some more details. The input is a 20x20px image from the MNIST datset, and there are 5000 samples, so X, or A1 is 5000x400. There are 25 nodes in the single hidden layer. The output is a one hot vector of 0-9 digits. y (not Y, which is the one hot encoding of y) is a 5000x1 vector with the value of 1-10.
Here was my original code for the cost function:
Y = zeros(m, num_labels);
for i = 1:m
Y(i, y(i)) = 1;
endfor
H = sigmoid(Theta2*[ones(1,m);sigmoid(Theta1*[ones(m, 1) X]'))
J = (1/m) * sum(sum((-Y*log(H]))' - (1-Y)*log(1-H]))')))
But then I found this:
A1 = [ones(m, 1) X];
Z2 = A1 * Theta1';
A2 = [ones(size(Z2, 1), 1) sigmoid(Z2)];
Z3 = A2*Theta2';
H = A3 = sigmoid(Z3);
J = (1/m)*sum(sum((-Y).*log(H) - (1-Y).*log(1-H), 2));
I see that this may be slightly cleaner, but what functionally causes my original code to get 304.88 and the other to get ~ 0.25? Is it the element wise multiplication?
FYI, this is the same problem as this question if you need the formal equation written out.
Thanks for any help I can get! I really want to understand where I'm going wrong
Transfer from the comments:
With a quick look, in J = (1/m) * sum(sum((-Y*log(H]))' - (1-Y)*log(1-H]))'))) there is definetely something going on with the parenthesis, but probably on how you pasted it here, not with the original code as this would throw an error when you run it. If I understand correctly and Y, H are matrices, then in your 1st version Y*log(H) is matrix multiplication while in the 2nd version Y.*log(H) is an entrywise multiplication (not matrix-multiplication, just c(i,j)=a(i,j)*b(i,j) ).
Update 1:
In regards to your question in the comment.
From the first screenshot, you represent each value yk(i) in the entry Y(i,k) of the Y matrix and each value h(x^(i))k as H(i,k). So basically, for each i,k you want to compute Y(i,k) log(H(i,k)) + (1-Y(i,k)) log(1-H(i,k)). You can do it for all the values together and store the result in matrix C. Then C = Y.*log(H) + (1-Y).*log(1-H) and each C(i,k) has the above mentioned value. This is an operation .* because you want to do the operation for each element (i,k) of each matrix (in contrast to multiplying the matrices which is totally different). Afterwards, to get the sum of all the values inside the 2D dimensional matrix C, you use the octave function sum twice: sum(sum(C)) to sum both columnwise and row-wise (or as # Irreducible suggested, just sum(C(:))).
Note there may be other errors as well.
I am getting confused on how to properly set up this equation. To find a value of V(i,j). The end result would be plotting V over time. I understand that there needs to be loops to allow this equation to work, however I am lost when it comes to setting it up. Basically I am trying to take the sum from n=1 to infinity of (1-(-1)^n)/(n^4 *pi^4)*sin((n*pi*c*j)/L)*sin((n*pi*i)/L)
I originally thought that I should make it a while loop to increment n by 1 until I reach say 10 or so just to get an idea of what the output would look like. All of the variables were unknown and values were added again to see what the plot would look like.
I have down another code where the equation is just dependent on i and j. However with this n term, I am thrown off. Any advice would be great as to setting up the equation. Thank you.
L=10;
x=linspace(0,L,30);
t1= 50;
X=30;
p=1
c=t1/1000;
V=zeros(X,t1);
V(1,:)=0;
V(30,:)=0;
R=((4*p*L^3)/c);
n=1;
t=1:50;
while n < 10
for i=1:31
for j=1:50
V(i,j)=R*sum((1-(-1)^n)/(n^4 *pi^4)*sin((n*pi*c*j)/L)*sin((n*pi*i)/L));
end
end
n=n+1;
end
figure(1)
plot(V(i,j),t)
Various ways of doing so:
1) Computing the sum up to one Nmax in one shot:
Nmax = 30;
Vijn = #(i,j,n) R*((1-(-1)^n)/(n^4 *pi^4)*sin((n*pi*c*j)/L)*sin((n*pi*i)/L));
i = 1:31;
j = 1:50;
n = 1:Nmax;
[I,J,N] = ndgrid(i,j,n);
V = arrayfun(Vijn,I,J,N);
Vc = cumsum(V,3);
% now Vc(:,:,k) is sum_n=1^{k+1} V(i,j,n)
figure(1);clf;imagesc(Vc(:,:,end));
2) Looping indefinitely
n = 1;
V = 0;
i = 1:31;
j = 1:50;
[I,J] = meshgrid(i,j);
while true
V = V + R*((1-(-1)^n)/(n^4 *pi^4)*sin((n*pi*c*J)/L).*sin((n*pi*I)/L));
n = n + 1;
figure(1);clf;
imagesc(V);
title(sprintf('N = %d',n))
drawnow;
pause(0.25);
end
Note that in your example you won't need many terms, since:
Every second term is zero (for even n, the term 1-(-1)^n is zero).
The terms decay with 1/n^4. In norms: n=1 contributes ~2e4, n=3 contributes ~4e2, n=5 contributes 5e1, n=7 contributes ~14, etc. Visually, there is a small difference between n=1 and n=1+n=3 but barely a noticeable one for n=1+n=3+n=5.
Given that so few terms are needed, the first approach is probably the better one. Also, skip the even indices, as you don't need them.
I have a 30x30 matrix as a base matrix (OD_b1), I also have two base vectors (bg and Ag). My aim is to optimize a matrix (X) who's dimensions are 30X30 such that:
1) the squared difference between vector (bg) and vector of sum of all the columns is minimized.
2)the squared difference between vector (Ag) and vector of sum of all rows is minimized.
3)the squared difference between the elements of matrix (X) and matrix (OD_b1) is minimized.
The mathematical form of the equation is as follows:
I have tried this:
fun=#(X)transpose(bg-sum(X,2))*(bg-sum(X,2))+ (Ag-sum(X,1))*transpose(Ag-sum(X,1))+sumsqr(X_b-X);
[val,X]=fmincon(fun,OD_b1,AA,BB,Aeq,beq,LB,UB)
I don't get errors but it seems like it's stuck.
Is it because I have too many variables or is there another reason?
Thanks in advance
This is a simple, unconstrained least squares problem and hence has a simple solution that can be expressed as the solution to a linear system.
I will show you (1) the precise and efficient way to solve this and (2) how to solve with fmincon.
The precise, efficient solution:
Problem setup
Just so we're on the same page, I initialize the variables as follows:
n = 30;
Ag = randn(n, 1); % observe the dimensions
X_b = randn(n, n);
bg = randn(n, 1);
The code:
A1 = kron(ones(1,n), eye(n));
A2 = kron(eye(n), ones(1,n));
A = (A1'*A1 + A2'*A2 + eye(n^2));
b = A1'*bg + A2'*Ag + X_b(:);
x = A \ b; % solves A*x = b
Xstar = reshape(x, n, n);
Why it works:
I first reformulated your problem so the objective is a vector x, not a matrix X. Observe that z = bg - sum(X,2) is equivalent to:
x = X(:) % vectorize X
A1 = kron(ones(1,n), eye(n)); % creates a special matrix that sums up
% stuff appropriately
z = A1*x;
Similarly, A2 is setup so that A2*x is equivalent to Ag'-sum(X,1). Your problem is then equivalent to:
minimize (over x) (bg - A1*x)'*(bg - A1*x) + (Ag - A2*x)'*(Ag - A2*x) + (y - x)'*(y-x) where y = Xb(:). That is, y is a vectorized version of Xb.
This problem is convex and the first order condition is a necessary and sufficient condition for the optimum. Take the derivative with respect to x and that equation will define your solution! Sample example math for almost equivalent (but slightly simpler problem is below):
minimize(over x) (b - A*x)'*(b - A*x) + (y - x)' * (y - x)
rewriting the objective:
b'b- b'Ax - x'A'b + x'A'Ax +y'y - 2y'x+x'x
Is equivalent to:
minimize(over x) (-2 b'A - 2y'*I) x + x' ( A'A + I) * x
the first order condition is:
(A'A+I+(A'A+I)')x -2A'b-2I'y = 0
(A'A+I) x = A'b+I'y
Your problem is essentially the same. It has the first order condition:
(A1'*A1 + A2'*A2 + I)*x = A1'*bg + A2'*Ag + y
How to solve with fmincon
You can do the following:
f = #(X) transpose(bg-sum(X,2))*(bg-sum(X,2)) + (Ag'-sum(X,1))*transpose(Ag'-sum(X,1))+sum(sum((X_b-X).^2));
o = optimoptions('fmincon');%MaxFunEvals',30000);
o.MaxFunEvals = 30000;
Xstar2 = fmincon(f,zeros(n,n),[],[],[],[],[],[],[],o);
You can then check the answers are about the same with:
normdif = norm(Xstar - Xstar2)
And you can see that gap is small, but that the linear algebra based solution is somewhat more precise:
gap = f(Xstar2) - f(Xstar)
If the fmincon approach hangs, try it with a smaller n just to gain confidence that my linear algebra based solution is more precise, way way faster etc... n = 30 is solving a 30^2 = 900 variable optimization problem: not easy. With the linear algebra approach, you can go up to n = 100 (i.e. 10000 variable problem) or even larger.
I would probably solve this as a QP using quadprog using the following reformulation (keeping the objective as simple as possible to make the problem "less nonlinear"):
min sum(i,v(i)^2)+sum(i,w(i)^2)+sum((i,j),z(i,j)^2)
v = bg - sum(c,x)
w = ag - sum(r,x)
Z = xbase-x
The QP solver is more precise (no gradients using finite differences). This approach also allows you to add additional bounds and linear equality and inequality constraints.
The other suggestion to form the first order conditions explicitly is also a good one: it also has no issue with imprecise gradients (the first order conditions are linear). I usually prefer a quadratic model because of its flexibility.
I need help finding an integral of a function using trapezoidal sums.
The program should take successive trapezoidal sums with n = 1, 2, 3, ...
subintervals until there are two neighouring values of n that differ by less than a given tolerance. I want at least one FOR loop within a WHILE loop and I don't want to use the trapz function. The program takes four inputs:
f: A function handle for a function of x.
a: A real number.
b: A real number larger than a.
tolerance: A real number that is positive and very small
The problem I have is trying to implement the formula for trapezoidal sums which is
Δx/2[y0 + 2y1 + 2y2 + … + 2yn-1 + yn]
Here is my code, and the area I'm stuck in is the "sum" part within the FOR loop. I'm trying to sum up 2y2 + 2y3....2yn-1 since I already accounted for 2y1. I get an answer, but it isn't as accurate as it should be. For example, I get 6.071717974723753 instead of 6.101605982576467.
Thanks for any help!
function t=trapintegral(f,a,b,tol)
format compact; format long;
syms x;
oldtrap = ((b-a)/2)*(f(a)+f(b));
n = 2;
h = (b-a)/n;
newtrap = (h/2)*(f(a)+(2*f(a+h))+f(b));
while (abs(newtrap-oldtrap)>=tol)
oldtrap = newtrap;
for i=[3:n]
dx = (b-a)/n;
trapezoidsum = (dx/2)*(f(x) + (2*sum(f(a+(3:n-1))))+f(b));
newtrap = trapezoidsum;
end
end
t = newtrap;
end
The reason why this code isn't working is because there are two slight errors in your summation for the trapezoidal rule. What I am precisely referring to is this statement:
trapezoidsum = (dx/2)*(f(x) + (2*sum(f(a+(3:n-1))))+f(b));
Recall the equation for the trapezoidal integration rule:
Source: Wikipedia
For the first error, f(x) should be f(a) as you are including the starting point, and shouldn't be left as symbolic. In fact, you should simply get rid of the syms x statement as it is not useful in your script. a corresponds to x1 by consulting the above equation.
The next error is the second term. You actually need to multiply your index values (3:n-1) by dx. Also, this should actually go from (1:n-1) and I'll explain later. The equation above goes from 2 to N, but for our purposes, we are going to go from 1 to N-1 as you have your code set up like that.
Remember, in the trapezoidal rule, you are subdividing the finite interval into n pieces. The ith piece is defined as:
x_i = a + dx*i; ,
where i goes from 1 up to N-1. Note that this starts at 1 and not 3. The reason why is because the first piece is already taken into account by f(a), and we only count up to N-1 as piece N is accounted by f(b). For the equation, this goes from 2 to N and by modifying the code this way, this is precisely what we are doing in the end.
Therefore, your statement actually needs to be:
trapezoidsum = (dx/2)*(f(a) + (2*sum(f(a+dx*(1:n-1))))+f(b));
Try this and let me know if you get the right answer. FWIW, MATLAB already implements trapezoidal integration by doing trapz as #ADonda already pointed out. However, you need to properly structure what your x and y values are before you set this up. In other words, you would need to set up your dx before hand, then calculate your x points using the x_i equation that I specified above, then use these to generate your y values. You then use trapz to calculate the area. In other words:
dx = (b-a) / n;
x = a + dx*(0:n);
y = f(x);
trapezoidsum = trapz(x,y);
You can use the above code as a reference to see if you are implementing the trapezoidal rule correctly. Your implementation and using the above code should generate the same results. All you have to do is change the value of n, then run this code to generate the approximation of the area for different subdivisions underneath your curve.
Edit - August 17th, 2014
I figured out why your code isn't working. Here are the reasons why:
The for loop is unnecessary. Take a look at the for loop iteration. You have a loop going from i = [3:n] yet you don't reference the i variable at all in your loop. As such, you don't need this at all.
You are not computing successive intervals properly. What you need to do is when you compute the trapezoidal sum for the nth subinterval, you then increment this value of n, then compute the trapezoidal rule again. This value is not being incremented properly in your while loop, which is why your area is never improving.
You need to save the previous area inside the while loop, then when you compute the next area, that's when you determine whether or not the difference between the areas is less than the tolerance. We can also get rid of that code at the beginning that tries and compute the area for n = 2. That's not needed, as we can place this inside your while loop. As such, this is what your code should look like:
function t=trapintegral(f,a,b,tol)
format long; %// Got rid of format compact. Useless
%// n starts at 2 - Also removed syms x - Useless statement
n = 2;
newtrap = ((b-a)/2)*(f(a) + f(b)); %// Initialize
oldtrap = 0; %// Initialize to 0
while (abs(newtrap-oldtrap)>=tol)
oldtrap = newtrap; %//Save the old area from the previous iteration
dx = (b-a)/n; %//Compute width
%//Determine sum
trapezoidsum = (dx/2)*(f(a) + (2*sum(f(a+dx*(1:n-1))))+f(b));
newtrap = trapezoidsum; % //This is the new sum
n = n + 1; % //Go to the next value of n
end
t = newtrap;
end
By running your code, this is what I get:
trapezoidsum = trapintegral(#(x) (x+x.^2).^(1/3),1,4,0.00001)
trapezoidsum =
6.111776299189033
Caveat
Look at the way I defined your function. You must use element-by-element operations as the sum command inside the loop will be vectorized. Take a look at the ^ operations specifically. You need to prepend a dot to the operations. Once you do this, I get the right answer.
Edit #2 - August 18th, 2014
You said you want at least one for loop. This is highly inefficient, and whoever specified having one for loop in the code really doesn't know how MATLAB works. Nevertheless, you can use the for loop to accumulate the sum term. As such:
function t=trapintegral(f,a,b,tol)
format long; %// Got rid of format compact. Useless
%// n starts at 3 - Also removed syms x - Useless statement
n = 3;
%// Compute for n = 2 first, then proceed if we don't get a better
%// difference tolerance
newtrap = ((b-a)/2)*(f(a) + f(b)); %// Initialize
oldtrap = 0; %// Initialize to 0
while (abs(newtrap-oldtrap)>=tol)
oldtrap = newtrap; %//Save the old area from the previous iteration
dx = (b-a)/n; %//Compute width
%//Determine sum
%// Initialize
trapezoidsum = (dx/2)*(f(a) + f(b));
%// Accumulate sum terms
%// Note that we multiply each term by (dx/2), but because of the
%// factor of 2 for each of these terms, these cancel and we thus have dx
for n2 = 1 : n-1
trapezoidsum = trapezoidsum + dx*f(a + dx*n2);
end
newtrap = trapezoidsum; % //This is the new sum
n = n + 1; % //Go to the next value of n
end
t = newtrap;
end
Good luck!
Suppose I have a vector J of jump sizes and an initial starting point X_0. Also I have boundaries 0, B (assume 0 < X_0 < B). I want to do a random walk where X_i = [min(X_{i-1} + J_i,B)]^+. (positive part). Basically if it goes over a boundary, it is made equal to the boundary. Anyone know a vectorized way to do this? The current way I am doing it consists of doing cumsums and then finding places where it violates a condition, and then starting from there and repeating the cumsum calculation, etc until I find that I stop violating the boundaries. It works when the boundaries are rarely hit, but if they are hit all the time, it basically becomes a for loop.
In the code below, I am doing this across many samples. To 'fix' the ones that go out of the boundary, I have to loop through the samples to check...(don't think there is a vectorized 'find')
% X_init is a row vector describing initial resource values to use for
% each sample
% J is matrix where each col is a sequence of Jumps (columns = sample #)
% In this code the jumps are subtracted, but same thing
X_intvl = repmat(X_init,NumJumps,1) - cumsum(J);
X = [X_init; X_intvl];
for sample = 1:NumSamples
k = find(or(X_intvl(:,sample) > B, X_intvl(:,sample) < 0),1);
while(~isempty(k))
change = X_intvl(k-1,sample) - X_intvl(k,sample);
X_intvl(k:end,sample) = X_intvl(k:end,sample)+change;
k = find(or(X_intvl(:,sample) > B, X_intvl(:,sample) < 0),1);
end
end
Interesting question (+1).
I faced a similar problem a while back, although slightly more complex as my lower and upper bound depended on t. I never did work out a fully-vectorized solution. In the end, the fastest solution I found was a single loop which incorporates the constraints at each step. Adapting the code to your situation yields the following:
%# Set the parameters
LB = 0; %# Lower bound
UB = 5; %# Upper bound
T = 100; %# Number of observations
N = 3; %# Number of samples
X0 = (1/2) * (LB + UB); %# Arbitrary start point halfway between LB and UB
%# Generate the jumps
Jump = randn(N, T-1);
%# Build the constrained random walk
X = X0 * ones(N, T);
for t = 2:T
X(:, t) = max(min(X(:, t-1) + Jump(:, t-1), UB), 0);
end
X = X';
I would be interested in hearing if this method proves faster than what you are currently doing. I suspect it will be for cases where the constraint is binding in more than one or two places. I can't test it myself as the code you provided is not a "working" example, ie I can't just copy and paste it into Matlab and run it, as it depends on several variables for which example (or simulated) values are not provided. I tried adapting it myself, but couldn't get it to work properly?
UPDATE: I just switched the code around so that observations are indexed on columns and samples are indexed on rows, and then I transpose X in the last step. This will make the routine more efficient, since Matlab allocates memory for numeric arrays column-wise - hence it is faster when performing operations down the columns of an array (as opposed to across the rows). Note, you will only notice the speed-up for large N.
FINAL THOUGHT: These days, the JIT accelerator is very good at making single loops in Matlab efficient (double loops are still pretty slow). Therefore personally I'm of the opinion that every time you try and obtain a fully-vectorized solution in Matlab, ie no loops, you should weigh up whether the effort involved in finding a clever solution is worth the slight gains in efficiency to be made over an easier-to-obtain method that utilizes a single loop. And it is important to remember that fully-vectorized solutions are sometimes slower than solutions involving single loops when T and N are small!
I'd like to propose another vectorized solution.
So, first we should set the parameters and generate random Jumpls. I used the same set of parameters as Colin T Bowers:
% Set the parameters
LB = 0; % Lower bound
UB = 20; % Upper bound
T = 1000; % Number of observations
N = 3; % Number of samples
X0 = (1/2) * (UB + LB); % Arbitrary start point halfway between LB and UB
% Generate the jumps
Jump = randn(N, T-1);
But I changed generation code:
% Generate initial data without bounds
X = cumsum(Jump, 2);
% Apply bounds
Amplitude = UB - LB;
nsteps = ceil( max(abs(X(:))) / Amplitude - 0.5 );
for ii = 1:nsteps
ind = abs(X) > (1/2) * Amplitude;
X(ind) = Amplitude * sign(X(ind)) - X(ind);
end
% Shifting X
X = X0 + X;
So, instead of for loop I'm using cumsum function with smart post-processing.
N.B. This solution works significantly slower than Colin T Bowers's one for tight bounds (Amplitude < 5), but for loose bounds (Amplitude > 20) it works much faster.