- Join over
**1.5M+ people** - Join over
**100K+ communities** - Free
**without limits** - Create
**your own community**

- 15:57blegat commented #113
- 15:24mforets synchronize #1834
- 15:24
mforets on convex_type

Update src/Interfaces/AbstractC… (compare)

- 14:58mforets commented #113
- 14:57mforets commented #113
- 14:34ueliwechsler commented #113
- 14:27mforets synchronize #1632
- 14:27
mforets on 1014

concrete type of vector in cons… (compare)

- 14:16ueliwechsler commented #113
- 14:15mforets opened #1843
- 14:15
mforets on mforets-patch-2

Update Project.toml (compare)

- 14:07mforets review_requested #1834
- 14:06mforets synchronize #1834
- 14:06
mforets on convex_type

add convex qualifier for set in… (compare)

- 13:36mforets commented #1842
- 13:15ueliwechsler commented #109
- 13:03ueliwechsler synchronize #109

because you just pass it to

`linear_map`

but would not use it
because you know it's invertible and the inverse is

`S`

hmm this is related but not the same?

we didn't speak about passing the inverse matrix there

where you already know the inverse

this issue was some logic (my logic) broken

@ueliwechsler: it seems to me be that in your

however, your inputs are zonotopes,*some* bottleneck :P)

`minkowski_difference`

the second argument is a (again: constant) `BallInf`

. maybe that can be exploited, but from the code for `minkowski_difference`

i don't see howhowever, your inputs are zonotopes,

`minkowski_difference`

of two zonotopes is again a zonotope (not in our current implementation, but it should be easy to add a method for that; this is JuliaReach/LazySets.jl#586), and the linear map of a zonotope is again a zonotope. the "problematic" operation here is the intersection with a `BallInf`

, which does not preserve "being a zonotope." if you are willing to pay the price of an overapproximation to a zonotope at this point, you would get rid of the `remove_redundant_constraints`

and the `linear_map`

would be cheap as well. but the `intersection`

then becomes more complicated (i think there is no way around for the

`minkowski_difference`

I know that I solve #constraint linear programs (therefore, it is linear in the number of constraints)

no, the implementation of `minkowski_difference`

performs `m`

support-function queries, which in your case are applied to a `BallInf`

(which is very cheap)

so i'm not surprised that

`minkowski_difference`

is fast
Thanks for your help guys! :D

Yes, I followed (but then my supervisor interrupted me)

For my problem, I most likely need to work with

But enabling

Yes, I followed (but then my supervisor interrupted me)

For my problem, I most likely need to work with

`HPolytopes`

so even though the `Zonotopes`

option sounds really interesting, I cannot use it for my current issue.But enabling

`linear_map`

to pass the matrix `S`

directly would be exactly what I was looking for since if I can get rid of the performance penalty of computing the inverse every iteration.
they tend to do that :)

yes, it is common that you can write a much more efficient algorithm if you know the type of set you are dealing with

and that's also why preserving more concrete types is beneficial

for instance in your first loop iteration you could work with zonotopes (assuming we have the efficient

`minkowski_difference`

) until the `intersection`

"for free"
but then in the second iteration you will have an

`HPolytope`

and have to use the slower methods
but that happens automatically

i can have a look at JuliaReach/LazySets.jl#1500 (the linear map) in the next days, but if you are eager, you can just add this option yourself and see if it helps (here)

this has a nasty tail, so you have to pass the option through several helper functions :)

basically make this line optional

The equality check can also be improved..? Save half the evaluations in the dual inclusion by checking approximate equality of the support functions

`minkowski_difference`

for hyperrectangular sets can be specialized as well or not?

maybe, but the hyperrectangle will definitely be destroyed by the `linear_map`

but that would be an alternative to my other suggestion: overapproximate the result of `linear_map`

by a hyperrectangle. hyperrectangles are closed under intersection, so this would give you a "stable" loop. and all of these operations are cheap, so i would really give it a try, just to see the potential performance boost

@ueliwechsler: can you try out the variant of your algorithm with this change?

`𝒫⁺ = intersection(overapproximate(linear_map(S_inv, minkowski_difference(𝒫,𝒲)), Hyperrectangle), 𝒟)`