The QP problem is convex. For Wiki, the problem can be solved in polynomial time.
But what exactly is the order?
That is an interesting question with (in my opinion) no clear answer. I am going to assume your problem is convex and you are interested in run-time complexity (as opposed to Iteration complexity).
As you may know, QuadProg is not one algorithm but rather, a generic name for something that solves Quadratic problems. It uses a set of algorithms underneath viz. Interior Point (Default), Trust-Region and Active-Set. Source.
Depending upon what you choose, each of these algorithms will have its own complexity analysis. For Trust-Region and Active-Set methods, the complexity analysis is extremely hard. In fact, Active-Set methods are not polynomial to begin with. Counterexamples exist where Active-Set methods take exponential "time" to converge (This is true also for the Simplex Method for Linear Programs). Source.
Now, assuming that you choose Interior Point methods, the answer is still not straightforward because there are various flavours of these methods. When Karmarkar first proposed this method, it was the first known polynomial algorithm for solving Linear Programs and it had a complexity of O(n^3.5). Source. These bounds were improved quite a lot later. However, this is for Linear Programs.
Finally, to answer your question, Ye and Tse proved in 1989 that we can have an Interior Point method with complexity O(n^3). However, whether MATLAB uses this exact flavor of Interior Point method is a little tricky to know but O(n^3) would be my best guess.
Of course, my answer is rather theoretical; if you want to empirically test it out, you can do so by gradually increasing the number of variables and plotting the CPU time required to get an estimate.
Related
As far as I understand the LM algorithm, it is an improvement over the Newton's method, so very roughly speaking, an algorithm which tries to build a path in the parameter space, leading to the point where the error function is minimal, which follows the direction of the biggest gradient of error function (differentiated with respect to the parameters).
I have written a Newton's method optimizer for a neural network once, as an exercise, and the critical part of the algorithm was that we could apply the chain rule (error backpropagation) to compute the gradient. And it was me who used the chain rule to the write out a formula for the gradients. (Essentially by symbolic differentiating on paper once and coding the resulting formula.)
In MATLAB (Curve Fitting Toolbox), there is a standard fit() function, which claims to use Levenberg-Marquardt's method to fit basically any parametric MATLAB expression as well as a set of prepared models.
Well, I suspect that the prepared models could be pre-differentiated by Mathworks' engineers to generate the code for the gradients. But what about the 'arbitrary' fits?
Is MATLAB trying to do symbolic differentiation implicitly? I highly doubt that anyone can write rules for differentiation of all the complex MATLAB constructions, i.e. classes and enumerations.
Or, maybe MATLAB is just differentiating the function by evaluating it in ξ and ξ+Δξ and dividing by Δξ? But that would require finding the best shift and require n+1 function evaluations, where n is the number of parameters optimized.
And in any case, even this strategy would fail if the function is not differentiable, which I suspect to be the case for almost any general MATLAB expression.
Could anyone give a plausible hypothesis of what is actually happening inside?
(Well, knowing what actually happens inside would be even better, but even an informal insight would be great.)
I have a simple unconstrained non-convex optimization problem. Since problems of these type have multiple local minima, I am looking for global optimization algorithm that yields a unique/global minimum. In the internet I came across global optimization algorithms like genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, etc but for solving a simple one variable unconstrained non-convex optimization problem, I think using these high level algorithms doesn't seem to be a good idea. Could anyone recommend me a simple global algorithm for solving such simple one variable unconstrained non-convex optimization problem? I would highly appreciate ideas on this.
"Since problems of these type have multiple local minima". It's not true, the real situation is the following:
Maybe you have one local minimum
Maybe you have infinite set of local miminums
Maybe you have finite number of local minimums
Maybe minimum is not attained
Maybe problem is unbounded below
Also big picture is that there are really true methods which really solve problems (numerically and they slow), but there is a slang to call method which is not nessesary find minumum value of function also call as "solve".
In fact M^n~M for any finite n and any infinite set M. So the fact that you problem has one dimension is nothing. It is still hard as problem with 1000000 parameters which are drawn from the set M from theoretical point of view.
If you interesting how approximately solve problem with known precision epsilon in domain - then split you domain into 1/espsilon regions, sample value(evalute function) at middle point, and select minimum
Method which I will describe below is precise method, and other methods: particle estimation, sequent.convex.programming, alternative direction, particle swarm, Neidler-Mead simplex method, mutlistart gradient/subgradient descend or any descend algorithm like Newton Method or coordinate descend, they all has no gurantess for non-convex problems and some of them even can no be applied if function is nonconvex.
If you interesting in really solve with some precision on function value then then you can take attention into method, which is called branch-and-bound and which truly found minimum, algorithms which you described I don't think so that they solve problem and find minimum in strong sense:
Basic idea of branch and bound - partition domain into convex sets and improve lower/upper bound, in your case it is intervals.
You should have a routine to find upper bound of optimal (min.) value: you can do it e.g. just by sampling subdomain and take smallest or use local optimization method start from random point.
But also you should have lower bound of optimal (min.) value by some principle and this is hard part:
convex relaxation of integer variables to make them real variables
use Lagrange Dual function
use Lipshitc constant on function, etc.
This is sophisticaed step.
If this two values are near - we're done in other case partion or refine partition.
Get info about lower and upper bound of child subproblems and then take min. of upper bounds and min. of lower bounds of children. If child returns more worse lower bound it can be upgraded by parent.
References:
For more great explanation please look into:
EE364B, Lecture 18, prof. Stephen Boyd, Stanford University. It's available on youtube and in ITunes University. If you new to this area I recommend you to look EE263, EE364A, EE364B courses of Stephen P. Boyd. You will love it
Since this is a one dimensional problem, things are easier.
A simple steepest descend procedure may be used as follows.
Suppose the interval of search is a<x<b.
Start the SD from a minimizing your function say f(x). You recover the first minimum Xm1. You should use a fine step, not too large.
Shift this point by adding a positive small constant Xm1+ε. Then maximize f or minimize -f, starting from this point. You get a max of f, you distort it by ε and start from there a minimization, and so on so forth.
I am constructing a finite volume model in Dymola which evolves in time and space. The spatial discretization is hard coded in the equations section, the time evolution is implemented with a term consisting of der(phi).
Is the time integration of Dymola always numerically stable when using a variable step size algorithm? If not, can I do something about that?
Is the Euler integration algorithm from Dymola the explicit or implicit Euler method?
The Dymola Euler solver by default is explicit (if an in-line sovler is not selected).
The stability of time integration is going to depend on your integrator. Generally speaking, implicit methods are going to be much better than explicit ones.
But since you mention spatial and time discretization, I think it is worth pointing out that for certain classes of problems things can get pretty sticky. In general, I think elliptic and parabolic PDEs are pretty safe to solve in this way. But hyperbolic PDEs can get very tricky.
For example, the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy condition will affect the overall stability of the solution method. But by discretizing in space first, you leave the solver with information only regarding time and it cannot check or conform to the CFL condition. My guess is that a variable time step integrator will detect the error being introduced by not following the CFL condition but that it will struggle to identify the proper time step and probably also end up permitting an unacceptably unstable solution.
Are there any faster and more efficient solvers other than fmincon? I'm using fmincon for a specific problem and I run out of memory for modest sized vector variable. I don't have any supercomputers or cloud computing options at my disposal, either. I know that any alternate solution will still run out of memory but I'm just trying to see where the problem is.
P.S. I don't want a solution that would change the way I'm approaching the actual problem. I know convex optimization is the way to go and I have already done enough work to get up until here.
P.P.S I saw the other question regarding the open source alternatives. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for more efficient ones, if someone faced the same problem adn shifted to a better solver.
Hmmm...
Without further information, I'd guess that fmincon runs out of memory because it needs the Hessian (which, given that your decision variable is 10^4, will be 10^4 x numel(f(x1,x2,x3,....)) large).
It also takes a lot of time to determine the values of the Hessian, because fmincon normally uses finite differences for that if you don't specify derivatives explicitly.
There's a couple of things you can do to speed things up here.
If you know beforehand that there will be a lot of zeros in your Hessian, you can pass sparsity patterns of the Hessian matrix via HessPattern. This saves a lot of memory and computation time.
If it is fairly easy to come up with explicit formulae for the Hessian of your objective function, create a function that computes the Hessian and pass it on to fmincon via the HessFcn option in optimset.
The same holds for the gradients. The GradConstr (for your non-linear constraint functions) and/or GradObj (for your objective function) apply here.
There's probably a few options I forgot here, that could also help you. Just go through all the options in the optimization toolbox' optimset and see if they could help you.
If all this doesn't help, you'll really have to switch optimizers. Given that fmincon is the pride and joy of MATLAB's optimization toolbox, there really isn't anything much better readily available, and you'll have to search elsewhere.
TOMLAB is a very good commercial solution for MATLAB. If you don't mind going to C or C++...There's SNOPT (which is what TOMLAB/SNOPT is based on). And there's a bunch of things you could try in the GSL (although I haven't seen anything quite as advanced as SNOPT in there...).
I don't know on what version of MATLAB you have, but I know for a fact that in R2009b (and possibly also later), fmincon has a few real weaknesses for certain types of problems. I know this very well, because I once lost a very prestigious competition (the GTOC) because of it. Our approach turned out to be exactly the same as that of the winners, except that they had access to SNOPT which made their few-million variable optimization problem converge in a couple of iterations, whereas fmincon could not be brought to converge at all, whatever we tried (and trust me, WE TRIED). To this day I still don't know exactly why this happens, but I verified it myself when I had access to SNOPT. Once, when I have an infinite amount of time, I'll find this out and report this to the MathWorks. But until then...I lost a bit of trust in fmincon :)
I've got a problem with my equation that I try to solve numerically using both MATLAB and Symbolic Toolbox. I'm after several source pages of MATLAB help, picked up a few tricks and tried most of them, still without satisfying result.
My goal is to solve set of three non-polynomial equations with q1, q2 and q3 angles. Those variables represent joint angles in my industrial manipulator and what I'm trying to achieve is to solve inverse kinematics of this model. My set of equations looks like this: http://imgur.com/bU6XjNP
I'm solving it with
numeric::solve([z1,z2,z3], [q1=x1..x2,q2=x3..x4,q3=x5..x6], MultiSolutions)
Changing the xn constant according to my needs. Yet I still get some odd results, the q1 var is off by approximately 0.1 rad, q2 and q3 being off by ~0.01 rad. I don't have much experience with numeric solve, so I just need information, should it supposed to look like that?
And, if not, what valid option do you suggest I should take next? Maybe transforming this equation to polynomial, maybe using a different toolbox?
Or, if trying to do this in Matlab, how can you limit your solutions when using solve()? I'm thinking of an equivalent to Symbolic Toolbox's assume() and assumeAlso.
I would be grateful for your help.
The numerical solution of a system of nonlinear equations is generally taken as an iterative minimization process involving the minimization (i.e., finding the global minimum) of the norm of the difference of left and right hand sides of the equations. For example fsolve essentially uses Newton iterations. Those methods perform a "deterministic" optimization: they start from an initial guess and then move in the unknowns space essentially according to the opposite of the gradient until the solution is not found.
You then have two kinds of issues:
Local minima: the stopping rule of the iteration is related to the gradient of the functional. When the gradient becomes small, the iterations are stopped. But the gradient can become small in correspondence to local minima, besides the desired global one. When the initial guess is far from the actual solution, then you are stucked in a false solution.
Ill-conditioning: large variations of the unknowns can be reflected into large variations of the data. So, small numerical errors on data (for example, machine rounding) can lead to large variations of the unknowns.
Due to the above problems, the solution found by your numerical algorithm will be likely to differ (even relevantly) from the actual one.
I recommend that you make a consistency test by choosing a starting guess, for example when using fsolve, very close to the actual solution and verify that your final result is accurate. Then you will discover that, by making the initial guess more far away from the actual solution, your result will be likely to show some (even large) errors. Of course, the entity of the errors depend on the nature of the system of equations. In some lucky cases, those errors could keep also very small.