I have a set of points, (x, y), where each y has an error range y.low to y.high. Assume a linear regression is appropriate (in some cases the data may originally have followed a power law, but has been transformed [log, log] to be linear).
Calculating a best fit line is easy, but I need to make sure the line stays within the error range for every point. If the regressed line goes outside the ranges, and I simply push it up or down to stay between, is this the best fit available, or might the slope need changed as well?
I realize that in some cases, a lower bound of 1 point and an upper bound of another point may require a different slope, in which case presumably just touching those 2 bounds is the best fit.
The constrained problem as stated can have both a different intercept and a different slope compared to the unconstrained problem.
Consider the following example (the solid line shows the OLS fit):
Now if you imagine very tight [y.low; y.high] bounds around the first two points and extremely loose bounds over the last one. The constrained fit would be close to the dotted line. Clearly, the two fits have different slopes and different intercepts.
Your problem is essentially the least squares with linear inequality constraints. The relevant algorithms are treated, for example, in "Solving least squares problems" by Charles L. Lawson and Richard J. Hanson.
Here is a direct link to the relevant chapter (I hope the link works). Your problem can be trivially transformed to Problem LSI (by multiplying your y.high constraints by -1).
As far as coding this up, I'd suggest taking a look at LAPACK: there may already be a function there that solves this problem (I haven't checked).
I know MATLAB has an optimization library that can do constrained SQP (sequential quadratic programming) and also lots of other methods for solving quadratic minimization problems with inequality constraints. The cost function you want to minimize will be the sum of the squared errors between your fit and the data. The constraints are those you mentioned. I'm sure there are free libraries that do the same thing too.
Related
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.
(Note: This is intended to be a community Wiki.)
Suppose I have a set of points xi = {x0,x1,x2,...xn} and corresponding function values fi = f(xi) = {f0,f1,f2,...,fn}, where f(x) is, in general, an unknown function. (In some situations, we might know f(x) ahead of time, but we want to do this generally, since we often don't know f(x) in advance.) What's a good way to approximate the derivative of f(x) at each point xi? That is, how can I estimate values of dfi == d/dx fi == df(xi)/dx at each of the points xi?
Unfortunately, MATLAB doesn't have a very good general-purpose, numerical differentiation routine. Part of the reason for this is probably because choosing a good routine can be difficult!
So what kinds of methods are there? What routines exist? How can we choose a good routine for a particular problem?
There are several considerations when choosing how to differentiate in MATLAB:
Do you have a symbolic function or a set of points?
Is your grid evenly or unevenly spaced?
Is your domain periodic? Can you assume periodic boundary conditions?
What level of accuracy are you looking for? Do you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance?
Does it matter to you that your derivative is evaluated on the same points as your function is defined?
Do you need to calculate multiple orders of derivatives?
What's the best way to proceed?
These are just some quick-and-dirty suggestions. Hopefully somebody will find them helpful!
1. Do you have a symbolic function or a set of points?
If you have a symbolic function, you may be able to calculate the derivative analytically. (Chances are, you would have done this if it were that easy, and you would not be here looking for alternatives.)
If you have a symbolic function and cannot calculate the derivative analytically, you can always evaluate the function on a set of points, and use some other method listed on this page to evaluate the derivative.
In most cases, you have a set of points (xi,fi), and will have to use one of the following methods....
2. Is your grid evenly or unevenly spaced?
If your grid is evenly spaced, you probably will want to use a finite difference scheme (see either of the Wikipedia articles here or here), unless you are using periodic boundary conditions (see below). Here is a decent introduction to finite difference methods in the context of solving ordinary differential equations on a grid (see especially slides 9-14). These methods are generally computationally efficient, simple to implement, and the error of the method can be simply estimated as the truncation error of the Taylor expansions used to derive it.
If your grid is unevenly spaced, you can still use a finite difference scheme, but the expressions are more difficult and the accuracy varies very strongly with how uniform your grid is. If your grid is very non-uniform, you will probably need to use large stencil sizes (more neighboring points) to calculate the derivative at a given point. People often construct an interpolating polynomial (often the Lagrange polynomial) and differentiate that polynomial to compute the derivative. See for instance, this StackExchange question. It is often difficult to estimate the error using these methods (although some have attempted to do so: here and here). Fornberg's method is often very useful in these cases....
Care must be taken at the boundaries of your domain because the stencil often involves points that are outside the domain. Some people introduce "ghost points" or combine boundary conditions with derivatives of different orders to eliminate these "ghost points" and simplify the stencil. Another approach is to use right- or left-sided finite difference methods.
Here's an excellent "cheat sheet" of finite difference methods, including centered, right- and left-sided schemes of low orders. I keep a printout of this near my workstation because I find it so useful.
3. Is your domain periodic? Can you assume periodic boundary conditions?
If your domain is periodic, you can compute derivatives to a very high order accuracy using Fourier spectral methods. This technique sacrifices performance somewhat to gain high accuracy. In fact, if you are using N points, your estimate of the derivative is approximately N^th order accurate. For more information, see (for example) this WikiBook.
Fourier methods often use the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm to achieve roughly O(N log(N)) performance, rather than the O(N^2) algorithm that a naively-implemented discrete Fourier transform (DFT) might employ.
If your function and domain are not periodic, you should not use the Fourier spectral method. If you attempt to use it with a function that is not periodic, you will get large errors and undesirable "ringing" phenomena.
Computing derivatives of any order requires 1) a transform from grid-space to spectral space (O(N log(N))), 2) multiplication of the Fourier coefficients by their spectral wavenumbers (O(N)), and 2) an inverse transform from spectral space to grid space (again O(N log(N))).
Care must be taken when multiplying the Fourier coefficients by their spectral wavenumbers. Every implementation of the FFT algorithm seems to have its own ordering of the spectral modes and normalization parameters. See, for instance, the answer to this question on the Math StackExchange, for notes about doing this in MATLAB.
4. What level of accuracy are you looking for? Do you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance?
For many purposes, a 1st or 2nd order finite difference scheme may be sufficient. For higher precision, you can use higher order Taylor expansions, dropping higher-order terms.
If you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance, you may want to look around for a high-order scheme that has the error you need.
Often, the best way to reduce error is reducing the grid spacing in a finite difference scheme, but this is not always possible.
Be aware that higher-order finite difference schemes almost always require larger stencil sizes (more neighboring points). This can cause issues at the boundaries. (See the discussion above about ghost points.)
5. Does it matter to you that your derivative is evaluated on the same points as your function is defined?
MATLAB provides the diff function to compute differences between adjacent array elements. This can be used to calculate approximate derivatives via a first-order forward-differencing (or forward finite difference) scheme, but the estimates are low-order estimates. As described in MATLAB's documentation of diff (link), if you input an array of length N, it will return an array of length N-1. When you estimate derivatives using this method on N points, you will only have estimates of the derivative at N-1 points. (Note that this can be used on uneven grids, if they are sorted in ascending order.)
In most cases, we want the derivative evaluated at all points, which means we want to use something besides the diff method.
6. Do you need to calculate multiple orders of derivatives?
One can set up a system of equations in which the grid point function values and the 1st and 2nd order derivatives at these points all depend on each other. This can be found by combining Taylor expansions at neighboring points as usual, but keeping the derivative terms rather than cancelling them out, and linking them together with those of neighboring points. These equations can be solved via linear algebra to give not just the first derivative, but the second as well (or higher orders, if set up properly). I believe these are called combined finite difference schemes, and they are often used in conjunction with compact finite difference schemes, which will be discussed next.
Compact finite difference schemes (link). In these schemes, one sets up a design matrix and calculates the derivatives at all points simultaneously via a matrix solve. They are called "compact" because they are usually designed to require fewer stencil points than ordinary finite difference schemes of comparable accuracy. Because they involve a matrix equation that links all points together, certain compact finite difference schemes are said to have "spectral-like resolution" (e.g. Lele's 1992 paper--excellent!), meaning that they mimic spectral schemes by depending on all nodal values and, because of this, they maintain accuracy at all length scales. In contrast, typical finite difference methods are only locally accurate (the derivative at point #13, for example, ordinarily doesn't depend on the function value at point #200).
A current area of research is how best to solve for multiple derivatives in a compact stencil. The results of such research, combined, compact finite difference methods, are powerful and widely applicable, though many researchers tend to tune them for particular needs (performance, accuracy, stability, or a particular field of research such as fluid dynamics).
Ready-to-Go Routines
As described above, one can use the diff function (link to documentation) to compute rough derivatives between adjacent array elements.
MATLAB's gradient routine (link to documentation) is a great option for many purposes. It implements a second-order, central difference scheme. It has the advantages of computing derivatives in multiple dimensions and supporting arbitrary grid spacing. (Thanks to #thewaywewalk for pointing out this glaring omission!)
I used Fornberg's method (see above) to develop a small routine (nderiv_fornberg) to calculate finite differences in one dimension for arbitrary grid spacings. I find it easy to use. It uses sided stencils of 6 points at the boundaries and a centered, 5-point stencil in the interior. It is available at the MATLAB File Exchange here.
Conclusion
The field of numerical differentiation is very diverse. For each method listed above, there are many variants with their own set of advantages and disadvantages. This post is hardly a complete treatment of numerical differentiation.
Every application is different. Hopefully this post gives the interested reader an organized list of considerations and resources for choosing a method that suits their own needs.
This community wiki could be improved with code snippets and examples particular to MATLAB.
I believe there is more in to these particular questions. So I have elaborated on the subject further as follows:
(4) Q: What level of accuracy are you looking for? Do you need to compute the derivatives within a given tolerance?
A: The accuracy of numerical differentiation is subjective to the application of interest. Usually the way it works is, if you are using the ND in forward problem to approximate the derivatives to estimate features from signal of interest, then you should be aware of noise perturbations. Usually such artifacts contain high frequency components and by the definition of the differentiator, the noise effect will be amplified in the magnitude order of $i\omega^n$. So, increasing the accuracy of differentiator (increasing the polynomial accuracy) will no help at all. In this case you should be able to cancelt the effect of noise for differentiation. This can be done in casecade order: first smooth the signal, and then differentiate. But a better way of doing this is to use "Lowpass Differentiator". A good example of MATLAB library can be found here.
However, if this is not the case and you're using ND in inverse problems, such as solvign PDEs, then the global accuracy of differentiator is very important. Depending on what kind of bounady condition (BC) suits your problem, the design will be adapted accordingly. The rule of thump is to increase the numerical accuracy known is the fullband differentiator. You need to design a derivative matrix that takes care of suitable BC. You can find comprehensive solutions to such designs using the above link.
(5) Does it matter to you that your derivative is evaluated on the same points as your function is defined?
A: Yes absolutely. The evaluation of the ND on the same grid points is called "centralized" and off the points "staggered" schemes. Note that using odd order of derivatives, centralized ND will deviate the accuracy of frequency response of the differentiator. Therefore, if you're using such design in inverse problems, this will perturb your approximation. Also, the opposite applies to the case of even order of differentiation utilized by staggered schemes. You can find comprehensive explanation on this subject using the link above.
(6) Do you need to calculate multiple orders of derivatives?
This totally depends on your application at hand. You can refer to the same link I have provided and take care of multiple derivative designs.
I must solve an over constrained problem (Equations more than unknowns). So I have to use least square method.
First I create coefficient matrix .It is a 225*375 matrix. For inversing, I use pinv() function and then multiply it in load matrix .
My problem is about plate bending under uniform load with clamped edge. I expect at least correct answer in my boundary (the deflection must be zero), but even in boundary I have wrong answer.
I have read in a book that sometimes an error occurs in the Least Square method, which should be corrected manually by the user but I couldn’t find any more explanation about it elsewhere.
First of all we need more data about your problem:
What's the model?
Where are the measurements coming from?
Yet few notes about what I could figure from your issue:
If you have boundaries on the solution you should use Constrained Least Squares. If you do it on MATLAB it is easily can be done (Look at Quadratic Programming as well).
Does L2 error fit your problem? Maybe you should a different
There's no bug in the implementation of MATLAB. Using pinv gives the minimum norm (Both of the solution vector and the residual L2 norm) solution in the range of the given matrix. It might be you either construct the data in a wrong manner or the model you're using isn't adequate.
I need to calculate some kind of distance between to curves.
Those are general curves, and may not be functions - that is, some values of x may be mapped to more then one value.
EDIT
The curves are given as a list of X,Y pairs and the logical curve is the line passing through all the points in the order given. a typical data set will include about 1000 points
as noted, the curve may not be a function, but is usually similar to a function
This issue us what prevents using interp1 or the curve fitting toolbox (in Matlab)
The distance measure I was thinking of the the area of the region between the curves - but any reasonable alternative is ok.
EDIT
a sample illustration of to curves, and the area I want to compute
A Matlab solution is preferred, but other languages are also fine.
If you have functions that are of the type y = f(x) and they are defined over the same domain, then a common way to find the "distance" is to use the L2 norm as explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L2_norm#p-norm. This is simply the integral of the absolute value of the difference between the functions squared. If you have parametric curves then you cannot directly employ this approach. If the L2 norm is not good enough for your requirements then you will need to provide a more concrete definition of what you mean by "distance". If you are unclear as to what you need try taking a look at different types of mathematical norm and see if any of the commonly used ones are what you need (ie L1 norm, uniform norm). The wikepedia link above is a good start point. If the L2 is good enough then you need a way to calculate the integral that you have - there are many many numerical integration techniques out there and I suggest google is your friend here (or a good numerical analysis text book).
If you do have parametric type curves then this is very nontrivial. Using the "area" between curves is not a good idea as there is no clear way to define this area and would become even more complicated in the general case where you could have self-intersecting curves. If your curves are parametrized in the same way you could try some very crude measurement where you evaluate points on each curve at equally spaced values over the parameter range, then calculate the length of the distance between each, sum and take the average as a notion of "closeness". i.e. partition your parameter range into a set {u_0, ... , u_n} and evaluate curve1(u_i) and curve2(u_i) for each i to generate a set of n paired points. Then sum the euclidean distances between each pair of points.
This is very very crude though and if the parametrizations are different then it wont be much use.
You need to define what you mean by distance between the curves. If it is the closest approach between two general curves, then it becomes quite difficult to solve the problem.
If the "curves" are not even representable as single valued functions of x, then it becomes more complex yet.
Merely telling us that you need to define "some kind of distance" is too broad of a statement to be on-topic here, and it says that you have not yet thought out the problem you wish to solve.
If all you are willing to tell us is that the curves are two totally general parametric curves, which may be closed or not, or they may not even lie over the same domain, then the question becomes so totally ill-posed as to be impossible to answer. What is the area between two curves in that case?
If the curves are defined over the SAME support, then subtracting them and integration of the absolute value or square of the difference will be adequate. But you have already told us that these "curves" may be multi-valued. In that case, it is essentially impossible to do what you are asking.
I am working on optical flow, and based on the lecture notes here and some samples on the Internet, I wrote this Python code.
All code and sample images are there as well. For small displacements of around 4-5 pixels, the direction of vector calculated seems to be fine, but the magnitude of the vector is too small (that's why I had to multiply u,v by 3 before plotting them).
Is this because of the limitation of the algorithm, or error in the code? The lecture note shared above also says that motion needs to be small "u, v are less than 1 pixel", maybe that's why. What is the reason for this limitation?
#belisarius says "LK uses a first order approximation, and so (u,v) should be ideally << 1, if not, higher order terms dominate the behavior and you are toast. ".
A standard conclusion from the optical flow constraint equation (OFCE, slide 5 of your reference), is that "your motion should be less than a pixel, less higher order terms kill you". While technically true, you can overcome this in practice using larger averaging windows. This requires that you do sane statistics, i.e. not pure least square means, as suggested in the slides. Equally fast computations, and far superior results can be achieved by Tikhonov regularization. This necessitates setting a tuning value(the Tikhonov constant). This can be done as a global constant, or letting it be adjusted to local information in the image (such as the Shi-Tomasi confidence, aka structure tensor determinant).
Note that this does not replace the need for multi-scale approaches in order to deal with larger motions. It may extend the range a bit for what any single scale can deal with.
Implementations, visualizations and code is available in tutorial format here, albeit in Matlab not Python.