Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding diagnostics tools for ill conditioning #1299

Merged
merged 19 commits into from
Jan 26, 2024
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 16 commits
Commits
Show all changes
19 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
314 changes: 312 additions & 2 deletions idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
This module contains a collection of tools for diagnosing modeling issues.
"""

__author__ = "Alexander Dowling, Douglas Allan, Andrew Lee"
__author__ = "Alexander Dowling, Douglas Allan, Andrew Lee, Robby Parker, Ben Knueven"

from operator import itemgetter
import sys
Expand All @@ -36,8 +36,10 @@
check_optimal_termination,
ConcreteModel,
Constraint,
Expression,
Objective,
Param,
RangeSet,
Set,
SolverFactory,
value,
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -275,6 +277,14 @@
description="If False, warnings will not be generated for things like log(x) with x >= 0",
),
)
CONFIG.declare(
"parallel_component_tolerance",
ConfigValue(
default=1e-4,
domain=float,
description="Tolerance for identifying near-parallel Jacobian rows/columns",
),
)


SVDCONFIG = ConfigDict()
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -914,6 +924,70 @@
footer="=",
)

def display_near_parallel_constraints(self, stream=None):
"""
Display near-parallel (duplicate) constraints in model.

Args:
stream: I/O object to write report to (default = stdout)

Returns:
None

"""
if stream is None:
stream = sys.stdout

Check warning on line 939 in idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py#L939

Added line #L939 was not covered by tests

parallel = [
f"{i[0].name}, {i[1].name}"
for i in check_parallel_jacobian(
model=self._model,
tolerance=self.config.parallel_component_tolerance,
direction="row",
)
]

# Write the output
_write_report_section(
stream=stream,
lines_list=parallel,
title="The following pairs of constraints are nearly parallel:",
header="=",
footer="=",
)

def display_near_parallel_variables(self, stream=None):
"""
Display near-parallel (duplicate) variables in model.

Args:
stream: I/O object to write report to (default = stdout)

Returns:
None

"""
if stream is None:
stream = sys.stdout

Check warning on line 971 in idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py#L971

Added line #L971 was not covered by tests

parallel = [
f"{i[0].name}, {i[1].name}"
for i in check_parallel_jacobian(
model=self._model,
tolerance=self.config.parallel_component_tolerance,
direction="column",
)
]

# Write the output
_write_report_section(
stream=stream,
lines_list=parallel,
title="The following pairs of variables are nearly parallel:",
header="=",
footer="=",
)

# TODO: Block triangularization analysis
# Number and size of blocks, polynomial degree of 1x1 blocks, simple pivot check of moderate sized sub-blocks?

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1330,7 +1404,8 @@
lines_list=next_steps,
title="Suggested next steps:",
line_if_empty=f"If you still have issues converging your model consider:\n"
f"{TAB*2}prepare_svd_toolbox()\n{TAB*2}prepare_degeneracy_hunter()",
f"{TAB*2}display_near_parallel_constraints()\n{TAB*2}display_near_parallel_variables()"
f"\n{TAB*2}prepare_degeneracy_hunter()\n{TAB*2}prepare_svd_toolbox()",
footer="=",
)

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2086,6 +2161,9 @@
def eq_degenerate(m_dh, v):
# Find the columns with non-zero entries
C = find(J[:, v])[0]
if len(C) == 0:
# Catch for edge-case of trivial constraint 0==0
return Constraint.Skip

Check warning on line 2166 in idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py#L2166

Added line #L2166 was not covered by tests
return sum(J[c, v] * m_dh.nu[c] for c in C) == 0

else:
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -3051,6 +3129,238 @@
)


def check_parallel_jacobian(model, tolerance: float = 1e-4, direction: str = "row"):
"""
Check for near-parallel rows or columns in the Jacobian.

Near-parallel rows or columns indicate a potential degeneracy in the model,
as this means that the associated constraints or variables are (near)
duplicates of each other.

This method is based on work published in:

Klotz, E., Identification, Assessment, and Correction of Ill-Conditioning and
Numerical Instability in Linear and Integer Programs, Informs 2014, pgs. 54-108
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/epdf/10.1287/educ.2014.0130

Args:
model: model to be analysed
tolerance: tolerance to use to determine if constraints/variables are parallel
direction: 'row' (default, constraints) or 'column' (variables)

Returns:
list of 2-tuples containing parallel Pyomo components

"""
# Thanks to Robby Parker for the sparse matrix implementation and
# significant performance improvements

if direction not in ["row", "column"]:
raise ValueError(
f"Unrecognised value for direction ({direction}). "
"Must be 'row' or 'column'."
)

jac, nlp = get_jacobian(model, scaled=False)

# Get vectors that we will check, and the Pyomo components
# they correspond to.
if direction == "row":
components = nlp.get_pyomo_constraints()
csrjac = jac.tocsr()
# Make everything a column vector (CSC) for consistency
vectors = [csrjac[i, :].transpose().tocsc() for i in range(len(components))]
elif direction == "column":
components = nlp.get_pyomo_variables()
cscjac = jac.tocsc()
vectors = [cscjac[:, i] for i in range(len(components))]

# List to store pairs of parallel components
parallel = []

vectors_by_nz = {}
for vecidx, vec in enumerate(vectors):
maxval = max(np.abs(vec.data))
# Construct tuple of sorted col/row indices that participate
# in this vector (with non-negligible coefficient).
nz = tuple(
sorted(
idx
for idx, val in zip(vec.indices, vec.data)
if abs(val) > tolerance and abs(val) / maxval > tolerance
)
)
if nz in vectors_by_nz:
# Store the index as well so we know what component this
# correrponds to.
vectors_by_nz[nz].append((vec, vecidx))
else:
vectors_by_nz[nz] = [(vec, vecidx)]

for vecs in vectors_by_nz.values():
for idx, (u, uidx) in enumerate(vecs):
# idx is the "local index", uidx is the "global index"
# Frobenius norm of the matrix is 2-norm of this column vector
unorm = norm(u, ord="fro")
for v, vidx in vecs[idx + 1 :]:
vnorm = norm(v, ord="fro")

# Explicitly multiply a row vector * column vector
prod = u.transpose().dot(v)
absprod = abs(prod[0, 0])
diff = abs(absprod - unorm * vnorm)
if diff <= tolerance or diff <= tolerance * max(unorm, vnorm):
parallel.append((uidx, vidx))

parallel = [(components[uidx], components[vidx]) for uidx, vidx in parallel]
return parallel


def check_ill_conditioning(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think this name is a too vague, as there are many different ways of checking for ill-conditioning. Maybe compute_ill_conditioning_certificate or compute_worst_conditioned_subset?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

compute_ill_conditioning_certificate is better.

compute_worst_conditioned_subset would be a bit inaccurate since it might involve solving a MIP version of this problem.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since we're solving the minimum-residual problem globally, we have the "worst conditioned" combination of rows/columns, right? Then you're saying that there is no reason to believe that the result will be a subset?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think so, but it will tend to be a subset because we minimize the 1-norm of the multiplier alongside requiring an optimal basic feasible solution to the LP, i.e., it's just LASSO.

Put another way, we could try to minimize the number of non-zeros in the multiplier, which would give a minimal subset demonstrating the ill conditioning.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think check_ill_conditioning is too vague of a name here. I suggest compute_ill_conditioning_certificate

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this name better.

If we were honest it might be try_to_compute_ill_conditioning_certificate, as this LP itself will also be ill-conditioned. SoPlex has the capability to solve LPs to arbitrary precision, but it's not available currently as a (direct) Pyomo solver. And you cannot access the same options through SCIP, unfortunately.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've updated the name to compute_ill_conditioning_certificate

model,
target_feasibility_tol: float = 1e-06,
ratio_cutoff: float = 1e-04,
direction: str = "row",
):
"""
Finds constraints (rows) or variables (columns) in the model Jacobian that
may be contributing to ill conditioning.

This method is based on work published in:

Klotz, E., Identification, Assessment, and Correction of Ill-Conditioning and
Numerical Instability in Linear and Integer Programs, Informs 2014, pgs. 54-108
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/epdf/10.1287/educ.2014.0130

Args:
model: model to be analysed
target_feasibility_tol: target tolerance for solving ill conditioning problem
ratio_cutoff: cut-off for reporting ill conditioning
direction: 'row' (default, constraints) or 'column' (variables)

Returns:
list of strings reporting ill-conditioned variables/constraints and their
associated y values
"""
_log.warning(
"Ill conditioning checks are a beta capability. Please be aware that "
"the name, location, and API for this may change in future releases."
)
# Thanks to B. Knueven for this implementation

if direction not in ["row", "column"]:
raise ValueError(
f"Unrecognised value for direction ({direction}). "
"Must be 'row' or 'column'."
)

jac, nlp = get_jacobian(model, scaled=False)

inverse_target_kappa = 1e-16 / target_feasibility_tol

# Set up the components we will analyze, either row or column
if direction == "row":
components = nlp.get_pyomo_constraints()
components_set = RangeSet(0, len(components) - 1)
results_set = RangeSet(0, nlp.n_primals() - 1)
jac = jac.transpose().tocsr()
elif direction == "column":
components = nlp.get_pyomo_variables()
components_set = RangeSet(0, len(components) - 1)
results_set = RangeSet(0, nlp.n_constraints() - 1)
jac = jac.tocsr()

# Build test problem
inf_prob = ConcreteModel()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why is this called inf_prob?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

probably should just go with m?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like m. I'm fine with another name too, I just don't know what "inf" is.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Infeasibility" of the linear dependence constraint?


inf_prob.y_pos = Var(components_set, bounds=(0, None))
inf_prob.y_neg = Var(components_set, bounds=(0, None))
inf_prob.y = Expression(components_set, rule=lambda m, i: m.y_pos[i] - m.y_neg[i])

inf_prob.res_pos = Var(results_set, bounds=(0, None))
inf_prob.res_neg = Var(results_set, bounds=(0, None))
inf_prob.res = Expression(
results_set, rule=lambda m, i: m.res_pos[i] - m.res_neg[i]
)

def b_rule(b, i):
lhs = 0.0

row = jac.getrow(i)
for j, val in zip(row.indices, row.data):
lhs += val * b.y[j]

return lhs == b.res[i]

inf_prob.by = Constraint(results_set, rule=b_rule)

# Normalization of y
inf_prob.normalize = Constraint(
expr=1 == sum(inf_prob.y_pos.values()) - sum(inf_prob.y_neg.values())
)

inf_prob.y_norm = Var()
inf_prob.y_norm_constr = Constraint(
expr=inf_prob.y_norm
== sum(inf_prob.y_pos.values()) + sum(inf_prob.y_neg.values())
)

inf_prob.res_norm = Var()
inf_prob.res_norm_constr = Constraint(
expr=inf_prob.res_norm
== sum(inf_prob.res_pos.values()) + sum(inf_prob.res_neg.values())
)

# Objective -- minimize residual
inf_prob.min_res = Objective(expr=inf_prob.res_norm)

solver = SolverFactory("cbc") # TODO: Consider making this an option
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be nice to default to HiGHS or SCIP, although I understand if that can't happen for the time being.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The best solver to pick would probably be SoPlex as we can set arbitrary precision and utilize its iterative refinement capability. But I went with cbc because it ships with idaes get-extensions.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FYI, for testing at least we do have the AMPL version of SCIP available now. For DegeneracyHunter, I made the solver a user argument with SCIP as the default.


# tighten tolerances # TODO: If solver is an option, need to allow user options
solver.options["primalT"] = target_feasibility_tol * 1e-1
solver.options["dualT"] = target_feasibility_tol * 1e-1

results = solver.solve(inf_prob, tee=False)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This does not have to happen now, but I generally like splitting these types of functions into two functions: One that simply builds the model, and one that just builds the model (by calling the first function), then solves the model. That way an advanced user can build the model and inspect it, apply a transformation, or use a custom solver. It also makes it easier to see what the default solver and options are.

I'm open to arguments that this is a bad idea, and again, this does not need to happen now.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We actually solve two problems at the moment -- we minimize the norm of the RHS, then we fix the norm of the RHS and minimize the 1-norm of the vector. That makes a cleaner workflow more difficult.

I also imagine eventually trying to re-solve with tighter tolerances if the answer is nonsensical, e.g., the norm of the RHS is negative. These things can be done automatically much more straightforwardly if we pick a single solver.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I did not realize that we solve two problems. I see the difficulty in splitting this up in that case.

if not check_optimal_termination(results):
# TODO: maybe we should tighten tolerances first?
raise RuntimeError("Ill conditioning diagnostic problem infeasible")

Check warning on line 3326 in idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py#L3326

Added line #L3326 was not covered by tests

result_norm = inf_prob.res_norm.value
andrewlee94 marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
if result_norm < 0.0:
# TODO: try again with tighter tolerances?
raise RuntimeError(

Check warning on line 3331 in idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py#L3331

Added line #L3331 was not covered by tests
"Ill conditioning diagnostic problem has numerically troublesome solution"
)
if result_norm >= inverse_target_kappa:
return []

Check warning on line 3335 in idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py

View check run for this annotation

Codecov / codecov/patch

idaes/core/util/model_diagnostics.py#L3335

Added line #L3335 was not covered by tests

# find an equivalent solution which minimizes y_norm
inf_prob.min_res.deactivate()
inf_prob.res_norm.fix()

inf_prob.min_y = Objective(expr=inf_prob.y_norm)

# if this problem is numerically infeasible, we can still report something to the user
results = solver.solve(inf_prob, tee=False, load_solutions=False)
if check_optimal_termination(results):
inf_prob.solutions.load_from(results)

ill_cond = []
slist = sorted(
inf_prob.y, key=lambda dict_key: abs(value(inf_prob.y[dict_key])), reverse=True
)
cutoff = None
for i in slist:
if cutoff is None:
cutoff = abs(value(inf_prob.y[i])) * ratio_cutoff
val = value(inf_prob.y[i])
if abs(val) < cutoff:
break
ill_cond.append((components[i], val))

return ill_cond


# -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Private module functions
def _var_in_block(var, block):
Expand Down
Loading
Loading