Related
My code is as follows:
gekko = GEKKO(remote=True)
# create variable, each variable is a vector, each element
# of the vector is a binary
s = []
for i in range(N):
s.append(gekko.Array(gekko.Var, s_len[i], value=0, lb=0, ub=1, integer=True))
# some constants used in the objective/constraint function
c, d, r, m, L = create_c_d_r_m_L() # they are all numpy ndarry
# define the objective function
def objective():
obj = 0
for i in range(N):
obj += np.dot(s[i], c[i]) + np.dot(s[i], d[i])
for idx, (i, j) in enumerate(E):
obj += np.dot(np.dot(s[i], r[idx].reshape(s_len[i], s_len[j])),\
s[j]) # s[i] * r[i, j] * s[j]
return obj
# add constraints
# (a) each vector can only have and must have one 1
for i in range(N):
gekko.Equation(gekko.sum(s[i]) == 1)
# (b)
for t in range(N):
peak_mem = gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
gekko.Equation(peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM)
# DEVICE_MEM is a predefined big int
# solve
gekko.Obj(objective())
gekko.solve(disp=True)
I found that when removing constraint (b), the solver can output the optimal solution for s. However, if we add (b) and set DEVICE_MEM to a very large number (which should not affect the solution), the s is not optimal anymore. I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong here because I tried both APOPT(solvertype=1) and IPOPT (solvertype=3) and they give the same nonoptimal results.
To give more context to the problem: this is an optimization over the graph. N represents the number of nodes in the graph. E is the set that contains all edges in the graph. c, d, m are three types of cost of a node. r is the cost of edges. Each node has multiple strategies (represented by the vector s[i]), and we need to select the best strategy for each node so that the overall cost is minimal.
Detailed constants:
# s_len: record the length of each vector
# (the # of strategies for each node,
# here we assume the length are all 10)
s_len = np.ones(N) * 10
# c, d, m are the costs of each node
# let's assume the c/d/m cost for i node is just i
c, d, m = [], [], []
for i in range(N):
c[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
d[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
m[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
# r is the edge cost, let's assume the cost for
# each edge is just i * j
r = []
for (i,j) in E: # E records all edges
cur_r = s_len[i] * s_len[j] * [i*j]
r.append(cur_r)
# L contains the node ids, we just randomly generate 10 integers here
L = []
for i in range(N):
cur_L = [randrange(N) for _ in range(10)]
L.append(cur_L)
I've been stuck on this for a while and any comments/answers are highly appreciated! Thanks!
Try reframing the inequality constraint:
for t in range(N):
peak_mem = gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
gekko.Equation(peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM)
as a variable with an upper bound:
peak_mem = m.Array(m.Var,N,ub=DEVICE_MEM)
for t in range(N):
m.Equation(peak_mem[t]==\
gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
The N inequality constraints peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM are converted to equality constraints with slack variables as s[i] = DEVICE_MEM - peak_mem with a simple inequality constraint on the slack s[i]>=0. If the inequality constraint far from the bound, then the slack variable can be very large. Formulating the equation as a variable may help.
I tried using the information in the question to pose a minimal problem that could reproduce the error and the potential solution. If you need more specific suggestions, please modify the code to be a complete and minimal example that reproduces the error. This helps with verifying the solution.
I am trying to determine if a point lies between two bearings from a central point.
The diagram below attempts to explain things
I have a central point labelled A
I have two points (labelled B & C) which provide the boundaries of the search area (based on bearing only - there is no distance element required).
I'm trying to determine if point D is within the sector formed by A-B and A-C
I've calculated the bearings from A to each B & C
In my real scenario the angle created between the bearings can be anything from 0 to 360.
There are some similar questions & answers
however in my case I'm not interested in restricting my search to the radius of a circle. And there seems to be some implementation issues around angle size and the location of the points in terms of clockwise vs counter-clockwise
It seems so simple in theory but my maths is clearly not up to scratch :(
Any advice or pseudo-code would be greatly appreciated.
Here would be my approach:
calculate first bearing angle X
calculate second bearing angle Y
calculate angle Z towards point D
if X < Z < Y, return true; otherwise, return false
In your example it looks like you'd calculate Z ~ 90deg and find 45 < 90 < 135 (is your picture wrong? is says 315).
You can use something like the "atan2" function in whatever language you're using. This is an extension of the basic arctangent function which takes not just the slope but both the rise and run and instead of returning an angle from only a 180-degree range, it returns the true angle from a 360-degree range. So
Z = atan2(Dy, Dx)
Should give you the angle (possibly in radians; be careful) that you can compare to your bearings to tell whether you're inside the search. Note that the order of X and Y matter since the order is what defines which of the two sections is in the search area (X to Y gives ~90 deg in your picture, but Y to X gives ~270 deg).
You can calculate and compare the cross products of the vectors (AB X BD), and (AC X CD).
if (AB X BD) > 0, you have a counter clock wise turn
if (AC X CD) < 0, you have a clock wise turn
If both above tests are true, then the point D is in the sector BAC
This allows you to completely avoid using expensive trig functions.
class Point:
"""small class for point arithmetic convenience
"""
def __init__(self, x: float = 0, y: float = 0) -> None:
self.x = x
self.y = y
def __sub__(self, other: 'Point') -> 'Vector':
return Vector(self.x - other.x, self.y - other.y)
class Vector:
"""small class for vector arithmetic convenience
"""
def __init__(self, x: float = 0, y: float = 0) -> None:
self.x = x
self.y = y
def cross(self, other: 'Vector') -> float:
return (self.x * other.y) - (self.y * other.x)
def in_sector(A: Point, B: Point, C: Point, D: Point) -> bool:
# construct vectors:
ab = B - A
bd = D - B
ac = C - A
cd = D - C
print(f'ab x bc = {ab.cross(bd)}, ac x cd = {ac.cross(cd)}')
return ab.cross(bd) > 0 and ac.cross(cd) < 0
if __name__ == '__main__':
A = Point(0, 0)
B = Point(1, 1)
C = Point(-1, 1)
D = Point(0, 1)
print(f'D in sector ABC: {in_sector(A, B, C, D)}', end='\n\n')
print(f'D in sector ACB: {in_sector(A, C, B, D)}') # inverting the sector definition so D is now outside
Output:
ab x bc = 1, ac x cd = -1
D in sector ABC: True
ab x bc = -1, ac x cd = 1
D in sector ACB: False
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superellipse
I have read the SO questions on how to point-pick from a circle and an ellipse.
How would one uniformly select random points from the interior of a super-ellipse?
More generally, how would one uniformly select random points from the interior of the curve described by an arbitrary super-formula?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superformula
The discarding method is not considered a solution, as it is mathematically unenlightening.
In order to sample the superellipse, let's assume without loss of generality that a = b = 1. The general case can be then obtained by rescaling the corresponding axis.
The points in the first quadrant (positive x-coordinate and positive y-coordinate) can be then parametrized as:
x = r * ( cos(t) )^(2/n)
y = r * ( sin(t) )^(2/n)
with 0 <= r <= 1 and 0 <= t <= pi/2:
Now, we need to sample in r, t so that the sampling transformed into x, y is uniform. To this end, let's calculate the Jacobian of this transform:
dx*dy = (2/n) * r * (sin(2*t)/2)^(2/n - 1) dr*dt
= (1/n) * d(r^2) * d(f(t))
Here, we see that as for the variable r, it is sufficient to sample uniformly the value of r^2 and then transform back with a square root. The dependency on t is a bit more complicated. However, with some effort, one gets
f(t) = -(n/2) * 2F1(1/n, (n-1)/n, 1 + 1/n, cos(t)^2) * cos(t)^(2/n)
where 2F1 is the hypergeometric function.
In order to obtain uniform sampling in x,y, we need now to sample uniformly the range of f(t) for t in [0, pi/2] and then find the t which corresponds to this sampled value, i.e., to solve for t the equation u = f(t) where u is a uniform random variable sampled from [f(0), f(pi/2)]. This is essentially the same method as for r, nevertheless in that case one can calculate the inverse directly.
One small issue with this approach is that the function f is not that well-behaved near zero - the infinite slope makes it quite challenging to find a root of u = f(t). To circumvent this, we can sample only the "upper part" of the first quadrant (i.e., area between lines x=y and x=0) and then obtain all the other points by symmetry (not only in the first quadrant but also for all the other ones).
An implementation of this method in Python could look like:
import numpy as np
from numpy.random import uniform, randint, seed
from scipy.optimize import brenth, ridder, bisect, newton
from scipy.special import gamma, hyp2f1
import matplotlib
matplotlib.use('Agg')
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import matplotlib.gridspec as gridspec
seed(100)
def superellipse_area(n):
#https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superellipse#Mathematical_properties
inv_n = 1. / n
return 4 * ( gamma(1 + inv_n)**2 ) / gamma(1 + 2*inv_n)
def sample_superellipse(n, num_of_points = 2000):
def f(n, x):
inv_n = 1. / n
return -(n/2)*hyp2f1(inv_n, 1 - inv_n, 1 + inv_n, x)*(x**inv_n)
lb = f(n, 0.5)
ub = f(n, 0.0)
points = [None for idx in range(num_of_points)]
for idx in range(num_of_points):
r = np.sqrt(uniform())
v = uniform(lb, ub)
w = bisect(lambda w: f(n, w**n) - v, 0.0, 0.5**(1/n))
z = w**n
x = r * z**(1/n)
y = r * (1 - z)**(1/n)
if uniform(-1, 1) < 0:
y, x = x, y
x = (2*randint(0, 2) - 1)*x
y = (2*randint(0, 2) - 1)*y
points[idx] = [x, y]
return points
def plot_superellipse(ax, n, points):
coords_x = [p[0] for p in points]
coords_y = [p[1] for p in points]
ax.set_xlim(-1.25, 1.25)
ax.set_ylim(-1.25, 1.25)
ax.text(-1.1, 1, '{n:.1f}'.format(n = n), fontsize = 12)
ax.scatter(coords_x, coords_y, s = 0.6)
params = np.array([[0.5, 1], [2, 4]])
fig = plt.figure(figsize = (6, 6))
gs = gridspec.GridSpec(*params.shape, wspace = 1/32., hspace = 1/32.)
n_rows, n_cols = params.shape
for i in range(n_rows):
for j in range(n_cols):
n = params[i, j]
ax = plt.subplot(gs[i, j])
if i == n_rows-1:
ax.set_xticks([-1, 0, 1])
else:
ax.set_xticks([])
if j == 0:
ax.set_yticks([-1, 0, 1])
else:
ax.set_yticks([])
#ensure that the ellipses have similar point density
num_of_points = int(superellipse_area(n) / superellipse_area(2) * 4000)
points = sample_superellipse(n, num_of_points)
plot_superellipse(ax, n, points)
fig.savefig('fig.png')
This produces:
My first Fortran lesson is to plot the probability density function of the radial Sturmian functions. In case you are interested, the radial Sturmian functions are used to graph the momentum space eigenfunctions for the hydrogen atom.
In order to produce these radial functions, one needs to first produce some polynomials called the Gegenbauer polynomials, denoted
Cba(x),
where a and b should be stacked atop each other. One needs these polynomials because the Sturmians (let's call them R_n,l) are defined like so,
R_n,l(p) = N pl⁄(p2 + k2)l+2 Cn - l - 1l + 1(p2 - k2⁄p2 + k2),
where N is a normalisation constant, p is the momentum, n is the principle quantum number, l is the angular momentum and k is a constant. The normalisation constant is there so that when I come to square this function, it will produce a probability distribution for the momentum of the electron in a hydrogen atom.
Gegenbauer polynomials are generated using the following recurrence relation:
Cnl(x) = 1⁄n[2(l + n - 1) x Cn - 1l(x) - (2l + n - 2)Cn - 2l(x)],
with C0l(x) = 1 and C1l(x) = 2lx, as you may have noticed, l is fixed but n is not. At the start of my program, I will specify both l and n and work out the Gegenbauer polynomial I need for the radial function I wish to plot.
The problems I am having with my code at the moment are all in my subroutine for working out the value of the Gegenbauer polynomial Cn-l-1l+1(p2 - k2⁄p2 + k2) for incremental values of p between 0 and 3. I keep getting the error
Unclassified statement at (1)
but I cannot see what the issue is.
program Radial_Plot
implicit none
real, parameter :: pi = 4*atan(1.0)
integer, parameter :: top = 1000, l = 50, n = 100
real, dimension(1:top) :: x, y
real increment
real :: a=0.0, b = 2.5, k = 0.3
integer :: i
real, dimension(1:top) :: C
increment = (b-a)/(real(top)-1)
x(1) = 0.0
do i = 2, top
x(i) = x(i-1) + increment
end do
Call Gegenbauer(top, n, l, k, C)
y = x*C
! y is the function that I shall be plotting between values a and b.
end program Radial_Plot
Subroutine Gegenbauer(top1, n1, l1, k1, CSub)
! This subroutine is my attempt to calculate the Gegenbauer polynomials evaluated at a certain number of values between c and d.
implicit none
integer :: top1, i, j, n1, l1
real :: k1, increment1, c, d
real, dimension(1:top1) :: x1
real, dimension(1:n1 - l1, 1:top1) :: C1
real, dimension(1:n1 - l1) :: CSub
c = 0.0
d = 3.0
k1 = 0.3
n1 = 50
l1 = 25
top1 = 1000
increment1 = (d - c)/(real(top1) - 1)
x1(1) = 0.0
do i = 2, top1
x1(i) = x1(i-1) + increment1
end do
do j = 1, top1
C1(1,j) = 1
C1(2,j) = 2(l1 + 1)(x1(i)^2 - k1^2)/(x1(i)^2 + k1^2)
! All the errors occurring here are all due to, and I quote, 'Unclassifiable statement at (1)', I can't see what the heck I have done wrong.
do i = 3, n1 - l1
C1(i,j) = 2(((l1 + 1)/n1) + 1)(x1(i)^2 - k1^2)/(x1(i)^2 + k1^2)C1(i,j-1) - ((2(l1+1)/n1) + 1)C1(i,j-2)
end do
CSub(j) = Cn(n1 - l1,j)^2
end do
return
end Subroutine Gegenbauer
As francesalus correctly pointed out, the problem is because you use ^ instead of ** for exponentiation. Additionally, you do not put * between the terms you are multiplying.
C1(1,j) = 1
C1(2,j) = 2*(l1 + 1)*(x1(i)**2 - k1**2)/(x1(i)**2 + k1**2)
do i = 3, n1 - l1
C1(i,j) = 2 * (((l1 + 1)/n1) + 1) * (x1(i)**2 - k1**2) / &
(x1(i)**2 + k1**2)*C1(i,j-1) - ((2(l1+1)/n1) + 1) * &
C1(i,j-2)
end do
CSub(j) = Cn(n1 - l1,j)**2
Since you are beginning I have some advice. Learn to put all subroutines and functions to modules (unless they are internal). There is no reason for the return statement at the and of the subroutine, similarly as a stop statement isn't necessary at the and of the program.
so I've been working on a program in Python that finds the minimum weight triangulation of a convex polygon. This means that it finds the weight(The sum of all the triangle perimeters), as well as the list of chords(lines going through the polygon that break it up into triangles, not the boundaries).
I was under the impression that I'm using the dynamic programming algorithm, however when I tried using a somewhat more complex polygon it takes forever(I'm not sure how long it takes because I haven't gotten it to finish).
It works fine with a 10 sided polygon, however I'm trying 25 and that's what is making it stall. My teacher gave me the polygons so I assume that the 25 one is supposed to work as well.
Since this algorithm is supposed to be O(n^3), the 25 sided polygon should take roughly 15.625 times longer to calculate, however it's taking way longer seeing that the 10 sided seems instantaneous.
Am I doing some sort of n operation in there that I'm not realizing? I can't see anything I'm doing, except maybe the last part where I get rid of the duplicates by turning the list into a set, however in my program I put a trace after the decomp before the conversion happens, and it's not even reaching that point.
Here's my code, if you guys need anymore info just please ask. Something in there is making it take longer than O(n^3) and I need to find it so I can trim it out.
#!/usr/bin/python
import math
def cost(v):
ab = math.sqrt(((v[0][0] - v[1][0])**2) + ((v[0][1] - v[1][1])**2))
bc = math.sqrt(((v[1][0] - v[2][0])**2) + ((v[1][1] - v[2][1])**2))
ac = math.sqrt(((v[0][0] - v[2][0])**2) + ((v[0][1] - v[2][1])**2))
return ab + bc + ac
def triang_to_chord(t, n):
if t[1] == t[0] + 1:
# a and b
if t[2] == t[1] + 1:
# single
# b and c
return ((t[0], t[2]), )
elif t[2] == n-1 and t[0] == 0:
# single
# c and a
return ((t[1], t[2]), )
else:
# double
return ((t[0], t[2]), (t[1], t[2]))
elif t[2] == t[1] + 1:
# b and c
if t[0] == 0 and t[2] == n-1:
#single
# c and a
return ((t[0], t[1]), )
else:
#double
return ((t[0], t[1]), (t[0], t[2]))
elif t[0] == 0 and t[2] == n-1:
# c and a
# double
return ((t[0], t[1]), (t[1], t[2]))
else:
# triple
return ((t[0], t[1]), (t[1], t[2]), (t[0], t[2]))
file_name = raw_input("Enter the polygon file name: ").rstrip()
file_obj = open(file_name)
vertices_raw = file_obj.read().split()
file_obj.close()
vertices = []
for i in range(len(vertices_raw)):
if i % 2 == 0:
vertices.append((float(vertices_raw[i]), float(vertices_raw[i+1])))
n = len(vertices)
def decomp(i, j):
if j <= i: return (0, [])
elif j == i+1: return (0, [])
cheap_chord = [float("infinity"), []]
old_cost = cheap_chord[0]
smallest_k = None
for k in range(i+1, j):
old_cost = cheap_chord[0]
itok = decomp(i, k)
ktoj = decomp(k, j)
cheap_chord[0] = min(cheap_chord[0], cost((vertices[i], vertices[j], vertices[k])) + itok[0] + ktoj[0])
if cheap_chord[0] < old_cost:
smallest_k = k
cheap_chord[1] = itok[1] + ktoj[1]
temp_chords = triang_to_chord(sorted((i, j, smallest_k)), n)
for c in temp_chords:
cheap_chord[1].append(c)
return cheap_chord
results = decomp(0, len(vertices) - 1)
chords = set(results[1])
print "Minimum sum of triangle perimeters = ", results[0]
print len(chords), "chords are:"
for c in chords:
print " ", c[0], " ", c[1]
I'll add the polygons I'm using, again the first one is solved right away, while the second one has been running for about 10 minutes so far.
FIRST ONE:
202.1177 93.5606
177.3577 159.5286
138.2164 194.8717
73.9028 189.3758
17.8465 165.4303
2.4919 92.5714
21.9581 45.3453
72.9884 3.1700
133.3893 -0.3667
184.0190 38.2951
SECOND ONE:
397.2494 204.0564
399.0927 245.7974
375.8121 295.3134
340.3170 338.5171
313.5651 369.6730
260.6411 384.6494
208.5188 398.7632
163.0483 394.1319
119.2140 387.0723
76.2607 352.6056
39.8635 319.8147
8.0842 273.5640
-1.4554 226.3238
8.6748 173.7644
20.8444 124.1080
34.3564 87.0327
72.7005 46.8978
117.8008 12.5129
162.9027 5.9481
210.7204 2.7835
266.0091 10.9997
309.2761 27.5857
351.2311 61.9199
377.3673 108.9847
390.0396 148.6748
It looks like you have an issue with the inefficient recurision here.
...
def decomp(i, j):
...
for k in range(i+1, j):
...
itok = decomp(i, k)
ktoj = decomp(k, j)
...
...
You've ran into the same kind of issue as a naive recursive implementation of the Fibonacci Numbers, but the way this algorithm works, it'll probably be much worst on the run time. Assuming that is the only issue with you're algorithm, then you just need to use memorization to ensure that the decomp is only calculated once for each unique input.
The way to spot this issue is to print out the values of i, j and k as the triple (i,j,k). In order to obtain a runtime of O(N^3), you shouldn't see the same exact triple twice. However, the triple (22, 24, 23), appears at least twice (in the 25), and is the first such duplicate. That shows the algorithm is calculating the same thing multiple times, which is inefficient, and is bumping up the performance well past O(N^3). I'll leave figuring out what the algorithms actual performance is to you as an exercise. Assuming there isn't something else wrong with the algorithm the algorithm should eventually stop.