Scope of Gradient and Genetic Algorithms in Multivariable Function Optimization

Global optimization of a multivariable function - constrained by bounds specified on each variable and also unconstrained - is an important problem with several real world applications. Deterministic methods such as the gradient algorithms as well as the randomized methods such as the genetic algorithms may be employed to solve these problems. In fact, there are optimization problems where a genetic algorithm/an evolutionary approach is preferable at least from the quality (accuracy) of the results point of view. From cost (complexity) point of view, both gradient and genetic approaches are usually polynomial-time; there are no serious differences in this regard, i.e., the computational complexity point of view. However, for certain types of problems, such as those with unacceptably erroneous numerical partial derivatives and those with physically amplified analytical partial derivatives whose numerical evaluation involves undesirable errors and/or is messy, a genetic (stochastic) approach should be a better choice. We have presented here the pros and cons of both the approaches so that the concerned reader/user can decide which approach is most suited for the problem at hand. Also for the function which is known in a tabular form, instead of an analytical form, as is often the case in an experimental environment, we attempt to provide an insight into the approaches focusing our attention toward accuracy. Such an insight will help one to decide which method, out of several available methods, should be employed to obtain the best (least error) output.

Preprocessing in Matlab Inconsistent Linear System for a Meaningful Least Squares Solution

Mathematical models of many physical/statistical problems are systems of linear equations~ Due to measurement and possible human errors/mistakes in modeling/data, as well as due to certain assumptions to reduce complexity, inconsistency (contradiction) is injected into the model, viz. the linear system. While any inconsistent system irrespective of the degree of inconsistency has always a least-squares solution, one needs to check whether an equation is too much inconsistent or, equivalently too much contradictory. Such an equation will affect/distort the least-squares solution to such an extent that renders it unacceptable/unfit to be used in a real-world application. We propose an algorithm which (i) prunes numerically redundant linear equations from the system as these do not add any new information to the model, (ii) detects contradictory linear equations along with their degree of contradiction (inconsistency index), (iii) removes those equations presumed to be too contradictory, and then (iv) obtain the . minimum norm least-squares solution of the acceptably inconsistent reduced linear system. The algorithm presented in Matlab reduces the computational and storage complexities and also improves the accuracy of the solution. It also provides the necessary warning about the existence of too much contradiction in the model. In addition, we suggest a thorough relook into the mathematical modeling to determine the reason why unacceptable contradiction has occurred thus prompting us to make necessary corrections/modifications to the models - both mathematical and, if necessary, physical

Scope of Various Random Number Generators in Ant System Approach for TSP

Experimented on heuristic, based on an ant system approach for traveling Salesman problem, are several quasi and pseudo-random number generators. This experiment is to explore if any particular generator is most desirable. Such an experiment on large samples has the potential to rank the performance of the generators for the foregoing heuristic. This is just to seek an answer to the controversial performance ranking of the generators in probabilistic/statically sense

Genetic Algorithm for Optimization: Preprocessing with n Dimensional Bisection and Error Estimation

A knowledge of the appropriate values of the parameters of a genetic algorithm (GA) such as the population size, the shrunk search space containing the solution, crossover and mutation probabilities is not available a priori for a general optimization problem. Recommended here is a polynomial-time preprocessing scheme that includes an n-dimensional bisection and that determines the foregoing parameters before deciding upon an appropriate GA for all problems of similar nature and type. Such a preprocessing is not only fast but also enables us to get the global optimal solution and its reasonably narrow error bounds with a high degree of confidence

Should Pruning be a Pre-Processor of any Linear System?

There are many real-world problems whose mathematical models turn out to be linear systems Ax = b , where A is an m by x n matrix. Each equation of the linear system is an information. An information, in a physical problem, such as 4 mangoes, 6 bananas, and 5 oranges cost $10, is mathematically modeled as 4x(sub 1) + 6x(sub 2) + 5x (sub 3) = 10, where x(sub 1), x(sub 2), x(sub 3) are each cost of one mango, that of one banana, and that of one orange, respectively. All the information put together in a specified context, constitutes the physical problem and need not be all distinct. Some of these could be redundant, which cannot be readily identified by inspection. The resulting mathematical model will thus have equations corresponding to this redundant information and hence are linearly dependent and thus superfluous. Consequently, these equations once identified should be better pruned in the process of solving the system. The benefits are (i) less computation and hence less error and consequently a better quality of solution and (ii) reduced storage requirements. In literature, the pruning concept is not in vogue so far although it is most desirable. In a numerical linear system, the system could be slightly inconsistent or inconsistent of varying degree. If the system is too inconsistent, then we should fall back on to the physical problem (PP), check the correctness of the PP derived from the material universe, modify it, if necessary, and then check the corresponding mathematical model (MM) and correct it. In nature/material universe, inconsistency is completely nonexistent. If the MM becomes inconsistent, it could be due to error introduced by the concerned measuring device and/or due to assumptions made on the PP to obtain an MM which is relatively easily solvable or simply due to human error. No measuring device can usually measure a quantity with an accuracy greater that 0.005% or, equivalently with a relative error less than 0.005%. Hence measurement error is unavoidable in a numerical linear system when the quantities are continuous (or even discrete with extremely large number). Assumptions, though not desirable, are usually made when we find the problem sufficiently difficult to be solved within the available means/tools/resources and hence distort the PP and the corresponding MM. The error thus introduced in the system could (not always necessarily though) make the system somewhat inconsistent. If the inconsistency (contradiction) is too much then one should definitely not proceed to solve the system in terms of getting a least-squares solution or a minimum norm solution or the minimum-norm least-squares solution. All these solutions will be invariably of no real-world use. If, on the other hand, inconsistency is reasonably low, i.e. the system is near-consistent or, equivalently, has near-linearly-dependent rows, then the foregoing solutions are useful. Pruning in such a near-consistent system should be performed based on the desired accuracy and on the definition of near-linear dependence. In this article, we discuss pruning over various kinds of linear systems and strongly suggest its use as a pre-processor or as a part of an algorithm. Ideally pruning should (i) be a part of the solution process (algorithm) of the system, (ii) reduce both computational error and complexity of the process, and (iii) take into account the numerical zero defined in the context. These are precisely what we achieve through our proposed O(mn2) algorithm presented in Matlab, that uses a subprogram of solving a single linear equation and that has embedded in it the pruning

Preprocessing Inconsistent Linear System for a Meaningful Least Squares Solution

Mathematical models of many physical/statistical problems are systems of linear equations. Due to measurement and possible human errors/mistakes in modeling/data, as well as due to certain assumptions to reduce complexity, inconsistency (contradiction) is injected into the model, viz. the linear system. While any inconsistent system irrespective of the degree of inconsistency has always a least-squares solution, one needs to check whether an equation is too much inconsistent or, equivalently too much contradictory. Such an equation will affect/distort the least-squares solution to such an extent that renders it unacceptable/unfit to be used in a real-world application. We propose an algorithm which (i) prunes numerically redundant linear equations from the system as these do not add any new information to the model, (ii) detects contradictory linear equations along with their degree of contradiction (inconsistency index), (iii) removes those equations presumed to be too contradictory, and then (iv) obtain the minimum norm least-squares solution of the acceptably inconsistent reduced linear system. The algorithm presented in Matlab reduces the computational and storage complexities and also improves the accuracy of the solution. It also provides the necessary warning about the existence of too much contradiction in the model. In addition, we suggest a thorough relook into the mathematical modeling to determine the reason why unacceptable contradiction has occurred thus prompting us to make necessary corrections/modifications to the models - both mathematical and, if necessary, physical

Engineering and Scientific Applications: Using MatLab(Registered Trademark) for Data Processing and Visualization

MatLab(R) (MATrix LABoratory) is a numerical computation and simulation tool that is used by thousands Scientists and Engineers in many cou ntries. MatLab does purely numerical calculations, which can be used as a glorified calculator or interpreter programming language; its re al strength is in matrix manipulations. Computer algebra functionalities are achieved within the MatLab environment using "symbolic" toolbo x. This feature is similar to computer algebra programs, provided by Maple or Mathematica to calculate with mathematical equations using s ymbolic operations. MatLab in its interpreter programming language fo rm (command interface) is similar with well known programming languag es such as C/C++, support data structures and cell arrays to define c lasses in object oriented programming. As such, MatLab is equipped with most ofthe essential constructs of a higher programming language. M atLab is packaged with an editor and debugging functionality useful t o perform analysis of large MatLab programs and find errors. We belie ve there are many ways to approach real-world problems; prescribed methods to ensure foregoing solutions are incorporated in design and ana lysis of data processing and visualization can benefit engineers and scientist in gaining wider insight in actual implementation of their perspective experiments. This presentation will focus on data processing and visualizations aspects of engineering and scientific applicati ons. Specifically, it will discuss methods and techniques to perform intermediate-level data processing covering engineering and scientifi c problems. MatLab programming techniques including reading various data files formats to produce customized publication-quality graphics, importing engineering and/or scientific data, organizing data in tabu lar format, exporting data to be used by other software programs such as Microsoft Excel, data presentation and visualization will be discussed. The presentation will emphasize creating practIcal scripts (pro grams) that extend the basic features of MatLab TOPICS mclude (1) Ma trix and vector analysis and manipulations (2) Mathematical functions (3) Symbolic calculations & functions (4) Import/export data files (5) Program lOgic and flow control (6) Writing function and passing parameters (7) Test application program

Golden Ratio Versus Pi as Random Sequence Sources for Monte Carlo Integration

We discuss here the relative merits of these numbers as possible random sequence sources. The quality of these sequences is not judged directly based on the outcome of all known tests for the randomness of a sequence. Instead, it is determined implicitly by the accuracy of the Monte Carlo integration in a statistical sense. Since our main motive of using a random sequence is to solve real world problems, it is more desirable if we compare the quality of the sequences based on their performances for these problems in terms of quality/accuracy of the output. We also compare these sources against those generated by a popular pseudo-random generator, viz., the Matlab rand and the quasi-random generator ha/ton both in terms of error and time complexity. Our study demonstrates that consecutive blocks of digits of each of these numbers produce a good random sequence source. It is observed that randomly chosen blocks of digits do not have any remarkable advantage over consecutive blocks for the accuracy of the Monte Carlo integration. Also, it reveals that pi is a better source of a random sequence than theta when the accuracy of the integration is concerned

Long-term efficacy and safety of once-daily nevirapine in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine in the treatment of HIV-infected patients: a 72-week prospective multicenter study (TENOR-Trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is an unmet medical need for simplified antiretroviral therapy regimens to improve patient's compliance and quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a once-daily regimen with Tenofovir (TDF), Emtricitabine (FTC) and Nevirapine (NVP) for adult patients with HIV-1 infection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>70 patients were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, single arm, open-label cohort study. Patients were either naïve or had problems with their current ART and needed to be changed to another regimen. Daily drug dosage was 300 mg Tenofovir, 200 mg Emtricitabine and 400 mg Nevirapine once daily. Follow-up was performed over 72 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>After 72 weeks, the regimen was still continued by 52 patients (74,3%). Of these, 44 patients (84,6%) had a viral load below detection limit. The median viral load had decreased by 2,5 log and the median CD4 cell count had increased by 44,8%. Most side-effects occurred at an early stage during the study. Resistances were rare (only two resistances were considered as newly developed) and occurred rather late during the study.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A once-daily regimen of Tenofovir, Emtricitabine and Nevirapine is an attractive treatment option since it is safe, effective, and well tolerated.</p

Should Pruning be a Pre-Processor of any Linear System?

There are many real-world problems whose mathematical models turn out to be linear systems Ax = b, where A is an m x n matrix. Each equation of the linear system is an information. An information, in a physical problem, such as 4 mangoes, 6 bananas, and 5 oranges cost $10, is mathematically modeled as an equation 4x(sub 1) + 6x(sub 2) + 5x(sub 3) = 10 , where x(sub 1), x(sub 2), x(sub 3) are each cost of one mango, that of one banana, and that of one orange, respectively. All the information put together in a specified context, constitutes the physical problem and need not be all distinct. Some of these could be redundant, which cannot be readily identified by inspection. The resulting mathematical model will thus have equations corresponding to this redundant information and hence are linearly dependent and thus superfluous. Consequently, these equations once identified should be better pruned in the process of solving the system. The benefits are (i) less computation and hence less error and consequently a better quality of solution and (ii) reduced storage requirements. In literature, the pruning concept is not in vogue so far although it is most desirable. It is assumed that at least one information, i.e. one equation is known to be correct and which will be our first equation. In a numerical linear system, the system could be slightly inconsistent or inconsistent of varying degree. If the system is too inconsistent, then we should fall back on to the physical problem (PP), check the correctness of the PP derived from the material universe, modify it, if necessary, and then check the corresponding mathematical model (MM) and correct it. In nature/material universe, inconsistency is completely nonexistent. If the MM becomes inconsistent, it could be due to error introduced by the concerned measuring device and/or due to assumptions made on the PP to obtain an MM which is relatively easily solvable or simply due to human error. No measuring device can usually measure a quantity with an accuracy greater that 0.005% or, equivalently with a relative error less than 0.005%. Hence measurement error is unavoidable in a numerical linear system when the quantities are continuous (or even discrete with extremely large number). Assumptions, though not desirable, are usually made when we find the problem sufficiently difficult to be solved within the available means/tools/resources and hence distort the PP and the corresponding MM. The . error thus introduced in the system could (not always necessarily though) make the system somewhat inconsistent. If the inconsistency (contradiction) is too much then one should definitely not proceed to solve the system in terms of getting a least-squares solution or the minimum-norm least-squares solution. All these solutions will be invariably of no real-world use. If, on the other hand, inconsistency is reasonably low, i.e. the system is near-consistent or, equivalently, has near-linearly-dependent rows, then the foregoing solutions are useful. Pruning in such a near-consistent system should be performed based on the desired accuracy and on the definition of near-linear dependence. In this article, we discuss pruning over various kinds of linear systems and strongly suggest its use as a pre-processor or as a part of an algorithm. Ideally pruning should (i) be a part of the solution process (algorithm) of the system, (ii) reduce both computational error and complexity of the process, and (iii) take into account the numerical zero defined in the context. These are precisely what we achieve through our proposed O(mn2) algorithm presented in Matlab, that uses a subprogram of solving a single linear equation and that has embedded in it the pruning