Nearly every game tends to use some of a game loop. Gafferongames has a great article on how to make a well designed game loop: http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/fix-your-timestep/
In his code, he uses integrate( state, t, deltaTime );, where I believe state contains position, velocity, and acceleration of the object. He uses RK4 to integrate it from t to t+deltaTime.
My question is, why use a numerical integration technique like RK4, when you can use kinematics equations (here) to find the exact value?
These equations work when acceleration is constant. It seems rare that you would have a changing acceleration within a timestep. It seems like RK4 is a lower performance, lower accuracy, more complex solution.
Edit: I think you could add a "jerk" value to objects and still find exact expressions for acceleration, velocity, and displacement, if you really wanted to.
Edit 2: Well, I did not read his "Integration Basics" article too carefully. I think he's modelling a damper and spring, which do cause non-constant acceleration within a timestep.
As soon as you add things that many game designers want, like (velocity dependent) drag, position dependent forces, etc. the equations are no longer solvable exactly.
So, if you're happy to limit your forces to those the kinematic equation can handle, then go with it. If you want something flexible, then numerical integration is the only way to go.
Note: If you treat the forces as constant over a time interval when they are not really constant - then you are actually using a form of numerical integration. And it is an inaccurate form of integration too. So why not use a tried and proven numerical method instead? RK4 is one of many such methods.
Approximating acceleration (derivatives, really) as constant within a time step is how numerical integration methods work. When the derivatives are not constant, you need to consider what sort of error you introduce by treating them as constant.
Imagine breaking a time range T up into N equal steps of width h=T/N. Now integrate the dynamical equations stepwise. With RK4, the local error per-step is O(h^5) giving a global error of O(h^4).
Using the kinematical equations as you propose, we can assess the error by considering the Taylor expansion of the position, keeping terms to second order. The position will have error of O(h^3) introduced at each step, corresponding to where you truncate the expansion. This gives local error O(h^3) and global error O(h^2).
Based on the asymptotic error, the error from RK4 goes to zero much more rapidly than does the kinematical equations. It's more accurate. RK4 obtains a very nice accuracy obtained for the number of function evaluations that need to be done.
Related
I would like to perform some optimizations by minimizing the maximum of a specific path variable within Dymos. or the maximum of the absolute of such a variable.
In linear programming methods, this can be done by introducing slack variables.
Do you know if this has been attempted before with Dymos, or if there was a reason not to include it?
I understand gradient based methods are not entirely suitable for these problems, though I think some "functions" can be introduced to mitigate this.
For example,
The space shuttle reentry problem from [Betts][1] used as a [test example][2] in dymos, the original source contains an example where the maximum heat flux is minimized. Such functionality could be implemented with the "loc" argument as:
phase.add_objective('q_c', loc='max')
[1]: J. Betts. Practical Methods for Optimal Control and Estimation Using Nonlinear Programming. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, second edition, 2010. URL: https://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/1.9780898718577, arXiv:https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9780898718577, doi:10.1137/1.9780898718577.
[2]: https://openmdao.github.io/dymos/examples/reentry/reentry.html
This has been done with pseudospectral methods before. Dymos currently doesn't have any direct way of implementing this, for a few reasons:
As you said, doing this naively can introduce discontinuous gradients that confuse the optimizer. When the node at which the maximum occurs switches, this tends to cause a sharp edge discontinuity in the gradient.
Since the pseudospectral methods are discrete, you cannot guarantee that the maximum will occur at a node. It's often fine to assume it does, but sometimes your requirements might demand more precision.
There are two possible ways to get around this.
The KSComp in OpenMDAO can be used as a "differentiable maximum". Add one after the trajectory, feed it the timeseries data for the output of interest, and set it up such that it returns a smooth approximation to the maximum. The KS function is a bit conservative, so it won't pick out the precise maximum, but depending on the value of the rho option it can be tuned to get pretty close.
When a more precise value of a maximum is needed, it's pretty common to set up a trajectory such that a phase ends when the maximum or minimum is reached.
If the variable whose maximum is being sought is a state, this can be done by adding a boundary constraint on the rate source for that state.
This ensures that the maximum occurs at the first or last node in the phase (depending on if its an initial or final boundary constraint). That lets you more accurately capture its value.
If the variable being sought is not a state, its possible to use the polynomials that are used for fitting states and controls in a phase to interpolate the variable of interest. By then taking the time derivative of that polynomial we can get a reasonably good approximation for its rate. The master branch of dymos has a method add_timeseries_rate_output that does this. And soon, within a few weeks hopefully, we'll add add_boundary_rate_constraint so that these interpolated rates can be easily used as boundary constraints.
In the meantime, you should be able to achieve this by adding the timeseries rate output and then manually applying the OpenMDAO method 'add_constraint' to the resulting timeseries output, using either indices=[0] or indices=[-1] to treat it as an initial or final constraint.
This is a common enough request that we'll add some documentation on how to achieve this behavior using both the KSComp approach and the boundary constraint approach.
Personally I'm not as much of a fan of KSComp because I've had trouble getting problems getting those types of objectives to converge in the past. I've used the slack variable and that has worked well. In the following example, we take a guess at the Rotor power in static analysis, and then we run a trajectory and get the actual rotor power during the mission. The objective was to minimize aircraft weight, so if you have a large amount of power in statics, that costs more weight. The constraint shown below prevents us from decreasing our updated guess of rotor power in statics below the maximum power required during the trajectory.
p.model.add_subsystem(
'static_power_check',
om.ExecComp('Power_check = Power_ODE - Power_statics',
Power_check = {'value':np.ones(nn_timeseries_main_tx), 'units':'kW'},
Power_ODE = {'value':np.ones(nn_timeseries_main_tx), 'units':'kW'},
Power_statics = {'value':0.0, 'units':'kW'}),
promotes_inputs=[
('Power_ODE','hop0.main_phase.timeseries.Power_R'), ('Power_statics','Power_{rotor,slack}')],
promotes_outputs=['Power_check'])
p.model.add_constraint('Power_check', upper=0, ref=1)
The constraint on the slack variable effectively helped us ensure that our slack rotor power matched the maximum rotor power during the mission. This allowed us to get the right sizes for the rotor parts (i.e. motors).
I am testing performance of different solvers on minimizing an objective function derived from simulated method of moments. Given that my objective function is not differentiable, I wonder if automatic differentiation would work in this case? I tried my best to read some introduction on this method, but I couldn't figure it out.
I am actually trying to use Ipopt+JuMP in Julia for this test. Previously, I have tested it using BlackBoxoptim in Julia. I will also appreciate if you could provide some insights on optimization of non-differentiable functions in Julia.
It seems that I am not clear on "non-differentiable". Let me give you an example. Consider the following objective function. X is dataset, B is unobserved random errors which will be integrated out, \theta is parameters. However, A is discrete and therefore not differentiable.
I'm not exactly an expert on optimization, but: it depends on what you mean by "nondifferentiable".
For many mathematical functions that are used, "nondifferentiable" will just mean "not everywhere differentiable" -- but that's still "differentiable almost everywhere, except on countably many points" (e.g., abs, relu). These functions are not a problem at all -- you can just chose any subgradient and apply any normal gradient method. That's what basically all AD systems for machine learning do. The case for non-singular subgradients will happen with low probability anyway. An alternative for certain forms of convex objectives are proximal gradient methods, which "smooth" the objective in an efficient way that preserves optima (cf. ProximalOperators.jl).
Then there's those functions that seem like they can't be differentiated at all, since they seem "combinatoric" or discrete, but are in fact piecewise differentiable (if seen from the correct point of view). This includes sorting and ranking. But you have to find them, and describing and implementing the derivative is rather complicated. Whether such functions are supported by an AD system depends on how sophisticated its "standard library" is. Some variants of this, like "permute", can just fall out AD over control structures, while move complex ones require the primitive adjoints to be manually defined.
For certain kinds of problems, though, we just work in an intrinsically discrete space -- like, integer parameters of some probability distributions. In these case, differentiation makes no sense, and hence AD libraries define their primitives not to work on these parameters. Possible alternatives are to use (mixed) integer programming, approximations, search, and model selection. This case also occurs for problems where the optimized space itself depends on the parameter in question, like the second argument of fill. We also have things like the ℓ0 "norm" or the rank of a matrix, for which there exist well-known continuous relaxations, but that's outside of the scope of AD).
(In the specific case of MCMC for discrete or dimensional parameters, there's other ways to deal with that, like combining HMC with other MC methods in a Gibbs sampler, or using a nonparametric model instead. Other tricks are possible for VI.)
That being said, you will rarely encounter complicated nowhere differentiable continuous functions in optimization. They are already complicated to describe, are just unlikely to arise in the kind of math we use for modelling.
I think I understand what complex step is doing numerically/algorithmically.
But the questions still linger. First two questions might have the same answer.
1- I replaced the partial derivative calculations of 'Betz_limit' example with complex step and removed the analytical gradients. Looking at the recorded design_var evolution none of the values are complex? Aren't they supposed to be shown as somehow a+bi?
Or it always steps in the real space. ?
2- Tying to picture 'cs', used in a physical concept. For example a design variable of beam length (m), objective of mass (kg) and a constraint of loads (Nm). I could be using an explicit component to calculate these (pure python) or an external code component (pure fortran). Numerically they all can handle complex numbers but obviously the mass is a real value. So when we say capable of handling the complex numbers is it just an issue of handling a+bi (where actual mass is always 'a' and b is always equal to 0?)
3- How about the step size. I understand there wont be any subtractive cancellation errors but what if i have a design variable normalized/scaled to 1 and a range of 0.8 to 1.2. Decreasing the step to 1e-10 does not make sense. I am a bit confused there.
The ability to use complex arithmetic to compute derivative approximations is based on the mathematics of complex arithmetic.
You should read about the theory to get a better understanding of why it works and how the step size issue is resolved with complex-step vs finite-difference.
There is no physical interpretation that you can make for the complex-step method. You are simply taking advantage of the mathematical properties of complex arithmetic to approximate a derivative in a more accurate manner than FD can. So the key is that your code is set up to do complex-arithmetic correctly.
Sometimes, engineering analyses do actually leverage complex numbers. One aerospace example of this is the Jukowski Transformation. In electrical engineering, complex numbers come up all the time for load-flow analysis of ac circuits. If you have such an analysis, then you can not easily use complex-step to approximate derivatives since the analysis itself is already complex. In these cases, it is technically possible to use a more general class of numbers called hyper dual numbers, but this is not supported in OpenMDAO. So if you had an analysis like this you could not use complex-step.
Also, occationally there are implementations of methods that are not complex-step safe which will prevent you from using it unless you define a new complex-step safe version. The simplest example of this is the np.absolute() method in the numpy library for python. The implementation of this, when passed a complex number, will return the asolute magnitude of the number:
abs(a+bj) = sqrt(1^2 + 1^2) = 1.4142
While not mathematically incorrect, this implementation would mess up the complex-step derivative approximation.
Instead you need an alternate version that gives:
abs(a+bj) = abs(a) + abs(b)*j
So in summary, you need to watch out for these kinds of functions that are not implemented correctly for use with complex-step. If you have those functions, you need to use alternate complex-step safe versions of them. Also, if your analysis itself uses complex numbers then you can not use complex-step derivative approximations either.
With regard to your step size question, again I refer you to the this paper for greater detail. The basic idea is that without subtractive cancellation you are free to use a very small step size with complex-step without the fear of lost accuracy due to numerical issues. So typically you will use 1e-20 smaller as the step. Since complex-step accuracy scalea with the order of step^2, using such a small step gives effectively exact results. You need not worry about scaling issues in most cases, if you just take a small enough step.
I'm trying to design a nonlinear fitness function where I maximize variable A and minimize the variable B. The issue is that maximizing A is much more important at single digit values, almost logarithmic. B needs to be minimized and in contrast to A, it becomes less important when small (less than one) and more important when it's larger (>1), so exponential decay.
The main goal is to optimize A, so I guess an analog is A=profits, B=costs
Should I aim to keep everything positive so that the I can use a roulette wheel selection, or would it be better to use a rank/torunament kind of system? The purpose of my algorithm is shape optimization.
Thanks
When considering a multi-objective problem the goal is usually to identify all solutions that lie on the Pareto curve - the Pareto optimal set. Have a look here for a 2-dimensional visual example. When the algorithm completes you want a set of solutions that are not dominated by any other solution. You therefore need to define a pareto ranking mechanism to take into account both objectives - for a more in depth explanation, as well as links to even more reading, go here
With this in mind, in order to effectively explore all solutions along the pareto front you do not want an implementation that encourages premature convergence, otherwise your algorithm will only explore the search space in one specific area of the Pareto curve. I would implement a selection operator that keeps all members of each iteration's optimal set of solutions, that is all solutions which are not dominated by another + plus a parameter controlled percentage of other solutions. This way you encourage exploration all along the Pareto curve.
You also need to ensure your mutation and crossover operators are tuned correctly too. With any novel application of Evolutionary Algorithms, part of the problem is trying to identify an optimal parameter set for the problem domain... this is where it gets really interesting!!
The description is very vague, but assuming that you actually have an idea of what the function should look like and you're just wondering whether you need to modify it so that proportional selection can be used easily, then no. Regardless of fitness function, you should probably default to using something like tournament selection. Controlling selection pressure is one of the most important things you have to do in order to get consistently good results, and roulette wheel selection doesn't allow you that control. You typically get enormous pressure very early, which drives premature convergence. That might be preferable in a few cases, but it's not where I'd start my investigations.
There is a good compilation of trajectory math in wikipedia.
But I need to calculate a trajectory that has non uniform conditions. E.g. the wind speed changes above certain altitude. (Cannot be modeled easily.)
Should I calculate projectile's velocity vector e.g. every second and then for the next second based on that (having small enough tdelta)
Or should I try to split the trajectory into pieces - based on the parameters (e.g. wind is vwind 1 between y1 and y2 so I calculate for y<y1, y1≤y<y2 and y2≤y separately).
Try to build and solve a symbolic equation - run time - with all the parameters modeled. (Is this completely utopistic? Traditional programmin languages aren't too good solving symbols.)
Something completely different... ?
Are there good languages / frameworks for handling symbolic math?
I'd suggest an "improved" first approach: solve the differential equations of motion numerically with e.g. the classic Runge-Kutta method.
The nice part is that with these algorithms, once you correctly set up your framework, you just have to write an "evaluate" function for the motion law (which can be almost anything - you don't need to restrict to particular forces), and everything should work fine (as far as the integration step is adequate).
If the conditions really are cleanly divided into two domains like that, then the second approach is probably best. The first approach is both imprecise and overkill, and the third, if done right, will wind up being equivalent to the second.