I have a problem with optimize().
When I limit the search in a small interval around zero, e.g., (-1, 1), the optimize algorithm gives a finite minimum with a finite objective function value.
But when I make the interval wider to (-10, 10), then the minimum is on the boundary of the interval and the objective is Inf, which is really puzzling for me.
How can this happen and how to fix this? Thanks a lot in advance.
The following is my code.
set.seed(123)
n <- 120
c <- rnorm(n,mean=1,sd=.3);
eps <- rnorm(n,mean=0,sd=5)
tet <- 32
r <- eps * c^tet
x <- matrix(c(c,r), ncol=2)
g <- function(tet, x){
matrix((x[,1]^(-tet))*x[,2],ncol=1)
}
theta <- 37
g_t <- g(theta,x)
f.tau <- function(tau){
exp.tau.g <- exp(g_t %*% tau)
g.exp <- NULL; i <- 1:n
g.exp <- matrix(exp.tau.g[i,] * g_t[i,], ncol=1)
sum.g.exp <- apply(g.exp,2,sum)
v <- t(sum.g.exp) %*% sum.g.exp
return(v)
}
band.tau <- 1;
f <- optimize(f.tau, c(-band.tau, band.tau), tol=1e-20)
print("interval=(-1, 1)"); print(f);
band.tau <- 10;
f <- optimize(f.tau, c(-band.tau, band.tau), tol=1e-20)
print("interval=(-10, 10)"); print(f);
The problem is that your function f.tau(x) is not well behaved. You can see that here:
vect.f <- Vectorize(f.tau)
z1 <- seq(-1,1,by=0.01)
z10 <- seq(-10,10,by=0.01)
par(mfrow=c(2,1), mar=c(2,2,1,1))
plot(z1, log(vect.f(z1)), type="l")
plot(z10,log(vect.f(z10)),type="l")
Note that these are plots of log(f.tau). So there are two problems: f.tau(...) has an extremely large slope on either side of the minimum, and f.tau = Inf for x<-0.6 and x>1.0, where Inf means that f.tau(...) is greater than the largest number that can be represented on this system. When you set the range to (-1,1) your starting point is close enough to the minimum that optimize(...) manages to converge. When you set the limits to (-10,10) the starting point is too far away. There are examples in the documentation which show a similar problem with functions that are not nearly as ill-behaved as f.tau.
EDIT (Response to OP's comment)
The main problem is that you are trying to optimize a function which has computational infinities in the interval of interest. Here's a way around that.
band.tau <- 10
z <- seq(-band.tau,band.tau,length=1000)
vect.f <- Vectorize(f.tau)
interval <- range(z[is.finite(vect.f(z))])
f <- optimize(f.tau, interval, tol=1e-20)
f
# $minimum
# [1] 0.001615433
#
# $objective
# [,1]
# [1,] 7.157212e-12
This evaluates f.tau(x) at 1000 equally spaced points on (-band.tau,+band.tau), identifies all the values of x where f.tau is finite, and uses the range as the increment in optimize(...). This works in your case because f.tau(x) does not (appear to...) have asymptotes.
Related
Is there a way in R to generate random coordinates with a minimum distance between them?
E.g. what I'd like to avoid
x <- c(0,3.9,4.1,8)
y <- c(1,4.1,3.9,7)
plot(x~y)
This is a classical problem from stochastic geometry. Completely random points in space where the number of points falling in disjoint regions are independent of each other corresponds to a homogeneous Poisson point process (in this case in R^2, but could be in almost any space).
An important feature is that the total number of points has to be random before you can have independence of the counts of points in disjoint regions.
For the Poisson process points can be arbitrarily close together. If you define a process by sampling the Poisson process until you don't have any points that are too close together you have the so-called Gibbs Hardcore process. This has been studied a lot in the literature and there are different ways to simulate it. The R package spatstat has functions to do this. rHardcore is a perfect sampler, but if you want a high intensity of points and a big hard core distance it may not terminate in finite time... The distribution can be obtained as the limit of a Markov chain and rmh.default lets you run a Markov chain with a given Gibbs model as its invariant distribution. This finishes in finite time but only gives a realisation of an approximate distribution.
In rmh.default you can also simulate conditional on a fixed number of points. Note that when you sample in a finite box there is of course an upper limit to how many points you can fit with a given hard core radius, and the closer you are to this limit the more problematic it becomes to sample correctly from the distribution.
Example:
library(spatstat)
beta <- 100; R = 0.1
win <- square(1) # Unit square for simulation
X1 <- rHardcore(beta, R, W = win) # Exact sampling -- beware it may run forever for some par.!
plot(X1, main = paste("Exact sim. of hardcore model; beta =", beta, "and R =", R))
minnndist(X1) # Observed min. nearest neighbour dist.
#> [1] 0.102402
Approximate simulation
model <- rmhmodel(cif="hardcore", par = list(beta=beta, hc=R), w = win)
X2 <- rmh(model)
#> Checking arguments..determining simulation windows...Starting simulation.
#> Initial state...Ready to simulate. Generating proposal points...Running Metropolis-Hastings.
plot(X2, main = paste("Approx. sim. of hardcore model; beta =", beta, "and R =", R))
minnndist(X2) # Observed min. nearest neighbour dist.
#> [1] 0.1005433
Approximate simulation conditional on number of points
X3 <- rmh(model, control = rmhcontrol(p=1), start = list(n.start = 42))
#> Checking arguments..determining simulation windows...Starting simulation.
#> Initial state...Ready to simulate. Generating proposal points...Running Metropolis-Hastings.
plot(X3, main = paste("Approx. sim. given n =", 42))
minnndist(X3) # Observed min. nearest neighbour dist.
#> [1] 0.1018068
OK, how about this? You just generate random number pairs without restriction and then remove the onces which are too close. This could be a great start for that:
minimumDistancePairs <- function(x, y, minDistance){
i <- 1
repeat{
distance <- sqrt((x-x[i])^2 + (y-y[i])^2) < minDistance # pythagorean theorem
distance[i] <- FALSE # distance to oneself is always zero
if(any(distance)) { # if too close to any other point
x <- x[-i] # remove element from x
y <- y[-i] # and remove element from y
} else { # otherwise...
i = i + 1 # repeat the procedure with the next element
}
if (i > length(x)) break
}
data.frame(x,y)
}
minimumDistancePairs(
c(0,3.9,4.1,8)
, c(1,4.1,3.9,7)
, 1
)
will lead to
x y
1 0.0 1.0
2 4.1 3.9
3 8.0 7.0
Be aware, though, of the fact that these are not random numbers anymore (however you solve problem).
You can use rejection sapling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_sampling
The principle is simple: you resample until you data verify the condition.
> set.seed(1)
>
> x <- rnorm(2)
> y <- rnorm(2)
> (x[1]-x[2])^2+(y[1]-y[2])^2
[1] 6.565578
> while((x[1]-x[2])^2+(y[1]-y[2])^2 > 1) {
+ x <- rnorm(2)
+ y <- rnorm(2)
+ }
> (x[1]-x[2])^2+(y[1]-y[2])^2
[1] 0.9733252
>
The following is a naive hit-and-miss approach which for some choices of parameters (which were left unspecified in the question) works well. If performance becomes an issue, you could experiment with the package gpuR which has a GPU-accelerated distance matrix calculation.
rand.separated <- function(n,x0,x1,y0,y1,d,trials = 1000){
for(i in 1:trials){
nums <- cbind(runif(n,x0,x1),runif(n,y0,y1))
if(min(dist(nums)) >= d) return(nums)
}
return(NA) #no luck
}
This repeatedly draws samples of size n in [x0,x1]x[y0,y1] and then throws the sample away if it doesn't satisfy. As a safety, trials guards against an infinite loop. If solutions are hard to find or n is large you might need to increase or decrease trials.
For example:
> set.seed(2018)
> nums <- rand.separated(25,0,10,0,10,0.2)
> plot(nums)
runs almost instantly and produces:
Im not sure what you are asking.
if you want random coordinates here.
c(
runif(1,max=y[1],min=x[1]),
runif(1,max=y[2],min=x[2]),
runif(1,min=y[3],max=x[3]),
runif(1,min=y[4],max=x[4])
)
For a science project, I am looking for a way to generate random data in a certain range (e.g. min=0, max=100000) with a certain correlation with another variable which already exists in R. The goal is to enrich the dataset a little so I can produce some more meaningful graphs (no worries, I am working with fictional data).
For example, I want to generate random values correlating with r=-.78 with the following data:
var1 <- rnorm(100, 50, 10)
I already came across some pretty good solutions (i.e. https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/15011/generate-a-random-variable-with-a-defined-correlation-to-an-existing-variable), but only get very small values, which I cannot transform so the make sense in the context of the other, original values.
Following the example:
var1 <- rnorm(100, 50, 10)
n <- length(var1)
rho <- -0.78
theta <- acos(rho)
x1 <- var1
x2 <- rnorm(n, 50, 50)
X <- cbind(x1, x2)
Xctr <- scale(X, center=TRUE, scale=FALSE)
Id <- diag(n)
Q <- qr.Q(qr(Xctr[ , 1, drop=FALSE]))
P <- tcrossprod(Q) # = Q Q'
x2o <- (Id-P) %*% Xctr[ , 2]
Xc2 <- cbind(Xctr[ , 1], x2o)
Y <- Xc2 %*% diag(1/sqrt(colSums(Xc2^2)))
var2 <- Y[ , 2] + (1 / tan(theta)) * Y[ , 1]
cor(var1, var2)
What I get for var2 are values ranging between -0.5 and 0.5. with a mean of 0. I would like to have much more distributed data, so I could simply transform it by adding 50 and have a quite simililar range compared to my first variable.
Does anyone of you know a way to generate this kind of - more or less -meaningful data?
Thanks a lot in advance!
Starting with var1, renamed to A, and using 10,000 points:
set.seed(1)
A <- rnorm(10000,50,10) # Mean of 50
First convert values in A to have the new desired mean 50,000 and have an inverse relationship (ie subtract):
B <- 1e5 - (A*1e3) # Note that { mean(A) * 1000 = 50,000 }
This only results in r = -1. Add some noise to achieve the desired r:
B <- B + rnorm(10000,0,8.15e3) # Note this noise has mean = 0
# the amount of noise, 8.15e3, was found through parameter-search
This has your desired correlation:
cor(A,B)
[1] -0.7805972
View with:
plot(A,B)
Caution
Your B values might fall outside your range 0 100,000. You might need to filter for values outside your range if you use a different seed or generate more numbers.
That said, the current range is fine:
range(B)
[1] 1668.733 95604.457
If you're happy with the correlation and the marginal distribution (ie, shape) of the generated values, multiply the values (that fall between (-.5, +.5) by 100,000 and add 50,000.
> c(-0.5, 0.5) * 100000 + 50000
[1] 0e+00 1e+05
edit: this approach, or any thing else where 100,000 & 50,000 are exchanged for different numbers, will be an example of a 'linear transformation' recommended by #gregor-de-cillia.
I have a equation system and I want to solve it using numerical methods. I want to get a close solution given a starting seed. Let me explain.
I have a vector of constants ,X, of values:
X <- (c(1,-2,3,4))
and a vector W of weights:
W <- (c(0.25,0.25,0.25,0.25))
I want that the sum of the components of W will be (sum(W)=1), and the sum of the multiplication of X and W element by element will be a given number N (sum(W*X)=N).
Is there a easy way to do this in R? I have it in Excel, using Solver, but I need to automatize it.
Here is your constant and your target value:
x <- c(1, -2, 3, 4)
n <- 10
You need a function to minimize. The first line contains each of your conditions, and the second line provides a measure of how to combine the errors into a single score. You may want to change the second line. For example, you could make one error term be more heavily weighted than the other using sum(c(1, 5) * errs ^ 2).
fn <- function(w)
{
errs <- c(sum(w) - 1, sum(x * w) - n)
sum(errs ^ 2)
}
The simplest thing is to start with all the weights the same value.
init_w <- rep.int(1 / length(x), length(x))
Use optim to optimize.
optim(init_w, fn)
## $par
## [1] 0.1204827 -1.2438883 1.1023338 1.0212406
##
## $value
## [1] 7.807847e-08
##
## $counts
## function gradient
## 111 NA
##
## $convergence
## [1] 0
##
## $message
## NULL
The par element contains your weights.
There is no unique solution for this problem. If you try other initial values for w you will most likely get different results from optim.
The problem can be formulated as solving an underdetermined system of linear equations.
A <- matrix(c(rep(1,4),x), nrow=2,byrow=TRUE)
b <- matrix(c(1,n), nrow=2)
We seek a solution that satisfies A %*% w = b but which one? Minimum norm solution? Or maybe some other one? There are infinitely many solutions. Solutions can be given using the pseudo-inverse of the matrix A. Use package MASS for this.
library(MASS)
Ag <- ginv(A)
The minimum norm solution is
wmnorm <- Ag %*% b
And check with A %*% wmnorm - b and fn(wmnorm).
See the Wikipedia page System of linear equations
the section Matrix solutions.
The solutions are given by
Az <- diag(nrow=nrow(Ag)) - Ag %*% A
w <- wmnorm + Az %*% z
where z is an arbitrary vector of ncol(Az) elements.
And now generate some solutions and check
xb <- wmnorm
z <- runif(4)
wsol.2 <- xb + Az %*% z
wsol.2
A %*% wsol.2 - b
fn(wsol.2)
z <- runif(4)
wsol.3 <- xb + Az %*% z
wsol.3
A %*% wsol.2 - b
fn(wsol.3)
And you'll see that these two solutions are valid solutions when given as argument to fn. And are quite different from the solution found by optim. You could test this by choosing a different starting point init_w for example by init_w1 <- runif(4)/4.
I am newcomer to R, migrated from GAUSS because of the license verification issues.
I want to speed-up the following code which creates n×k matrix A. Given the n×1 vector x and vectors of parameters mu, sig (both of them k dimensional), A is created as A[i,j]=dnorm(x[i], mu[j], sigma[j]). Following code works ok for small numbers n=40, k=4, but slows down significantly when n is around 10^6 and k is about the same size as n^{1/3}.
I am doing simulation experiment to verify the bootstrap validity, so I need to repeatedly compute matrix A for #ofsimulation × #bootstrap times, and it becomes little time comsuming as I want to experiment with many different values of n,k. I vectorized the code as much as I could (thanks to vector argument of dnorm), but can I ask more speed up?
Preemptive thanks for any help.
x = rnorm(40)
mu = c(-1,0,4,5)
sig = c(2^2,0.5^2,2^2,3^2)
n = length(x)
k = length(mu)
A = matrix(NA,n,k)
for(j in 1:k){
A[,j]=dnorm(x,mu[j],sig[j])
}
Your method can be put into a function like this
A.fill <- function(x,mu,sig) {
k <- length(mu)
n <- length(x)
A <- matrix(NA,n,k)
for(j in 1:k) A[,j] <- dnorm(x,mu[j],sig[j])
A
}
and it's clear that you are filling the matrix A column by column.
R stores the entries of a matrix columnwise (just like Fortran).
This means that the matrix can be filled with a single call of dnorm using suitable repetitions of x, mu, and sig. The vector z will have the columns of the desired matrix stacked. and then the matrix to be returned can be formed from that vector just by specifying the number of rows an columns. See the following function
B.fill <- function(x,mu,sig) {
k <- length(mu)
n <- length(x)
z <- dnorm(rep(x,times=k),rep(mu,each=n),rep(sig,each=n))
B <- matrix(z,nrow=n,ncol=k)
B
}
Let's make an example with your data and test this as follows:
N <- 40
set.seed(11)
x <- rnorm(N)
mu <- c(-1,0,4,5)
sig <- c(2^2,0.5^2,2^2,3^2)
A <- A.fill(x,mu,sig)
B <- B.fill(x,mu,sig)
all.equal(A,B)
# [1] TRUE
I'm assuming that n is an integer multiple of k.
Addition
As noted in the comments B.fill is quite slow for large values of n.
The reason lies in the construct rep(...,each=...).
So is there a way to speed A.fill.
I tested this function:
C.fill <- function(x,mu,sig) {
k <- length(mu)
n <- length(x)
sapply(1:k,function(j) dnorm(x,mu[j],sig[j]), simplify=TRUE)
}
This function is about 20% faster than A.fill.
I faced an optimization problem. I need to optimize portfolio for return Omega measure. I found suggestions that this can be done by using differential evolution through DEoptim(Yollin's very nice slides on R tools for portfolio optimization. Original code can be found there).
I tried to adapt this method to my problem (since I only changed numbers and I hope didn't make any mistakes. Full credit for the author here for the idea):
optOmega <-function(x,ret,L){ #function I want to optimize and
retu = ret %*% x # x is vector of asset weights
obj = -Omega(retu,L=L,method="simple") #Omega from PerformanceAnalytics
weight.penalty = 100*(1-sum(x))^2
return( obj + weight.penalty )
}
L=0 #Parameter which defines loss
#in Omega calculation
lower = rep(0,30) #I want weight to be in bounds
upper = rep(1,30) # 0<=x<=1
res = DEoptim(optOmega,lower,upper, #I have 30 assets in StockReturn
control=list(NP=2000,itermax=100,F=0.2,CR=0.8),
ret=coredata(StockReturn),L=L)
Omega is calculated as mean(pmax(retu-L,0))/mean(pmax(L-retu,0))
When asset number is very small (5 for example), I get results which pretty much satisfy me: asset weights add up to 0.999???? which is fairly close to one and the Omega of such portfolio is greater than Omega of any single asset (otherwise, why not invest everything in that single asset). This can be reached with 100 iterations.
But when I increase asset number up to 30, result is not satisfying. Sum of weights comes to be 3 or more and Omega lower than that of some single assets. I thought this might be due to small number of iterations (I used 1000), so I tried 10 000 which is painfully slow. But the result is pretty much the same: weighs add up to way more than 1 and Omega does not seem optimal. With 10 asset algorithm seems to find weights close to 1, but Omega is lower than the one of a single asset.
My PC is quite old and it has Intel Core Duo 2 GHZ. Though, is it normal for such optimization with 1000 iterations to run ~40 minutes?
What might be the problem here? Is number of iterations too small, or my interpretation of provided algorithm is totally wrong. Thank You for your help!
If I comment out the control argument in your call to DEoptim, I have much better results:
the sum of the weights is closer to 1 (it was 3), and the objective is better that for the 1-asset portfolios (it was worse).
# Sample data
library(xts)
n <- 600
k <- 26
StockReturn <- matrix( rnorm(n*k), nc=k )
colnames(StockReturn) <- LETTERS[1:k]
StockReturn <- xts( StockReturn, seq.Date(Sys.Date(), length=n, by=1) )
# Objective
library(PerformanceAnalytics)
optOmega <- function(x, ret = coredata(StockReturn), L=0) {
penalty <- (1-sum(x))^2
x <- x/sum(x)
objective <- -Omega( ret %*% x, L=L, method="simple" )
objective + penalty
}
# Optimization
library(DEoptim)
lower <- rep(0,k)
upper <- rep(1,k)
res <- DEoptim(
optOmega, lower, upper,
# control = list(NP=2000, itermax=100, F=0.2, CR=0.8),
ret = coredata(StockReturn), L = L
)
# Check the results
w <- res$optim$bestmem
sum(w) # Close to 1
w <- w / sum(w)
optOmega(w) # Better (lower) that for the 1-asset portfolios
min( apply( diag(k), 2, optOmega ) )