I am working on top500 supercomputer database.(http://www.top500.org/)
Rmax is maximum performance
RPeak is theorotical maximum performance.
Does Ratio of Rmax to RPeak results to something? Like say efficiency? or anything which could say something about a supercomputer.
Could it be something like Lie factor?
Rmax is determine by HPL benchmark. Details aren't always published, unfortunately, but in most cases, the problem dimension requires a decent fraction of total memory.
Rpeak is determined by multiplying the number of floating point units (usually vector) per processor times processor count times the number of floating point instructions that can be issued per second. This is a bit hard today because of frequency variation.
The ratio can be viewed as an efficiency factor, although it may not be productive to use the result for assigning value to systems. 75% of 1000 is the same as 100% of 750, and if they have the same dollar and power costs, what difference does it make?
I tend to view the combination of Top500, Graph500 and HPCG results as a more robust way to compare systems, but one cannot ignore power and dollar costs if one pays for systems (most users do not, at least directly).
Related
I came up with the following result, tested on many data sets, but I do not have a formal proof yet:
Theorem: The width L of any confidence interval is asymptotically equal (as n tends to infinity) to a power function of n, namely L=A / n^B where A and B are two positive constants depending on the data set, and n is the sample size.
See here and here for details. The B exponent seems to be very similar to the Hurst exponent in time series, not only in terms of what it represents, but also in the values that it takes: B=1/2 corresponds to perfect data (no auto-correlation or undesirable features) and B=1 corresponds to "bad data" typically with strong auto-correlations.
Note that B=1/2 is what everyone uses nowadays, assuming observations are independently and identically distributed, with an underlying normal distribution. I also devised a method to make the interval width converges faster to zero: O(1/n) rather than O(1/SQRT(n)). This is also described in section 3.3. in my article on re-sampling (here) and my approach in this context seems very much related to what is called second-order accurate intervals (usually achieved with modern versions of bootstrapping, see here.)
My question is whether my theorem is original, ground-breaking, and correct, and how would someone prove it (or refute it.)
Example of Confidence Interval
Perl code to produce confidence intervals for the correlation
The first problem is, what do you mean by confidence interval?
Let's say i do non parametric estimation of a density probability function with a kernel density estimator.
Interval confidence has no meaning in this setting. however you can compute something which is the "speed" of convergence of your kernel density estimator to your target function. Depending on the choice of the distance you choose between function, you can get different speed of convergence. And for example, the best speed with $L^{\infty}$ distance depends on a $\log(n)$ factor.
By the way you give yourself a counterexample in your first article.
So for me your theorem can not exist for two reasons :
It is not clear, you need to specify exactly what you mean by confidence interval. You need to say what do you mean by depending on the dataset (does it depends on $N$ the number of observations?)
There is "counter example", since asymptotic speed of convergence of estimators can be more complicated than what you say.
We know data rate is bits per second. It can be also considered as baud rate(symbols per second) times the number of bits in symbol. So, if to increase data rate, we can increase baud rate or we can increase number of bits in a symbol. Why can't we keep on increasing these two? Can someone explain what happens with these 2 occasions separately?
This is essentially a physics question. We can play all sorts of games with how to physically represent a signal (hence, getting more bits per baud), but at the end of the day you can only physically convey so much information for any given rate of change of a signal. If you want to communicate faster, you have to up the frequency, which means having signals that change faster in time -- and nature ultimately limits how fast you can change the signal.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_rate
This gets even worse when you add noise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem
I am reading about precision and recall in machine learning.
Question 1: When are precision and recall inversely related? That is, when does the situation occur where you can improve your precision but at the cost of lower recall, and vice versa? The Wikipedia article states:
Often, there is an inverse relationship between precision and recall,
where it is possible to increase one at the cost of reducing the
other. Brain surgery provides an obvious example of the tradeoff.
However, I have seen research experiment results where both precision and recall increase simultaneously (for example, as you use different or more features).
In what scenarios does the inverse relationship hold?
Question 2: I'm familiar with the precision and recall concept in two fields: information retrieval (e.g. "return 100 most relevant pages out of a 1MM page corpus") and binary classification (e.g. "classify each of these 100 patients as having the disease or not"). Are precision and recall inversely related in both or one of these fields?
The inverse relation only holds when you have some parameter in the system that you can vary in order to get more/less results. Then there's a straightforward relationship: you lower the threshold to get more results and among them some are TPs and some FPs. This, actually, doesn't always mean that precision or recall will rise and fall simultaneously - the real relationship can be mapped using the ROC curve. As for Q2, likewise, in both of these tasks precision and recall are not necessarily inversely related.
So, how do you increase recall or precision, not impacting the other simultaneously? Usually, by improving the algorithm or model. I.e. when you just change parameters of a given model, the inverse relationship will usually hold, although you should mind that it will also be usually non-linear. But if you, for example, add more descriptive features to the model, you can increase both metrics at once.
Regarding the first question, I interpret these concepts in terms of how restrictive your results must be.
If you're more restrictive, I mean, if you're more "demanding on the correctness" of the results, you want it to be more precise. For that, you might be willing to reject some correct results as long as everything you get is correct. Thus, you're raising your precision and lowering your recall. Conversely, if you do not mind getting some incorrect results as long as you get all the correct ones, you're raising your recall and lowering your precision.
On what concerns the second question, if I look at it from the point of view of the paragraphs above, I can say that yes, they are inversely related.
To the best of my knowledge, In order to be able to increase both, precision and recall, you'll need either, a better model (more suitable for your problem) or better data (or both, actually).
Im wondering if there is a general rule of thumb for population sizing. Ive read in a book that 2x the chromosome length is a good starting point. Am i correct in assuming then that if i had an equation with 5 variables, i should have a population of 10?
Im also wondering if the following is correct:
Larger Population Size.
Pros:
Larger diversity so more likely to pick up on traits which return a good fitness.
Cons:
Requires longer to process.
vs
Smaller Population Size.
Pros:
Larger number of generations experienced per unit time.
Cons:
Mutation will have to be more prominent in order to compensate for smaller population??
EDIT
A little additional info, say i have an equation which has 5 unknown parameters. For each parameter i have anywhere between 10-50 values i would like to try assign to each of these variables. So for example
variable1 = 20 different values
variable2 = 15 different values
...
I thought a GA would be a decent approach to such a problem as the search space is quite large, ie worst case for the above would be 312,500,000 permutations (unless i have screwed up?) n!/(n-k)! where n = 50 and k = 1 => 50 * 50 * 50 * 50 * 50
unfortunately the number of parameters/range of values to check can vary alot so i was looking for some sort of rule of thumb as to how large i should set the population.
Thanks for ur help + if there is any more info you need/prefer to discuss in one of the chatrooms, just give me a shout.
I'm not sure where you read that 2x the chromosome length is a good starting point, but I'm guessing it's a book that concentrated on larger problems.
If you only have five variables, a genetic algorithm is probably not the right choice for converging upon a solution. With a chromosome length of five you're probably going to find that you very quickly reach a non-deterministic(this will change in subsequent runs) local minimum and slowly iterate around that space until you find the true local minimum.
However, if you are insistent on using a GA I would suggest abandoning that rule of thumb for this problem and really think about starting population as a measure of how far from the final solution you expect a random solution to be.
The reason that many rule of thumbs is dependent on chromosome length is because that's a decent proxy for this, if I have a hundred variables, and given randomly generating dna sequence is going to be further from ideal than if I had only one variable.
Additionally, if you're worried about computation intensity I'm going to go ahead and say that it shouldn't be an issue since you're dealing with such a small solution set. I think a better rule of thumb for smaller sets like this would be along the lines of:
(ln(chromosome_length*(solution_space/granularity)/mutation_rate))^2
Probably with a constant thrown in to scale for the particular problem.
It's definitely not a great rule of thumb (no rule is) but here's my logic for it:
Chromosome length is just a proxy for size of solution space, so taking into account the size of the solution space will necessarily increase the accuracy of this proxy
A smaller mutation rate necessitates a larger population size to compensate for the fact that you are more prone to get caught in local minima
Any rule of thumb should scale logarithmically since a genetic algorithm is akin to a tree search of your solution space.
The squared term was mostly the result of trying this out, but it looks like the logarithmic scaling was a little aggressive, though the general shape seemed right.
However I think a better choice would be to start at a reasonable number (100) and try iterating up and down until you find a population size that seems to balance accuracy with execution speed.
As with most genetic algorithm parameters population size is highly dependant on the problem. There are certain factors that can help to point in the direction of whether you should have a large or small population size but a lot of the time testing different values against a known solution before running it on your problem is a good idea (if this is possible of course).
A population size of 10 does seem rather small though. You say you have an equation with five variables. Is your problem represented by a chromosome of 5 values? It seems small for a chromosome and if this is the case it's likely that using a genetic algorithm may not be the best way to solve the problem. Perhaps if you give a bit more detail on your problem and how you are representing it people may have a better idea of how to advise you.
I'd also add that your cons for large and small population sizes aren't exactly correct. A larger population size does take longer to process than a small one but since it can often solve the problem quicker then overall the processing time isn't necessarily longer. gain, it's highly dependant on the problem. With a smaller population size mutation shouldn't have to be more prominent. Mutation is generally used to stop the genetic algorithm from becoming stuck in a local maximum and should usually be a very small value. A small population is more likely to become stuck in a local maximum but if you have a mutation value which is too high you may be nullifying the natural improvement of the genetic algorithm.
So I guess this isn't technically a code question, but it's something that I'm sure will come up for other folks as well as myself while writing code, so hopefully it's still a good one to post on SO.
The Google has directed me to plenty of nice lengthy explanations of when to use one or the other as regards financial numbers, and things like that.
But my particular context doesn't fit in, and I'm wondering if anyone here has some insight. I need to take a whole bunch of individual users' votes on how "good" a particular item is. I.e., some number of users each give a particular item a score between 0 and 10, and I want to report on what the 'typical' score is. What would be the intuitive reasons to report the geometric and/or arithmetic mean as the typical response?
Or, for that matter, would I be better off reporting the median instead?
I imagine there's some psychology involved in what the "best" method might be...
Anyway, there you have it.
Thanks!
Generally speaking, the arithmetic mean will suffice. It is much less computationally intensive than the geometric mean (which involves taking an n-th root).
As for the psychology involved, the geometric mean is never greater than the arithmetic mean, so arithmetic is the best choice if you'd prefer higher scores in general.
The median is most useful when the data set is relatively small and the chance of a massive outlier relatively high. Depending on how much precision these votes can take, the median can sometimes end up being a bit arbitrary.
If you really really want the most accurate answer possible, you could go for calculating the arithmetic-geomtric mean. However, this involved calculating both arithmetic and geometric means repeatedly, so it is very computationally intensive in comparison.
you want the arithmetic mean. since you aren't measuring the average change in average or something.
Arithmetic mean is correct.
Your scale is artificial:
It is bounded, from 0 and 10
8.5 is intuitively between 8 and 9
But for other scales, you would need to consider the correct mean to use.
Some other examples
In counting money, it has been argued that wealth has logarithmic utility. So the median between Bill Gates' wealth and a bum in the inner city would be a moderately successful business person. (Arithmetic average would hive you Larry Page.)
In measuring sound level, decibels already normalizes the effect. So you can take arithmetic average of decibels.
But if you are measuring volume in watts, then use quadratic means (RMS).
The answer depends on the context and your purpose. Percent changes were mentioned as a good time to use geometric mean. I use geometric mean when calculating antennas and frequencies since the percentage change is more important than the average or middle of the frequency range or average size of the antenna is concerned. If you have wildly varying numbers, especially if most are similar but one or two are "flyers" (far from the range of the others) the geometric mean will "smooth" the results (not let the different ones exert a change in the results more than they should). This method is used to calculate bullet group sizes (the "flyer" was probably human error, not the equipment, so the average is ""unfair" in that case). Another variation similar to geometric mean is the root mean square method. First you take the square root of the numbers, take THAT mean, and then square your answer (this provides even more smoothing). This is often used in electrical calculations and most electical meters are calculated in "RMS" (root mean square), not average readings. Hope this helps a little. Here is a web site that explains it pretty well. standardwisdom.com