Develop Reference

Finding the global minimum of a noisy function via simulated annealing in python

I'm trying to find the global minimum of the function from the hundred digit hundred dollars challenge, question #4 as an exercise for simulated annealing.
As the basis of my understanding and approach to writing the code, I refer to the global optimization algorithms version 3 book which is found for free online.
Consequently, I've initially come up with the following code:
The noisy func:
def noisy_func(x, y):
return (math.exp(math.sin(50*x)) +
math.sin(60*math.exp(y)) +
math.sin(70*math.sin(x)) +
math.sin(math.sin(80*y)) -
math.sin(10*(x + y)) +
0.25*(math.pow(x, 2) +
math.pow(y, 2)))
The function used to mutate the values:
def mutate(X_Value, Y_Value):
mutationResult_X = X_Value + randomNumForInput()
mutationResult_Y = Y_Value + randomNumForInput()
while mutationResult_X > 4 or mutationResult_X < -4:
mutationResult_X = X_Value + randomNumForInput()
while mutationResult_Y > 4 or mutationResult_Y < -4:
mutationResult_Y = Y_Value + randomNumForInput()
mutationResults = [mutationResult_X, mutationResult_Y]
return mutationResults
randomNumForInput simply returns a random number between 4 and -4. (Interval Limits for the search.) Hence it is equivalent to random.uniform(-4, 4).
This is the central function of the program.
def simulated_annealing(f):
"""Peforms simulated annealing to find a solution"""
#Start by initializing the current state with the initial state
#acquired by a random generation of a number and then using it
#in the noisy func, also set solution(best_state) as current_state
#for a start
pCurSelect = [randomNumForInput(),randomNumForInput()]
current_state = f(pCurSelect[0],pCurSelect[1])
best_state = current_state
#Begin time monitoring, this will represent the
#Number of steps over time
TimeStamp = 1
#Init current temp via the func, using such values as to get the initial temp
initial_temp = 100
final_temp = .1
alpha = 0.001
num_of_steps = 1000000
#calculates by how much the temperature should be tweaked
#each iteration
#suppose the number of steps is linear, we'll send in 100
temp_Delta = calcTempDelta(initial_temp, final_temp, num_of_steps)
#set current_temp via initial temp
current_temp = getTemperature(initial_temp, temp_Delta)
#max_iterations = 100
#initial_temp = get_Temperature_Poly(TimeStamp)
#current_temp > final_temp
while current_temp > final_temp:
#get a mutated value from the current value
#hence being a 'neighbour' value
#with it, acquire the neighbouring state
#to the current state
neighbour_values = mutate(pCurSelect[0], pCurSelect[1])
neighbour_state = f(neighbour_values[0], neighbour_values[1])
#calculate the difference between the newly mutated
#neighbour state and the current state
delta_E_Of_States = neighbour_state - current_state
# Check if neighbor_state is the best state so far
# if the new solution is better (lower), accept it
if delta_E_Of_States <= 0:
pCurSelect = neighbour_values
current_state = neighbour_state
if current_state < best_state:
best_state = current_state
# if the new solution is not better, accept it with a probability of e^(-cost/temp)
else:
if random.uniform(0, 1) < math.exp(-(delta_E_Of_States) / current_temp):
pCurSelect = neighbour_values
current_state = neighbour_state
# Here, we'd decrement the temperature or increase the timestamp, normally
"""current_temp -= alpha"""
#print("Run number: " + str(TimeStamp) + " current_state = " + str(current_state) )
#increment TimeStamp
TimeStamp = TimeStamp + 1
# calc temp for next iteration
current_temp = getTemperature(current_temp, temp_Delta)
#print("Iteration Count: " + str(TimeStamp))
return best_state
alpha is not used for this implementation, however temperature is moderated linearly using the following funcs:
def calcTempDelta(T_Initial, T_Final, N):
return((T_Initial-T_Final)/N)
def getTemperature(T_old, T_new):
return (T_old - T_new)
This is how I implemented the solution described in page 245 of the book. However, this implementation does not return to me the global minimum of the noisy function, but rather, one of its near-by local minimum.
The reasons I implemented the solution in this way is two fold:
It has been provided to me as a working example of a linear temperature moderation, and thus a working template.
Although I have tried to understand the other forms of temperature moderation laid out in the book in pages 248-249, it is not entirely clear to me how the variable "Ts" is calculated, and even after trying to look through some of the cited sources the book references, it remains esoteric for me still. Thus I figured, I'd rather try to make this "simple" solution work correctly first, before proceeding to attempt other approaches of temperature quenching (logarithmic, exponential, etc).
Since then I have tried in numerous ways to acquire the global minimum of the noisy func through various different iterations of the code, which would be too much to post here all at once. I've tried different rewrites of this code:
Decrease the randomly rolled number over each iteration as in order to search within a smaller scope every time, this has resulted in more consistent but still incorrect results.
Mutate by different increments, so lets say, between -1 and 1, etc. Same effect.
Rewrite mutate as in order to examine the neighbouring points to the current point via some step size, and examine neighboring points by adding/reducing said step size from the current point's x/y values, checking the differences between the newly generated point and the current point (the delta of E's, basically), and return the appropriate values with whichever one produced the lowest distance to the current function, thus being its closest proximity neighbour.
Reduce the intervals limits over which the search occurs.
It is in these, the solutions involving step-size/reducing limits/checking neighbours by quadrants that I have used movements comprised of some constant alpha times the time_stamp.
These and other solutions which I've attempted have not worked, either producing even less accurate results (albeit in some cases more consistent results) or in one case, not working at all.
Therefore I must be missing something, whether its to do with the temperature moderation, or the precise way (formula) by which I'm supposed to make the next step (mutate) in the algorithm.
I know its a lot to take in and look at, but I'd appreciate any constructive criticism/help/advice you can provide me.
If it will be of any help to showcase code bits of the other solution attempts, I'll post them if asked.

It is important that you keep track of what you are doing.
I have put a few important tips on frigidum
The alpha cooling generally works well, it makes sure you don't speed through the interesting sweet-spot, where about 0.1 of the proposals are accepted.
Make sure your proposals are not too coarse, I have put a example where I only change x or y, but never both. The idea is that annealing will take whats best, or take a tour, and let the scheme decide.
I use the package frigidum for the algo, but its pretty much the same are your code. Also notice I have 2 proposals, a large change and a small change, combinations usually work well.
Finally, I noticed its hopping a lot. A small variation would be to pick the best-so-far before you go in the last 5% of your cooling.
I use/install frigidum
!pip install frigidum
And made a small change to make use of numpy arrays;
import math
def noisy_func(X):
x, y = X
return (math.exp(math.sin(50*x)) +
math.sin(60*math.exp(y)) +
math.sin(70*math.sin(x)) +
math.sin(math.sin(80*y)) -
math.sin(10*(x + y)) +
0.25*(math.pow(x, 2) +
math.pow(y, 2)))
import frigidum
import numpy as np
import random
def random_start():
return np.random.random( 2 ) * 4
def random_small_step(x):
if np.random.random() < .5:
return np.clip( x + np.array( [0, 0.02 * (random.random() - .5)] ), -4,4)
else:
return np.clip( x + np.array( [0.02 * (random.random() - .5), 0] ), -4,4)
def random_big_step(x):
if np.random.random() < .5:
return np.clip( x + np.array( [0, 0.5 * (random.random() - .5)] ), -4,4)
else:
return np.clip( x + np.array( [0.5 * (random.random() - .5), 0] ), -4,4)
local_opt = frigidum.sa(random_start=random_start,
neighbours=[random_small_step, random_big_step],
objective_function=noisy_func,
T_start=10**2,
T_stop=0.00001,
repeats=10**4,
copy_state=frigidum.annealing.copy)
The output of the above was
---
Neighbour Statistics:
(proportion of proposals which got accepted *and* changed the objective function)
random_small_step : 0.451045
random_big_step : 0.268002
---
(Local) Minimum Objective Value Found:
-3.30669277
With the above code sometimes I get below -3, but I also noticed sometimes it has found something around -2, than it is stuck in the last phase.
So a small tweak would be to re-anneal the last phase of the annealing, with the best-found-so-far.
Hope that helps, let me know if any questions.

Linear Programing- Max value optimization

I'm trying to find the best possible combination that will maximize my sum value, but it has to be under 2 specific constraints, therefore I am assuming Linear programming will be the best fit.
The problem goes like this:
Some educational world-event wish to gather the world's smartest teen students.
Every state tested 100K students on the following exams:'MATH', 'ENGLISH', 'COMPUTERS', 'HISTORY','PHYSICS'.. and where graded 0-100 on EACH exam.
Every state was requested to send their best 10K from the tested 100K students for the event.
You, as the French representative, were requested to choose the top 10K students from the tested 100K student from your country. For that, you'll need to optimize the MAX VALUE from them in order to get the best possible TOTAL SCORE.
BUT there are 2 main constrains:
1- from the total 10K chosen students you need to allocate specific students that will be tested on the event on 1 specific subject only from the mentioned 5 subjects.
the allocation needed is: ['MATH': 4000, 'ENGLISH':3000,'COMPUTERS':2000, 'HISTORY':750,'PHYSICS':250]
2- Each 'exam subject' score will have to be weighted differently.. for exp: 97 is Math worth more than 97 in History.
the wheights are: ['MATH': 1.9, 'ENGLISH':1.7,'COMPUTERS':1.5, 'HISTORY':1.3,'PHYSICS':1.1]
MY SOLUTION:
I tried to use the PULP (python) as an LP library and solved it correctly, but it took more than 2 HOURS of running.
can you find a better (faster, simpler..) way to solve it?
there are some NUMPY LP functions that could be used instead, maybe will be faster?
it supposed to be a simple OPTIMIZATION problem be I made it too slow and complexed.
--The solution needs to be in Python only please
for example, let's look on a small scale at the same problem:
there are 30 students and you need to choose only 15 students that will give us the best combination in relation to the following subject allocation demand.
the allocation needed is- ['MATH': 5, 'ENGLISH':4,'COMPUTERS':3, 'HISTORY':2,'PHYSICS':1]
this is all the 30 students and their grades:
after running the algorithm, the output solution will be:
here is my full code for the ORIGINAL question (100K students):
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import pulp as p
import time
t0=time.time()
demand = [4000, 3000, 2000, 750,250]
weight = [1.9,1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.1]
original_data= pd.read_csv('GRADE_100K.csv') #created simple csv file with random scores
data_c=original_data.copy()
data_c.index = np.arange(1, len(data_c)+1)
data_c.columns
data_c=data_c[['STUDENT_ID', 'MATH', 'ENGLISH', 'COMPUTERS', 'HISTORY','PHYSICS']]
#DataFrame Shape
m=data_c.shape[1]
n=data_c.shape[0]
data=[]
sublist=[]
for j in range(0,n):
for i in range(1,m):
sublist.append(data_c.iloc[j,i])
data.append(sublist)
sublist=[]
def _get_num_students(data):
return len(data)
def _get_num_subjects(data):
return len(data[0])
def _get_weighted_data(data, weight):
return [
[a*b for a, b in zip(row, weight)]
for row in data
]
data = _get_weighted_data(data, weight)
num_students = _get_num_students(data)
num_subjects = _get_num_subjects(data)
# Create a LP Minimization problem
Lp_prob = p.LpProblem('Problem', p.LpMaximize)
# Create problem Variables
variables_matrix = [[0 for i in range(num_subjects)] for j in range(num_students)]
for i in range(0, num_students):
for j in range(0, num_subjects):
variables_matrix[i][j] = p.LpVariable(f"X({i+1},{j+1})", 0, 1, cat='Integer')
df_d=pd.DataFrame(data=data)
df_v=pd.DataFrame(data=variables_matrix)
ml=df_d.mul(df_v)
ml['coeff'] = ml.sum(axis=1)
coefficients=ml['coeff'].tolist()
# DEALING WITH TARGET FUNCTION VALUE
suming=0
k=0
sumsum=[]
for z in range(len(coefficients)):
suming +=coefficients[z]
if z % 2000==0:
sumsum.append(suming)
suming=0
if z<2000:
sumsum.append(suming)
sumsuming=0
for s in range(len(sumsum)):
sumsuming=sumsuming+sumsum[s]
Lp_prob += sumsuming
# DEALING WITH the 2 CONSTRAINS
# 1-subject constraints
con1_suming=0
for e in range(num_subjects):
L=df_v.iloc[:,e].to_list()
for t in range(len(L)):
con1_suming +=L[t]
Lp_prob += con1_suming <= demand[e]
con1_suming=0
# 2- students constraints
con2_suming=0
for e in range(num_students):
L=df_v.iloc[e,:].to_list()
for t in range(len(L)):
con2_suming +=L[t]
Lp_prob += con2_suming <= 1
con2_suming=0
print("time taken for TARGET+CONSTRAINS %8.8f seconds" % (time.time()-t0) )
t1=time.time()
status = Lp_prob.solve() # Solver
print("time taken for SOLVER %8.8f seconds" % (time.time()-t1) ) # 632 SECONDS
print(p.LpStatus[status]) # The solution status
print(p.value(Lp_prob.objective))
df_v=pd.DataFrame(data=variables_matrix)
# Printing the final solution
lst=[]
val=[]
for i in range(0, num_students):
lst.append([p.value(variables_matrix[i][j]) for j in range(0, num_subjects)])
val.append([sum([p.value(variables_matrix[i][j]) for j in range(0, num_subjects)]),i])
ones_places=[]
for i in range (0, len(val)):
if val[i][0]==1:
ones_places.append(i+1)
len(ones_places)
data_once=data_c[data_c['STUDENT_ID'].isin(ones_places)]
IDs=[]
for i in range(len(ones_places)):
IDs.append(data_once['STUDENT_ID'].to_list()[i])
course=[]
sub_course=[]
for i in range(len(lst)):
j=0
sub_course='x'
while j<len(lst[i]):
if lst[i][j]==1:
sub_course=j
j=j+1
course.append(sub_course)
coures_ones=[]
for i in range(len(course)):
if course[i]!= 'x':
coures_ones.append(course[i])
# adding the COURSE name to the final table
# NUMBER OF DICTIONARY KEYS based on number of COURSES
col=original_data.columns.values[1:].tolist()
dic = {0:col[0], 1:col[1], 2:col[2], 3:col[3], 4:col[4]}
cc_name=[dic.get(n, n) for n in coures_ones]
one_c=[]
if len(IDs)==len(cc_name):
for i in range(len(IDs)):
one_c.append([IDs[i],cc_name[i]])
prob=[]
if len(IDs)==len(cc_name):
for i in range(len(IDs)):
prob.append([IDs[i],cc_name[i], data_once.iloc[i][one_c[i][1]]])
scoring_table = pd.DataFrame(prob,columns=['STUDENT_ID','COURES','SCORE'])
scoring_table.sort_values(by=['COURES', 'SCORE'], ascending=[False, False], inplace=True)
scoring_table.index = np.arange(1, len(scoring_table)+1)
print(scoring_table)

I think you're close on this. It is a fairly standard Integer Linear Program (ILP) assignment problem. It's gonna be a bit slow because of the structure of the problem.
You didn't say in your post what the breakdown of the setup & solve times were. I see you are reading from a file and using pandas. I think pandas gets clunky pretty quick with optimization problems, but that is just a personal preference.
I coded your problem up in pyomo, using the cbc solver, which I'm pretty sure is the same one used by pulp for comparison. (see below). I think you have it right with 2 constraints and a dual-indexed binary decision variable.
If I chop it down to 10K students (no slack...just 1-for-1 pairing) it solves in 14sec for comparison. My setup is a 5 year old iMac w/ lots of ram.
Running with 100K students in the pool, it solves in about 25min with 10sec "setup" time before the solver is invoked. So I'm not really sure why your encoding is taking 2hrs. If you can break down your solver time, that would help. The rest should be trivial. I didn't poke around too much in the output, but the OBJ function value of 980K seems reasonable.
Other ideas:
If you can get the solver options to configure properly and set a mip gap of 0.05 or so, it should speed things way up, if you can accept a slightly non-optimal solution. I've only had decent luck with solver options with the paid-for solvers like Gurobi. I haven't had much luck with that using the freebie solvers, YMMV.
import pyomo.environ as pyo
from random import randint
from time import time
# start setup clock
tic = time()
# exam types
subjects = ['Math', 'English', 'Computers', 'History', 'Physics']
# make set of students...
num_students = 100_000
students = [f'student_{s}' for s in range(num_students)]
# make 100K fake scores in "flat" format
student_scores = { (student, subj) : randint(0,100)
for student in students
for subj in subjects}
assignments = { 'Math': 4000, 'English': 3000, 'Computers': 2000, 'History': 750, 'Physics': 250}
weights = {'Math': 1.9, 'English': 1.7, 'Computers': 1.5, 'History': 1.3, 'Physics': 1.1}
# Set up model
m = pyo.ConcreteModel('exam assignments')
# Sets
m.subjects = pyo.Set(initialize=subjects)
m.students = pyo.Set(initialize=students)
# Parameters
m.assignments = pyo.Param(m.subjects, initialize=assignments)
m.weights = pyo.Param(m.subjects, initialize=weights)
m.scores = pyo.Param(m.students, m.subjects, initialize=student_scores)
# Variables
m.x = pyo.Var(m.students, m.subjects, within=pyo.Binary) # binary selection of pairing student to test
# Objective
m.OBJ = pyo.Objective(expr=sum(m.scores[student, subject] * m.x[student, subject]
for student in m.students
for subject in m.subjects), sense=pyo.maximize)
### Constraints ###
# fill all assignments
def fill_assignments(m, subject):
return sum(m.x[student, subject] for student in m.students) == assignments[subject]
m.C1 = pyo.Constraint(m.subjects, rule=fill_assignments)
# use each student at most 1 time
def limit_student(m, student):
return sum(m.x[student, subject] for subject in m.subjects) <= 1
m.C2 = pyo.Constraint(m.students, rule=limit_student)
toc = time()
print (f'setup time: {toc-tic:0.3f}')
tic = toc
# solve it..
solver = pyo.SolverFactory('cbc')
solution = solver.solve(m)
print(solution)
toc = time()
print (f'solve time: {toc-tic:0.3f}')
Output
setup time: 10.835
Problem:
- Name: unknown
Lower bound: -989790.0
Upper bound: -989790.0
Number of objectives: 1
Number of constraints: 100005
Number of variables: 500000
Number of binary variables: 500000
Number of integer variables: 500000
Number of nonzeros: 495094
Sense: maximize
Solver:
- Status: ok
User time: -1.0
System time: 1521.55
Wallclock time: 1533.36
Termination condition: optimal
Termination message: Model was solved to optimality (subject to tolerances), and an optimal solution is available.
Statistics:
Branch and bound:
Number of bounded subproblems: 0
Number of created subproblems: 0
Black box:
Number of iterations: 0
Error rc: 0
Time: 1533.8383190631866
Solution:
- number of solutions: 0
number of solutions displayed: 0
solve time: 1550.528

Here are some more ideas on my idea of using min cost flows.
We model this problem by taking a directed graph with 4 layers, where each layer is fully connected to the next.
Nodes
First layer: A single node s that will be our source.
Second layer: One node for each student.
Third layer: One node for each subject.
Fourth layer: OA single node t that will be our drain.
Edge Capacities
First -> Second: All edges have capacity 1.
Second -> Third: All edges have capacity 1.
Third -> Fourth: All edges have the capacity corresponding to the number students that has to be assigned to that subject.
Edge Costs
First -> Second: All edges have cost 0.
Second -> Third: Remember that edges in this layer connect a student with a subject. The costs on these will be chosen anti proportional to the weighted score the student has on that subject.
cost = -subject_weight*student_subject_score.
Third -> Fourth: All edges have cost 0.
Then we demand a flow from s to t equal to the number of students we have to choose.
Why does this work?
A solution to the min cost flow problem will correspond to a solution of your problem by taking all the edges between the third and fourth layer as assignments.
Each student can be chosen for at most one subject, as the corresponding node has only one incoming edge.
Each subject has exactly the number of required students, as the outgoing capacity corresponds to the number of students we have to choose for this subject and we have to use the full capacity of these edges, as we can not fulfil the flow demand otherwise.
A minimal solution to the MCF problem corresponds to the maximal solution of your problem, as the costs corresponds to the value they give.
As you asked for a solution in python I implemented the min cost flow problem with ortools. Finding a solution took less than a second in my colab notebook. What takes "long" is the extraction of the solution. But including setup and solution extraction I am still having a runtime of less than 20s for the full 100000 student problem.
Code
# imports
from ortools.graph import pywrapgraph
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
import time
t_start = time.time()
# setting given problem parameters
num_students = 100000
subjects = ['MATH', 'ENGLISH', 'COMPUTERS', 'HISTORY','PHYSICS']
num_subjects = len(subjects)
demand = [4000, 3000, 2000, 750, 250]
weight = [1.9,1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.1]
# generating student scores
student_scores_raw = np.random.randint(101, size=(num_students, num_subjects))
# setting up graph nodes
source_nodes = [0]
student_nodes = list(range(1, num_students+1))
subject_nodes = list(range(num_students+1, num_subjects+num_students+1))
drain_nodes = [num_students+num_subjects+1]
# setting up the min cost flow edges
start_nodes = [int(c) for c in (source_nodes*num_students + [i for i in student_nodes for _ in subject_nodes] + subject_nodes)]
end_nodes = [int(c) for c in (student_nodes + subject_nodes*num_students + drain_nodes*num_subjects)]
capacities = [int(c) for c in ([1]*num_students + [1]*num_students*num_subjects + demand)]
unit_costs = [int(c) for c in ([0.]*num_students + list((-student_scores_raw*np.array(weight)*10).flatten()) + [0.]*num_subjects)]
assert len(start_nodes) == len(end_nodes) == len(capacities) == len(unit_costs)
# setting up the min cost flow demands
supplies = [sum(demand)] + [0]*(num_students + num_subjects) + [-sum(demand)]
# initialize the min cost flow problem instance
min_cost_flow = pywrapgraph.SimpleMinCostFlow()
for i in range(0, len(start_nodes)):
min_cost_flow.AddArcWithCapacityAndUnitCost(start_nodes[i], end_nodes[i], capacities[i], unit_costs[i])
for i in range(0, len(supplies)):
min_cost_flow.SetNodeSupply(i, supplies[i])
# solve the problem
t_solver_start = time.time()
if min_cost_flow.Solve() == min_cost_flow.OPTIMAL:
print('Best Value:', -min_cost_flow.OptimalCost()/10)
print('Solver time:', str(time.time()-t_solver_start)+'s')
print('Total Runtime until solution:', str(time.time()-t_start)+'s')
#extracting the solution
solution = []
for i in range(min_cost_flow.NumArcs()):
if min_cost_flow.Flow(i) > 0 and min_cost_flow.Tail(i) in student_nodes:
student_id = min_cost_flow.Tail(i)-1
subject_id = min_cost_flow.Head(i)-1-num_students
solution.append([student_id, subjects[subject_id], student_scores_raw[student_id, subject_id]])
assert(len(solution) == sum(demand))
solution = pd.DataFrame(solution, columns = ['student_id', 'subject', 'score'])
print(solution.head())
else:
print('There was an issue with the min cost flow input.')
print('Total Runtime:', str(time.time()-t_start)+'s')
Replacing the for-loop for the solution extraction in the above code by the following list-comprehension (that is not also not using list lookups every iteration) the runtime can be improved significantly. But for readability reasons I will leave this old solution here as well. Here is the new one:
solution = [[min_cost_flow.Tail(i)-1,
subjects[min_cost_flow.Head(i)-1-num_students],
student_scores_raw[min_cost_flow.Tail(i)-1, min_cost_flow.Head(i)-1-num_students]
]
for i in range(min_cost_flow.NumArcs())
if (min_cost_flow.Flow(i) > 0 and
min_cost_flow.Tail(i) <= num_students and
min_cost_flow.Tail(i)>0)
]
The following output is giving the runtimes for the new faster implementation.
Output
Best Value: 1675250.7
Solver time: 0.542395830154419s
Total Runtime until solution: 1.4248979091644287s
student_id subject score
0 3 ENGLISH 99
1 5 MATH 98
2 17 COMPUTERS 100
3 22 COMPUTERS 100
4 33 ENGLISH 100
Total Runtime: 1.752336025238037s
Pleas point out any mistakes I might have made.
I hope this helps. ;)

recursion to iteration in python

We are trying to make a cluster analysis for a big amount of data. We are kind of new to python and found out that an iterative function is way more efficient than an recursive one. Now we are trying to change that but it is way harder than we thought.
This code underneath is the heart of our clustering function. This takes over 90 percent of the time. Can you help us to change that into a recursive one?
Some extra information: The taunach function gets neighbours of our point which will later form the clusters. The problem is that we have many many points.
def taunach(tau,delta, i,s,nach,anz):
dis=tabelle[s].dist
#delta=tau
x=data[i]
y=Skalarprodukt(data[tabelle[s].index]-x)
a=tau-abs(dis)
#LA.norm(data[tabelle[s].index]-x)
if y<a*abs(a):
nach.update({item.index for item in tabelle[tabelle[s].inner:tabelle[s].outer-1]})
anz = anzahl(delta, i, tabelle[s].inner, anz)
if dis>-1:
b=dis-tau
if y>=b*abs(b):#*(1-0.001):
nach,anz=taunach(tau,delta, i,tabelle[s].outer,nach,anz)
else:
if y<tau**2:
nach.add(tabelle[s].index)
if y < delta:
anz += 1
if tabelle[s].dist>-4:
b = dis - tau
if y>=b*abs(b):#*(1-0.001)):
nach,anz=taunach(tau,delta, i,tabelle[s].outer,nach,anz)
if tabelle[s].dist > -1:
if y<=(dis+tau)**2:
nach,anz=taunach(tau,delta, i,tabelle[s].inner,nach,anz)
return nach,anz

How do I vectorize the following loop in Numpy?

"""Some simulations to predict the future portfolio value based on past distribution. x is
a numpy array that contains past returns.The interpolated_returns are the returns
generated from the cdf of the past returns to simulate future returns. The portfolio
starts with a value of 100. portfolio_value is filled up progressively as
the program goes through every loop. The value is multiplied by the returns in that
period and a dollar is removed."""
portfolio_final = []
for i in range(10000):
portfolio_value = [100]
rand_values = np.random.rand(600)
interpolated_returns = np.interp(rand_values,cdf_values,x)
interpolated_returns = np.add(interpolated_returns,1)
for j in range(1,len(interpolated_returns)+1):
portfolio_value.append(interpolated_returns[j-1]*portfolio_value[j-1])
portfolio_value[j] = portfolio_value[j]-1
portfolio_final.append(portfolio_value[-1])
print (np.mean(portfolio_final))
I couldn't find a way to write this code using numpy. I was having a look at iterations using nditer but I was unable to move ahead with that.

I guess the easiest way to figure out how you can vectorize your stuff would be to look at the equations that govern your evolution and see how your portfolio actually iterates, finding patterns that could be vectorized instead of trying to vectorize the code you already have. You would have noticed that the cumprod actually appears quite often in your iterations.
Nevertheless you can find the semi-vectorized code below. I included your code as well such that you can compare the results. I also included a simple loop version of your code which is much easier to read and translatable into mathematical equations. So if you share this code with somebody else I would definitely use the simple loop option. If you want some fancy-pants vectorizing you can use the vector version. In case you need to keep track of your single steps you can also add an array to the simple loop option and append the pv at every step.
Hope that helps.
Edit: I have not tested anything for speed. That's something you can easily do yourself with timeit.
import numpy as np
from scipy.special import erf
# Prepare simple return model - Normal distributed with mu &sigma = 0.01
x = np.linspace(-10,10,100)
cdf_values = 0.5*(1+erf((x-0.01)/(0.01*np.sqrt(2))))
# Prepare setup such that every code snippet uses the same number of steps
# and the same random numbers
nSteps = 600
nIterations = 1
rnd = np.random.rand(nSteps)
# Your code - Gives the (supposedly) correct results
portfolio_final = []
for i in range(nIterations):
portfolio_value = [100]
rand_values = rnd
interpolated_returns = np.interp(rand_values,cdf_values,x)
interpolated_returns = np.add(interpolated_returns,1)
for j in range(1,len(interpolated_returns)+1):
portfolio_value.append(interpolated_returns[j-1]*portfolio_value[j-1])
portfolio_value[j] = portfolio_value[j]-1
portfolio_final.append(portfolio_value[-1])
print (np.mean(portfolio_final))
# Using vectors
portfolio_final = []
for i in range(nIterations):
portfolio_values = np.ones(nSteps)*100.0
rcp = np.cumprod(np.interp(rnd,cdf_values,x) + 1)
portfolio_values = rcp * (portfolio_values - np.cumsum(1.0/rcp))
portfolio_final.append(portfolio_values[-1])
print (np.mean(portfolio_final))
# Simple loop
portfolio_final = []
for i in range(nIterations):
pv = 100
rets = np.interp(rnd,cdf_values,x) + 1
for i in range(nSteps):
pv = pv * rets[i] - 1
portfolio_final.append(pv)
print (np.mean(portfolio_final))

Forget about np.nditer. It does not improve the speed of iterations. Only use if you intend to go one and use the C version (via cython).
I'm puzzled about that inner loop. What is it supposed to be doing special? Why the loop?
In tests with simulated values these 2 blocks of code produce the same thing:
interpolated_returns = np.add(interpolated_returns,1)
for j in range(1,len(interpolated_returns)+1):
portfolio_value.append(interpolated_returns[j-1]*portfolio[j-1])
portfolio_value[j] = portfolio_value[j]-1
interpolated_returns = (interpolated_returns+1)*portfolio - 1
portfolio_value = portfolio_value + interpolated_returns.tolist()
I assuming that interpolated_returns and portfolio are 1d arrays of the same length.

put stockprices into groups when they are within 0.5% of each other

Thanks for the answers, I have not used StackOverflow before so I was suprised by the number of answers and the speed of them - its fantastic.
I have not been through the answers properly yet, but thought I should add some information to the problem specification. See the image below.
I can't post an image in this because i don't have enough points but you can see an image
at http://journal.acquitane.com/2010-01-20/image003.jpg
This image may describe more closely what I'm trying to achieve. So you can see on the horizontal lines across the page are price points on the chart. Now where you get a clustering of lines within 0.5% of each, this is considered to be a good thing and why I want to identify those clusters automatically. You can see on the chart that there is a cluster at S2 & MR1, R2 & WPP1.
So everyday I produce these price points and then I can identify manually those that are within 0.5%. - but the purpose of this question is how to do it with a python routine.
I have reproduced the list again (see below) with labels. Just be aware that the list price points don't match the price points in the image because they are from two different days.
[YR3,175.24,8]
[SR3,147.85,6]
[YR2,144.13,8]
[SR2,130.44,6]
[YR1,127.79,8]
[QR3,127.42,5]
[SR1,120.94,6]
[QR2,120.22,5]
[MR3,118.10,3]
[WR3,116.73,2]
[DR3,116.23,1]
[WR2,115.93,2]
[QR1,115.83,5]
[MR2,115.56,3]
[DR2,115.53,1]
[WR1,114.79,2]
[DR1,114.59,1]
[WPP,113.99,2]
[DPP,113.89,1]
[MR1,113.50,3]
[DS1,112.95,1]
[WS1,112.85,2]
[DS2,112.25,1]
[WS2,112.05,2]
[DS3,111.31,1]
[MPP,110.97,3]
[WS3,110.91,2]
[50MA,110.87,4]
[MS1,108.91,3]
[QPP,108.64,5]
[MS2,106.37,3]
[MS3,104.31,3]
[QS1,104.25,5]
[SPP,103.53,6]
[200MA,99.42,7]
[QS2,97.05,5]
[YPP,96.68,8]
[SS1,94.03,6]
[QS3,92.66,5]
[YS1,80.34,8]
[SS2,76.62,6]
[SS3,67.12,6]
[YS2,49.23,8]
[YS3,32.89,8]
I did make a mistake with the original list in that Group C is wrong and should not be included. Thanks for pointing that out.
Also the 0.5% is not fixed this value will change from day to day, but I have just used 0.5% as an example for spec'ing the problem.
Thanks Again.
Mark
PS. I will get cracking on checking the answers now now.
Hi:
I need to do some manipulation of stock prices. I have just started using Python, (but I think I would have trouble implementing this in any language). I'm looking for some ideas on how to implement this nicely in python.
Thanks
Mark
Problem:
I have a list of lists (FloorLevels (see below)) where the sublist has two items (stockprice, weight). I want to put the stockprices into groups when they are within 0.5% of each other. A groups strength will be determined by its total weight. For example:
Group-A
115.93,2
115.83,5
115.56,3
115.53,1
-------------
TotalWeight:12
-------------
Group-B
113.50,3
112.95,1
112.85,2
-------------
TotalWeight:6
-------------
FloorLevels[
[175.24,8]
[147.85,6]
[144.13,8]
[130.44,6]
[127.79,8]
[127.42,5]
[120.94,6]
[120.22,5]
[118.10,3]
[116.73,2]
[116.23,1]
[115.93,2]
[115.83,5]
[115.56,3]
[115.53,1]
[114.79,2]
[114.59,1]
[113.99,2]
[113.89,1]
[113.50,3]
[112.95,1]
[112.85,2]
[112.25,1]
[112.05,2]
[111.31,1]
[110.97,3]
[110.91,2]
[110.87,4]
[108.91,3]
[108.64,5]
[106.37,3]
[104.31,3]
[104.25,5]
[103.53,6]
[99.42,7]
[97.05,5]
[96.68,8]
[94.03,6]
[92.66,5]
[80.34,8]
[76.62,6]
[67.12,6]
[49.23,8]
[32.89,8]
]

I suggest a repeated use of k-means clustering -- let's call it KMC for short. KMC is a simple and powerful clustering algorithm... but it needs to "be told" how many clusters, k, you're aiming for. You don't know that in advance (if I understand you correctly) -- you just want the smallest k such that no two items "clustered together" are more than X% apart from each other. So, start with k equal 1 -- everything bunched together, no clustering pass needed;-) -- and check the diameter of the cluster (a cluster's "diameter", from the use of the term in geometry, is the largest distance between any two members of a cluster).
If the diameter is > X%, set k += 1, perform KMC with k as the number of clusters, and repeat the check, iteratively.
In pseudo-code:
def markCluster(items, threshold):
k = 1
clusters = [items]
maxdist = diameter(items)
while maxdist > threshold:
k += 1
clusters = Kmc(items, k)
maxdist = max(diameter(c) for c in clusters)
return clusters
assuming of course we have suitable diameter and Kmc Python functions.
Does this sound like the kind of thing you want? If so, then we can move on to show you how to write diameter and Kmc (in pure Python if you have a relatively limited number of items to deal with, otherwise maybe by exploiting powerful third-party add-on frameworks such as numpy) -- but it's not worthwhile to go to such trouble if you actually want something pretty different, whence this check!-)

A stock s belong in a group G if for each stock t in G, s * 1.05 >= t and s / 1.05 <= t, right?
How do we add the stocks to each group? If we have the stocks 95, 100, 101, and 105, and we start a group with 100, then add 101, we will end up with {100, 101, 105}. If we did 95 after 100, we'd end up with {100, 95}.
Do we just need to consider all possible permutations? If so, your algorithm is going to be inefficient.

You need to specify your problem in more detail. Just what does "put the stockprices into groups when they are within 0.5% of each other" mean?
Possibilities:
(1) each member of the group is within 0.5% of every other member of the group
(2) sort the list and split it where the gap is more than 0.5%
Note that 116.23 is within 0.5% of 115.93 -- abs((116.23 / 115.93 - 1) * 100) < 0.5 -- but you have put one number in Group A and one in Group C.
Simple example: a, b, c = (0.996, 1, 1.004) ... Note that a and b fit, b and c fit, but a and c don't fit. How do you want them grouped, and why? Is the order in the input list relevant?
Possibility (1) produces ab,c or a,bc ... tie-breaking rule, please
Possibility (2) produces abc (no big gaps, so only one group)

You won't be able to classify them into hard "groups". If you have prices (1.0,1.05, 1.1) then the first and second should be in the same group, and the second and third should be in the same group, but not the first and third.
A quick, dirty way to do something that you might find useful:
def make_group_function(tolerance = 0.05):
from math import log10, floor
# I forget why this works.
tolerance_factor = -1.0/(-log10(1.0 + tolerance))
# well ... since you might ask
# we want: log(x)*tf - log(x*(1+t))*tf = -1,
# so every 5% change has a different group. The minus is just so groups
# are ascending .. it looks a bit nicer.
#
# tf = -1/(log(x)-log(x*(1+t)))
# tf = -1/(log(x/(x*(1+t))))
# tf = -1/(log(1/(1*(1+t)))) # solved .. but let's just be more clever
# tf = -1/(0-log(1*(1+t)))
# tf = -1/(-log((1+t))
def group_function(value):
# don't just use int - it rounds up below zero, and down above zero
return int(floor(log10(value)*tolerance_factor))
return group_function
Usage:
group_function = make_group_function()
import random
groups = {}
for i in range(50):
v = random.random()*500+1000
group = group_function(v)
if group in groups:
groups[group].append(v)
else:
groups[group] = [v]
for group in sorted(groups):
print 'Group',group
for v in sorted(groups[group]):
print v
print

For a given set of stock prices, there is probably more than one way to group stocks that are within 0.5% of each other. Without some additional rules for grouping the prices, there's no way to be sure an answer will do what you really want.

apart from the proper way to pick which values fit together, this is a problem where a little Object Orientation dropped in can make it a lot easier to deal with.
I made two classes here, with a minimum of desirable behaviors, but which can make the classification a lot easier -- you get a single point to play with it on the Group class.
I can see the code bellow is incorrect, in the sense the limtis for group inclusion varies as new members are added -- even it the separation crieteria remaisn teh same, you heva e torewrite the get_groups method to use a multi-pass approach. It should nto be hard -- but the code would be too long to be helpfull here, and i think this snipped is enoguh to get you going:
from copy import copy
class Group(object):
def __init__(self,data=None, name=""):
if data:
self.data = data
else:
self.data = []
self.name = name
def get_mean_stock(self):
return sum(item[0] for item in self.data) / len(self.data)
def fits(self, item):
if 0.995 < abs(item[0]) / self.get_mean_stock() < 1.005:
return True
return False
def get_weight(self):
return sum(item[1] for item in self.data)
def __repr__(self):
return "Group-%s\n%s\n---\nTotalWeight: %d\n\n" % (
self.name,
"\n".join("%.02f, %d" % tuple(item) for item in self.data ),
self.get_weight())
class StockGrouper(object):
def __init__(self, data=None):
if data:
self.floor_levels = data
else:
self.floor_levels = []
def get_groups(self):
groups = []
floor_levels = copy(self.floor_levels)
name_ord = ord("A") - 1
while floor_levels:
seed = floor_levels.pop(0)
name_ord += 1
group = Group([seed], chr(name_ord))
groups.append(group)
to_remove = []
for i, item in enumerate(floor_levels):
if group.fits(item):
group.data.append(item)
to_remove.append(i)
for i in reversed(to_remove):
floor_levels.pop(i)
return groups
testing:
floor_levels = [ [stock. weight] ,... <paste the data above> ]
s = StockGrouper(floor_levels)
s.get_groups()

For the grouping element, could you use itertools.groupby()? As the data is sorted, a lot of the work of grouping it is already done, and then you could test if the current value in the iteration was different to the last by <0.5%, and have itertools.groupby() break into a new group every time your function returned false.