fmincon non linear constraint: too many input arguments

1 次查看（过去 30 天）
Dave
Dave 2014-12-9
编辑： Matt J 2014-12-10
Hello, I need to minimize a log-likelihood function subject to a non-linear constraint. So I created a function for this constraint to pass it to the fmincon. But it prompts the error too many inputs
The objective function (x are 5 parameters)
[a1 a2 a3]=objfun(x,data,data2)
The non linear constraint
[c ceq]=nonlinconfun(x)
When running fmincon
[xhat fval]= fmincon(@objfun, x0, [], [], [], [], [], [], lb, ub, @nonlinconfun , options, data, data2)
I get this error:
Error using nonlinconfun
Too many input arguments.
Error in fmincon (line 651)
[ctmp,ceqtmp] = feval(confcn{3},X,varargin{:});
Error in origfun (line 31)
[xhat fval]= fmincon(@objfun, x0, [], [], [], [], [], [], lb, ub, @nonlinconfun , options, data, data2)
Caused by:
Failure in initial user-supplied nonlinear constraint function evaluation. FMINCON cannot continue.
Remarks:
A) In this example I know the final parameters in advance. I enter the final parameters as x0.
B) nonlinconfun evaluates the parameters x, it shouldn't need data or data2. So If I do
[xhat fval]= fmincon(@(x) objfun(x,data,data2), x0, [], [], [], [], [], [], lb, ub, @nonlinconfun , options)
Here fmincon computes xhat but these are very different from the final (known in this case) parameters.
C) And ignoring the non-lin constraint, fmincon outputs xhat in one iteration the correct params
[xhat fval]= fmincon(@objfun, x0, [], [], [], [], [], [], lb, ub,[] , options, data, data2)
But if I slightly change x0 it outputs very different xhat.
It might be the way I'm passing the constraint but I cannot seem to fix this. I tried to follow some examples but still same error. Let me know if it is not clear. Thanks
  2 个评论
Dave
Dave 2014-12-9
data is a vector 500x1, data2 is a scalar. data is used to estimate the parameters in the loglikelihood func.

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

回答（1 个）

Matt J
Matt J 2014-12-9
编辑：Matt J 2014-12-9
Syntax (A) is incorrect. Syntax (B) is correct. Syntax (C) is correct, but deprecated. If you want to run without constraints, it would be better to do
[xhat fval]= fmincon(@(x) objfun(x,data,data2), x0, [], [], [], [], [], [], lb, ub, [],options)
As for the result you are getting, there is as yet, no reason to think the result is incorrect, even if it is unexpected. There could be multiple solutions. Or you could have coded the objective/constraints incorrectly. Or, there could be better solutions than you knew. Have you compared fval output in the various scenarios? Which gives the lowest value and how different are the values?
  4 个评论
显示 2更早的评论
Dave
Dave 2014-12-10
I think we're talking about different "A"s. I was referring to the Remark A, where I mention that x0 is the same in all cases: the main case which is not working; case B w/ nonlinconstraint; and case C w/o nonlinconstraint.
In all these cases I use as x0 the parameters that I know in advance are the "final/correct" ones. I take these params as the correct ones since these are from a paper, which only publishes the params and logl. And I think your "A" refers to the code where I get the error. Yes that code is incorrect.
So, when I fix it with the nonlinconfun in B, the parameters it outputs are very different from the "final/correct" params. Hence my concern. To add, the params fmincon outputs most are actually the lower bounds I used.
I'm trying to see what I'm doing wrong, checked the objfun which is the logl, checked the nonlinconfun which is very simple. I thought the main doubts would be around how to actually set the fmincon because the rest is pretty standard
Matt J
Matt J 2014-12-10
编辑：Matt J 2014-12-10
I thought the main doubts would be around how to actually set the fmincon because the rest is pretty standard
Again, clearly not. fmincon found a point that is provably better than the one you thought was the best. Clearly, the problem is in your implementation of the objective function or constraints. Either that, or the paper is wrong about which point is the best.
checked the objfun which is the logl
Probably not. If logl is the loglikelihood (to be maximized), then you should be minimizing -logl. Thus -logl should be the objective function.

请先登录，再进行评论。

类别

在 Help Center 和 File Exchange 中查找有关 Linear Least Squares 的更多信息

标签

Community Treasure Hunt

Find the treasures in MATLAB Central and discover how the community can help you!

Start Hunting!

Translated by