I'm trying to get the two smallest eigenvectors of a matrix:
[v,c]=eigs(lap,2,'sm');
The result v is "correct" ~66% of time. When I say correct I mean "looks right" in terms of the problem I am trying to solve, of course.
The other part of the time I get different vectors.
I know eigs uses a numerical solver, and that it's initial guess is random, so that explains that. What bothers me is according to matlab's documentation I see that the tolerance used as criteria to stop is set to eps initially, and I tried increasing opts.maxit=10000000;, but it doesn't appear to affect the results nor the run time, so I assume the tolerance is met before the maximum iteration number is reached.
What can I do to get consistent results? There's no problem in terms of computation time.
Please note that the matrix is very large and sparse, so I cannot work with eig, only with eigs
Related
Does anyone know how to tell the difference between distributions (ie their goodness of fit) using the dfittool in Matlab? In a class I took forever ago, we learned about the log likelihood parameter and how to compare a pdf fitted to Gaussian vs gamma, etc. But right now, all the matlab help files online are like "it means something." Any assistance would be appreciated. Basically, I need to interpret the "results" in "edit fit" of the dfittool. I want to be able to compare my dfits to each other from the results, so I can pick the best fit for my analysis. I don't know what the difference is between a log likelihood of -111 vs -105.
Example below:
Distribution: Normal
Log likelihood: -110.954
Domain: -Inf < y < Inf
Mean: 101.443
Variance: 436.332
Parameter Estimate Std. Err.
mu 101.443 4.17771
sigma 20.8886 3.04691
Estimated covariance of parameter estimates:
mu sigma
mu 17.4533 6.59643e-15
sigma 6.59643e-15 9.28366
Thank you!
(Log) likelihood is a measure of the fit of a distribution to data, so the simple answer is: the distribution with the largest likelihood is the one that fits best. However, what you get here as an output is the maximized likelihood, i.e. the likelihood at those parameter values where it is maximal. Different families of distributions might be differently "flexible", so that it is easier to get a larger likelihood with one of them in general, so this limits comparability. This holds especially if you compare families with different numbers of parameters. A fix for this is to use formal model comparison, e.g. using the Bayes factor, which however is considerably more complex mathematically, or its approximation, the Bayesian information criterion.
More generally speaking however, it is seldomly a good idea to just randomly pick distributions and see how well they fit. It would be better to have some at least partially theoretically motivated idea why a distribution is a candidate. On the most basic level this means considering its definition range: the normal distribution is defined on the whole real line, the gamma distribution only for nonnegative real numbers. This way it should be possible to rule one of them out based on basic properties of your data.
What causes the ArpackNoConvergence error in this scipy function?
The docs just say "When the requested convergence is not obtained", but don't give any information about what that actually means.
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-0.15.1/reference/generated/scipy.sparse.linalg.eigs.html
There is no way to efficiently calculate eigenvectors and eigenvalues analytically. Instead you use an iterative process to approximate them: you start with some guessed solution and try to improve it in every iteration.
The iterative process itself does not define a stop criterion. Obviously we want it to stop once our approximations are in very close proximity to the actual solution.
But sometimes we are improving our approximation very slowly and the number of steps to get to a good approximation would be enormous. Instead of letting the computer calculate for an undefined amount of time we may want to define a maximum number of iterations.
We say that the algorithm did not converge if after the maximum number of iterations (see the maxiter keyword), the current approximation is not sufficiently close (see the tol keyword) to the actual solution .
What is the difference between abtol and reltol in MATLAB when performing numerical quadrature?
I have an triple integral that is supposed to generate a number between 0 and 1 and I am wondering what would be the best tolerance for my application?
Any other ideas on decreasing the time of integral3 execution.
Also does anyone know whether integral3 or quadgk is faster?
When performing the integration, MATLAB (or most any other integration software) computes a low-order solution qLow and a high-order solution qHigh.
There are a number of different methods of computing the true error (i.e., how far either qLow or qHigh is from the actual solution qTrue), but MATLAB simply computes an absolute error as the difference between the high and low order integral solutions:
errAbs = abs(qLow - qHigh).
If the integral is truly a large value, that difference may be large in an absolute sense but not a relative sense. For example, errAbs might be 1E3, but qTrue is 1E12; in that case, the method could be said to converge relatively since at least 8 digits of accuracy has been reached.
So MATLAB also considers the relative error :
errRel = abs(qLow - qHigh)/abs(qHigh).
You'll notice I'm treating qHigh as qTrue since it is our best estimate.
Over a given sub-region, if the error estimate falls below either the absolute limit or the relative limit times the current integral estimate, the integral is considered converged. If not, the region is divided, and the calculation repeated.
For the integral function and integral2/integral3 functions with the iterated method, the low-high solutions are a Gauss-Kronrod 7-15 pair (the same 7-th order/15-th order set used by quadgk.
For the integral2/integral3 functions with the tiled method, the low-high solutions are a Gauss-Kronrod 3-7 pair (I've never used this option, so I'm not sure how it compares to others).
Since all of these methods come down to a Gauss-Kronrod quadrature rule, I'd say sticking with integral3 and letting it do the adaptive refinement as needed is the best course.
I have a polynomial of order N (where N is even). This polynomial is equal to minus infinity for x minus/plus infinity (thus it has a maximum). What I am doing right now is taking the derivative of the polynomial by using polyder then finding the roots of the N-1 th order polynomial by using the roots function in Matlab which returns N-1 solutions. Then I am picking the real root that really maximizes the polynomial. The problem is that I am updating my polynomial a lot and at each time step I am using the above procedure to find the maximizer. Therefore, the roots function takes too much of a computation time making my application slow. Is there a way either in Matlab or a proposed algorithm that does this maximization in a computationally efficient fashion( i.e. just finding one solution instead of N-1 solutions)? Thanks.
Edit: I would also like to know whether there is a routine in Matlab that only returns the real roots instead of
roots which returns all real/complex ones.
I think that you are probably out of luck. If the coefficients of the polynomial change at every time step in an arbitrary fashion, then ultimately you are faced with a distinct and unrelated optimisation problem at every stage. There is insufficient information available to consider calculating just a subset of roots of the derivative polynomial - how could you know which derivative root provides the maximum stationary point of the polynomial without comparing the function value at ALL of the derivative roots?? If your polynomial coefficients were being perturbed at each step by only a (bounded) small amount or in a predictable manner, then it is conceivable that you would be able to try something iterative to refine the solution at each step (for example something crude such as using your previous roots as starting point of a new set of newton iterations to identify the updated derivative roots), but the question does not suggest that this is in fact the case so I am just guessing. I could be completely wrong here but you might just be out of luck in getting something faster unless you can provide more information of have some kind of relationship between the polynomials generated at each step.
There is a file exchange submission by Steve Morris which finds all real roots of functions on a given interval. It does so by interpolating the polynomial by a Chebychev polynomial, and finding its roots.
You can modify the eig evaluation of the companion matrix in there, to eigs. This allows you to find only one (or a few) roots and save time (there's a fair chance it's also possible to compute the roots or extrema of a Chebychev analytically, although I could not find a good reference for that (or even a bad one for that matter...)).
Another attempt that you can make in speeding things up, is to note that polyder does nothing more than
Pprime = (numel(P)-1:-1:1) .* P(1:end-1);
for your polynomial P. Also, roots does nothing more than find the eigenvalues of the companion matrix, so you could find these eigenvalues yourself, which prevents a call to roots. This could both be beneficial, because calls to non-builtin functions inside a loop prevent Matlab's JIT compiler from translating the loop to machine language. This could otherwise give you a large speed gain (factors of 100 or more are not uncommon).
I'm trying my best to work it out with fmincon in MATLAB. When I call the function, I get one of the two following errors:
Number of function evaluation exceeded, or
Number of iteration exceeded.
And when I look at the solution so far, it is way off the one intended (I know so because I created a minimum vector).
Now even if I increase any of the tolerance constraint or max number of iterations, I still get the same problem.
Any help is appreciated.
First, if your problem can actually be cast as linear or quadratic programming, do that first.
Otherwise, have you tried seeding it with different starting values x0? If it's starting in a bad place, it may be much harder to get to the optimum.
If it's possible for you to provide the gradient of the function, that can help the optimizer tremendously (though obviously only if you can find it some way other than numerical differentiation). Similarly, if you can provide the (full or sparse) Hessian relatively cheaply, you're golden.
You can also try using a different algorithm in the solver.
Basically, fmincon by default has almost no info about the function it's trying to optimize, and providing more can be extremely helpful. If you can tell us more about the objective function, we might be able to give more tips.
The L1 norm is not differentiable. That can make it difficult for the algorithm to converge to a point where one of the residuals is zero. I suspect this is why number of iterations limits are exceeded. If your original problem is
min norm(residual(x),1)
s.t. Aeq*x=beq
you can reformulate the problem differentiably, as follows
min sum(b)
s.t. -b(i)<=residual(x,i)<=b(i)
Aeq*x=beq
where residual(x,i) is the i-th residual, x is the original vector of unknowns, and b is a further unknown vector of bounds that you add to the problem.