Elliot's Twitter Feed

Subscribe to the RSS Feed:
Compounding the Categories
13f aaron clauset after-tax return alan greenspan alchemy of finance alexander hamilton algo algorithmic trading allan mecham all-time highs alpha alvaro guzman de lazaro mateos amazon amsc anarchy antifragile antti ilmanen apple aqr capital architecture art of stock picking asset quality review asthma atlantic city austerity barry bonds baseball behavioral economics ben bernanke best buy bill maher biotech bitcoin black swan bobby orr bridgewater bruce bueno de mesquita bruce richards bubble buttonwood CAPE capital gains capitalism caravan cash cerberus cfa charles de vaulx charlie munger checklist checklist chicago booth china chord cutting cinecitta claude shannon Clayton Christensen clean energy commodities complex adaptive system compound interest constitution content cord cutting correlation cpi craft beer credit suisse cree cris moore crisis cybersecurity Dan Geer daniel kahneman darwin david doran david laibson david mccullough david wright debt ceiling defense department deficit deleveraging disruptive innovation diversification diversity dixie chicken don johnson economic machine economist edward thorp efficiency efficient market hypothesis elke weber eni enterprise eric sanderson eric schmidt euro european union eurozone Evgeni Malkin evolution facebook fat finger federalist 15 federalist papers ferdinand de lesseps flash crash flashboys forecasting fortune's formula fragility fred wilson gambling gene sequencing general electric genomics geoeye george soros global reserve currency gold gold standard google goose island gore-tex government budget grantham greece gregory berns grid parity guy spier hamiltonian path problem hans harvard business school henry blodgett henry kaufman hft hockey horizon kinetics housing howard marks hudson hudson river hussman iarpa ichiro iex imax implied growth incyte indexation indexing innovation innovator's dilemma internet investment commentary ipad ipo islanders italy j craig venter james gleick jets jim grant jim thome jjohn maynard keynes jk rowling jochen wermuth Joe Peta joel greenblatt john doyle john gilbert john malone john maynard keynes john rundle jonah lehrer juan enriquez justin fox kelly criterion kevin douglas kodak larry david legg mason lehman brothers linkedin liquidity little feat logical fallacies long term capital management louis ck malaria Manhattan manual of ideas marc andreesen marc lasry mark mahaney media mental model Michael Mauboussin millennials minsky mnst moat money mr. market multi-discipline murray stahl myth of the rational market nasdaq: aapl NASDAQ: GOOG nassim taleb natural gas net neutrality netflix new york NGA nicholas barberis Novus oaktree optimality optimization overfitting panama canal pat lafontaine performance personal philip tetlock Pittsburgh Penguins pixar preamble price earnings ratio price to book priceline profit margins prospect theory psychology punditry radioshack random walk ray dalio rebalancing reflexivity regeneron registered investment advisor reproduction value RGA Investment Advisors RGAIA risk risk aversion rob park robert shiller robotics robust ROE s&p 500 samsung santa fe institute satellite scarcity s-curve sectoral balance silk road silvio burlesconi solar space shuttle speculation steve bartman steve jobs stock market stock picking streaming subsidy synthetic genomics systems tax code ted talk the band the general theory the information tomas hertl Trading Bases tungsten twitter undefined van morrison vincent reinhart wall street walter isaacson warren buffet warren buffett william gorgas william poundstone woody johnson wprt yosemite valley youtube

Entries in cris moore (1)


Cris Moore at SFI

Cris Moore
Optimization From Mt. Fuji to the Rockies: How computer scientists and physicists think about optimization, landscapes, phase transitions and fragile models
  • We need to make qualitative distinctions between problems
    • There is a Hamiltonian Path Problem—can you visit every node on a graph just once
    • You can do this by a “search tree” until you end up stuck. Go back to the prior node, then begin again. This is called “exhaustive search.
    • ”There is reason to believe that exhaustive search is the only way to solve such a problem
  • NP (complete)
    • P: polynomial-can find solutions efficiently
    • NP: we can check a solution efficiently
    • There is a gap between what you can check vs what you can find efficiently. This is the P vs NP problem.
    • Polynomials don’t grow too badly as n grows, but NP complete, if n grows at 2^n then when n=90 it takes longer than the age of the universe to solve.
  • When is there a shortcut? 
    • 1: divide and conquer—when there are independent sub-problems. 
    • 2: dynamic programming—sub-problems that are not completely dependent, but become so after we make some choices. (ie there are n nodes to the experiment, but once you take on node the next step becomes independent of the prior choices).
    • 3: When greed is good—minimum spanning tree. Take the shortest edge (ie if you want to build power lines connecting cities, build the shortest connections first until a tree is built).
      • Landscape (imagine a mountain range where your goal is to get to a distant highest peak) a single optimum, that we can find by climbing (no wrong way).
      • Traveling salesman—big shortcuts can lead us down a primrose path. 

      • There are many local optima where we can get stuck and it’s impossible to figure out the global optimum
  • NP completeness=a worst case notion.
    • We assume instances are designed by an adversary to encode hard problems. This is a good assumption in cryptography, but not in most of nature. We must ask: “What kind of adversary are scientists fighting against…Manichean or Augustinian?”
    • The real world has structure. We can start with a “greedy tour” and make modifications until it becomes clear there is nothing more to gain.
  • Optimization problems are like exploring high dimensional jewelry (multi-faceted)
    • Simplex—crawls the edges quickly. Takes exponential amounts of time in the worst case, but is efficient in practice.
    • 1: Add noise to the problem and the number of facets goes down
    • 2: “Probably approximately correct”—not looking for the best solution, just a really good one
      • Landscapes are not as dumpy as they could be. Good solutions are close to the optimum, but we might not find THE optimum.  If your data has clusters, any good cluster should be close to the best.
      • There are phase transitions in NP Complete (what are called tipping points)
    • 3: “Sat(isfiability)”—n variables that can be true or false and a formula of constraints with three variables each.  With n variables, 2^n possibilities. We can search, see if it works.  
      • What if constraints are chosen randomly instead of by an adversary? When the density of constraints is too high, we can no longer satisfy them all at once.
  • There is a point of transition from unsolvability to solvability
    • The hardest problems to solve are in the transition.  When a problem is no longer solvable, have to search all options to figure that out. 
      • Easy, hard, frozen—the structure gets more fragile the closer you get to the solution.
  • Big data and fragile problems:
    • Finding patterns (inference)
    • You actually don’t want the “best” model, as the “best” gives a better fit, but is subject to overfitting and thus does worse with generalizations about the future. 
  • Finding communities in networks (social media) is an optimization problem. You can divide into two groups to minimize the energy, but there can be many seemingly sensible divisions with nothing in common.
    • You don’t want the “best” structure, you want the consensus of many good solutions. This is often better than the “best” single solution.
    • If there is no consensus then there is probably nothing there at all.
  • The Game of Go: unlike chess, humans remain better at Go than algos (this is true of bridge too).
    • There are simply too many possible options in Go for the traditional approach with explores the entire game tree (as is done in chess).
    • To win, an algo has to assume a player plays randomly beyond the prediction horizon and recomputed the probability of winning a game with each move.
      • This incentivizes (and rewards the algo) for making moves that lead to the most possible winning options, rather than a narrow path which does in fact lead to victory.
      • The goal then becomes broadening the tree as much as possible, and giving the algo player optionality.
      • “Want to evolve evolvability” and not just judge a position, but give mobility (optionality). This is a heuristic in order to gain viability.