Add binary variable with size n in Gurobi - python

I am tring to implement a facility location optimization model in Gurobi (Python interface). I have some difficulties to translate the model. The mathmatical model is shown below:
where dloc,floc are the (x,y) coordinates of the demand (customer) and facility (warehouse) locations. The dloc quantities are constants (i.e.50), opposed to floc which are decision variables: these are calculated by the solver. also, x,y coordinates are float numbers between 0 and 100.
One of the key issue is I dont know how to add the facility variable, the number of which can be any between 0 and n.
my codes so far:
from gurobipy import *
import numpy as np
import math
def distance(a, b):
dx = a[0] - b[0]
dy = a[1] - b[1]
return math.sqrt(dx ** 2 + dy ** 2)
customer = np.random.uniform(0,100,[50,2])
print(customer)
m = Model()
n = m.addVar(lb=0.0, ub=GRB.INFINITY,vtype=GRB.INTEGER) #number of candidate facilities
facility={}
for j in range(n):
facility[j] = m.addVar(vtype=GRB.BINARY, name="facility%d" % j) #certainly this is not correct, as an error is reported as 'Var' object cannot be interpreted as an integer
floc = ?
So I have tried another way by manually set a fixed number of candidate facility as an interim workaround:
from gurobipy import *
import numpy as np
import math
customer = np.random.uniform(0,100,[50,2])
print(customer)
m = Model()
###Variable
dc={}
x={}
y={}
assign={}
for j in range(10):
dc[j] = m.addVar(lb=0,ub=1,vtype=GRB.BINARY, name="DC%d" % j)
x[j]= m.addVar(lb=0, ub=100, vtype=GRB.CONTINUOUS, name="x%d")
y[j] = m.addVar(lb=0, ub=100, vtype=GRB.CONTINUOUS, name="y%d")
for i in range(len(customer)):
for j in range(len(dc)):
assign[(i,j)] = m.addVar(lb=0,ub=1,vtype=GRB.BINARY, name="Cu%d from DC%d" % (i,j))
###Constraint
for i in range(len(customer)):
for j in range(len(dc)):
m.addConstr(((customer[i][0] - x[j])*(customer[i][0] - x[j]) +\
(customer[i][1] - y[j])*(customer[i][1] - y[j])) <= 40*40 + 100*100*(1-assign[(i,j)]))
for i in range(len(customer)):
m.addConstr(quicksum(assign[(i,j)] for j in range(len(dc))) == 1)
for i in range(len(customer)):
for j in range(len(dc)):
m.addConstr(assign[(i, j)] <= dc[j])
n=0
for j in dc:
n=n+dc[j]
m.setObjective(n,GRB.MINIMIZE)
m.optimize()
print('\nOptimal Solution is: %g' % m.objVal)
for v in m.getVars():
print('%s %g' % (v.varName, v.x))
Anyone could demonstrate the translation of the model in Gurobi would be great help.

I see no problem in your definition for n. Nonetheless I rewrote your code to make it less verbose and easier to understand. First we create the given sets and constants:
from gurobipy import Model, GRB, quicksum
import numpy as np
m = Model()
demo_coords = np.random.uniform(0, 100, size=(50, 2)) # Just for demonstration
# Sets and Constants
demand = [f"i{k}" for k in range(1, 51)]
facilities = [ f"facility{k}" for k in range(1, 11) ]
dloc = {fac : demo_coords[i] for i, fac in enumerate(demand)}
maxdist = 40
M = 10e6
Note that dloc is a dictionary such that dloc[i] will give you the coordinates
for demand point i. Then dloc[i][0] is the x-coordinate and dloc[i][1] the
y-coordinate.
Now we can create the variables and store them in a gurobi tubledict:
# Variables
floc = m.addVars(facilities, 2, name="floc")
isopen = m.addVars(facilities, vtype=GRB.BINARY, name="isopen")
assign = m.addVars(demand, facilities, vtype=GRB.BINARY, name="assign")
n = m.addVar(vtype=GRB.INTEGER, name="n")
m.update()
Using m.addConstrs(), the constraints can be written as
# Constraints
m.addConstrs(((dloc[i][0] - floc[j, 0]) * (dloc[i][0] - floc[j, 0]) \
+ (dloc[i][1] - floc[j, 1])*(dloc[i][1] - floc[j, 1]) \
<= maxdist**2 + M * (1 - assign[i, j]) \
for i in demand for j in facilities), name="distance")
m.addConstrs((quicksum(assign[i, j] for j in facilities) == 1\
for i in demand), name="assignDemand")
m.addConstrs((assign[i, j] <= isopen[j] for i in demand for j in facilities),\
name="closed")
m.addConstr(n == quicksum(isopen[j] for j in facilities), name="numFacilities")
# zip is needed to iterate over all pairs of consecutive facilites
m.addConstrs((isopen[j] >= isopen[jp1] \
for j, jp1 in zip(facilities, facilities[1:])), name="order")
Note that while it isn't a problem to write floc[j, 0] in the constraint for the distance, you can't write dloc[i, 0] since dloc is a python dictionary and floc is a tupledict.
Setting the objective function und calling m.optimize()
# Objective
m.setObjective(n, sense=GRB.MINIMIZE)
m.optimize()
if m.status == GRB.OPTIMAL:
print(f"Optimal Solution is: {m.objVal}")
print("--------------")
for var in m.getVars():
print(var.varName, var.X)
gives me the optimal solution n = 3.

Related

how to implement least square polynomial with no built in methods using python?

currently running into a problem solving this.
The objective of the exercise given is to find a polynom of certian degree (the degree is given) from a dataset of points (that can be noist) and to best fit it using least sqaure method.
I don't understand the steps that lead to solving the linear equations?
what are the steps or should anyone provide such a python program that lead to the matrix that I put as an argument in my decomposition program?
Note:I have a python program for cubic splines ,LU decomposition/Guassian decomposition.
Thanks.
I tried to apply guassin / LU decomposition straight away on the dataset but I understand there are more steps to the solution...
I donwt understand how cubic splines add to the mix either..
Edit:
guassian elimintaion :
import numpy as np
import math
def swapRows(v,i,j):
if len(v.shape) == 1:
v[i],v[j] = v[j],v[i]
else:
v[[i,j],:] = v[[j,i],:]
def swapCols(v,i,j):
v[:,[i,j]] = v[:,[j,i]]
def gaussPivot(a,b,tol=1.0e-12):
n = len(b)
# Set up scale factors
s = np.zeros(n)
for i in range(n):
s[i] = max(np.abs(a[i,:]))
for k in range(0,n-1):
# Row interchange, if needed
p = np.argmax(np.abs(a[k:n,k])/s[k:n]) + k
if abs(a[p,k]) < tol: error.err('Matrix is singular')
if p != k:
swapRows(b,k,p)
swapRows(s,k,p)
swapRows(a,k,p)
# Elimination
for i in range(k+1,n):
if a[i,k] != 0.0:
lam = a[i,k]/a[k,k]
a[i,k+1:n] = a[i,k+1:n] - lam*a[k,k+1:n]
b[i] = b[i] - lam*b[k]
if abs(a[n-1,n-1]) < tol: error.err('Matrix is singular')
# Back substitution
b[n-1] = b[n-1]/a[n-1,n-1]
for k in range(n-2,-1,-1):
b[k] = (b[k] - np.dot(a[k,k+1:n],b[k+1:n]))/a[k,k]
return b
def polyFit(xData,yData,m):
a = np.zeros((m+1,m+1))
b = np.zeros(m+1)
s = np.zeros(2*m+1)
for i in range(len(xData)):
temp = yData[i]
for j in range(m+1):
b[j] = b[j] + temp
temp = temp*xData[i]
temp = 1.0
for j in range(2*m+1):
s[j] = s[j] + temp
temp = temp*xData[i]
for i in range(m+1):
for j in range(m+1):
a[i,j] = s[i+j]
return gaussPivot(a,b)
degree = 10 # can be any degree
polyFit(xData,yData,degree)
I was under the impression the code above gets a dataset of points and a degree. The output should be coeefients of a polynom that fits those points but I have a grader that was provided by my proffesor , and after checking the grading the polynom that returns has a lrage error.
After that I tried the following LU decomposition instead:
import numpy as np
def swapRows(v,i,j):
if len(v.shape) == 1:
v[i],v[j] = v[j],v[i]
else:
v[[i,j],:] = v[[j,i],:]
def swapCols(v,i,j):
v[:,[i,j]] = v[:,[j,i]]
def LUdecomp(a,tol=1.0e-9):
n = len(a)
seq = np.array(range(n))
# Set up scale factors
s = np.zeros((n))
for i in range(n):
s[i] = max(abs(a[i,:]))
for k in range(0,n-1):
# Row interchange, if needed
p = np.argmax(np.abs(a[k:n,k])/s[k:n]) + k
if abs(a[p,k]) < tol: error.err('Matrix is singular')
if p != k:
swapRows(s,k,p)
swapRows(a,k,p)
swapRows(seq,k,p)
# Elimination
for i in range(k+1,n):
if a[i,k] != 0.0:
lam = a[i,k]/a[k,k]
a[i,k+1:n] = a[i,k+1:n] - lam*a[k,k+1:n]
a[i,k] = lam
return a,seq
def LUsolve(a,b,seq):
n = len(a)
# Rearrange constant vector; store it in [x]
x = b.copy()
for i in range(n):
x[i] = b[seq[i]]
# Solution
for k in range(1,n):
x[k] = x[k] - np.dot(a[k,0:k],x[0:k])
x[n-1] = x[n-1]/a[n-1,n-1]
for k in range(n-2,-1,-1):
x[k] = (x[k] - np.dot(a[k,k+1:n],x[k+1:n]))/a[k,k]
return x
the results were a bit better but nowhere near what it should be
Edit 2:
I tried the chebyshev method suggested in the comments and came up with:
import numpy as np
def chebyshev_transform(x, n):
"""
Transforms x-coordinates to Chebyshev coordinates
"""
return np.cos(n * np.arccos(x))
def chebyshev_design_matrix(x, n):
"""
Constructs the Chebyshev design matrix
"""
x_cheb = chebyshev_transform(x, n)
T = np.zeros((len(x), n+1))
T[:,0] = 1
T[:,1] = x_cheb
for i in range(2, n+1):
T[:,i] = 2 * x_cheb * T[:,i-1] - T[:,i-2]
return T
degree =10
f = lambda x: np.cos(X)
xdata = np.linspace(-1,1,num=100)
ydata = np.array([f(i) for i in xdata])
M = chebyshev_design_matrix(xdata,degree)
D_x ,D_y = np.linalg.qr(M)
D_x, seq = LUdecomp(D_x)
A = LUsolve(D_x,D_y,seq)
I can't use linalg.qr in my program , it was just for checking how it works.In addition , I didn't get the 'slow way' of the formula that were in the comment.
The program cant get an x point that is not between -1 and 1 , is there any way around it , any normalizition?
Thanks a lot.
Hints:
You are probably asked for an unsophisticated method. If the degree of the polynomial remains low, you can use the straightforward approach below. For the sake of the explanation, I'll use a cubic model.
Assume that you want to fit your data to this polynomial, by observing that it seems to follow a cubic behavior:
ax³ + bx² + cx + d ~ y
[All x and y should be understood with an index i which is omitted for notational convenience.]
If there are more than four data points, you get an overdetermined system of equations, usually with no solution. The trick is to consider the error on the individual equations, e = ax³ + bx² + cx + d - y, and to minimize the total error. As the error is a signed number, negative errors would make minimization impossible. Instead, we minimize the sum of squared errors. (The sum of absolute errors is another option but it unfortunately leads to a much harder problem.)
Min(a, b, c, d) Σ(ax³ + bx² + cx + d - y)²
As the unknown parameters are unconstrained, it suffices to look for a stationary point, i.e. cancel the gradient of the total error. By differentiation on the unknowns a, b, c and d, we obtain
2Σ(ax³x³ + bx²x³ + cxx³ + dx³ - yx³) = 0
2Σ(ax³x² + bx²x² + cxx² + dx² - yx²) = 0
2Σ(ax³x + bx²x + cxx + dx - yx ) = 0
2Σ(ax³ + bx² + cx + d - y ) = 0
As you can recognize, this is a square linear system of equations.

CVXPY DCPError in custom optimization problem

I'm tried to implementation of the "Maximum product SINR -based power allocation" method.
first of all, I changed to the maxprod_sinr Matlab function converted to the python language.
But the converted code is not working, also occurred the error as below:
I Implemented the 'maxprod_SINR' function as follow
# Variable for the K x L BS power allocation matrix
rho_p = cp.Variable((self.K, self.N))
# Variable for the K x L SINR matrix
sinr = cp.Variable((self.K, self.N))
# Create constraints.
constraints = []
# Form objective
obj = cp.Maximize(cp.sum(sinr))
for j in range(self.N):
for k in range(self.K):
# SINR constraints of UE k in cell j
if signal[k,j] > 0:
# sinr[k,j]*(cp.sum(cp.sum(rho_p.T # interference[:,:,k,j])) + 1) <= (rho_p[k,j]*signal[k,j]);
constraints.append(sinr[k,j]*(cp.sum(cp.sum(rho_p.T # interf[:,:,k,j])) + 1) <= (rho_p[k,j]*signal[k,j]))
constraints.append(rho_p[k,j] >= 0)
# This applies if UE k in cell J is inactive
else:
constraints.append(sinr[k,j] == 1)
constraints.append(rho_p[k,j] >= 0)
constraints.append(cp.sum(rho_p[:,j]) <= self.Pmax)
# Maximzing the power indirectly by prod(sinr) the power constraints
prob = cp.Problem(obj, constraints)
prob.solve()
# The problem was not solved by CVX, for some reason, and we then consider equal power allocation
if prob.status == 'infeasible':
feasible = False
rhoSolution = (self.Pmax / self.K) * np.ones((self.K, self.N))
# The problem was solved by CVX
else:
feasible = True
rhoSolution = rho_p
# Converting variable() to ndarray()
rhoSolution = np.array(rhoSolution.value)
rhoSolution = rhoSolution.copy()
return feasible, rhoSolution

Search of interval optimization

My goal is to find the probability density function for a certain distribution, using a given algorithm.
This algorithm requires that I search in which interval a float is placed in. Even though the code runs perfectly, it takes too long. I was looking for a way of optimizing my code, but none came to mind.
In each iteration I check if the float is in the interval: if that's the case, I'd like to had a unity to the position I'm considering, in array p.
This is my code:
import numpy as np
import pylab as plt
import random as rd
n = [10,100,1000]
N = [10**6]
dy = 0.005
k_max = int(1/dy-1)
y = np.array([(j+0.5)*dy for j in range(k_max+1)])
intervals = np.linspace(0,1,k_max+2)
def p(y,n,N):
p = np.zeros(len(y))
Y = np.array([sum(np.array([rd.random() for k in range(n)]))/n for j in range(N)])
z = np.array([sum(np.array([rd.random() for k in range(n)])) for l in range(N)])
for j in Y:
for i in range(len(y)-1):
if intervals[i] <= j < intervals[i+1]:
p[i] += 1
return(p/(dy*N))
for a in n:
pi = p(y,a,N[0])
plt.plot(y,pi,label = 'n = ' + str(a))
plt.title('Probability Density Function')
plt.xlabel('x')
plt.ylabel('p(x)')
plt.show()
Edit: I've added the full code, as requested.
Edit 2: Fixed an error intervals.
A quick and simple optimization can be made here:
for j in Y:
for i in range(len(y)-1):
if intervals[i] <= j < intervals[i+1]:
p[i] += 1
Since intervals consists of len(y) evenly spaced numbers over the interval [0, 1], which is also the range of Y values, we need not search the position of j in intervals, but rather we can compute it.
for j in Y: p[int(j*(len(y)-1))] += 1
Also we can remove the unused
z = np.array([sum(np.array([rd.random() for k in range(n)])) for l in range(N)])
The greatest part of the remaining execution time is taken by
Y = np.array([sum(np.array([rd.random() for k in range(n)]))/n for j in range(N)])
Here the inner conversions to np.array are very time consuming; better leave them all out:
Y = [sum([rd.random() for k in range(n)])/n for j in range(N)]

Constraint violation for Linear Integer Programming in Python Gurobi

I am trying to implement LIP in Gurobi but somehow the constraints related to single edge into the node and single edge out of the node is being violated. The following are the equations (I am not copying the equations exactly interms of the summations limits so its (i,j) 0 - N for now, however the constraint should not be violated regardless )
So the bottom equation simply states that there should be one edge coming in and leaving the vertex or node. However in the following code I added this constraint but somehow it is getting violated in the result.
I have quite exhausted my head trying to figure out what might be the issue
import gurobipy as grb
import math
n = 4
set_I = range(0, n)
set_J = range(0, n)
Distance = 50000000
def distance(points, i, j):
dx = points[i][0] - points[j][0]
dy = points[i][1] - points[j][1]
return math.sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy)
random.seed(1)
points = []
for i in range(n):
points.append((random.randint(0,100),random.randint(0,100)))
opt_model = grb.Model(name="MILP Model")
x_vars = {}
for i in range(n):
for j in range(n):
x_vars[i,j] = opt_model.addVar(vtype=grb.GRB.BINARY,
name='e'+str(i)+'_'+str(j))
# <= Constraint (Distance)
for i in range(n):
opt_model.addConstr(grb.quicksum(x_vars[i,j]*distance(points, i, j) for j in range(n)) <= Distance)
x_vars[i,i].ub = 0
# <= Constraint (coming in to node and going out should be 1 each)
for i in range(n):
opt_model.addConstr(grb.quicksum(x_vars[i,j] for j in range(n)) <= 1)
opt_model.update()
# <= objective is to maximize
objective = grb.quicksum(x_vars[i,j]
for i in set_I
for j in set_J)
opt_model.ModelSense = grb.GRB.MAXIMIZE
opt_model.setObjective(objective)
opt_model.update()
opt_model.optimize()
solution = opt_model.getAttr('x', x_vars )
print solution
import pandas as pd
opt_df = pd.DataFrame.from_dict(x_vars, orient="index",
columns = ["variable_object"])
opt_df.index = pd.MultiIndex.from_tuples(opt_df.index,
names=["column_i", "column_j"])
opt_df.reset_index(inplace=True)
# Gurobi
opt_df["solution_value"] = opt_df["variable_object"].apply(lambda item: item.X)
print opt_df
It seems like you did not add the constraint of equal
according to your code, it should be something like
for k in range(1, n-1):
opt_model.addConstr(grb.quicksum(x_vars[i,k] for i in range(n-1))
== grb.quicksum(x_vars[k,j] for j in range(1, n)))
and actually, your objective function should be like the following code according to your equation
objective = grb.quicksum(x_vars[i,j]
for i in range(1, n-1)
for j in range(1, n)

Solving Laplace's equation

i'm trying to solve Laplace's equation with a particular geometry (two circular conductors), here's what i've done in python :
from __future__ import division
from pylab import *
from scipy import *
from numpy import *
from matplotlib import *
N1=50 # number of points along x and y
N=2*N1+1 # number of points in total
# in cm.
xc1=4
xc2=9
yc1=0
yc2=0
R1=1.75
R2=9
ecart = 1
a, b = linspace(-1, 19, N), linspace(-10, 10, N)
xa, ya = meshgrid(a, b)
V = zeros_like(xa)
for i in range(N):
for j in range(N):
x, y = xa[i,j], ya[i,j]
if (((x-xc1)**2/(R1**2))+((y-yc1)**2/(R1**2)))<=1 : # potential in the central conductor
V[i,j] = 30
if (((x-xc2)**2/(R2**2))+((y-yc2)**2/(R2**2)))>=1 : # potential in the outer conductor
V[i,j] =0
#draws the potential along X along the axis of symmetry.
Vnew = V.copy()
while ecart > 5*10**-2:
for i in range(1,N-1):
for j in range(1,N-1):
Vnew[i,j] = 0.25*(V[i-1,j] + V[i+1,j] + V [i,j-1] + V[i,j+1])
# convergence criterion
ecart = np.max(np.abs(V - (Vnew))/np.max(V))
print(ecart)
# save in the grid V of the calculated grid
for i in range(N):
for j in range(N):
x, y = xa[i,j], ya[i,j]
if (((x-xc1)**2/(R1**2))+((y-yc1)**2/(R1**2))) > 1 and (((x-xc2)**2/(R2**2))+((y-yc2)**2/(R2**2))) < 1 :
V[i,j] = Vnew[i,j]
it actually works with ecart>5*10**-2, but I would like to do it with ecart>10**-3 and here is the problem, it takes too much time ,actually it never ends...
Does someone have any idea in order to improve the program ?
Thank you in advance !

Categories