The following equation f(t)= b*pow(1-exp(-k*t), b-1) – (b-1)*pow(1-exp(-k*t), b) is used to describe a curve.
When f(t)=0.5 with known b and k, how to calculate it in R?
b*pow(1-exp(-k*t),b-1) –(b-1)*pow(1-exp(-k*t),b) = 0.5
e.g. when b=5, k=0.5, t=?
You could use uniroot, but first plot the function to check for roots, if any. I extract 0.5 from the function, since that is what you want to solve for. Plotting shows that there are two roots, so you have to play with th interval in the uniroot function. I'll leave that to you, let me know if you struggle with it.
f <- function(x)
{
b=5
k=0.5
return( b* (1- exp(-k*x))^(b-1) - (b-1) * (1-exp(-k*x))^b -0.5 )
}
uniroot(f, interval = c(0, 1e+08))
Related
I'm reading Deep Learning by Goodfellow et al. and am trying to implement gradient descent as shown in Section 4.5 Example: Linear Least Squares. This is page 92 in the hard copy of the book.
The algorithm can be viewed in detail at https://www.deeplearningbook.org/contents/numerical.html with R implementation of linear least squares on page 94.
I've tried implementing in R, and the algorithm as implemented converges on a vector, but this vector does not seem to minimize the least squares function as required. Adding epsilon to the vector in question frequently produces a "minimum" less than the minimum outputted by my program.
options(digits = 15)
dim_square = 2 ### set dimension of square matrix
# Generate random vector, random matrix, and
set.seed(1234)
A = matrix(nrow = dim_square, ncol = dim_square, byrow = T, rlnorm(dim_square ^ 2)/10)
b = rep(rnorm(1), dim_square)
# having fixed A & B, select X randomly
x = rnorm(dim_square) # vector length of dim_square--supposed to be arbitrary
f = function(x, A, b){
total_vector = A %*% x + b # this is the function that we want to minimize
total = 0.5 * sum(abs(total_vector) ^ 2) # L2 norm squared
return(total)
}
f(x,A,b)
# how close do we want to get?
epsilon = 0.1
delta = 0.01
value = (t(A) %*% A) %*% x - t(A) %*% b
L2_norm = (sum(abs(value) ^ 2)) ^ 0.5
steps = vector()
while(L2_norm > delta){
x = x - epsilon * value
value = (t(A) %*% A) %*% x - t(A) %*% b
L2_norm = (sum(abs(value) ^ 2)) ^ 0.5
print(L2_norm)
}
minimum = f(x, A, b)
minimum
minimum_minus = f(x - 0.5*epsilon, A, b)
minimum_minus # less than the minimum found by gradient descent! Why?
On page 94 of the pdf appearing at https://www.deeplearningbook.org/contents/numerical.html
I am trying to find the values of the vector x such that f(x) is minimized. However, as demonstrated by the minimum in my code, and minimum_minus, minimum is not the actual minimum, as it exceeds minimum minus.
Any idea what the problem might be?
Original Problem
Finding the value of x such that the quantity Ax - b is minimized is equivalent to finding the value of x such that Ax - b = 0, or x = (A^-1)*b. This is because the L2 norm is the euclidean norm, more commonly known as the distance formula. By definition, distance cannot be negative, making its minimum identically zero.
This algorithm, as implemented, actually comes quite close to estimating x. However, because of recursive subtraction and rounding one quickly runs into the problem of underflow, resulting in massive oscillation, below:
Value of L2 Norm as a function of step size
Above algorithm vs. solve function in R
Above we have the results of A %% x followed by A %% min_x, with x estimated by the implemented algorithm and min_x estimated by the solve function in R.
The problem of underflow, well known to those familiar with numerical analysis, is probably best tackled by the programmers of lower-level libraries best equipped to tackle it.
To summarize, the algorithm appears to work as implemented. Important to note, however, is that not every function will have a minimum (think of a straight line), and also be aware that this algorithm should only be able to find a local, as opposed to a global minimum.
I wish to numerically find the maximum of the function multiplied by Beta 3 shown on p346 of the following link when tau=30:
http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~fdiebold/papers/paper49/Diebold-Li.pdf
They give the answer on p347 as 0.0609.
I would like to confirm this numerically in R. I.e. to take the derivative and find the value where it reaches zero.
library(numDeriv)
x <- 30
testh <- function(lambda){ ((1-exp(-lambda*30))/(lambda*30)) - exp(-lambda*30) }
grad_h <- function(lambda){
val <- grad(testh, lambda)
return(val^2)
}
OptLam <- optimize(f=grad_h, interval=c(0.0001,120), tol=0.0000000000001)
I take the square of the gradient as I want the minimum to be at zero.
Unfortunately, the answer comes back as Lambda=120!! With lambda at 120 the value of the objective function is 5.36e-12.
By working by hand I can func a lower value of the numerical derivative that is closer to zero (it is also close to the analytical value given above):
grad_h(0.05977604)
## [1] 4.24494e-12
Why is the function above not finding this lower value? I have set the tolerance very high so it should be able to find such this optimal value?
Is it possible to correct the existing method so that it gives the correct answer?
Is there a better way to find the maximum gradient of a function numerically in R?
For example is there an optimizer that looks for zero rather than trying to find a minimum of maximum?
You can use uniroot to find where the derivative is 0. This might work for you,
grad_h <- function(lambda){
val=grad(testh,lambda)
return(val)
}
## The root
res <- uniroot(grad_h, c(0,120), tol=1e-10)
## see it
ls <- seq(0.001, 1, length=1000)
plot(ls, testh(ls), col="salmon")
abline(v=res$root, col="steelblue", lwd=2, lty=2)
text(x=res$root, y=testh(res$root),
labels=sprintf("(%f, %s)", res$root,
format(testh(res$root), scientific = T)), adj=-0.1)
y <- matrix(c(7, 9, -5, 0, 2, 6), ncol = 1)
try <- t(y)
tryy <- try %*% y
i <- solve(tryy)
h <- y %*% i %*% try
uniroot(as.vector(solve(((1-x) * diag(6)) + h)), c(-Inf, Inf))
Error in (1 - x) * diag(6) : non-conformable arrays
The purpose of this command uniroot(as.vector(solve(((1-x) * diag(6)) + h)), c(-Inf, Inf)) is to solve the characteristics equation det[(1-λ)I+h] = 0
where, λ=eigenvalues , I=identity matrix , h=hat matrix=y(y'y)^(-1)y'
here λ is unknown ,we have to solve for it.
I am not understanding where is the problem here? I have tried as:
as.vector(solve(6*diag(6)+h))
This is not non-conformable. But why is not working inside the uniroot function?
Your question is a bit confusing, so I have to make a couple of assumptions. If you want the eigenvalues of h, then the characteristic equation is:
det(h - I*λ) = 0
not
det[(1-λ)I+h] = 0
So I used the former.
Given the above, the short answer is: do it this way.
f <- function(lambda) det(h -lambda*diag(6))
F <- Vectorize(f)
library(rootSolve)
uniroot.all(F,c(-1000,1000),n=2000)
# [1] 0 1
# or, much more simply
eigen(h)$values
# [1] 1.000000e+00 2.220446e-16 0.000000e+00 -2.731318e-18 -6.876381e-18 -7.365903e-17
So h has 2 eigenvalues, 0 and 1. Note that the built-in function eigen(...) finds 6 roots, but 5 of them are within the machine tolerance of 0.
The question about why your code fails is a bit more involved.
First, your code:
tryy <- try %*% y
is the dot product of y with itself (so, a scalar), returned as a matrix with one element. When you "invert" that using solve(...)
i <- solve(tryy)
you simply take the reciprocal, so i is also a matrix with 1 element. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind.
Second, uniroot(...) does not work this way. The first argument must be a function; you've passed an expression which depends on x, which in turn is undefined. You could try:
f <- function(x) det(h-x*diag(6))
uniroot(f,c(-Inf,Inf))
but this wouldn't work either because (a) uniroot(...) works on a finite interval, (b) it requires that the function f(...) have different sign at the ends of the interval, and (c) in any event it would return only one root (the smaller one).
So you could use uniroot.all(...) in package rootSolve. uniroot.all(...) also requires a function as it's first argument, but there's a twist: the function must be "vectorized". This means that if you pass a vector of lambda values, f(...) should return a vector of the same length. Fortunately in R there is an easy way to "vectorize" a given function, as in:
F <- Vectorize(f).
Even this has it's limits. uniroot.all(...) also requires a finite interval, so we have to guess what that is, and also it evaluates F on n sub-intervals. So if your interval does not contain all the roots, or if the sub-intervals are not small enough, you will not find all the roots.
Using the built-in eigen(...) function is definitely the best option.
I have a functional like this :
(LaTex formula: $v[y]=\int_0^2 (y'^2+23yy'+12y^2+3ye^{2t})dt$)
with given start and end conditions y(0)=-1, y(2)=18.
How can I find extreme values of this functional in R? I realize how it can be done for example in Excel but didn't find appropriate solution in R.
Before trying to solve such a task in a numerical setting, it might be better to lean back and think about it for a moment.
This is a problem typically treated in the mathematical discipline of "variational calculus". A necessary condition for a function y(t) to be an extremum of the functional (ie. the integral) is the so-called Euler-Lagrange equation, see
Calculus of Variations at Wolfram Mathworld.
Applying it to f(t, y, y') as the integrand in your request, I get (please check, I can easily have made a mistake)
y'' - 12*y + 3/2*exp(2*t) = 0
You can go now and find a symbolic solution for this differential equation (with the help of a textbook, or some CAS), or solve it numerically with the help of an R package such as 'deSolve'.
PS: Solving this as an optimization problem based on discretization is possible, but may lead you on a long and stony road. I remember solving the "brachistochrone problem" to a satisfactory accuracy only by applying several hundred variables (not in R).
Here is a numerical solution in R. First the functional:
f<-function(y,t=head(seq(0,2,len=length(y)),-1)){
len<-length(y)-1
dy<-diff(y)*len/2
y0<-(head(y,-1)+y[-1])/2
2*sum(dy^2+23*y0*dy+12*y0^2+3*y0*exp(2*t))/len
}
Now the function that does the actual optimization. The best results I got were using the BFGS optimization method, and parametrizing using dy rather than y:
findMinY<-function(points=100, ## number of points of evaluation
boundary=c(-1,18), ## boundary values
y0=NULL, ## optional initial value
method="Nelder-Mead", ## optimization method
dff=T) ## if TRUE, optimizes based on dy rather than y
{
t<-head(seq(0,2,len=points),-1)
if(is.null(y0) || length(y0)!=points)
y0<-seq(boundary[1],boundary[2],len=points)
if(dff)
y0<-diff(y0)
else
y0<-y0[-1]
y0<-head(y0,-1)
ff<-function(z){
if(dff)
y<-c(cumsum(c(boundary[1],z)),boundary[2])
else
y<-c(boundary[1],z,boundary[2])
f(y,t)
}
res<-optim(y0,ff,control=list(maxit=1e9),method=method)
cat("Iterations:",res$counts,"\n")
ymin<-res$par
if(dff)
c(cumsum(c(boundary[1],ymin)),boundary[2])
else
c(boundary[1],ymin,boundary[2])
}
With 500 points of evaluation, it only takes a few seconds with BFGS:
> system.time(yy<-findMinY(500,method="BFGS"))
Iterations: 90 18
user system elapsed
2.696 0.000 2.703
The resulting function looks like this:
plot(seq(0,2,len=length(yy)),yy,type='l')
And now a solution that numerically integrates the Euler equation.
As #HansWerner pointed out, this problem boils down to applying the Euler-Lagrange equation to the integrand in OP's question, and then solving that differential equation, either analytically or numerically. In this case the relevant ODE is
y'' - 12*y = 3/2*exp(2*t)
subject to:
y(0) = -1
y(2) = 18
So this is a boundary value problem, best approached using bvpcol(...) in package bvpSolve.
library(bvpSolve)
F <- function(t, y.in, pars){
dy <- y.in[2]
d2y <- 12*y.in[1] + 1.5*exp(2*t)
return(list(c(dy,d2y)))
}
init <- c(-1,NA)
end <- c(18,NA)
t <- seq(0, 2, by = 0.01)
sol <- bvpcol(yini = init, yend = end, x = t, func = F)
y = function(t){ # analytic solution...
b <- sqrt(12)
a <- 1.5/(4-b*b)
u <- exp(2*b)
C1 <- ((18*u + 1) - a*(exp(4)*u-1))/(u*u - 1)
C2 <- -1 - a - C1
return(a*exp(2*t) + C1*exp(b*t) + C2*exp(-b*t))
}
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
plot(t,y(t), type="l", xlim=c(0,2),ylim=c(-1,18), col="red", main="Analytical Solution")
plot(sol[,1],sol[,2], type="l", xlim=c(0,2),ylim=c(-1,18), xlab="t", ylab="y(t)", main="Numerical Solution")
It turns out that in this very simple example, there is an analytical solution:
y(t) = a * exp(2*t) + C1 * exp(sqrt(12)*t) + C2 * exp(-sqrt(12)*t)
where a = -3/16 and C1 and C2 are determined to satisfy the boundary conditions. As the plots show, the numerical and analytic solution agree completely, and also agree with the solution provided by #mrip
I have a function which looks like:
g(x) = f(x) - a^b / f(x)^b
g(x) - known function, data vector provided.
f(x) - hidden process.
a,b - parameters of this function.
From the above we get the relation:
f(x) = inverse(g(x))
My goal is to optimize parameters a and b such that f(x) would be as close as possible
to a normal distribution. If we look on a f(x) Q-Q normal plot (attached), my purpose is to minimize the distance between f(x) to the straight line which represents the normal distribution, by optimizing parameters a and b.
I wrote the below code:
g_fun <- function(x) {x - a^b/x^b}
inverse = function (f, lower = 0, upper = 2000) {
function (y) uniroot((function (x) f(x) - y), lower = lower, upper = upper)[1]
}
f_func = inverse(function(x) g_fun(x))
enter code here
# let's made up an example
# g(x) values are known
g <- c(-0.016339, 0.029646, -0.0255258, 0.003352, -0.053258, -0.018971, 0.005172,
0.067114, 0.026415, 0.051062)
# Calculate f(x) by using the inverse of g(x), when a=a0 and b=b0
for (i in 1:10) {
f[i] <- f_fun(g[i])
}
I have two question:
How to pass parameters a and b to the functions?
How to perform this optimization task, meaning find a and b such that f(x) would approximate normal distribution.
Not sure how you were able to produce the Q-Q plot since your provided examples do not work. You are not specifying the values of a and b and you are defining f_func but calling f_fun. Anyway here is my answer to your questions:
How to pass parameters a and b to the functions? - Just pass them as
arguments to the functions.
How to perform this optimization task, meaning find a and b such that f(x) would approximate normal distribution? - The same way any optimization task is done. Define a cost function, then minimize it.
Here is the revised code: I have added a and b as parameters, removed the inverse function and incorporated it inside f_func, which can now take vector input so no need for a for loop.
g_fun <- function(x,a,b) {x - a^b/x^b}
f_func = function(y,a,b,lower = 0, upper = 2000){
sapply(y,function(z) { uniroot(function(x) g_fun(x,a,b) - z, lower = lower, upper = upper)$root})
}
# g(x) values are known
g <- c(-0.016339, 0.029646, -0.0255258, 0.003352, -0.053258, -0.018971, 0.005172,
0.067114, 0.026415, 0.051062)
f <- f_func(g,1,1) # using a = 1 and b = 1
#[1] 0.9918427 1.0149329 0.9873386 1.0016774 0.9737270 0.9905320 1.0025893
#[8] 1.0341199 1.0132947 1.0258569
f_func(g,2,10)
[1] 1.876408 1.880554 1.875578 1.878138 1.873094 1.876170 1.878304 1.884049
[9] 1.880256 1.882544
Now for the optimization part, it depends on what you mean by f(x) would approximate normal distribution. You can compare mean square error from the qq-line if you want. Also since you say approximate, how close is good enough? You can go with shapiro.test and keep searching till you find p-value below 0.05 (be ware that there may not be a solution)
shapiro.test(f_func(g,1,2))$p
[1] 0.9484821
cost <- function(x,y) shapiro.test(f_func(g,x,y))$p
Now that we have a cost function how do we go about minimizing it. There are many many different ways to do numerical optimization. Take a look at optim function http://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/stats/html/optim.html.
optim(c(1,1),cost)
This final line does not work, but without proper data and context this is as far as I can go. Hope this helps.