I have a set
i /1 to 6/,
v/ v1v10/ ,
t /t1t5/;
I am going to define a function f1 which uses i=3 to 10 for calculating for all t and v numbers of set and f2 which uses any i other than these, as below.
f1(i,v,t)=e=cost(i,v,t)$ (i=3 to 10)
f2(i,v,t)=e=cost(i,v,t)$ (i is not (3 to 10))
This is to ask :how can I define these properly in GAMS?
Thank you
Related
I tried to solve the these non-linear equations by using nleqslv. However it does not work well. I do know the reason why it does not because I didn't separate the two unknowns to different sides of the equation.
My questions are: 1, Are there any other packages that could solve this kind of
equations?
2, Is there any effective way in R that could help me rearrange
the equation so that it meets the requirement of the package
nleqslv?
Thank you guys.
Here are the codes and p[1] and p[2] are the two unknowns I want to solve.
dslnex<-function(p){
p<-numeric(2)
0.015=sum(exp(Calib2$Median_Score*p[1]+p[2])*weight_pd_bad)
cum_dr<-0
for (i in 1:length(label)){
cum_dr[i]<-exp(Calib2$Median_Score*p[1]+p[2][1:i]*weight_pd_bad[1:i]/0.015
}
mid<-0
for (i in 1:length(label)){
mid[i]<-sum(cum_dr[1:i])/2
}
0.4=(sum(mid*weight_pd_bad)-0.5)/(0.5*(1-0.015))
}
pstart<-c(-0.000679354,-4.203065891)
z<- nleqslv(pstart, dslnex, jacobian=TRUE,control=list(btol=.01))
Following up on my comment I have rewritten your function as follows correcting errors and inefficiencies.
Errors and other changes are given as inline comments.
# no need to use dslnex as name for your function
# dslnex <- function(p){
# any valid name will do
f <- function(p) {
# do not do this
# you are overwriting p as passed by nleqslv
# p<-numeric(2)
# declare retun vector
y <- numeric(2)
y[1] <- 0.015 - (sum(exp(Calib2$Median_Score*p[1]+p[2])*weight_pd_bad))
# do not do this
# cum_dr is initialized as a scalar and will be made into a vector
# which will be grown as a new element is inserted (can be very inefficient)
# cum_dr<-0
# so declare cum_dr to be a vector with length(label) elements
cum_dr <- numeric(length(label))
for (i in 1:length(label)){
cum_dr[i]<-exp(Calib2$Median_Score*p[1]+p[2][1:i]*weight_pd_bad[1:i]/0.015
}
# same problem as above
# mid<-0
mid <- numeric(length(label))
for (i in 1:length(label)){
mid[i]<-sum(cum_dr[1:i])/2
}
y[2] <- 0.4 - (sum(mid*weight_pd_bad)-0.5)/(0.5*(1-0.015))
# return vector y
y
}
pstart <-c(-0.000679354,-4.203065891)
z <- nleqslv(pstart, dslnex, jacobian=TRUE,control=list(btol=.01))
nleqslv is intended for solving systems of equations of the form f(x) = 0 which must be square.
So a function must return a vector with the same size as the x-vector.
You should now be able to proceed provided your system of equations has a solution. And provided there are no further errors in your equations. I have my doubles about the [1:i] in the expression for cum_dr and the expression for mid[i]. The loop calculating mid possibly can be written as a single statement: mid <- cumsum(cum_dr)/2. Up to you.
I really hope you can help me with a problem I cant solve on my own.
I'm trying to program a basic urn model for a web app. I want to calculate the probabilities of specific random events according to different drawing methods in a model with 2 different colors.
The composition of the urn (red and black balls) is specified in a vector
a <-c(number_red, number_black)
The random event is specified in another vecotor, lets say
b<-c("red","red","black","red") or any other combination of red and black balls
Now want to calculate the probability of the event (vector b), when the balls are
1) replaced in the urn, and order does matter
2) NOT replaced in the urn, and order does matter
3) NOT replaced in the urn, and order doesn't matter
4) replaced in the urn, and order doesn't matter
I came up with several different ideas but none of them really worked...
At first I wrote fuctions in order to determine how many different combinations one can could draw in each of the scenarios.
stan = function(n,x) {return(n^x)}
perm = function(n, x) {return(factorial(n) / factorial(n-x))}
komb = function(n, x) {return(factorial(n) / (factorial(n-x)*factorial(x)))}
komb2 = function(n, x) {return(factorial(n+x-1) / (factorial(n-1)*factorial(x)))}
But then I didnt really know how to apply them in order to calculate the final probabilities.
I also experimented with for loops in order to emulate a tree diagram, but it became too complex for me. For example:
c <- c(number_red/(number_red+number_black), number_red/(number_red+number_black))
b <- c("red","black","red")
b[b=="red"]<-1
[b=="black"]<-2
b<-as.numeric(b)
vec<-NULL
for (i in b){
vec<-c(vec, c[i])}
prod(vec)
A solution like that gives correct results for problem #1, but i dont really know how to apply it to the other problems since I would have to find a way to alter vector c according to the composition of vector b each time I run the loop.
Of course I have experimented with different ideas, but none of them really seems to work. I would be very thankful if someone could help me with my problem.
Best,
Henry
Is this correct?
a <- c(red = 5, black = 5)
b <- c("red","red","black","red")
# (1)
prod((a/sum(a))[b])
# (2)
p <- c()
n <- a
for(i in b){
p <- c(n[i] / sum(n), p)
n[i] <- n[i] - 1
}
prod(p)
# (3)
komb <- function(n, x) {
return(factorial(n) / (factorial(n-x)*factorial(x)))
}
n <- table(b)
prod(sapply(names(n), function(i){
komb(a[i], n[i])
})) / komb(sum(a), sum(n))
# (4)
# I think it is the same as (1) as each sample is independent;
Forgive me if this has been asked before (I feel it must have, but could not find precisely what I am looking for).
Have can I draw one element of a vector of whole numbers (from 1 through, say, 10) using a probability function that specifies different chances of the elements. If I want equal propabilities I use runif() to get a number between 1 and 10:
ceiling(runif(1,1,10))
How do I similarly sample from e.g. the exponential distribution to get a number between 1 and 10 (such that 1 is much more likely than 10), or a logistic probability function (if I want a sigmoid increasing probability from 1 through 10).
The only "solution" I can come up with is first to draw e6 numbers from the say sigmoid distribution and then scale min and max to 1 and 10 - but this looks clumpsy.
UPDATE:
This awkward solution (and I dont feel it very "correct") would go like this
#Draw enough from a distribution, here exponential
x <- rexp(1e3)
#Scale probs to e.g. 1-10
scaler <- function(vector, min, max){
(((vector - min(vector)) * (max - min))/(max(vector) - min(vector))) + min
}
x_scale <- scaler(x,1,10)
#And sample once (and round it)
round(sample(x_scale,1))
Are there not better solutions around ?
I believe sample() is what you are looking for, as #HubertL mentioned in the comments. You can specify an increasing function (e.g. logit()) and pass the vector you want to sample from v as an input. You can then use the output of that function as a vector of probabilities p. See the code below.
logit <- function(x) {
return(exp(x)/(exp(x)+1))
}
v <- c(seq(1,10,1))
p <- logit(seq(1,10,1))
sample(v, 1, prob = p, replace = TRUE)
I new to OpenMDAO and I'm still learning how to formulate the problems.
For a simple example, let's say I have 3 input variables with the given bounds:
1 <= x <= 10
0 <= y <= 10
1 <= z <= 10
and I have 4 outputs, defined as:
f1 = x * y
f2 = 2 * z
g1 = x + y - 1
g2 = z
my goal is to minimize f1 * g1, but enforce the constraint f1 = f2 and g1 = g2. For example, one solution is x=3, y=4, z=6 (no idea if this is optimal).
For this simple problem, you can probably just feed the output equality constraints to the driver. However, for my actual problem it's hard to find an initial starting point that satisfy all the constraints, and as the result the optimizer failed to do anything. I figure maybe I could define y and z as states in an implicit component and have a nonlinear solver figure out the right values of y and z given x, then feed x to the optimization driver.
Is this a possible approach? If so, how will the implicit component look like in this case? I looked at the Sellar problem tutorial but I wasn't able to translate it to this case.
You could create an implicit component if you want. In that case, you would define an apply_linear method in your component. That is done with the sellar problem here.
In your case since you have a 2 equation set of residuals which are both dependent on the state variables, I suggest you create a single array state variable of length 2, call it foo (I used a new variable to avoid any confusion, but name it whatever you want!). Then you will define two residuals, one for each element of the residual array of the new state variable.
Something like:
resids['foo'][0] = params['x'] * unknowns['foo'][0] - 2 * unknowns['foo'][1]
resids['foo'][1] = params['x'] + unknowns['foo'][0] - 1 - unknowns['foo'][1]
If you wanted to keep the state variable names separate you could, and it will still work. You'll just have to arbitrarily assign one residual equation to one variable and one to the other.
Then the only thing left is to add a non linear solver to the group containing your implicit component and it should work. If you choose to use a newton solver, you'll either need to set fd_options['force_fd'] = True or define derivatives of your residuals wrt all params and state variables.
I've a dataset with X and Y value obtained from a calibration and I have to interpolate them with a predefined list of polynomial functions and choose the one with the best R2.
The most silly function should be
try<-function(X,Y){
f1<- x + I(x^2.0) - I(x^3.0)
f2<- x + I(x^1.5) - I(x^3.0)
...
f20<- I(x^2.0) - I(x^2.5) + I(x^0.5)
r1<- lm(y~f1)
r2<- lm(y~f2)
...
r20<-lm(y~f20)
v1<-summary(r1)$r.squared
v2<-summary(r2)$r.squared
...
v20<-summary(r20)$r.squared
v<-c(v1,v2,...,v20)
return(v)
}
I'd like then to make this function shorter and smarter (especially from the definition of r1 to the end). I'd also like to give the user the possibility to choose a function among f1 to f20 (typing the desired row number of v) and see the output of the function print and plot on it.
Please, could you help me?
Thank you.
#mso: the idea of using sapply is nice but unfortunately in this way I don't use a polynome for the regression: my x vector is transformed in the f1 vector according to the formula and then used for the regression. I obtain just one parameter instead of 3 (in this case).
Create F as a list and proceed:
F = list(f1, f2, ...., f20)
r = sapply(F, function(x) lm(y~x))
v = sapply(r, function(x) summary(x)$r.squared)
return v
sapply will take each element of F and perform lm with y and put results in vector r. In next line, sapply will take every element of r and get summary and put the results in the vector v. Hopefully, it should work. You could also try lapply (instead of sapply) which is very similar.