Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 08:38

    mforets on gh-pages

    build based on 9833a75f (compare)

  • 08:11
    schillic synchronize #1696
  • 08:11

    schillic on 1110

    add chebyshev_center function f… add chebyshev_center function f… (compare)

  • 08:07
    schillic updated the wiki
  • 08:01

    schillic on 1500

    (compare)

  • 08:01

    schillic on master

    add invertibility options to li… modifications merge methods again and 8 more (compare)

  • 08:01
    schillic closed #1713
  • 08:01
    schillic closed #1500
  • 07:48

    mforets on gh-pages

    build based on 3349e64 (compare)

  • 07:37

    mforets on gh-pages

    build based on d0eae9f (compare)

  • 07:35

    mforets on gh-pages

    build based on 464fdcb (compare)

  • 07:26

    schillic on schillic-patch-1

    (compare)

  • 07:26

    schillic on master

    Update to new Documenter change Merge pull request #696 from Ju… (compare)

  • 07:26
    schillic closed #696
  • 07:26
    schillic updated the wiki
  • 07:24

    schillic on schur

    (compare)

  • 07:24

    schillic on master

    fix Schur transformation add code to undo a coordinate t… Merge pull request #689 from Ju… (compare)

  • 07:24
    schillic closed #689
  • 07:23
    schillic updated the wiki
  • 07:23

    schillic on 686

    (compare)

Marcelo Forets
@mforets
this issue was some logic (my logic) broken
Christian Schilling
@schillic
ok
Marcelo Forets
@mforets
let me add a comment about this discussion.. then i'll head for lunch
Christian Schilling
@schillic
:+1:
Christian Schilling
@schillic
@ueliwechsler: it seems to me be that in your 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 how
however, 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 some bottleneck :P)
Christian Schilling
@schillic

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
ueliwechsler
@ueliwechsler
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 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.
Christian Schilling
@schillic
but then my supervisor interrupted me
they tend to do that :)
ueliwechsler
@ueliwechsler
I see, so I have to be really careful with my conclusions since they depend heavily on the type 😅
Christian Schilling
@schillic
so the BallInfs are just examples?
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
ueliwechsler
@ueliwechsler
I most cases, I would use the BallInf, but in general, I'd like to know the computational complexity of the general case, which for me is HPolytope.
Christian Schilling
@schillic
ok sure
ueliwechsler
@ueliwechsler
Thanks for the clarification, I was sloppy while dealing with the concrete types
Christian Schilling
@schillic
no problem, it gave us the opportunity to help :)
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
ueliwechsler
@ueliwechsler
👍 thanks, I will try it out. I am curious how much it will change the performance.
Marcelo Forets
@mforets
minkowski_difference for hyperrectangular sets can be specialized as well or not?
Marcelo Forets
@mforets
But it is cheap anyways give 2 ballinf as you said above..
The equality check can also be improved..? Save half the evaluations in the dual inclusion by checking approximate equality of the support functions
Christian Schilling
@schillic

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)

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

i didn't understand this proposal. but yeah, if typically one of the two inclusions fails, it is more efficient to do that check first (because it usually avoids the second check). and again for hyperrectangles this equality check can be made very efficient

Benoît Legat
@blegat
@mforets The advantage of JuMP is that it will automatically add needed caching and bridges layers
Christian Schilling
@schillic

@blegat while you are here: i cannot get MOI to work with Rationals. what is wrong here?

using GLPK, MathOptInterface
const MOI = MathOptInterface
N = Rational{Int}
solver = GLPK.Optimizer(method=GLPK.EXACT)
x = MOI.add_variables(solver, 1)
MOI.set(solver, MOI.ObjectiveSense(), MOI.FEASIBILITY_SENSE)
a = MOI.ScalarAffineFunction(MOI.ScalarAffineTerm.(N[1], x), N(0))
b = MOI.LessThan(N(0))
MOI.add_constraint(solver, a, b)

this throws an error:

ERROR: MathOptInterface.UnsupportedConstraint{MathOptInterface.ScalarAffineFunction{Rational{Int64}},MathOptInterface.LessThan{Rational{Int64}}}: `MathOptInterface.ScalarAffineFunction{Rational{Int64}}`-in-`MathOptInterface.LessThan{Rational{Int64}}` constraint is not supported by the model.

note that for N = Float64 this works

this is the LP (no objective) s.t. x <= 0
Christian Schilling
@schillic
hm, it seems that GLPK does not support adding Rational constraints at all
this is the method for Float64, but there is no method for other types
Christian Schilling
@schillic
(to support the theory, Float32 gives the same error)
Christian Schilling
@schillic
@mforets: i think the LP solvers only support Float64 (i updated my comment JuliaReach/LazySets.jl#1701). we should discuss how to proceed. one way is to convert from N to Float64, solve the LP, then convert back to N (which obviously has soundness issues, but it may be better than crashing; maybe there should be an option to print a warning or error)
Marcelo Forets
@mforets
I recall some threads about numeric types in MOI and JuMP. IMO LazySets should not make conversions of the result; if it doesnt qorm it doesnt slen
Doesnt work
In verimag some people used PPL, a library for polyhedra with exact coordinates
Christian Schilling
@schillic
i think we get into lots of trouble if the result changes the type
but ok
but are you fine with conversion to Float64 before calling the solver?
or should we just crash and say that we only support Float64?
i'm fine with either choice because we anyway always used Float64 so far
and it is somewhat cleaner to not do conversions
I recall some threads about numeric types in MOI
yes, MOI is ready for that. it only crashes when i pass the model to a solver