My question is an extension of the discussion How to fit the 2D scatter data with a line with C++. Now I want to extend my question further: when estimating the line that fits 2D scatter data, it would be better if we can treat each 2D scatter data differently. That is to say, if the scatter point is far away from the line, we can give the point a low weighting, and vice versa. Therefore, the question then becomes: given an array of 2D scatter points as well as their weighting factors, how can we estimate the linear line that passes them? A good implementation of this method can be found in this article (weighted least regression). However, the implementation of the algorithm in that article is too complicated as it involves matrix calculation. I am therefore trying to find a method without matrix calculation. The algorithm is an extension of simple linear regression, and in order to illustrate the algorithm, I wrote the following MATLAB codes:
function line = weighted_least_squre_for_line(x,y,weighting);
part1 = sum(weighting.*x.*y)*sum(weighting(:));
part2 = sum((weighting.*x))*sum((weighting.*y));
part3 = sum( x.^2.*weighting)*sum(weighting(:));
part4 = sum(weighting.*x).^2;
beta = (part1-part2)/(part3-part4);
alpha = (sum(weighting.*y)-beta*sum(weighting.*x))/sum(weighting);
a = beta;
c = alpha;
b = -1;
line = [a b c];
In the above codes, x,y,weighting represent the x-coordinate, y-coordinate and the weighting factor respectively. I test the algorithm with several examples but still not sure whether it is right or not as this method gets a different result with Polyfit, which relies on matrix calculation. I am now posting the implementation here and for your advice. Do you think it is a right implementation? Thanks!
If you think it is a good idea to downweight points that are far from the line, you might be attracted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_absolute_deviations, because one way of calculating this is via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iteratively_re-weighted_least_squares, which will give less weight to points far from the line.
If you think all your points are "good data", then it would be a mistake to weight them naively according to their distance from your initial fit. However, it's a fairly common practice to discard "outliers": if a few data points are implausibly far from the fit, and you have reason to believe that there's an error mechanism that could generate a small subset of "bad" datapoints, you could simply remove the implausible points from the dataset to get a better fit.
As far as the math is concerned, I would recommend biting the bullet and trying to figure out the matrix math. Perhaps you could find a different article, or a book which has a better presentation. I will not comment on your Matlab code, except to say that it looks like you will have some precision problems when subtracting part4 from part3, and probably part2 from part1 as well.
Not exactly what you are asking for, but you should look into robust regression. MATLAB has the function robustfit (requires Statistics Toolbox).
There is even an interactive demo you can play with to compare regular linear regression vs. robust regression:
>> robustdemo
This shows that in the presence of outliers, robust regression tends to give better results.
Related
When optimizing a SVGP with Poisson Likelihood for a big data set I see what I think are exploding gradients.
After a few epochs I see a spiky drop of the ELBO, which then very slowly recovers after getting rid of all progress made before.
Roughly 21 iterations correspond to an Epoch.
This spike (at least the second one) resulted in a complete shift of the parameters (for vectors of parameters I just plotted the norm to see changes):
How can I deal with that? My first approach would be to clip the gradient, but that seems to require digging around the gpflow code.
My Setup:
Training works via Natural Gradients for the variational parameters and ADAM for the rest, with a slowly (linearly) increasing schedule for the Natural Gradient Gamma.
The batch and inducing point sizes are as large as possible for my setup
(both 2^12, with the data set consisting of ~88k samples). I include 1e-5 jitter and initialize the inducing points with kmeans.
I use a combined kernel, consisting of a combination of RBF, Matern52, a periodic and a linear kernel on a total of 95 features (a lot of them due to a one-hot encoding), all learnable.
The lengthscales are transformed with gpflow.transforms.
with gpflow.defer_build():
k1 = Matern52(input_dim=len(kernel_idxs["coords"]), active_dims=kernel_idxs["coords"], ARD=False)
k2 = Periodic(input_dim=len(kernel_idxs["wday"]), active_dims=kernel_idxs["wday"])
k3 = Linear(input_dim=len(kernel_idxs["onehot"]), active_dims=kernel_idxs["onehot"], ARD=True)
k4 = RBF(input_dim=len(kernel_idxs["rest"]), active_dims=kernel_idxs["rest"], ARD=True)
#
k1.lengthscales.transform = gpflow.transforms.Exp()
k2.lengthscales.transform = gpflow.transforms.Exp()
k3.variance.transform = gpflow.transforms.Exp()
k4.lengthscales.transform = gpflow.transforms.Exp()
m = gpflow.models.SVGP(X, Y, k1 + k2 + k3 + k4, gpflow.likelihoods.Poisson(), Z,
mean_function=gpflow.mean_functions.Constant(c=np.ones(1)),
minibatch_size=MB_SIZE, name=NAME)
m.mean_function.set_trainable(False)
m.compile()
UPDATE: Using only ADAM
Following the suggestion by Mark, I switched to ADAM only,
which helped me get rid of that sudden explosion. However, I still initialized with an epoch of natgrad only, which seems to save a lot of time.
In addition, the variational parameters seem to change a lot less abrupt (in terms of their norm at least). I guess they'll converge way slower now, but at least it's stable.
Just to add to Mark's answer above, when using nat grads in non-conjugate models it can take a bit of tuning to get the best performance, and instability is potentially a problem. As Mark points out, the large steps that provide potentially faster convergence can also lead to the parameters ending up in in bad regions of the parameter space. When the variational approximation is good (i.e. the true and approximate posterior are close) then there is good reason to expect that the nat grad will perform well, but unfortunately there is no silver bullet in the general case. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02984 for some intuition.
This is very interesting. Perhaps trying to not use natgrads is a good idea as well. Clipping gradients indeed seems like a hack that could work. And yes, this would require digging around in the GPflow code a bit. One tip that can help towards this, is by not using the GPflow optimisers directly. The model._likelihood_tensor contains the TF tensor that should be optimised. Perhaps with some manual TensorFlow magic, you can do the gradient clipping on here before running an optimiser.
In general, I think this sounds like you've stumbled on an actual research problem. Usually these large gradients have a good reason in the model, which can be addressed with careful thought. Is it variance in some monte carlo estimate? Is the objective function behaving badly?
Regarding why not using natural gradients helps. Natural gradients use the Fisher matrix as a preconditioner to perform second order optimisation. Doing so can result in quite aggressive moves in parameter space. In certain cases (when there are usable conjugacy relations) these aggressive moves can make optimisation much faster. This case, with the Poisson likelihood, is not one where there are conjugacy relations that will necessarily help optimisation. In fact, the Fisher preconditioner can often be detrimental, particularly when variational parameters are not near the optimum.
Here's the problem:
I am currently trying to create a control system which is required to find a solution to a series of complex linear equations without a unique solution.
My problem arises because there will ever only be six equations, while there may be upwards of 20 unknowns (usually way more than six unknowns). Of course, this will not yield an exact solution through the standard Gaussian elimination or by changing them in a matrix to reduced row echelon form.
However, I think that I may be able to optimize things further and get a more accurate solution because I know that each of the unknowns cannot have a value smaller than zero or greater than one, but it is free to take on any value in between them.
Of course, I am trying to create code that would find a correct solution, but in the case that there are multiple combinations that yield satisfactory results, I would want to minimize Sum of (value of unknown * efficiency constant) over all unknowns, i.e. Sigma[xI*eI] from I=0 to n, but finding an accurate solution is of a greater priority.
Performance is also important, due to the fact that this algorithm may need to be run several times per second.
So, does anyone have any ideas to help me on implementing this?
Edit: You might just want to stick to linear programming with equality and inequality constraints, but here's an interesting exact solution that does not incorporate the constraint that your unknowns are between 0 and 1.
Here's a powerpoint discussing your problem: http://see.stanford.edu/materials/lsoeldsee263/08-min-norm.pdf
I'll translate your problem into math to make things a bit easier to figure out:
you have a 6x20 matrix A and a vector x with 20 elements. You want to minimize (x^T)e subject to Ax=y. According to the slides, if you were just minimizing the sum of x, then the answer is A^T(AA^T)^(-1)y. I'll take another look at this as soon as I get the chance and see what the solution is to minimizing (x^T)e (ie your specific problem).
Edit: I looked in the powerpoint some more and near the end there's a slide entitled "General norm minimization with equality constraints". I am going to switch the notation to match the slide's:
Your problem is that you want to minimize ||Ax-b||, where b = 0 and A is your e vector and x is the 20 unknowns. This is subject to Cx=d. Apparently the answer is:
x=(A^T A)^-1 (A^T b -C^T(C(A^T A)^-1 C^T)^-1 (C(A^T A)^-1 A^Tb - d))
it's not pretty, but it's not as bad as you might think. There's really aren't that many calculations. For example (A^TA)^-1 only needs to be calculated once and then you can reuse the answer. And your matrices aren't that big.
Note that I didn't incorporate the constraint that the elements of x are within [0,1].
It looks like the solution for what I am doing is with Linear Programming. It is starting to come back to me, but if I have other problems I will post them in their own dedicated questions instead of turning this into an encyclopedia.
it's been a while since I've handled some math stuff and I'm a bit rusty, please be nice if I ask a stupid question.
Problem: I have n couples of lines, which are saved in memory as an array of 2D points, therefore no explicit functions. I have to check if the lines on couples are parallel, and this is a pretty easy task because it's sufficient to check if their derivatives are the same.
To do this in an algorithm, I have to check the slope of the line between two points of the function (which I have) and since I don't need an extreme accuracy, I can use the easy formula:
m = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
But obviously this lead me to the big problem of x2 = x1. I can't give a default value for this case... how can I workaround it?
Another way to compare slopes in 2D is the following:
m1 = (y2-y1)/(x2-x1)
m2 = (y4-y3)/(x4-x3)
as m1 = m2
(y2-y1)*(x4-x3) = (y4-y3)*(x2-x1) if lines are parallel
This doesn't give divide by zero & is more efficient as it avoids floating point division.
I've seen this pseudo-random number generator for use in shaders referred to here and there around the web:
float rand(vec2 co){
return fract(sin(dot(co.xy ,vec2(12.9898,78.233))) * 43758.5453);
}
It's variously called "canonical", or "a one-liner I found on the web somewhere".
What's the origin of this function? Are the constant values as arbitrary as they seem or is there some art to their selection? Is there any discussion of the merits of this function?
EDIT: The oldest reference to this function that I've come across is this archive from Feb '08, the original page now being gone from the web. But there's no more discussion of it there than anywhere else.
Very interesting question!
I am trying to figure this out while typing the answer :)
First an easy way to play with it: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot%28+mod%28+sin%28x*12.9898+%2B+y*78.233%29+*+43758.5453%2C1%29x%3D0..2%2C+y%3D0..2%29
Then let's think about what we are trying to do here: For two input coordinates x,y we return a "random number". Now this is not a random number though. It's the same every time we input the same x,y. It's a hash function!
The first thing the function does is to go from 2d to 1d. That is not interesting in itself, but the numbers are chosen so they do not repeat typically. Also we have a floating point addition there. There will be a few more bits from y or x, but the numbers might just be chosen right so it does a mix.
Then we sample a black box sin() function. This will depend a lot on the implementation!
Lastly it amplifies the error in the sin() implementation by multiplying and taking the fraction.
I don't think this is a good hash function in the general case. The sin() is a black box, on the GPU, numerically. It should be possible to construct a much better one by taking almost any hash function and converting it. The hard part is to turn the typical integer operation used in cpu hashing into float (half or 32bit) or fixed point operations, but it should be possible.
Again, the real problem with this as a hash function is that sin() is a black box.
The origin is probably the paper: "On generating random numbers, with help of y= [(a+x)sin(bx)] mod 1", W.J.J. Rey, 22nd European Meeting of Statisticians and the 7th Vilnius Conference on Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics, August 1998
EDIT: Since I can't find a copy of this paper and the "TestU01" reference may not be clear, here's the scheme as described in TestU01 in pseudo-C:
#define A1 ???
#define A2 ???
#define B1 pi*(sqrt(5.0)-1)/2
#define B2 ???
uint32_t n; // position in the stream
double next() {
double t = fract(A1 * sin(B1*n));
double u = fract((A2+t) * sin(B2*t));
n++;
return u;
}
where the only recommended constant value is the B1.
Notice that this is for a stream. Converting to a 1D hash 'n' becomes the integer grid. So my guess is that someone saw this and converted 't' into a simple function f(x,y). Using the original constants above that would yield:
float hash(vec2 co){
float t = 12.9898*co.x + 78.233*co.y;
return fract((A2+t) * sin(t)); // any B2 is folded into 't' computation
}
the constant values are arbitrary, especially that they are very large, and a couple of decimals away from prime numbers.
a modulus over 1 of a hi amplitude sinus multiplied by 4000 is a periodic function. it's like a window blind or a corrugated metal made very small because it's multiplied by 4000, and turned at an angle by the dot product.
as the function is 2-D, the dot product has the effect of turning the periodic function at an oblique relative to X and Y axis. By 13/79 ratio approximately. It is inefficient, you can actually achieve the same by doing sinus of (13x + 79y) this will also achieve the same thing I think with less maths..
If you find the period of the function in both X and Y, you can sample it so that it will look like a simple sine wave again.
Here is a picture of it zoomed in graph
I don't know the origin but it is similar to many others, if you used it in graphics at regular intervals it would tend to produce moire patterns and you could see it's eventually goes around again.
Maybe it's some non-recurrent chaotic mapping, then it could explain many things, but also can be just some arbitrary manipulation with large numbers.
EDIT: Basically, the function fract(sin(x) * 43758.5453) is a simple hash-like function, the sin(x) provides smooth sin interpolation between -1 to 1, so sin(x) * 43758.5453 will be interpolation from -43758.5453 to 43758.5453. This is a quite huge range, so even small step in x will provide large step in result and really large variation in fractional part. The "fract" is needed to get values in range -0.99... to 0.999... .
Now, when we have something like hash function we should create function for production hash from the vector. The simplest way is call "hash" separetly for x any y component of the input vector. But then, we will have some symmetrical values. So, we should get some value from the vector, the approach is find some random vector and find "dot" product to that vector, here we go: fract(sin(dot(co.xy ,vec2(12.9898,78.233))) * 43758.5453);
Also, according to the selected vector, its lenght should be long engough to have several peroids of the "sin" function after "dot" product will be computed.
I do not believe this to be the true origin, but OP's code is presented as code example in "The Book of Shaders" by Patricio Gonzalez Vivo and Jen Lowe ( https://thebookofshaders.com/10/ ). In their code, Patricio Gonzales Vivo is cited as the author, i.e "// Author #patriciogv - 2015"
Since the OP's research dates back even further (to '08), the source might at least explain its popularity, and the author might be able to shed some light on his source.
First, please excuse my ignorance in this field, I'm a programmer by trade but have been stuck in a situation a little beyond my expertise (in math and signals processing).
I have a Matlab script that I need to port to a C++ program (without compiling the matlab code into a DLL). It uses the hilbert() function with one argument. I'm trying to find a way to implement the same thing in C++ (i.e. have a function that also takes only one argument, and returns the same values).
I have read up on ways of using FFT and IFFT to build it, but can't seem to get anything as simple as the Matlab version. The main thing is that I need it to work on a 128*2000 matrix, and nothing I've found in my search has showed me how to do that.
I would be OK with either a complex value returned, or just the absolute value. The simpler it is to integrate into the code, the better.
Thank you.
The MatLab function hilbert() does actually not compute the Hilbert transform directly but instead it computes the analytical signal, which is the thing one needs in most cases.
It does it by taking the FFT, deleting the negative frequencies (setting the upper half of the array to zero) and applying the inverse FFT. It would be straight forward in C/C++ (three lines of code) if you've got a decent FFT implementation.
This looks pretty good, as long as you can deal with the GPL license. Part of a much larger numerical computing resource.
Simple code below. (Note: this was part of a bigger project). The value for L is based on the your determination of your order, N. With N = 2L-1. Round N to an odd number. xbar below is based on the signal you define as the input to your designed system. This was implemented in MATLAB.
L = 40;
n = -L:L; % index n from [-40,-39,....,-1,0,1,...,39,40];
h = (1 - (-1).^n)./(pi*n); %impulse response of Hilbert Transform
h(41) = 0; %Corresponds to the 0/0 term (for 41st term, 0, in n vector above)
xhat = conv(h,xbar); %resultant from Hilbert Transform H(w);
plot(abs(xhat))
Not a true answer to your question but maybe a way of making you sleep better. I believe that you won't be able to be much faster than Matlab in the particular case of what is basically ffts on a matrix. That is where Matlab excels!
Matlab FFTs are computed using FFTW, the de-facto fastest FFT algorithm written in C which seem to be also parallelized by Matlab. On top of that, quoting from http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/fftw.html:
For FFT dimensions that are powers of 2, between 214 and 222, MATLAB
software uses special preloaded information in its internal database
to optimize the FFT computation.
So don't feel bad if your code is slightly slower...