why gaussian and cauchy functions
play

Why Gaussian and Cauchy Functions Computationally . . . Are - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing Need to Select an . . . We May Need Several . . . Why Gaussian and Cauchy Functions Computationally . . . Are Efficient in Filled Function Method: Resulting Requirement . . . A Possible Explanation


  1. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing Need to Select an . . . We May Need Several . . . Why Gaussian and Cauchy Functions Computationally . . . Are Efficient in Filled Function Method: Resulting Requirement . . . A Possible Explanation Analyzing The Above . . . This Leads to the . . . niz 1 , Vyacheslav V. Kalashnikov 2 , 3 , Jos´ e Guadalupe Flores Mu˜ Final Step In Our . . . Nataliya Kalashnykova 1 , 4 , and Vladik Kreinovich 5 Home Page 1 Dept. Phys. and Math., Universidad Aut´ onoma de Nuevo Le´ on San Nicol´ as de los Garza, M´ exico, jose guadalupe64@hotmail.com Title Page nkalash2009@gmail.com ◭◭ ◮◮ 2 Department of Systems and Industrial Engineering Tecnol´ ogico de Monterrey ITESM, Campus Monterrey, Mexico, ◭ ◮ kalash@itesm.mx 3 Department of Experimental Economics, Central Economics and Page 1 of 17 Math. Inst. (CEMI), Moscow, Russia 4 Department of Computer Science, Sumy State University, Ukraine Go Back 5 Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at El Paso Full Screen El Paso, Texas 79968, USA, vladik@utep.edu Close Quit

  2. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 1. Outline Need to Select an . . . • One of the main problems of optimization algorithms We May Need Several . . . is that they end up in a local optimum. Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • It is necessary to get out of the local optimum and Analyzing The Above . . . eventually reach the global optimum. This Leads to the . . . • One of the promising methods to leave the local opti- Final Step In Our . . . mum is the filled function method. Home Page • Empirically, the best smoothing functions in this Title Page method are the Gaussian and the Cauchy functions. ◭◭ ◮◮ • In this talk, we provide a possible theoretical explana- ◭ ◮ tion for this empirical result. Page 2 of 17 Go Back Full Screen Close Quit

  3. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 2. Formulation of the Problem Need to Select an . . . • Many optimization techniques end up in a local opti- We May Need Several . . . mum. Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • So, to solve a global optimization problem, it is neces- Analyzing The Above . . . sary to move out of the local minimum. This Leads to the . . . • Eventually, we should end up in a global minimum (or Final Step In Our . . . at least in a better local minimum). Home Page • One of the most efficient techniques for avoiding a local Title Page optimum is Renpu’s filled function method. ◭◭ ◮◮ • In this method, once we reach a local optimum x ∗ , we ◭ ◮ optimize an auxiliary expression Page 3 of 17 � x − x ∗ � · F ( f ( x ) , f ( x ∗ ) , x ) + G ( f ( x ) , f ( x ∗ ) , x ) , K Go Back σ Full Screen for some K, F, G, and σ. Close Quit

  4. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 3. Formulation of the Problem (cont-d) Need to Select an . . . • We use its optimum as a new first approximation to We May Need Several . . . find the optimum of f ( x ). Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • Several different functions K ( x − x ∗ ) have been pro- Analyzing The Above . . . posed. This Leads to the . . . • It turns out that the most computationally efficient Final Step In Our . . . functions are the Gaussian and Cauchy functions Home Page 1 K ( x ) = exp( −� x � 2 ) , Title Page K ( x ) = 1 + � x � 2 . ◭◭ ◮◮ • Are these function indeed the most efficient? ◭ ◮ • Or they are simply the most efficient among a few func- Page 4 of 17 tions that have been tried? Go Back Full Screen Close Quit

  5. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 4. What We Plan to Do Need to Select an . . . • In this talk, we formulate the above question as a pre- We May Need Several . . . cise mathematical problem. Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • We show that in this formulation, the Gaussian and the Analyzing The Above . . . Cauchy functions are indeed the most efficient ones. This Leads to the . . . • This result provides a possible theoretical explanation Final Step In Our . . . for the above empirical fact. Home Page • This results also shows that the Gaussian and the Title Page Cauchy functions K ( x ) are indeed the best. ◭◭ ◮◮ • This will hopefully make users more confident in (these ◭ ◮ versions of) the function filling method. Page 5 of 17 Go Back Full Screen Close Quit

  6. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 5. Need for Smoothing Need to Select an . . . • One of the known ways to eliminate local optima is to We May Need Several . . . apply a weighted smoothing . Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • In this method, we replace the original objective func- Analyzing The Above . . . tion f ( x ) with a “smoothed” one This Leads to the . . . � x − x ′ � � def f ∗ ( x ) · f ( x ′ ) dx ′ , for some K ( x ) and σ. = Final Step In Our . . . K σ Home Page • The weighting function is usually selected in such a Title Page � way that K ( − x ) = K ( x ) and K ( x ) dx < + ∞ . ◭◭ ◮◮ ◭ ◮ • The first condition comes from the fact that we have no reason to prefer different orientations of coordinates. Page 6 of 17 Go Back • The second condition is that for f ( x ) = const, smooth- ing should leads to a finite constant. Full Screen Close Quit

  7. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 6. Need to Select an Appropriate Value σ Need to Select an . . . • When σ is too small, the smoothing only covers a very We May Need Several . . . small neighborhood of each point x . Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • The smoothed function f ∗ ( x ) is close to the original Analyzing The Above . . . objective function f ( x ). This Leads to the . . . • So, we will still observe all the local optima. Final Step In Our . . . Home Page • On the other hand, if σ is too large, the smoothed function f ∗ ( x ) is too different from f ( x ). Title Page • So the optimum of the smoothed function may have ◭◭ ◮◮ nothing to do with the optimum of f ( x ). ◭ ◮ • So, for the smoothing method to work, it is important Page 7 of 17 to select an appropriate value of σ . Go Back Full Screen Close Quit

  8. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 7. We May Need Several Iterations to Find an Need to Select an . . . Appropriate σ We May Need Several . . . • Our first estimate for σ may not be the best. Computationally . . . Resulting Requirement . . . • If we have smoothed the function too much, then we Analyzing The Above . . . need to “un-smooth” it, i.e., to select a smaller σ . This Leads to the . . . • If we have not smoothed the function enough, then we Final Step In Our . . . need to smooth it more, i.e., to select a larger σ . Home Page Title Page ◭◭ ◮◮ ◭ ◮ Page 8 of 17 Go Back Full Screen Close Quit

  9. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 8. Computationally Efficient Smoothing: Analy- Need to Select an . . . sis We May Need Several . . . • Once we have smoothed the function too much, it is Computationally . . . difficult to un-smooth it. Resulting Requirement . . . Analyzing The Above . . . • Therefore, a usual approach is that we first try some small smoothing. This Leads to the . . . Final Step In Our . . . • If the resulting smoothed function f ∗ ( x ) still leads to a Home Page similar local maximum, we smooth it some more, etc. Title Page • For small σ : ◭◭ ◮◮ – to find each value f ∗ ( x ) of the smoothed function, ◭ ◮ – we only need to consider values of f ( x ′ ) in a small vicinity of x . Page 9 of 17 • The larger σ , the larger this vicinity, so: Go Back – the more values f ( x ′ ) we need to take into account, Full Screen – and thus the more computations we need. Close Quit

  10. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 9. Computationally Efficient Smoothing: Conclu- Need to Select an . . . sion We May Need Several . . . • Let’s assume that we have a smoothed function f ∗ ( x ) Computationally . . . corresponding to some value of σ . Resulting Requirement . . . Analyzing The Above . . . • We need to compute a smoothed function f ∗∗ ( x ) cor- responding to a larger value σ ′ > σ . This Leads to the . . . Final Step In Our . . . • It is thus more computationally efficient not to apply Home Page smoothing with σ ′ to the original f ( x ). Title Page • Instead, we should apply a small additional smoothing ◭◭ ◮◮ to the smoothed function f ∗ ( x ). ◭ ◮ Page 10 of 17 Go Back Full Screen Close Quit

  11. Formulation of the . . . Need for Smoothing 10. Resulting Requirement on the Smoothing Need to Select an . . . Function K ( x ) We May Need Several . . . • For every σ ′ and σ , there should be an appropriate Computationally . . . value ∆ σ . Resulting Requirement . . . Analyzing The Above . . . • Then, after we get This Leads to the . . . � x − x ′ � � f ∗ ( x ) = · f ( x ′ ) dx ′ . K Final Step In Our . . . σ Home Page • A smoothing with ∆ σ should lead to the desired func- Title Page tion ◭◭ ◮◮ � x − x ′ � � f ∗∗ ( x ) = · f ( x ′ ) dx ′ . K σ ′ ◭ ◮ • In other words, we need to make sure that for every Page 11 of 17 objective function f ( x ), we have Go Back � x − x ′ � x − x ′ � � � � · f ( x ′ ) dx ′ = · f ∗ ( x ′ ) dx ′ . Full Screen K K σ ′ ∆ σ Close Quit

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend