I am trying to evaluate points in a large piecewise polynomial, which is obtained from a cubic-spline. This takes a long time to do and I would like to speed it up.
As such, I would like to evaluate a points on a piecewise polynomial with parallel processes, rather than sequentially.
Code:
z = zeros(1e6, 1) ; % preallocate some memory for speed
Y = rand(11220,161) ; %some data, rand for generating a working example
X = 0 : 0.0125 : 2 ; % vector of data sites
pp = spline(X, Y) ; % get the piecewise polynomial form of the cubic spline.
The resulting structure is large.
for t = 1 : 1e6 % big number
hcurrent = ppval(pp,t); %evaluate the piecewise polynomial at t
z(t) = sum(x(t:t+M-1).*hcurrent,1) ; % do some operation of the interpolated value. Most likely not relevant to this question.
end
Unfortunately, with matrix form and using:
hcurrent = flipud(ppval(pp, 1: 1e6 ))
requires too much memory to process, so cannot be done. Is there a way that I can batch process this code to speed it up?
For scalar second arguments, as in your example, you're dealing with two issues. First, there's a good amount of function call overhead and redundant computation (e.g., unmkpp(pp) is called every loop iteration). Second, ppval is written to be general so it's not fully vectorized and does a lot of things that aren't necessary in your case.
Below is vectorized code code that take advantage of some of the structure of your problem (e.g., t is an integer greater than 0), avoids function call overhead, move some calculations outside of your main for loop (at the cost of a bit of extra memory), and gets rid of a for loop inside of ppval:
n = 1e6;
z = zeros(n,1);
X = 0:0.0125:2;
Y = rand(11220,numel(X));
pp = spline(X,Y);
[b,c,l,k,dd] = unmkpp(pp);
T = 1:n;
idx = discretize(T,[-Inf b(2:l) Inf]); % Or: [~,idx] = histc(T,[-Inf b(2:l) Inf]);
x = bsxfun(#power,T-b(idx),(k-1:-1:0).').';
idx = dd*idx;
d = 1-dd:0;
for t = T
hcurrent = sum(bsxfun(#times,c(idx(t)+d,:),x(t,:)),2);
z(t) = ...;
end
The resultant code takes ~34% of the time of your example for n=1e6. Note that because of the vectorization, calculations are performed in a different order. This will result in slight differences between outputs from ppval and my optimized version due to the nature of floating point math. Any differences should be on the order of a few times eps(hcurrent). You can still try using parfor to further speed up the calculation (with four already running workers, my system took just 12% of your code's original time).
I consider the above a proof of concept. I may have over-optmized the code above if your example doesn't correspond well to your actual code and data. In that case, I suggest creating your own optimized version. You can start by looking at the code for ppval by typing edit ppval in your Command Window. You may be able to implement further optimizations by looking at the structure of your problem and what you ultimately want in your z vector.
Internally, ppval still uses histc, which has been deprecated. My code above uses discretize to perform the same task, as suggested by the documentation.
Use parfor command for parallel loops. see here, also precompute z vector as z(j) = x(j:j+M-1) and hcurrent in parfor for speed up.
The Spline Parameters estimation can be written in Matrix form.
Once you write it in Matrix form and solve it you can use the Model Matrix to evaluate the Spline on all data point using Matrix Multiplication which is probably the most tuned operation in MATLAB.
Related
I want to solve the following optimization problem using Gekko in python 3.7 window version.
Original Problem
Here, x_s are continuous variables, D and Epsilon are deterministic and they are also parameters.
However, since minimization function exists in the objective function, I remove it using binary variables(z1, z2) and then the problem becomes MINLP as follows.
Modified problem
With Gekko,
(1) Can both original problem & modified problem be solved?
(2) How can I code summation in the objective function and also D & epsilon which are parameters in Gekko?
Thanks in advance.
Both problems should be feasible with Gekko but the original appears easier to solve. Here are a few suggestions for the original problem:
Use m.Maximize() for the objective
Use sum() for the inner summation and m.sum() for outer summation for the objective function. I switch to m.sum() when the summation would create an expression that is over 15,000 characters. Using sum() creates one long expression and m.sum() breaks the summation into pieces but takes longer to compile.
Use m.min3() for the min(Dt,xs) terms or slack variables s with x[i]+s[i]=D[i]. It appears that Dt (size 30) is an upper bound, but it has different dimensions that xs (size 100). Slack variables are much more efficient than using binary variables.
D = np.array(100)
x = m.Array(m.Var,100,lb=0,ub=2000000)
The modified problem has 6000 binary variables and 100 continuous variables. There are 2^6000 potential combinations of those variables so it may take a while to solve, even with the efficient branch and bound method of APOPT. Here are a few suggestions for the modified problem:
Use matrix multiplications when possible. Below is an example of matrix operations with Gekko.
from gekko import GEKKO
import numpy as np
m = GEKKO(remote=False)
ni = 3; nj = 2; nk = 4
# solve AX=B
A = m.Array(m.Var,(ni,nj),lb=0)
X = m.Array(m.Var,(nj,nk),lb=0)
AX = np.dot(A,X)
B = m.Array(m.Var,(ni,nk),lb=0)
# equality constraints
m.Equations([AX[i,j]==B[i,j] for i in range(ni) \
for j in range(nk)])
m.Equation(5==m.sum([m.sum([A[i][j] for i in range(ni)]) \
for j in range(nj)]))
m.Equation(2==m.sum([m.sum([X[i][j] for i in range(nj)]) \
for j in range(nk)]))
# objective function
m.Minimize(m.sum([m.sum([B[i][j] for i in range(ni)]) \
for j in range(nk)]))
m.solve()
print(A)
print(X)
print(B)
Declare z1 and z2 variables as integer type with integer=True. Here is more information on using the integer type.
Solve locally with m=GEKKO(remote=False). The processing time will be large and the public server resets connections and deletes jobs every day. Switch to local mode to avoid a potential disruption.
I'm trying to investigate the behavior of the following Delayed Differential Equation using Python:
y''(t) = -y(t)/τ^2 - 2y'(t)/τ - Nd*f(y(t-T))/τ^2,
where f is a cut-off function which is essentially equal to the identity when the absolute value of its argument is between 1 and 10 and otherwise is equal to 0 (see figure 1), and Nd, τ and T are constants.
For this I'm using the package JiTCDDE. This provides a reasonable solution to the above equation. Nevertheless, when I try to add a noise on the right hand side of the equation, I obtain a solution which stabilize to a non-zero constant after a few oscillations. This is not a mathematical solution of the equation (the only possible constant solution being equal to zero). I don't understand why this problem arises and if it is possible to solve it.
I reproduce my code below. Here, for the sake of simplicity, I substituted the noise with an high-frequency cosine, which is introduced in the system of equation as the initial condition for a dummy variable (the cosine could have been introduced directly in the system, but for a general noise this doesn't seem possible). To simplify further the problem, I removed also the term involving the f function, as the problem arises also without it. Figure 2 shows the plot of the function given by the code.
from jitcdde import jitcdde, y, t
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import math
from chspy import CubicHermiteSpline
# Definition of function f:
def functionf(x):
return x/4*(1+symengine.erf(x**2-Bmin**2))*(1-symengine.erf(x**2-Bmax**2))
#parameters:
τ = 42.9
T = 35.33
Nd = 8.32
# Definition of the initial conditions:
dt = .01 # Time step.
totT = 10000. # Total time.
Nmax = int(totT / dt) # Number of time steps.
Vt = np.linspace(0., totT, Nmax) # Vector of times.
# Definition of the "noise"
X = np.zeros(Nmax)
for i in range(Nmax):
X[i]=math.cos(Vt[i])
past=CubicHermiteSpline(n=3)
for time, datum in zip(Vt,X):
regular_past = [10.,0.]
past.append((
time-totT,
np.hstack((regular_past,datum)),
np.zeros(3)
))
noise= lambda t: y(2,t-totT)
# Integration of the DDE
g = [
y(1),
-y(0)/τ**2-2*y(1)/τ+0.008*noise(t)
]
g.append(0)
DDE = jitcdde(g)
DDE.add_past_points(past)
DDE.adjust_diff()
data = []
for time in np.arange(DDE.t, DDE.t+totT, 1):
data.append( DDE.integrate(time)[0] )
plt.plot(data)
plt.show()
Incidentally, I noticed that even without noise, the solution seems to be discontinuous at the point zero (y is set to be equal to zero for negative times), and I don't understand why.
As the comments unveiled, your problem eventually boiled down to this:
step_on_discontinuities assumes delays that are small with respect to the integration time and performs steps that are placed on those times where the delayed components points to the integration start (0 in your case). This way initial discontinuities are handled.
However, implementing an input with a delayed dummy variable introduces a large delay into the system, totT in your case.
The respective step for step_on_discontinuities would be at totT itself, i.e., after the desired integration time.
Thus when you reach for time in np.arange(DDE.t, DDE.t+totT, 1): in your code, DDE.t is totT.
Therefore you have made a big step before you actually start integrating and observing which may seem like a discontinuity and lead to weird results, in particular you do not see the effect of your input, because it has already “ended” at this point.
To avoid this, use adjust_diff or integrate_blindly instead of step_on_discontinuities.
The below code is how I save the numpy array and it is about 27GB after saved. There are more than 200K images data and each shape is (224,224,3)
hf = h5py.File('cropped data/features_train.h5', 'w')
for i,each in enumerate(features_train):
hf.create_dataset(str(i), data=each)
hf.close()
This is the method I used to load the data, and it takes hours for loading.
features_train = np.zeros(shape=(1,224,224,3))
hf = h5py.File('cropped data/features_train.h5', 'r')
for key in hf.keys():
x = hf.get(key)
x = np.array(x)
features_train = np.append(features_train,np.array([x]),axis=0)
hf.close()
So, does anyone has a better solution for this large size of data?
You didn't tell us how much physical RAM your server has,
but 27 GiB sounds like "a lot".
Consider breaking your run into several smaller batches.
There is an old saw in java land that asks "why does this have quadratic runtime?",
that is, "why is this so slow?"
String s = ""
for (int i = 0; i < 1e6, i++) {
s += "x";
}
The answer is that toward the end,
on each iteration we are reading ~ a million characters
then writing them, then appending a single character.
The cost is O(1e12).
Standard solution is to use a StringBuilder so we're back
to the expected O(1e6).
Here, I worry that calling np.append() pushes us into the quadratic regime.
To verify, replace the features_train assignment with a simple evaluation
of np.array([x]), so we spend a moment computing and then immediately discarding
that value on each iteration.
If the conjecture is right, runtime will be much smaller.
To remedy it, avoid calling .append().
Rather, preallocate 27 GiB with np.zeros()
(or np.empty())
and then within the loop assign each freshly read array
into the offset of its preallocated slot.
Linear runtime will allow the task to complete much more quickly.
What's a numerically-stable way of taking the variance of an iterator elementwise? As an example, I would like to do something like
var((rand(4,2) for i in 1:10))
and get back a (4,2) matrix which is the variance in each coefficient. This throws an error using Julia's Base var. Is there a package that can handle this? Or an easy (and storage-efficient) way to do this using the Base Julia function? Or does one need to be developed on its own?
I went ahead and implemented a Welford algorithm to calculate this:
# Welford algorithm
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithms_for_calculating_variance
function componentwise_meanvar(A;bessel=true)
x0 = first(A)
n = 0
mean = zero(x0)
M2 = zero(x0)
delta = zero(x0)
delta2 = zero(x0)
for x in A
n += 1
delta .= x .- mean
mean .+= delta./n
delta2 .= x .- mean
M2 .+= delta.*delta2
end
if n < 2
return NaN
else
if bessel
M2 .= M2 ./ (n .- 1)
else
M2 .= M2 ./ n
end
return mean,M2
end
end
A few other algorithms are implemented in DiffEqMonteCarlo.jl as well. I'm surprised I couldn't find a library for this, but maybe will refactor this out someday.
See update below for a numerically stable version
Another method to calculate this:
srand(0) # reset random for comparing across implementations
moment2var(t) = (t[3]-t[2].^2./t[1])./(t[1]-1)
foldfunc(x,y) = (x[1]+1,x[2].+y,x[3].+y.^2)
moment2var(foldl(foldfunc,(0,zeros(1,1),zeros(1,1)),(rand(4,2) for i=1:10)))
Gives:
4×2 Array{Float64,2}:
0.0848123 0.0643537
0.0715945 0.0900416
0.111934 0.084314
0.0819135 0.0632765
Similar to:
srand(0) # reset random for comparing across implementations
# naive component-wise application of `var` function
map(var,zip((rand(4,2) for i=1:10)...))
which is the non-iterator version (or offline version in CS terminology).
This method is based on calculation of variance from mean and sum-of-squares. moment2var and foldfunc are just a helper functions, but it fits in one-line without them.
Comments:
Speedwise, this should be pretty good as well. Perhaps, StaticArrays and initializing the foldl's v0 with the correct eltype of the iterator would save even more time.
Benchmarking gave 5x speed advantage (and better memory usage) over componentwise_meanvar (from another answer) on a sample input.
Using moment2meanvar(t)=(t[2]./t[1],(t[3]-t[2].^2./t[1])./(t[1]-1)) gives both mean and variance like componentwise_meanvar.
As #ChrisRackauckas noted, this method suffers from numerical instability when number of elements to sum is large.
--- UPDATE with variant of method ---
A little abstraction of the question asks for a way to do a foldl (and reduce,foldr) on an iterator returning a matrix, element-wise and retaining shape. To do so, we can define an assisting function mfold which takes a folding-function and makes it fold matrices element-wise. Define it as follows:
mfold(f) = (x,y)->[f(t[1],t[2]) for t in zip(x,y)]
For this specific problem of variance, we can define the component-wise fold functions, and a final function to combine the moments into the variance (and mean if wanted). The code:
ff(x,y) = (x[1]+1,x[2]+y,x[3]+y^2) # fold and collect moments
moment2var(t) = (t[3]-t[2]^2/t[1])/(t[1]-1) # calc variance from moments
moment2meanvar(t) = (t[2]./t[1],(t[3]-t[2].^2./t[1])./(t[1]-1))
We can see moment2meanvar works on a single vector as follows:
julia> moment2meanvar(foldl(ff,(0.0,0.0,0.0),[1.0,2.0,3.0]))
(2.0, 1.0)
Now to matrix-ize it using foldm (using .-notation):
moment2var.(foldl(mfold(ff),fill((0,0,0),(4,2)),(rand(4,2) for i=1:10)))
#ChrisRackauckas noted this is not numerically stable, and another method (detailed in Wikipedia) is better. Using foldm this could be implemented as:
# better fold function compensating the sums for stability
ff2(x,y) = begin
delta=y-x[2]
mean=x[2]+delta/(x[1]+1)
return (x[1]+1,mean,x[3]+delta*(y-mean))
end
# combine the collected information for the variance (and mean)
m2var(t) = t[3]/(t[1]-1)
m2meanvar(t) = (t[2],t[3]/(t[1]-1))
Again we have:
m2var.(foldl(mfold(ff2),fill((0,0.0,0.0),(4,2)),(rand(4,2) for i=1:10)))
Giving the same results (perhaps a little more accurately).
Or an easy (and storage-efficient) way to do this using the Base Julia function?
Out of curiosity, why is the standard solution of using var along the external dimension not good for you?
julia> var(cat(3,(rand(4,2) for i in 1:10)...),3)
4×2×1 Array{Float64,3}:
[:, :, 1] =
0.08847 0.104799
0.0946243 0.0879721
0.105404 0.0617594
0.0762611 0.091195
Obviously, I'm using cat here, which clearly is not very storage efficient, just so I can use the Base Julia function and your original generator syntax as per your question. But you could make this storage efficient as well, if you initialise your random values directly on a preallocated array of size (4,2,10), so that's not really an issue here.
Or did I misunderstand your question?
EDIT - benchmark in response to comments
function standard_var(Y, A)
for i in 1 : length(A)
Y[:,:,i], = next(A,i);
end
var(Y,3)
end
function testit()
A = (rand(4,2) for i in 1:10000);
Y = Array{Float64, 3}(4,2,length(A));
#time componentwise_meanvar(A); # as defined in Chris's answer above
#time standard_var(Y, A) # standard variance + using preallocation
#time var(cat(3, A...), 3); # standard variance without preallocation
return nothing
end
julia> testit()
0.004258 seconds (10.01 k allocations: 1.374 MiB)
0.006368 seconds (49.51 k allocations: 2.129 MiB)
5.954470 seconds (50.19 M allocations: 2.989 GiB, 71.32% gc time)
I would like to do an algebraic curve fit of 2D data points, but for various reasons - it isn't really possible to have much of the sample data in memory at once, and iterating through all of it is an expensive process.
(The reason for this is that actually I need to fit thousands of curves simultaneously based on gigabytes of data which I'm reading off disk, and which is therefore sloooooow).
Note that the number of polynomial coefficients will be limited (perhaps 5-10), so an exact fit will be extremely unlikely, but this is ok as I'm trying to find an underlying pattern in data with a lot of random noise.
I understand how one can use a genetic algorithm to fit a curve to a dataset, but this requires many passes through the sample data, and thus isn't practical for my application.
Is there a way to fit a curve with a single pass of the data, where the state that must be maintained from sample to sample is minimal?
I should add that the nature of the data is that the points may lie anywhere on the X axis between 0.0 and 1.0, but the Y values will always be either 1.0 or 0.0.
So, in Java, I'm looking for a class with the following interface:
public interface CurveFit {
public void addData(double x, double y);
public List<Double> getBestFit(); // Returns the polynomial coefficients
}
The class that implements this must not need to keep much data in its instance fields, no more than a kilobyte even for millions of data points. This means that you can't just store the data as you get it to do multiple passes through it later.
edit: Some have suggested that finding an optimal curve in a single pass may be impossible, however an optimal fit is not required, just as close as we can get it in a single pass.
The bare bones of an approach might be if we have a way to start with a curve, and then a way to modify it to get it slightly closer to new data points as they come in - effectively a form of gradient descent. It is hoped that with sufficient data (and the data will be plentiful), we get a pretty good curve. Perhaps this inspires someone to a solution.
Yes, it is a projection. For
y = X beta + error
where lowercased terms are vectors, and X is a matrix, you have the solution vector
\hat{beta} = inverse(X'X) X' y
as per the OLS page. You almost never want to compute this directly but rather use LR, QR or SVD decompositions. References are plentiful in the statistics literature.
If your problem has only one parameter (and x is hence a vector as well) then this reduces to just summation of cross-products between y and x.
If you don't mind that you'll get a straight line "curve", then you only need six variables for any amount of data. Here's the source code that's going into my upcoming book; I'm sure that you can figure out how the DataPoint class works:
Interpolation.h:
#ifndef __INTERPOLATION_H
#define __INTERPOLATION_H
#include "DataPoint.h"
class Interpolation
{
private:
int m_count;
double m_sumX;
double m_sumXX; /* sum of X*X */
double m_sumXY; /* sum of X*Y */
double m_sumY;
double m_sumYY; /* sum of Y*Y */
public:
Interpolation();
void addData(const DataPoint& dp);
double slope() const;
double intercept() const;
double interpolate(double x) const;
double correlate() const;
};
#endif // __INTERPOLATION_H
Interpolation.cpp:
#include <cmath>
#include "Interpolation.h"
Interpolation::Interpolation()
{
m_count = 0;
m_sumX = 0.0;
m_sumXX = 0.0;
m_sumXY = 0.0;
m_sumY = 0.0;
m_sumYY = 0.0;
}
void Interpolation::addData(const DataPoint& dp)
{
m_count++;
m_sumX += dp.getX();
m_sumXX += dp.getX() * dp.getX();
m_sumXY += dp.getX() * dp.getY();
m_sumY += dp.getY();
m_sumYY += dp.getY() * dp.getY();
}
double Interpolation::slope() const
{
return (m_sumXY - (m_sumX * m_sumY / m_count)) /
(m_sumXX - (m_sumX * m_sumX / m_count));
}
double Interpolation::intercept() const
{
return (m_sumY / m_count) - slope() * (m_sumX / m_count);
}
double Interpolation::interpolate(double X) const
{
return intercept() + slope() * X;
}
double Interpolation::correlate() const
{
return m_sumXY / sqrt(m_sumXX * m_sumYY);
}
Why not use a ring buffer of some fixed size (say, the last 1000 points) and do a standard QR decomposition-based least squares fit to the buffered data? Once the buffer fills, each time you get a new point you replace the oldest and re-fit. That way you have a bounded working set that still has some data locality, without all the challenges of live stream (memoryless) processing.
Are you limiting the number of polynomial coefficients (i.e. fitting to a max power of x in your polynomial)?
If not, then you don't need a "best fit" algorithm - you can always fit N data points EXACTLY to a polynomial of N coefficients.
Just use matrices to solve N simultaneous equations for N unknowns (the N coefficients of the polynomial).
If you are limiting to a max number of coefficients, what is your max?
Following your comments and edit:
What you want is a low-pass filter to filter out noise, not fit a polynomial to the noise.
Given the nature of your data:
the points may lie anywhere on the X axis between 0.0 and 1.0, but the Y values will always be either 1.0 or 0.0.
Then you don't need even a single pass, as these two lines will pass exactly through every point:
X = [0.0 ... 1.0], Y = 0.0
X = [0.0 ... 1.0], Y = 1.0
Two short line segments, unit length, and every point falls on one line or the other.
Admittedly, an algorithm to find a good curve fit for arbitrary points in a single pass is interesting, but (based on your question), that's not what you need.
Assuming that you don't know which point should belong to which curve, something like a Hough Transform might provide what you need.
The Hough Transform is a technique that allows you to identify structure within a data set. One use is for computer vision, where it allows easy identification of lines and borders within the field of sight.
Advantages for this situation:
Each point need be considered only once
You don't need to keep a data structure for each candidate line, just one (complex, multi-dimensional) structure
Processing of each line is simple
You can stop at any point and output a set of good matches
You never discard any data, so it's not reliant on any accidental locality of references
You can trade off between accuracy and memory requirements
Isn't limited to exact matches, but will highlight partial matches too.
An approach
To find cubic fits, you'd construct a 4-dimensional Hough space, into which you'd project each of your data-points. Hotspots within Hough space would give you the parameters for the cubic through those points.
You need the solution to an overdetermined linear system. The popular methods are Normal Equations (not usually recommended), QR factorization, and singular value decomposition (SVD). Wikipedia has decent explanations, Trefethen and Bau is very good. Your options:
Out-of-core implementation via the normal equations. This requires the product A'A where A has many more rows than columns (so the result is very small). The matrix A is completely defined by the sample locations so you don't have to store it, thus computing A'A is reasonably cheap (very cheap if you don't need to hit memory for the node locations). Once A'A is computed, you get the solution in one pass through your input data, but the method can be unstable.
Implement an out-of-core QR factorization. Classical Gram-Schmidt will be fastest, but you have to be careful about stability.
Do it in-core with distributed memory (if you have the hardware available). Libraries like PLAPACK and SCALAPACK can do this, the performance should be much better than 1. The parallel scalability is not fantastic, but will be fine if it's a problem size that you would even think about doing in serial.
Use iterative methods to compute an SVD. Depending on the spectral properties of your system (maybe after preconditioning) this could converge very fast and does not require storage for the matrix (which in your case has 5-10 columns each of which are the size of your input data. A good library for this is SLEPc, you only have to find a the product of the Vandermonde matrix with a vector (so you only need to store the sample locations). This is very scalable in parallel.
I believe I found the answer to my own question based on a modified version of this code. For those interested, my Java code is here.