I'm a data analysis student and I'm starting to explore Genetic Algorithms at the moment. I'm trying to solve a problem with GA but I'm not sure about the formulation of the problem.
Basically I have a state of a variable being 0 or 1 (0 it's in the normal range of values, 1 is in a critical state). When the state is 1 I can apply 3 solutions (let's consider Solution A, B and C) and for each solution I know the time that the solution was applied and the time where the state of the variable goes to 0.
So I have for the problem a set of data that have a critical event at 1, the solution applied and the time interval (in minutes) from the critical event to the application of the solution, and the time interval (in minutes) from the application of the solution until the event goes to 0.
I want with a genetic algorithm to know which is the best solution for a critical event and the fastest one. And if it is possible to rank the solutions acquired so if in the future on solution can't be applied I can always apply the second best for example.
I'm thinking of developing the solution in Python since I'm new to GA.
Edit: Specifying the problem (responding to AMack)
Yes is more a less that but with some nuances. For example the function A can be more suitable to make the variable go to F but because exist other problems with the variable are applied more than one solution. So on the data that i receive for an event of V, sometimes can be applied 3 ou 4 functions but only 1 or 2 of them are specialized for the problem that i want to analyze. My objetive is to make a decision support on the solution to use when determined problem appear. But the optimal solution can be more that one because for some event function A acts very fast but in other case of the same event function A don't produce a fast response and function C is better in that case. So in the end i pretend a solution where is indicated what are the best solutions to the problem but not only the fastest because the fastest in the majority of the cases sometimes is not the fastest in the same issue but with a different background.
I'm unsure of what your question is, but here are the elements you need for any GA:
A population of initial "genomes"
A ranking function
Some form of mutation, crossing over within the genome
and reproduction.
If a critical event is always the same, your GA should work very well. That being said, if you have a different critical event but the same genome you will run into trouble. GA's evolve functions towards the best possible solution for A Set of conditions. If you constantly run the GA so that it may adapt to each unique situation you will find a greater degree of adaptability, but have a speed issue.
You have a distinct advantage using python because string manipulation (what you'll probably use for the genome) is easy, however...
python is slow.
If the genome is short, the initial population is small, and there are very few generations this shouldn't be a problem. You lose possibly better solutions that way but it will be significantly faster.
have fun...
You should take a look at the GARAGe Michigan State. They are a GA research group with a fair number of resources in terms of theory, papers, and software that should provide inspiration.
To start, let's make sure I understand your problem.
You have a set of sample data, each element containing a time series of a binary variable (we'll call it V). When V is set to True, a function (A, B, or C) is applied which returns V to it's False state. You would like to apply a genetic algorithm to determine which function (or solution) will return V to False in the least amount of time.
If this is the case, I would stay away from GAs. GAs are typically used for some kind of function optimization / tuning. In general, the underlying assumption is that what you permute is under your control during the algorithm's application (i.e., you are modifying parameters used by the algorithm that are independent of the input data). In your case, my impression is that you just want to find out which of your (I assume) static functions perform best in a wide variety of cases. If you don't feel your current dataset provides a decent approximation of your true input distribution, you can always sample from it and permute the values to see what happens; however, this would not be a GA.
Having said all of this, I could be wrong. If anyone has used GAs in verification like this, please let me know. I'd certainly be interested in learning about it.
SO I realise the question I am asking here is large and complex.
A potential solution to variences in sizes of
In all of my searching through statistical forums and posts I haven't come across a scientifically sound method of taking into account the type of data that I am encountering,
but I have thought up a (novel?) potential solutions to account perfectly (in my mind) for large and small datasets within the same model.
The proposed method involves using a genetic algorithm to alter two numbers defining a relationship between the size of the dataset making up an implied strike rate and the
percentage of the implied strike to be used, with the target of the model to maximise the homology of the number 1 in two columns of the following csv. (ultra simplified
but hopefully demonstrates the principle)
Example data
Date,PupilName,Unique class,Achieved rank,x,y,x/y,Average xy
12/12/2012,PupilName1,UniqueClass1,1,3000,9610,0.312174818,0.08527
12/12/2012,PupilName2,UniqueClass1,2,300,961,0.312174818,0.08527
12/12/2012,PupilName3,UniqueClass1,3,1,3,0.333333333,0.08527
13/12/2012,PupilName1,UniqueClass2,1,2,3,0.666666667,0.08527
13/12/2012,PupilName2,UniqueClass2,2,0,1,0,0.08527
13/12/2012,PupilName3,UniqueClass2,3,0,5,0,0.08527
13/12/2012,PupilName4,UniqueClass2,4,0,2,0,0.08527
13/12/2012,PupilName5,UniqueClass2,5,0,17,0,0.08527
14/12/2012,PupilName1,UniqueClass3,1,1,2,0.5,0.08527
14/12/2012,PupilName2,UniqueClass3,2,0,1,0,0.08527
14/12/2012,PupilName3,UniqueClass3,3,0,5,0,0.08527
14/12/2012,PupilName4,UniqueClass3,4,0,6,0,0.08527
14/12/2012,PupilName5,UniqueClass3,5,0,12,0,0.08527
15/12/2012,PupilName1,UniqueClass4,1,0,0,0,0.08527
15/12/2012,PupilName2,UniqueClass4,2,1,25,0.04,0.08527
15/12/2012,PupilName3,UniqueClass4,3,1,29,0.034482759,0.08527
15/12/2012,PupilName4,UniqueClass4,4,1,38,0.026315789,0.08527
16/12/2012,PupilName1,UniqueClass5,1,12,24,0.5,0.08527
16/12/2012,PupilName2,UniqueClass5,2,1,2,0.5,0.08527
16/12/2012,PupilName3,UniqueClass5,3,13,59,0.220338983,0.08527
16/12/2012,PupilName4,UniqueClass5,4,28,359,0.077994429,0.08527
16/12/2012,PupilName5,UniqueClass5,5,0,0,0,0.08527
17/12/2012,PupilName1,UniqueClass6,1,0,0,0,0.08527
17/12/2012,PupilName2,UniqueClass6,2,2,200,0.01,0.08527
17/12/2012,PupilName3,UniqueClass6,3,2,254,0.007874016,0.08527
17/12/2012,PupilName4,UniqueClass6,4,2,278,0.007194245,0.08527
17/12/2012,PupilName5,UniqueClass6,5,1,279,0.003584229,0.08527
So I have created a tiny model dataset, which contains some good examples of where my current methods fall short and how I feel a genetic algorithm can be used to fix this. If we look in the dataset above it contains 6 unique classes the ultimate objective of the algorithm is to create as high as possible correspondence between a rank of an adjusted x/y and the achieved rank in column 3 (zero based referencing.) In uniqueclass1 we have two identical x/y values, now these are comparatively large x/y values if you compare with the average (note the average isn't calculated from this dataset) but it would be common sense to expect that the 3000/9610 is more significant and therefore more likely to have an achieved rank of 1 than the 300/961. So what I want to do is make an adjusted x/y to overcome these differences in dataset sizes using a logarithmic growth relationship defined by the equation:
adjusted xy = ((1-exp(-y*α)) * x/y)) + ((1-(1-exp(-y*α)))*Average xy)
Where α is the only dynamic number
If I can explain my logic a little and open myself up to (hopefully) constructive criticsm. This graph below shows is an exponential growth relationship between size of the data set and the % of x/y contributing to the adjusted x/y. Essentially what the above equation says is as the dataset gets larger the percentage of the original x/y used in the adjusted x/y gets larger. Whatever percentage is left is made up by the average xy. Could hypothetically be 75% x/y and 25% average xy for 300/961 and 95%/5% for 3000/9610 creating an adjusted x/y which clearly demonstrates
For help with understanding the lowering of α would produce the following relationship where by a larger dataset would be requred to achieve the same "% of xy contributed"
Conversly increasing α would produce the following relationship where by a smaller dataset would be requred to achieve the same "% of xy contributed"
So I have explained my logic. I am also open to code snippets to help me overcome the problem. I have plans to make a multitude of genetic/evolutionary algorithms in the future and could really use a working example to pick apart and play with in order to help my understanding of how to utilise such abilities of python. If additional detail is required or further clarification about the problem or methods please do ask, I really want to be able to solve this problem and future problems of this nature.
So after much discussion about the methods available to overcome the problem presented here I have come to the conclusion that he best method would be a genetic algorithm to iterate α in order to maximise the homology/correspondance between a rank of an adjusted x/y and the achieved rank in column 3. It would be greatly greatly appreciated if anyone be able to help in that department?
So to clarify, this post is no longer a discussion about methodology
I am hoping someone can help me produce a genetic algorithm to maximise the homology between the results of the equation
adjusted xy = ((1-exp(-y*α)) * x/y)) + ((1-(1-exp(-y*α)))*Average xy)
Where adjusted xy applies to each row of the csv. Maximising homology could be achieved by minimising the difference between the rank of the adjusted xy (where the rank is by each Unique class only) and Achieved rank.
Minimising this value would maximise the homology and essentially solve the problem presented to me of different size datasets. If any more information is required please ask, I check this post about 20 times a day at the moment so should reply rather promptly. Many thanks SMNALLY.
The problem you are facing sounds to me like "Bias Variance Dilemna" from a general point of view. In a nutshell, a more precise model favours variance (sensitivity to change in a single training set), a more general model favours bias (model works for many training sets)
May I suggest not to focus on GA but look at Instance Base Learning and advanced regression techniques. The Andrew moore page at CMU is a good entry point.
And particularly those slides.
[EDIT]
After a second reading, here is my second understanding:
You have a set of example data with two related attributes X and Y.
You do not want X/Y to dominate when Y is small, (considered as less representative).
As a consequence you want to "weigth" the examples with a adapted value adjusted_xy .
You want adjusted_xy to be related to a third attribute R (rank). Related such as,per class, adjusted_xy is sorted like R.
To do so you suggest to put it as an optimization problem, searching for PARAMS of a given function F(X,Y,PARAMS)= adjusted_xy .
With the constraint that D=Distance( achieved rank for this class, rank of adjusted_xy for this class ) is minimal.
Your question, at least for me, is in the field of attribute selection/attribute adaptation. (I guess the data set will later be used for supervised learning ).
One problem that I see in your approach (if well understood) is that, at the end, rank will be highly related to adjusted_xy which will bring therefore no interesting supplementary information.
Once this said, I think you surely know how GA works . You have to
define the content of the chromosome : this appears to be your alpha parameter.
define an appropriate fitness function
The fitness function for one individual can be a sum of distances over all examples of the dataset.
As you are dealing with real values , other metaheuristics such as Evolution Strategies (ES) or Simulated Anealing may be more adapted than GA.
As solving optimization problems is cpu intensive, you might eventually consider C or Java instead of Python. (as fitness at least will be interpreted and thus cost a lot).
Alternatively I would look at using Y as a weight to some supervised learning algorithm (if supervised learning is the target).
Let's start by the problem: You consider the fact that some features lead to some of your classes a 'strike'. You are taking a subset of your data and try to establish a rule for the strikes. You do establish one but then you notice that the accuracy of your rule depends on the volume of the dataset that was used to establish the 'strike' rate anyway. You are also commenting on the effect of some samples in biasing your 'strike' estimate.
The immediate answer is that it looks like you have a lot of variation in your data, therefore you will in one way or another need to collect more to account for that variation. (That is, variation that is inherent to the problem).
The fact that in some cases the numbers end up in 'unusable cases' could also be down to outliers. That is, measurements that are 'out of bounds' for a number of reasons and which you would have to find a way to either exclude them or re-adjust them. But this depends a lot on the context of the problem.
'Strike rates' on their own will not help but they are perhaps a step towards the right direction. In any case, you can not compare strike rates if they are coming from samples of different sizes as you have found out too. If your problem is purely to determine the size of your sample so that your results conform to some specific accuracy then i would recommend that you have a look at Statistical Power and how does the sample size affects it. But still, to determine the sample size you need to know a bit more about your data, which brings us back to point #1 about the inherent variation.
Therefore, my attempt to an answer is this: If i have understood your question correctly, you are dealing with a classification problem in which you seek to assign a number of items (patients) to a number of classes (types of cancer) on the evidence of some features (existence of genetic markers, or frequency of their appearance or any other quantity anyway) about these items. But, some features might not exist for all items or, there is a core group of features but there might be some more that do not appear all the time. The question now is, which classifier do you use to achieve this? Logistic regression was mentioned previously and has not helped. Therefore, what i would suggest is going for a Naive Bayesian Classifier. The classifier can be trained with the datasets you have used to derive the 'strike rates' which will provide the a-priori probabilities. When the classifier is 'running' it will be using the features of new data to construct a likelihood that the patient who provided this data should be assigned to each class.
Perhaps the more common example for such a classifier is the spam-email detectors where the likelihood that an email is spam is judged on the existence of specific words in the email (and a suitable training dataset that provides a good starting point of course).
Now, in terms of trying this out practically (and since your post is tagged with python related tags :) ), i would like to recommend Weka. Weka contains a lot of related functionality including bootstrapping that could potentially help you with those differences in the size of the datasets. Although Weka is Java, bindings exist for it in Python too. I would definitely give it a go, the Weka package, book and community are very helpful.
No. Don't use a genetic algorithm.
The bigger the search space of models and parameters, the better your chances of finding a good fit for your data points. But the less this fit will mean. Especially since for some groups your sample sizes are small and therefore the measurements have a high random component to them. This is why, somewhat counterintuitively, it is often actually harder to find a good model for your data after collecting it than before.
You have taken the question to the programmer's lair. This is not the place for it. We solve puzzles.
This is not a puzzle to find the best line through the dots. You are searching for a model that makes sense and brings understanding on the subject matter. A genetic algorithm is very creative at line-through-dot drawing but will bring you little understanding.
Take the problem back where it belongs and ask the statisticians instead.
For a good model should be based on theory behind the data. It'll have to match the points on the right side of the graph, where (if I understand you right) most of the samples are. It'll be able to explain in hard probabilities how likely the deviations on the left are and tell you if they are significant or not.
If you do want to do some programming, I'd suggest you take the simplest linear model, add some random noise, and do a couple simulation runs for a population like your subjects. See if the data looks like the data you're looking at or if it generally 'looks' different, in which case there really is something nonlinear (and possibly interesting) going on on the left.
I once tackled a similar problem (as similar as problems like this ever are), in which there were many classes and high variance in features per data point. I personally used a Random Forest classifier (which I wrote in Java). Since your data is highly variant, and therefore hard to model, you could create multiple forests from different random samples of your large dataset and put a control layer on top to classify data against all the forests, then take the best score. I don't write python, but i found this link
http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestClassifier.html
which may give you something to play with.
Following Occam's razor, you must select a simpler model for small dataset and may want to switch to a more complex model as your dataset grows.
There are no [good] statistical tests that show you if a given model, in isolation, is a good predictor of your data. Or rather, a test may tell you that given model fitness is N, but you can never tell what the acceptable value of N is.
Thus, build several models and pick one with better tradeoff of predictive power and simplicity using Akaike information criterion. It has useful properties and not too hard to understand. :)
There are other tests of course, but AIC should get you started.
For a simple test, check out p-value
I'm currently working on a website that will allow students from my university to automatically generate valid schedules based on the courses they'd like to take.
Before working on the site itself, I decided to tackle the issue of how to schedule the courses efficiently.
A few clarifications:
Each course at our university (and I assume at every other
university) comprises of one or more sections. So, for instance,
Calculus I currently has 4 sections available. This means that, depending on the amount of sections, and whether or not the course has a lab, this drastically affects the scheduling process.
Courses at our university are represented using a combination of subject abbreviation and course code. In the case of Calculus I: MATH 1110.
The CRN is a code unique to a section.
The university I study at is not mixed, meaning males and females study in (almost) separate campuses. What I mean by almost is that the campus is divided into two.
The datetimes and timeranges dicts are meant to decreases calls to datetime.datetime.strptime(), which was a real bottleneck.
My first attempt consisted of the algorithm looping continuously until 30 schedules were found. Schedules were created by randomly choosing a section from one of the inputted courses, and then trying to place sections from the remaining courses to try to construct a valid schedule. If not all of the courses fit into the schedule i.e. there were conflicts, the schedule was scrapped and the loop continued.
Clearly, the above solution is flawed. The algorithm took too long to run, and relied too much on randomness.
The second algorithm does the exact opposite of the old one. First, it generates a collection of all possible schedule combinations using itertools.product(). It then iterates through the schedules, crossing off any that are invalid. To ensure assorted sections, the schedule combinations are shuffled (random.shuffle()) before being validated. Again, there is a bit of randomness involved.
After a bit of optimization, I was able to get the scheduler to run in under 1 second for an average schedule consisting of 5 courses. That's great, but the problem begins once you start adding more courses.
To give you an idea, when I provide a certain set of inputs, the amount of combinations possible is so large that itertools.product() does not terminate in a reasonable amount of time, and eats up 1GB of RAM in the process.
Obviously, if I'm going to make this a service, I'm going to need a faster and more efficient algorithm. Two that have popped up online and in IRC: dynamic programming and genetic algorithms.
Dynamic programming cannot be applied to this problem because, if I understand the concept correctly, it involves breaking up the problem into smaller pieces, solving these pieces individually, and then bringing the solutions of these pieces together to form a complete solution. As far as I can see, this does not apply here.
As for genetic algorithms, I do not understand them much, and cannot even begin to fathom how to apply one in such a situation. I also understand that a GA would be more efficient for an extremely large problem space, and this is not that large.
What alternatives do I have? Is there a relatively understandable approach I can take to solve this problem? Or should I just stick to what I have and hope that not many people decide to take 8 courses next semester?
I'm not a great writer, so I'm sorry for any ambiguities in the question. Please feel free to ask for clarification and I'll try my best to help.
Here is the code in its entirety.
http://bpaste.net/show/ZY36uvAgcb1ujjUGKA1d/
Note: Sorry for using a misleading tag (scheduling).
Scheduling is a very famous constraint satisfaction problem that is generally NP-Complete. A lot of work has been done on the subject, even in the same context as you: Solving the University Class Scheduling Problem Using Advanced ILP Techniques. There are even textbooks on the subject.
People have taken many approaches, including:
Dynamic programming
Genetic algorithms
Neural networks
You need to reduce your problem-space and complexity. Make as many assumptions as possible (max amount of classes, block based timing, ect). There is no silver bullet for this problem but it should be possible to find a near-optimal solution.
Some semi-recent publications:
QUICK scheduler a time-saving tool for scheduling class sections
Scheduling classes on a College Campus
Did you ever read anything about genetic programming? The idea behind it is that you let the 'thing' you want solved evolve, just by itsself, until it has grown to the best solution(s) possible.
You generate a thousand schedules, of which usually zero are anywhere in the right direction of being valid. Next, you change 'some' courses, randomly. From these new schedules you select some of the best, based on ratings you give according to the 'goodness' of the schedule. Next, you let them reproduce, by combining some of the courses on both schedules. You end up with a thousand new schedules, but all of them a tiny fraction better than the ones you had. Let it repeat until you are satisfied, and select the schedule with the highest rating from the last thousand you generated.
There is randomness involved, I admit, but the schedules keep getting better, no matter how long you let the algorithm run. Just like real life and organisms there is survival of the fittest, and it is possible to view the different general 'threads' of the same kind of schedule, that is about as good as another one generated. Two very different schedules can finally 'battle' it out by cross breeding.
A project involving school schedules and genetic programming:
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/23111/Making-a-Class-Schedule-Using-a-Genetic-Algorithm
I think they explain pretty well what you need.
My final note: I think this is a very interesting project. It is quite difficult to make, but once done it is just great to see your solution evolve, just like real life. Good luck!
The way you're currently generating combinations of sections is probably throwing up huge numbers of combinations that are excluded by conflicts between more than one course. I think you could reduce the number of combinations that you need to deal with by generating the product of the sections for only two courses first. Eliminate the conflicts from that set, then introduce the sections for a third course. Eliminate again, then introduce a fourth, and so on. This should see a more linear growth in the processing time required as the number of courses selected increases.
This is a hard problem. It you google something like 'course scheduling problem paper' you will find a lot of references. Genetic algorithm - no, dynamic programming - yes. GAs are much harder to understand and implement than standard DP algos. Usually people who use GAs out of the box, don't understand standard techniques. Do some research and you will find different algorithms. You might be able to find some implementations. Coming up with your own algorithm is way, way harder than putting some effort into understanding DP.
The problem you're describing is a Constraint Satisfaction Problem. My approach would be the following:
Check if there's any uncompatibilities between courses, if yes, record them as constraints or arcs
While not solution is found:
Select the course with less constrains (that is, has less uncompatibilities with other courses)
Run the AC-3 algorithm to reduce search space
I've tried this approach with sudoku solving and it worked (solved the hardest sudoku in the world in less than 10 seconds)