I have a mathematical control problem which I solve through Backward induction. The mathematical problem is the following :
with K less than n.
And final conditions
What is J(0,0,0) ?
For this purpose I am using c++ and mingw 32 bit as a compiler.
The problem is the code (below) which solve the problem is an induction and does not provide any results if n,M > 15.
I have tried to launch n=M=100 for 4 days but no results.
Does anyone have a solution? Is it a compiler option to change (the processor memory is not enough)? The complexity is too big?
Here my code
const int n = 10;
const int M = 10;
double J_naive (double K, double Z, double W)
{
double J_tmp = exp(100.0);
double WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
//Final condition : Boundaries
if (K == n)
{
if (W > 0) WGreaterThanZero = 1.0;
else WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
if (Z >= WGreaterThanZero) return 0.0;
return exp(100.0);//Infinity
}
//Induction
else if (K < n)
{
double y;
for (int i = 0; i <= M; i++)
{
y = ((double) i)/M;
{
J_tmp = std::min (J_tmp, ((double) n)*y*y +
0.5*J_naive(K+1.0, Z+y, W + 1.0/sqrt(n)) +
0.5*J_naive(K+1.0, Z+y, W - 1.0/sqrt(n)) );
}
}
}
return J_tmp;
}
int main()
{
J_naive(0.0, 0.0, 0.0);
}
You can try the following, completely untested DP code. It needs around 24*n^3*M bytes of memory; if you have that much memory, it should run within a few seconds. If there is some value that will never appear as a true return value, you can get rid of seen_[][][] and use that value in result_[][][] to indicate that the subproblem has not yet been solved; this will reduce memory requirements by about a third. It's based on your code before you made edits to fix bugs.
const int n = 10;
const int M = 10;
bool seen_[n][n * M][2 * n]; // Initially all false
double result_[n][n * M][2 * n];
double J_naive(unsigned K, unsigned ZM, double W0, int Wdsqrtn)
{
double J_tmp = exp(100.0);
double WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
double Z = (double) ZM / M;
double W = W0 + Wdsqrtn * 1./sqrt(n);
//Final condition : Boundaries
if (K == n)
{
if (W > 0) WGreaterThanZero = 1.0;
else WGreaterThanZero = 0.0;
if (Z >= WGreaterThanZero) return 0.0;
return exp(100.0);//Infinity
}
//Induction
else if (K < n)
{
if (!seen_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n]) {
// Haven't seen this subproblem yet: compute the answer
for (int i = 0; i <= M; i++)
{
J_tmp = std::min (J_tmp, ((double) n)*i/M*i/M +
0.5*J_naive(K+1, ZM+i, W0, Wdsqrtn+1) +
0.5*J_naive(K+1, ZM+i, W0, Wdsqrtn-1) );
}
result_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n] = J_tmp;
seen_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n] = true;
}
}
return result_[K][ZM][Wdsqrtn + n];
}
Related
I am trying to compute the Anderson-Darling test found here. I followed the steps on Wikipedia and made sure that when I calculate the average and standard deviation of the data I am testing denoted X by using MATLAB. Also, I used a function called phi for computing the standard normal CDF, I have also tested this function to make sure it is correct which it is. Now I seem to have a problem when I actually compute the A-squared (denoted in Wikipedia, I denote it as A in C++).
Here is my function I made for Anderson-Darling Test:
void Anderson_Darling(int n, double X[]){
sort(X,X + n);
// Find the mean of X
double X_avg = 0.0;
double sum = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
sum += X[i];
}
X_avg = ((double)sum)/n;
// Find the variance of X
double X_sig = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
X_sig += (X[i] - X_avg)*(X[i] - X_avg);
}
X_sig /= n;
// The values X_i are standardized to create new values Y_i
double Y[n];
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
Y[i] = (X[i] - X_avg)/(sqrt(X_sig));
//cout << Y[i] << endl;
}
// With a standard normal CDF, we calculate the Anderson_Darling Statistic
double A = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
A += -n - 1/n *(2*(i) - 1)*(log(phi(Y[i])) + log(1 - phi(Y[n+1 - i])));
}
cout << A << endl;
}
Note, I know that the formula for Anderson-Darling (A-squared) starts with i = 1 to i = n, although when I changed the index to make it work in C++, I still get the same result without changing the index.
The value I get in C++ is:
-4e+006
The value I should get, received in MATLAB is:
0.2330
Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Here is my whole code:
#include <iostream>
#include <math.h>
#include <cmath>
#include <random>
#include <algorithm>
#include <chrono>
using namespace std;
double *Box_Muller(int n, double u[]);
double *Beasley_Springer_Moro(int n, double u[]);
void Anderson_Darling(int n, double X[]);
double phi(double x);
int main(){
int n = 2000;
double Mersenne[n];
random_device rd;
mt19937 e2(1);
uniform_real_distribution<double> dist(0, 1);
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
Mersenne[i] = dist(e2);
}
// Print Anderson Statistic for Mersenne 6a
double *result = new double[n];
result = Box_Muller(n,Mersenne);
Anderson_Darling(n,result);
return 0;
}
double *Box_Muller(int n, double u[]){
double *X = new double[n];
double Y[n];
double R_2[n];
double theta[n];
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
R_2[i] = -2.0*log(u[i]);
theta[i] = 2.0*M_PI*u[i+1];
}
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
X[i] = sqrt(-2.0*log(u[i]))*cos(2.0*M_PI*u[i+1]);
Y[i] = sqrt(-2.0*log(u[i]))*sin(2.0*M_PI*u[i+1]);
}
return X;
}
double *Beasley_Springer_Moro(int n, double u[]){
double y[n];
double r[n+1];
double *x = new double(n);
// Constants needed for algo
double a_0 = 2.50662823884; double b_0 = -8.47351093090;
double a_1 = -18.61500062529; double b_1 = 23.08336743743;
double a_2 = 41.39119773534; double b_2 = -21.06224101826;
double a_3 = -25.44106049637; double b_3 = 3.13082909833;
double c_0 = 0.3374754822726147; double c_5 = 0.0003951896511919;
double c_1 = 0.9761690190917186; double c_6 = 0.0000321767881768;
double c_2 = 0.1607979714918209; double c_7 = 0.0000002888167364;
double c_3 = 0.0276438810333863; double c_8 = 0.0000003960315187;
double c_4 = 0.0038405729373609;
// Set r and x to empty for now
for(int i = 0; i <= n; i++){
r[i] = 0.0;
x[i] = 0.0;
}
for(int i = 1; i <= n; i++){
y[i] = u[i] - 0.5;
if(fabs(y[i]) < 0.42){
r[i] = pow(y[i],2.0);
x[i] = y[i]*(((a_3*r[i] + a_2)*r[i] + a_1)*r[i] + a_0)/((((b_3*r[i] + b_2)*r[i] + b_1)*r[i] + b_0)*r[i] + 1);
}else{
r[i] = u[i];
if(y[i] > 0.0){
r[i] = 1.0 - u[i];
r[i] = log(-log(r[i]));
x[i] = c_0 + r[i]*(c_1 + r[i]*(c_2 + r[i]*(c_3 + r[i]*(c_4 + r[i]*(c_5 + r[i]*(c_6 + r[i]*(c_7 + r[i]*c_8)))))));
}
if(y[i] < 0){
x[i] = -x[i];
}
}
}
return x;
}
double phi(double x){
return 0.5 * erfc(-x * M_SQRT1_2);
}
void Anderson_Darling(int n, double X[]){
sort(X,X + n);
// Find the mean of X
double X_avg = 0.0;
double sum = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
sum += X[i];
}
X_avg = ((double)sum)/n;
// Find the variance of X
double X_sig = 0.0;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
X_sig += (X[i] - X_avg)*(X[i] - X_avg);
}
X_sig /= (n-1);
// The values X_i are standardized to create new values Y_i
double Y[n];
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
Y[i] = (X[i] - X_avg)/(sqrt(X_sig));
//cout << Y[i] << endl;
}
// With a standard normal CDF, we calculate the Anderson_Darling Statistic
double A = -n;
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++){
A += -1.0/(double)n *(2*(i+1) - 1)*(log(phi(Y[i])) + log(1 - phi(Y[n - i])));
}
cout << A << endl;
}
Let me guess, your n was 2000. Right?
The major issue here is when you do 1/n in the last expression. 1 is an int and ao is n. When you divide 1 by n it performs integer division. Now 1 divided by any number > 1 is 0 under integer division (think if it as only keeping only integer part of the quotient. What you need to do is cast n as double by writing 1/(double)n.
Rest all should work fine.
Summary from discussions -
Indexes to Y[] should be i and n-1-i respectively.
n should not be added in the loop but only once.
Minor fixes like changing divisor to n instead of n-1 while calculating Variance.
You have integer division here:
A += -n - 1/n *(2*(i) - 1)*(log(phi(Y[i])) + log(1 - phi(Y[n+1 - i])));
^^^
1/n is zero when n > 1 - you need to change this to, e.g.: 1.0/n:
A += -n - 1.0/n *(2*(i) - 1)*(log(phi(Y[i])) + log(1 - phi(Y[n+1 - i])));
^^^^^
I am trying to implement my own square root function which gives square root's integral part only e.g. square root of 3 = 1.
I saw the method here and tried to implement the method
int mySqrt(int x)
{
int n = x;
x = pow(2, ceil(log(n) / log(2)) / 2);
int y=0;
while (y < x)
{
y = (x + n / x) / 2;
x = y;
}
return x;
}
The above method fails for input 8. Also, I don't get why it should work.
Also, I tried the method here
int mySqrt(int x)
{
if (x == 0) return 0;
int x0 = pow(2, (log(x) / log(2))/2) ;
int y = x0;
int diff = 10;
while (diff>0)
{
x0 = (x0 + x / x0) / 2; diff = y - x0;
y = x0;
if (diff<0) diff = diff * (-1);
}
return x0;
}
In this second way, for input 3 the loop continues ... indefinitely (x0 toggles between 1 and 2).
I am aware that both are essentially versions of Netwon's method but I can't figure out why they fail in certain cases and how could I make them work for all cases. I guess i have the correct logic in implementation. I debugged my code but still I can't find a way to make it work.
This one works for me:
uintmax_t zsqrt(uintmax_t x)
{
if(x==0) return 0;
uintmax_t yn = x; // The 'next' estimate
uintmax_t y = 0; // The result
uintmax_t yp; // The previous estimate
do{
yp = y;
y = yn;
yn = (y + x/y) >> 1; // Newton step
}while(yn ^ yp); // (yn != yp) shortcut for dumb compilers
return y;
}
returns floor(sqrt(x))
Instead of testing for 0 with a single estimate, test with 2 estimates.
When I was writing this, I noticed the result estimate would sometimes oscillate. This is because, if the exact result is a fraction, the algorithm could only jump between the two nearest values. So, terminating when the next estimate is the same as the previous will prevent an infinite loop.
Try this
int n,i;//n is the input number
i=0;
while(i<=n)
{
if((i*i)==n)
{
cout<<"The number has exact root : "<<i<<endl;
}
else if((i*i)>n)
{
cout<<"The integer part is "<<(i-1)<<endl;
}
i++;
}
Hope this helps.
You can try there C sqrt implementations :
// return the number that was multiplied by itself to reach N.
unsigned square_root_1(const unsigned num) {
unsigned a, b, c, d;
for (b = a = num, c = 1; a >>= 1; ++c);
for (c = 1 << (c & -2); c; c >>= 2) {
d = a + c;
a >>= 1;
if (b >= d)
b -= d, a += c;
}
return a;
}
// return the number that was multiplied by itself to reach N.
unsigned square_root_2(unsigned n){
unsigned a = n > 0, b;
if (n > 3)
for (a = n >> 1, b = (a + n / a) >> 1; b < a; a = b, b = (a + n / a) >> 1);
return a ;
}
Example of usage :
#include <assert.h>
int main(void){
unsigned num, res ;
num = 1847902954, res = square_root_1(num), assert(res == 42987);
num = 2, res = square_root_2(num), assert(res == 1);
num = 0, res = square_root_2(num), assert(res == 0);
}
Source
I want to calculate value of x in this equation to 4 digits after the decimal with divide and conquer method.Values of p,q,r,s,t,u are input. How to do it in?
Time limits: 1 sec
Memory limits: 64 MB
float results[10000];
int n = 0;
for( float step = 0; i < 1; i+=0.00001 )
{
results[n] = callProblem( i );
}
some divide and conquer approach
float x = 0;
float diff = 1;//Startvalue
while( )
{
result = callProblem(x);
if( result > 0 )
{
x -= diff;
diff = diff/2;
result = callProblem(x);
}
else
{
x += diff;
diff = diff/2;
result = callProblem(x);
}
}
I have generalized the bisection method into an untested recursive multi-section method:
#include <math.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#define P 1.0
#define q 2.0
#define r 3.0
#define s 1.0
#define t 5.0
#define u -6.0
// number of sub-intervals in search interval
#define INTERVALS 10
// accuracy limit for recursion
#define EPSILON 1.0e-4
double f(double x) {
double y = P * exp(-x) + q*sin(x) + r*cos(x) + s*tan(x) + t*x*x + u;
return y;
}
// sign macro: -1 for val < 0, +1 for val > 0
#define SGN(val) ((0.0 < val) - (val < 0.0))
// return approximate x for function(x)==0.0
// "function" points to the function to be solved
double solve(double xMin, double xMax, double (*function)(double)) {
double arguments[INTERVALS + 1];
double values[INTERVALS + 1];
int prevSign;
int sign;
if (fabs(xMax - xMin) < EPSILON) {
// interval quite tight already
return (xMax + xMin) / 2.0;
}
// split the interval into sub-intervals
// evaluate the function for INTERVALS+1 equidistant points
// across our search interval
for (int i = 0; i <= INTERVALS; i++) {
double x = xMin + i*((xMax - xMin) / INTERVALS);
arguments[i] = x;
values[i] = function(x);
}
// look for adjacent intervals with opposite function value signs
// if f(Xi) and f(Xi+1) have different signs, the root must be
// between Xi and Xi+1
prevSign = SGN(values[0]);
for (int i = 1; i <= INTERVALS; i++) {
sign = SGN(values[i]);
if (sign * prevSign == -1) {
// different signs! There must be a solution
// Shrink search interval to the detected sub-interval
double x = solve(arguments[i - 1], arguments[i], function);
return x;
}
// remember sign for next round
prevSign = sign;
}
// no solution found: return not-a-number
return NAN;
}
int main(unsigned argc, char **argv) {
clock_t started = clock();
clock_t stopped;
double x = solve(0.0, 1.0, &f);
if (isnan(x)) {
printf("\nSorry! No solution found.\n");
} else {
printf("\nOK! Solution found at f(%f)=%f\n", x, f(x));
}
stopped = clock();
printf("\nElapsed: %gs", (stopped - started) / (double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
// wait for user input
getchar();
}
I tried a quick and dirty translation of the code here.
However, my version outputs noise comparable to grey t-shirt material, or heather if it please you:
#include <fstream>
#include "perlin.h"
double Perlin::cos_Interp(double a, double b, double x)
{
ft = x * 3.1415927;
f = (1 - cos(ft)) * .5;
return a * (1 - f) + b * f;
}
double Perlin::noise_2D(double x, double y)
{
/*
int n = (int)x + (int)y * 57;
n = (n << 13) ^ n;
int nn = (n * (n * n * 60493 + 19990303) + 1376312589) & 0x7fffffff;
return 1.0 - ((double)nn / 1073741824.0);
*/
int n = (int)x + (int)y * 57;
n = (n<<13) ^ n;
return ( 1.0 - ( (n * (n * n * 15731 + 789221) + 1376312589) & 0x7fffffff) / 1073741824.0);
}
double Perlin::smooth_2D(double x, double y)
{
corners = ( noise_2D(x - 1, y - 1) + noise_2D(x + 1, y - 1) + noise_2D(x - 1, y + 1) + noise_2D(x + 1, y + 1) ) / 16;
sides = ( noise_2D(x - 1, y) + noise_2D(x + 1, y) + noise_2D(x, y - 1) + noise_2D(x, y + 1) ) / 8;
center = noise_2D(x, y) / 4;
return corners + sides + center;
}
double Perlin::interp(double x, double y)
{
int x_i = int(x);
double x_left = x - x_i;
int y_i = int(y);
double y_left = y - y_i;
double v1 = smooth_2D(x_i, y_i);
double v2 = smooth_2D(x_i + 1, y_i);
double v3 = smooth_2D(x_i, y_i + 1);
double v4 = smooth_2D(x_i + 1, y_i + 1);
double i1 = cos_Interp(v1, v2, x_left);
double i2 = cos_Interp(v3, v4, x_left);
return cos_Interp(i1, i2, y_left);
}
double Perlin::perlin_2D(double x, double y)
{
double total = 0;
double p = .25;
int n = 1;
for(int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
{
double freq = pow(2, i);
double amp = pow(p, i);
total = total + interp(x * freq, y * freq) * amp;
}
return total;
}
int main()
{
Perlin perl;
ofstream ofs("./noise2D.ppm", ios_base::binary);
ofs << "P6\n" << 512 << " " << 512 << "\n255\n";
for(int i = 0; i < 512; ++i)
{
for(int j = 0; j < 512; ++j)
{
double n = perl.perlin_2D(i, j);
n = floor((n + 1.0) / 2.0 * 255);
unsigned char c = n;
ofs << c << c << c;
}
}
ofs.close();
return 0;
}
I don't believe that I strayed too far from the aforementioned site's directions aside from adding in the ppm image generation code, but then again I'll admit to not fully grasping what is going on in the code.
As you'll see by the commented section, I tried two (similar) ways of generating pseudorandom numbers for noise. I also tried different ways of scaling the numbers returned by perlin_2D to RGB color values. These two ways of editing the code have just yielded different looking t-shirt material. So, I'm forced to believe that there's something bigger going on that I am unable to recognize.
Also, I'm compiling with g++ and the c++11 standard.
EDIT: Here's an example: http://imgur.com/Sh17QjK
To convert a double in the range of [-1.0, 1.0] to an integer in range [0, 255]:
n = floor((n + 1.0) / 2.0 * 255.99);
To write it as a binary value to the PPM file:
ofstream ofs("./noise2D.ppm", ios_base::binary);
...
unsigned char c = n;
ofs << c << c << c;
Is this a direct copy of your code? You assigned an integer to what should be the Y fractional value - it's a typo and it will throw the entire noise algorithm off if you don't fix:
double Perlin::interp(double x, double y)
{
int x_i = int(x);
double x_left = x - x_i;
int y_i = int(y);
double y_left = y = y_i; //This Should have a minus, not an "=" like the line above
.....
}
My guess is if you're successfully generating the bitmap with the proper color computation, you're getting vertical bars or something along those lines?
You also need to remember that the Perlin generator usually spits out numbers in the range of -1 to 1 and you need to multiply the resultant value as such:
value * 127 + 128 = {R, G, B}
to get a good grayscale image.
I have a 3007 x 1644 dimensional matrix of terms and documents. I am trying to assign weights to frequency of terms in each document so I'm using this log entropy formula http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_semantic_indexing#Term_Document_Matrix (See entropy formula in the last row).
I'm successfully doing this but my code is running for >7 minutes.
Here's the code:
int N = mat.cols();
for(int i=1;i<=mat.rows();i++){
double gfi = sum(mat(i,colon()))(1,1); //sum of occurrence of terms
double g =0;
if(gfi != 0){// to avoid divide by zero error
for(int j = 1;j<=N;j++){
double tfij = mat(i,j);
double pij = gfi==0?0.0:tfij/gfi;
pij = pij + 1; //avoid log0
double G = (pij * log(pij))/log(N);
g = g + G;
}
}
double gi = 1 - g;
for(int j=1;j<=N;j++){
double tfij = mat(i,j) + 1;//avoid log0
double aij = gi * log(tfij);
mat(i,j) = aij;
}
}
Anyone have ideas how I can optimize this to make it faster? Oh and mat is a RealSparseMatrix from amlpp matrix library.
UPDATE
Code runs on Linux mint with 4gb RAM and AMD Athlon II dual core
Running time before change: > 7mins
After #Kereks answer: 4.1sec
Here's a very naive rewrite that removes some redundancies:
int const N = mat.cols();
double const logN = log(N);
for (int i = 1; i <= mat.rows(); ++i)
{
double const gfi = sum(mat(i, colon()))(1, 1); // sum of occurrence of terms
double g = 0;
if (gfi != 0)
{
for (int j = 1; j <= N; ++j)
{
double const pij = mat(i, j) / gfi + 1;
g += pij * log(pij);
}
g /= logN;
}
for (int j = 1; j <= N; ++j)
{
mat(i,j) = (1 - g) * log(mat(i, j) + 1);
}
}
Also make sure that the matrix data structure is sane (e.g. a flat array accessed in strides; not a bunch of dynamically allocated rows).
Also, I think the first + 1 is a bit silly. You know that x -> x * log(x) is continuous at zero with limit zero, so you should write:
double const pij = mat(i, j) / gfi;
if (pij != 0) { g += pij + log(pij); }
In fact, you might even write the first inner for loop like this, avoiding a division when it isn't needed:
for (int j = 1; j <= N; ++j)
{
if (double pij = mat(i, j))
{
pij /= gfi;
g += pij * log(pij);
}
}