I've been doing BigO recently, and I get the formula ok, but I've written a piece of code that takes and input and returns a time taken to complete a sort. So I have the input and time, how do I use this to classify what sort of BigO it is? I've made graphs and can see which sort they are but I can't do it using the formula? I'm not strong on maths which I think is my problem here!
For instance I get:
Size Time Operations
200 2 163648
400 1 162240
800 15 2489456
1600 6 10247376
3200 19 40858160
6400 79 165383984
12800 318 656588080
25600 1274 2624318128
51200 5059 10476803408
102400 20333 41969291968
I know that this is O(n^2) by looking at the graph and comparing, but how do I prove it?
Yes, you can sample a thousand different input sizes, and then try to derive a Big-O value from that, but you shouldn't - not only because it doesn't actually prove anything, but because that isn't the point.
The way to prove O(n^2) is to prove it on the code itself, not through experiments. The actual running time isn't important, because Big-O notation doesn't say anything about that - in simple terms, it only specifies the dominant term of whatever formula you would use to calculate the exact running time, in the sense of the number of operations executed for that function. Constants are thrown away, and so are smaller terms - the actual running time of a function might be 1000n^2+1000000n, but that's still O(n^2).
You can't mathematically prove anything from this table; the complexity might be O(1) if Time remains at 20333 for all larger values.
The best you can do is try fitting several curves to this table and selecting the best fit according to Occam's razor.
You can't prove it by looking at the timings, you can only prove it by analysing the code to see how many steps are performed. The reason for this is that the time taken is a function not only of your program but many other things outside of your control as well.
For example, who can say whether your machine didn't spend an inordinate amount of time in other processes during one particular test run of your program? This sort of thing can be minimsed to a point using statistical methods but the proof requires solid data.
What you can do is to look at some of your data points to get support for the contention that it's O(n2). Have a look at the last four entries:
Input Time
128 318
256 1274 1274 / 318 = 4.006
512 5059 5059 / 1274 = 3.971
1024 20333 20333 / 5059 = 4.019
You can see that each doubling of the input size has a multiplier effect of the time of about 4 which would tend to indicate an O(n2) property.
But this is support only. It applies only to that particular range of input values and, as stated, is subject to factors outside your control. Note also that the support would be harder to see if the time taken was not a simple one. For example, if the time function was t = n2/10 + 123n + 123456789, it would be a little harder to figure out.
Just by making a comparison between the values may not make any sense.However,if you plot a graph using this values( x-axis : input , y-axis:time),you will get a curve or a linear shape or whatever.Using this information,you can predict the BigO value of that function.Of course there may be(not always) some interrupts that affects the running of that process,but that does not last during the whole period.It is slight overhead that cannot affect the result.
In order to predict the BigO value , you will need some Calculus knowledge in order to make the analogy between the shape and BigO result.
For example,let's say that you got a linear shape and you know that it means O(n).In that point,you reached that result because you know the shape of a linear function graph and your graph looks like it.In order to reach the true proof , you have to draw both your functions curve and the graph of the mathematical function that has the closest shape to your graph.
There are some other functions like Big-Theta , Small-Omega that binds your function from upper or from lower.The mathematical function could be both of them,but as a result,your Big-O function is the closest one to that shape.
Related
I have been working for a couple of months with OpenMDAO and I find myself struggling with my code when I want to impose conditions for trying to replicate a physical/engineering behaviour.
I have tried using sigmoid functions, but I am still not convinced with that, due to the difficulty about trading off sensibility and numerical stabilization. Most of times I found overflows in exp so I end up including other conditionals (like np.where) so loosing linearity.
outputs['sigmoid'] = 1 / (1 + np.exp(-x))
I was looking for another kind of step function or something like that, able to keep linearity and derivability to the ease of the optimization. I don't know if something like that exists or if there is any strategy that can help me. If it helps, I am working with an OpenConcept benchmark, which uses vectorized computations ans Simpson's rule numerical integration.
Thank you very much.
PD: This is my first ever question in stackoverflow, so I would like to apologyze in advance for any error or bad practice commited. Hope to eventually collaborate and become active in the community.
Update after Justin answer:
I will take the opportunity to define a little bit more my problem and the strategy I tried. I am trying to monitorize and control thermodynamics conditions inside a tank. One of the things is to take actions when pressure P1 reaches certein threshold P2, for defining this:
eval= (inputs['P1'] - inputs['P2']) / (inputs['P1'] + inputs['P2'])
# P2 = threshold [Pa]
# P1 = calculated pressure [Pa]
k=100 #steepness control
outputs['sigmoid'] = (1 / (1 + np.exp(-eval * k)))
eval was defined in order avoid overflows normalizing the values, so when the threshold is recahed, corrections are taken. In a very similar way, I defined a function to check if there is still mass (so flowing can continue between systems):
eval= inputs['mass']/inputs['max']
k=50
outputs['sigmoid'] = (1 / (1 + np.exp(-eval*k)))**3
maxis also used for normalizing the value and the exponent is added for reaching zero before entering in the negative domain.
PLot (sorry it seems I cannot post images yet for my reputation)
It may be important to highlight that both mass and pressure are calculated from coupled ODE integration, in which this activation functions take part. I guess OpenConcept nature 'explore' a lot of possible values before arriving the solution, so most of the times giving negative infeasible values for massand pressure and creating overflows. For that sometimes I try to include:
eval[np.where(eval > 1.5)] = 1.5
eval[np.where(eval < -1.5)] = -1.5
That is not a beautiful but sometimes effective solution. I try to avoid using it since I taste that this bounds difficult solver and optimizer work.
I could give you a more complete answer if you distilled your question down to a specific code example of the function you're wrestling with and its expected input range. If you provide that code-sample, I'll update my answer.
Broadly, this is a common challenge when using gradient based optimization. You want some kind of behavior like an if-condition to turn something on/off and in many cases thats a fundamentally discontinuous function.
To work around that we often use sigmoid functions, but these do have some of the numerical challenges you pointed out. You could try a hyberbolic tangent as an alternative, though it may suffer the same kinds of problems.
I will give you two broad options:
Option 1
sometimes its ok (even if not ideal) to leave the purely discrete conditional in the code. Lets say you wanted to represent a kind of simple piecewise function:
y = 2x; x>=0
y = 0; x < 0
There is a sharp corner in that function right at 0. That corner is not differentiable, but the function is fine everywhere else. This is very much like the absolute value function in practice, though you might not draw the analogy looking at the piecewise definition of the function because the piecewise nature of abs is often hidden from you.
If you know (or at least can check after the fact) that your final answer will no lie right on or very near to that C1 discontinuity, then its probably fine to leave the code the way is is. Your derivatives will be well defined everywhere but right at 0 and you can simply pick the left or the right answer for 0.
Its not strictly mathematically correct, but it works fine as long as you're not ending up stuck right there.
Option 2
Apply a smoothing function. This can be a sigmoid, or a simple polynomial. The exact nature of the smoothing function is highly specific to the kind of discontinuity you are trying to approximate.
In the case of the piecewise function above, you might be tempted to define that function as:
2x*sig(x)
That would give you roughly the correct behavior, and would be differentiable everywhere. But wolfram alpha shows that it actually undershoots a little. Thats probably undesirable, so you can increase the exponent to mitigate that. This however, is where you start to get underflow and overflow problems.
So to work around that, and make a better behaved function all around, you could instead defined a three part piecewise polynomial:
y = 2x; x>=a
y = c0 + c1*x + c2*x**2; -a <= x < a
y = 0 x < -a
you can solve for the coefficients as a function of a (please double check my algebra before using this!):
c0 = 1.5a
c1 = 2
c2 = 1/(2a)
The nice thing about this approach is that it will never overshoot and go negative. You can also make a reasonably small and still get decent numerics. But if you try to make it too small, c2 will obviously blow up.
In general, I consider the sigmoid function to be a bit of a blunt instrument. It works fine in many cases, but if you try to make it approximate a step function too closely, its a nightmare. If you want to represent physical processes, I find polynomial fillet functions work more nicely.
It takes a little effort to derive that polynomial, because you want it to be c1 continuous on both sides of the curve. So you have to construct the system of equations to solve for it as a function of the polynomial order and the specific relaxation you want (0.1 here).
My goto has generally been to consult the table of activation functions on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_function
I've had good luck with sigmoid and the hyperbolic tangent, scaling them such that we can choose the lower and upper values as well as choosing the location of the activation on the x-axis and the steepness.
Dymos uses a vectorization that I think is similar to OpenConcept and I've had success with numpy.where there as well, providing derivatives for each possible "branch" taken. It is true that you may have issues with derivative mismatches if you have an analysis point right on the transition, but often I've had success despite that. If the derivative at the transition becomes a hinderance then implementing a sigmoid or relu are more appropriate.
If x is of a magnitude such that it can cause overflows, consider applying units or using scaling to put it within reasonable limits if you cannot bound it directly.
I am using the finite difference scheme to find gradients.
Lets say i have 2 outputs (y1,y2) and 1 input (x) in a single component. And in advance I know that the sensitivity of y1 with respect to x is not same as the sensitivity of y2 to x. And thus i could potentially have two different steps for those as in ;
self.declare_partials(of=y1, wrt=x, method='fd',step=0.01, form='central')
self.declare_partials(of=y2, wrt=x, method='fd',step=0.05, form='central')
There is nothing that stops me (algorithmically) but it is not clear what would openmdao gradient calculation exactly do in this case?
does it exchange information from the case where the steps are different by looking at the steps ratios or simply treating them independently and therefore doubling computational time ?
I just tested this, and it does the finite difference twice with the two different step sizes, and only saves the requested outputs for each step. I don't think we could do anything with the ratios as you suggested, as the reason for using different stepsizes to resolve individual outputs is because you don't trust the accuracy of the outputs at the smaller (or large) stepsize.
This is a fair question about the effect of the API. In typical FD applications you would get only 1 function call per design variable for forward and backward difference and 2 function calls for central difference.
However in this case, you have asked for two different step sizes for two different outputs, both with central difference. So here, you'll end up with 4 function calls to compute all the derivatives. dy1_dx will be computed using the step size of .01 and dy2_dx will be computed with a step size of .05.
There is no crosstalk between the two different FD calls, and you do end up with more function calls than you would have if you just specified a single step size via:
self.declare_partials(of='*', wrt=x, method='fd',step=0.05, form='central')
If the cost is something you can bear, and you get improved accuracy, then you could use this method to get different step sizes for different outputs.
I am looking for a simple method to assign a number to a mathematical expression, say between 0 and 1, that conveys how simplified that expression is (being 1 as fully simplified). For example:
eval('x+1') should return 1.
eval('1+x+1+x+x-5') should returns some value less than 1, because it is far from being simple (i.e., it can be further simplified).
The parameter of eval() could be either a string or an abstract syntax tree (AST).
A simple idea that occurred to me was to count the number of operators (?)
EDIT: Let simplified be equivalent to how close a system is to the solution of a problem. E.g., given an algebra problem (i.e. limit, derivative, integral, etc), it should assign a number to tell how close it is to the solution.
The closest metaphor I can come up with it how a maths professor would look at an incomplete problem and mentally assess it in order to tell how close the student is to the solution. Like in a math exam, were the student didn't finished a problem worth 20 points, but the professor assigns 8 out of 20. Why would he come up with 8/20, and can we program such thing?
I'm going to break a stack-overflow rule and post this as an answer instead of a comment, because not only I'm pretty sure the answer is you can't (at least, not the way you imagine), but also because I believe it can be educational up to a certain degree.
Let's assume that a criteria of simplicity can be established (akin to a normal form). It seems to me that you are very close to trying to solve an analogous to entscheidungsproblem or the halting problem. I doubt that in a complex rule system required for typical algebra, you can find a method that gives a correct and definitive answer to the number of steps of a series of term reductions (ipso facto an arbitrary-length computation) without actually performing it. Such answer would imply knowing in advance if such computation could terminate, and so contradict the fact that automatic theorem proving is, for any sufficiently powerful logic capable of representing arithmetic, an undecidable problem.
In the given example, the teacher is actually either performing that computation mentally (going step by step, applying his own sequence of rules), or gives an estimation based on his experience. But, there's no generic algorithm that guarantees his sequence of steps are the simplest possible, nor that his resulting expression is the simplest one (except for trivial expressions), and hence any quantification of "distance" to a solution is meaningless.
Wouldn't all this be true, your problem would be simple: you know the number of steps, you know how many steps you've taken so far, you divide the latter by the former ;-)
Now, returning to the criteria of simplicity, I also advice you to take a look on Hilbert's 24th problem, that specifically looked for a "Criteria of simplicity, or proof of the greatest simplicity of certain proofs.", and the slightly related proof compression. If you are philosophically inclined to further understand these subjects, I would suggest reading the classic Gödel, Escher, Bach.
Further notes: To understand why, consider a well-known mathematical artefact called the Mandelbrot fractal set. Each pixel color is calculated by determining if the solution to the equation z(n+1) = z(n)^2 + c for any specific c is bounded, that is, "a complex number c is part of the Mandelbrot set if, when starting with z(0) = 0 and applying the iteration repeatedly, the absolute value of z(n) remains bounded however large n gets." Despite the equation being extremely simple (you know, square a number and sum a constant), there's absolutely no way to know if it will remain bounded or not without actually performing an infinite number of iterations or until a cycle is found (disregarding complex heuristics). In this sense, every fractal out there is a rough approximation that typically usages an escape time algorithm as an heuristic to provide an educated guess whether the solution will be bounded or not.
I have a linear regression equation from school , which gives a value between 1 and -1 indicative of whether or not a set of data points are close enough to a linear function
and the equation given here
http://people.hofstra.edu/stefan_waner/realworld/calctopic1/regression.html
under best fit of a line. I would like to use these to do simple gesture detection based on a point in 3-space (x,y,z) - forward, back, left, right, up, down. First I would see if they fall on a line in 2 of the 3 dimensions, then I would see if that line's slope approached zero or infinity.
Is this fast enough for functional gesture recognition? If not, could someone propose an alternative algorithm?
If I've understood your question correctly then (1) the calculation you describe here would probably be plenty fast enough, (2) it may not actually do what you want, and (3) the stuff that'll be slow in an actual implementation would lie elsewhere.
So, I think you're proposing to do this. (1) Identify the positions of ... something ... (the user's hand, perhaps) in three-dimensional space, at several successive times. (2) For (say) each of {x,y} and {x,z}, look at those two coordinates of each point, compute the correlation coefficient (which is what your formula describes) and see whether it's close to +-1. (3) If both correlation coefficients are close to +-1 then the points lie approximately on a straight line; calculate the gradient of that line (using a formula similar to that of the correlation coefficient). (4) If the gradients are both very close to 0 or +- infinity, then your line is approximately parallel to one axis, which is the case you're trying to recognize.
1: Is it fast enough? You might perhaps be sampling at 50 frames per second or thereabouts, and your gestures might take a second to execute. So you'll have somewhere on the order of 50 positions. So, the total number of arithmetic operations you'll need is maybe a few hundred (including a modest number of square roots). In the worst case, you might be doing this in emulated floating-point on a slow ARM processor or something; in that case, each arithmetic operation might take a couple of hundred cycles, so the whole thing might be 100k cycles, which for a really slow processor running at 100MHz would be about a millisecond. You're not going to have any problem with the time taken to do this calculation.
2: Is it the right thing? It's not clear that it's the right calculation. For instance, suppose your user's hand moves back and forth rapidly several times along the x-axis; that will give you a positive result; is that what you want? Suppose the user attempts the gesture you want but moves at slightly the wrong angle; you may get a negative result. Suppose they move exactly along the x-axis for a bit and then along the y-axis for a bit; then the projections onto the {x,y}, {x,z} and {y,z} planes will all pass your test. These all seem like results you might not want.
3: Is it where the real cost will lie? This all assumes you've already got (x,y,z) coordinates. Getting those is probably going to be more expensive than processing them. For instance, if you have a camera-based system of some kind then there'll be some nontrivial image processing for every frame. Or perhaps you're integrating up data from accelerometers (which, by the way, is likely to give nasty inaccurate position results); the chances are that you're doing some filtering and other calculations to get position data. I bet that the cost of performing a calculation like this one will be substantially less than the cost of getting the coordinates in the first place.
Basically I have a large (could get as large as 100,000-150,000 values) data set of 4-byte inputs and their corresponding 4-byte outputs. The inputs aren't guaranteed to be unique (which isn't really a problem because I figure I can generate pseudo-random numbers to add or xor the inputs with so that they do become unique), but the outputs aren't guaranteed to be unique either (so two different sets of inputs might have the same output).
I'm trying to create a function that effectively models the values in my data-set. I don't need it to interpolate efficiently, or even at all (by this I mean that I'm never going to feed it an input that isn't contained in this static data-set). However it does need to be as efficient as possible. I've looked into interpolation and found that it doesn't really fit what I'm looking for. For example, the large number of values means that spline interpolation won't do since it creates a polynomial per interval.
Also, from my understanding polynomial interpolation would be way too computationally expensive (n values means that the polynomial could include terms as high as pow(x,n-1). For x= a 4-byte number and n=100,000 it's just not feasible). I've tried looking online for a while now, but I'm not very strong with math and must not know the right terms to search with because I haven't come across anything similar so far.
I can see that this is not completely (to put it mildly) a programming question and I apologize in advance. I'm not looking for the exact solution or even a complete answer. I just need pointers on the topics that I would need to read up on so I can solve this problem on my own. Thanks!
TL;DR - I need a variant of interpolation that only needs to fit the initially given data-points, but which is computationally efficient.
Edit:
Some clarification - I do need the output to be exact and not an approximation. This is sort of an optimization of some research work I'm currently doing and I need to have this look-up implemented without the actual bytes of the outputs being present in my program. I can't really say a whole lot about it at the moment, but I will say that for the purposes of my work, encryption (or compression or any other other form of obfuscation) is not an option to hide the table. I need a mathematical function that can recreate the output so long as it has access to the input. I hope that clears things up a bit.
Here is one idea. Make your function be the sum (mod 232) of a linear function over all 4-byte integers, a piecewise linear function whose pieces depend on the value of the first bit, another piecewise linear function whose pieces depend on the value of the first two bits, and so on.
The actual output values appear nowhere, you have to add together linear terms to get them. There is also no direct record of which input values you have. (Someone could conclude something about those input values, but not their actual values.)
The various coefficients you need can be stored in a hash. Any lookups you do which are not found in the hash are assumed to be 0.
If you add a certain amount of random "noise" to your dataset before starting to encode it fairly efficiently, it would be hard to tell what your input values are, and very hard to tell what the outputs are even approximately without knowing the inputs.
Since you didn't impose any restriction on the function (continuous, smooth, etc), you could simply do a piece-wise constant interpolation:
or a linear interpolation:
I assume you can figure out how to construct such a function without too much trouble.
EDIT: In light of your additional requirement that such a function should "hide" the data points...
For a piece-wise constant interpolation, the constant intervals should be randomized so as to not reveal where the data point is. So for example in the picture, the intervals are centered about the data point it's interpolating. Instead, you might want to do something like:
[0 , 0.3) -> 0
[0.3 , 1.9) -> 0.8
[1.9 , 2.1) -> 0.9
[2.1 , 3.5) -> 0.2
etc
Of course, this only hides the x-coordinate. To hide the y-coordinate as well, you can use a linear interpolation.
Simply make it so that the "pointy" part isn't where the data point is. Pick random x-values such that every adjacent data point has one of these x-values in between. Then interpolate such that the "pointy" part is at these x-values.
I suggest a huge Lookup Table full of unused entries. It's the brute-force approach, having an ordered table of outputs, ordered by every possible value of the input (not just the data set, but also all other possible 4-byte value).
Though all of your data would be there, you could fill the non-used inputs with random, arbitrary, or stochastic (random whithin potentially complex constraints) data. If you make it convincing, no one could pick your real data out of it. If a "real" function interpolated all your data, it would also "contain" all the information of your real data, and anyone with access to it could use it to generate an LUT as described above.
LUTs are lightning-fast, but very memory hungry. Your case is on the edge of feasibility, requiring (2^32)*32= 16 Gigabytes of RAM, which requires a 64-bit machine to run. That is just for the data, not the program, the Operating System, or other data. It's better to have 24, just to be sure. If you can afford it, they are the way to go.