We Keep Coding

Solve ODEs with discontinuous input/forcing data

I'm trying to solve a system of coupled, first-order ODEs in Python. I'm new to this, but the Zombie Apocalypse example from SciPy.org has been a great help so far.
An important difference in my case is that the input data used to "drive" my system of ODEs changes abruptly at various time points and I'm not sure how best to deal with this. The code below is the simplest example I can think of to illustrate my problem. I appreciate this example has a straightforward analytical solution, but my actual system of ODEs is more complicated, which is why I'm trying to understand the basics of numerical methods.
Simplified example
Consider a bucket with a hole in the bottom (this kind of "linear reservoir" is the basic building block of many hydrological models). The input flow rate to the bucket is R and the output from the hole is Q. Q is assumed to be proportional to the volume of water in the bucket, V. The constant of proportionality is usually written as , where T is the "residence time" of the store. This gives a simple ODE of the form
In reality, R is an observed time series of daily rainfall totals. Within each day, the rainfall rate is assumed to be constant, but between days the rate changes abruptly (i.e. R is a discontinuous function of time). I'm trying to understand the implications of this for solving my ODEs.
Strategy 1
The most obvious strategy (to me at least) is to apply SciPy's odeint function separately within each rainfall time step. This means I can treat R as a constant. Something like this:
import numpy as np, pandas as pd, matplotlib.pyplot as plt, seaborn as sn
from scipy.integrate import odeint
np.random.seed(seed=17)
def f(y, t, R_t):
""" Function to integrate.
"""
# Unpack parameters
Q_t = y[0]
# ODE to solve
dQ_dt = (R_t - Q_t)/T
return dQ_dt
# #############################################################################
# User input
T = 10 # Time constant (days)
Q0 = 0. # Initial condition for outflow rate (mm/day)
days = 300 # Number of days to simulate
# #############################################################################
# Create a fake daily time series for R
# Generale random values from uniform dist
df = pd.DataFrame({'R':np.random.uniform(low=0, high=5, size=days+20)},
index=range(days+20))
# Smooth with a moving window to make more sensible
df['R'] = pd.rolling_mean(df['R'], window=20)
# Chop off the NoData at the start due to moving window
df = df[20:].reset_index(drop=True)
# List to store results
Q_vals = []
# Vector of initial conditions
y0 = [Q0, ]
# Loop over each day in the R dataset
for step in range(days):
# We want to find the value of Q at the end of this time step
t = [0, 1]
# Get R for this step
R_t = float(df.ix[step])
# Solve the ODEs
soln = odeint(f, y0, t, args=(R_t,))
# Extract flow at end of step from soln
Q = float(soln[1])
# Append result
Q_vals.append(Q)
# Update initial condition for next step
y0 = [Q, ]
# Add results to df
df['Q'] = Q_vals
Strategy 2
The second approach involves simply feeding everything to odeint and letting it deal with the discontinuities. Using the same parameters and R values as above:
def f(y, t):
""" Function used integrate.
"""
# Unpack incremental values for S and D
Q_t = y[0]
# Get the value for R at this t
idx = df.index.get_loc(t, method='ffill')
R_t = float(df.ix[idx])
# ODE to solve
dQ_dt = (R_t - Q_t)/T
return dQ_dt
# Vector of initial parameter values
y0 = [Q0, ]
# Time grid
t = np.arange(0, days, 1)
# solve the ODEs
soln = odeint(f, y0, t)
# Add result to df
df['Q'] = soln[:, 0]
Both of these approaches give identical answers, which look like this:
However the second strategy, although more compact in terms of code, it much slower than the first. I guess this is something to do with the discontinuities in R causing problems for odeint?
My questions
Is strategy 1 the best approach here, or is there a better way?
Is strategy 2 a bad idea and why is it so slow?
Thank you!

1.) Yes
2.) Yes
Reason for both: Runge-Kutta solvers expect ODE functions that have an order of differentiability at least as high as the order of the solver. This is needed so that the Taylor expansion which gives the expected error term exists. Which means that even the order 1 Euler method expects a differentiable ODE function. Thus no jumps are allowed, kinks can be tolerated in order 1, but not in higher order solvers.
This is especially true for implementations with automatic step size adaptations. Whenever a point is approached where the differentiation order is not satisfied, the solver sees a stiff system and drives the step-size toward 0, which leads to a slowdown of the solver.
You can combine strategies 1 and 2 if you use a solver with fixed step size and a step size that is a fraction of 1 day. Then the sampling points at the day turns serve as (implicit) restart points with the new constant.

polyfit refining: setting polynomial to be always possitive

I am trying to fit a polynomial to my data, e.g.
import scipy as sp
x = [1,6,9,17,23,28]
y = [6.1, 7.52324, 5.71, 5.86105, 6.3, 5.2]
and say I know the degree of polynomial (e.g.: 3), then I just use scipy.polyfit method to get the polynomial of a given degree:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
fittedModelFunction = sp.polyfit(x, y, 3)
func = sp.poly1d(fittedModelFunction)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
QUESTIONS: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) How can I tell in addition that the resulting function func must be always positive (i.e. f(x) >= 0 for any x)?
2) How can I further define a constraint (e.g. number of (local) min and max points, etc.) in order to get a better fitting?
Is there smth like this:
http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/2007-July/013138.html
but more accurate?

Always Positve
I haven't been able to find a scipy reference that determines if a function is positive-definite, but an indirect way would be to find the all the roots - Scipy Roots - of the function and inspect the limits near those roots. There are a few cases to consider:
No roots at all
Pick any x and evaluate the function. Since the function does not cross the x-axis because of a lack of roots, any positive result will indicate the function is positive!
Finite number of roots
This is probably the most likely case. You would have to inspect the limits before and after each root - Scipy Limits. You would have to specify your own minimum acceptable delta for the limit however. I haven't seen a 2-sided limit method provided by Scipy, but it looks simple enough to make your own.
from sympy import limit
// f: function, v: variable to limit, p: point, d: delta
// returns two limit values
def twoSidedLimit(f, v, p, d):
return limit(f, v, p-d), limit(f, v, p+d)
Infinite roots
I don't think that polyfit would generate an oscillating function, but this is something to consider. I don't know how to handle this with the method I have already offered... Um, hope it does not happen?
Constraints
The only built-in form of constraints seems to be limited to the optimize library of SciPy. A crude way to enforce constraints for polyfit would be to get the function from polyfit, generate a vector of values for various x, and try to select values from the vector that violate the constraint. If you try to use filter, map, or lambda it may be slow with large vectors since python's filter makes a copy of the list/vector being filtered. I can't really help in this regard.

scipy integrate over array with variable bounds

I am trying to integrate a function over a list of point and pass the whole array to an integration function in order ot vectorize the thing. For starters, calling scipy.integrate.quad is way too slow since I have something like 10 000 000 points to integrate. Using scipy.integrate.romberg does the trick much faster, almost instantaneous while quad is slow since you must loop over it or vectorize it.
My function is quite complicated, but for demonstation purpose, let's say I want to integrate x^2 from a to b, but x is an array of scalar to evaluate x. For example
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import quad, romberg
def integrand(x, y):
return x**2 + y**2
quad(integrand, 0, 10, args=(10) # this fails since y is not a scalar
romberg(integrand, 0, 10) # y works here, giving the integral over
# the entire range
But this only work for fixed bounds. Is there a way to do something like
z = np.arange(20,30)
romberg(integrand, 0, z) # Fails since the function doesn't seem to
# support variable bounds
Only way I see it is to re-implement the algorithm itself in numpy and use that instead so I can have variable bounds. Any function that supports something like this? There is also romb, where you must supply the values of integrand directly and a dx interval, but that will be too imprecise for my complicated function (the marcum Q function, couldn't find any implementation, that could be another way to dot it).

The best approach when trying to evaluate a special function is to write a function that uses the properties of the function to quickly and accurately evaluate it in all parameter regimes. It is quite unlikely that a single approach will give accurate (or even stable) results for all ranges of parameters. Direct evaluation of an integral, as in this case, will almost certainly break down in many cases.
That being said, the general problem of evaluating an integral over many ranges can be solved by turning the integral into a differential equation and solving that. Roughly, the steps would be
Given an integral I(t) which I will assume is an integral of a function f(x) from 0 to t [this can be generalized to an arbitrary lower limit], write it as the differential equation dI/dt = f(x).
Solve this differential equation using scipy.integrate.odeint() for some initial conditions (here I(0)) over some range of times from 0 to t. This range should contain all limits of interest. How finely this is sampled depends on the function and how accurately it needs to be evaluated.
The result will be the value of the integral from 0 to t for the set of t we input. We can turn this into a "continuous" function using interpolation. For example, using a spline we can define i = scipy.interpolate.InterpolatedUnivariateSpline(t,I).
Given a set of upper and lower limits in arrays b and a, respectively, then we can evaluate them all at once as res=i(b)-i(a).
Whether this approach will work in your case will require you to carefully study it over your range of parameters. Also note that the Marcum Q function involves a semi-infinite integral. In principle this is not a problem, just transform the integral to one over a finite range. For example, consider the transformation x->1/x. There is no guarantee this approach will be numerically stable for your problem.

Derivative of an array in python?

Currently I have two numpy arrays: x and y of the same size.
I would like to write a function (possibly calling numpy/scipy... functions if they exist):
def derivative(x, y, n = 1):
# something
return result
where result is a numpy array of the same size of x and containing the value of the n-th derivative of y regarding to x (I would like the derivative to be evaluated using several values of y in order to avoid non-smooth results).

This is not a simple problem, but there are a lot of methods that have been devised to handle it. One simple solution is to use finite difference methods. The command numpy.diff() uses finite differencing where you can specify the order of the derivative.
Wikipedia also has a page that lists the needed finite differencing coefficients for different derivatives of different accuracies. If the numpy function doesn't do what you want.
Depending on your application you can also use scipy.fftpack.diff which uses a completely different technique to do the same thing. Though your function needs a well defined Fourier transform.
There are lots and lots and lots of variants (e.g. summation by parts, finite differencing operators, or operators designed to preserve known evolution constants in your system of equations) on both of the two ideas above. What you should do will depend a great deal on what the problem is that you are trying to solve.
The good thing is that there is a lot of work has been done in this field. The Wikipedia page for Numerical Differentiation has some resources (though it is focused on finite differencing techniques).

The findiff project is a Python package that can do derivatives of arrays of any dimension with any desired accuracy order (of course depending on your hardware restrictions). It can handle arrays on uniform as well as non-uniform grids and also create generalizations of derivatives, i.e. general linear combinations of partial derivatives with constant and variable coefficients.

Would something like this solve your problem?
def get_inflection_points(arr, n=1):
"""
returns inflextion points from array
arr: array
n: n-th discrete difference
"""
inflections = []
dx = 0
for i, x in enumerate(np.diff(arr, n)):
if x >= dx and i > 0:
inflections.append(i*n)
dx = x
return inflections

On ordinary differential equations (ODE) and optimization, in Python

I want to solve this kind of problem:
dy/dt = 0.01*y*(1-y), find t when y = 0.8 (0<t<3000)
I've tried the ode function in Python, but it can only calculate y when t is given.
So are there any simple ways to solve this problem in Python?
PS: This function is just a simple example. My real problem is so complex that can't be solve analytically. So I want to know how to solve it numerically. And I think this problem is more like an optimization problem:
Objective function y(t) = 0.8, Subject to dy/dt = 0.01*y*(1-y), and 0<t<3000
PPS: My real problem is:
objective function: F(t) = 0.85,
subject to: F(t) = sqrt(x(t)^2+y(t)^2+z(t)^2),
x''(t) = (1/F(t)-1)*250*x(t),
y''(t) = (1/F(t)-1)*250*y(t),
z''(t) = (1/F(t)-1)*250*z(t)-10,
x(0) = 0, y(0) = 0, z(0) = 0.7,
x'(0) = 0.1, y'(0) = 1.5, z'(0) = 0,
0<t<5

This differential equation can be solved analytically quite easily:
dy/dt = 0.01 * y * (1-y)
rearrange to gather y and t terms on opposite sides
100 dt = 1/(y * (1-y)) dy
The lhs integrates trivially to 100 * t, rhs is slightly more complicated. We can always write a product of two quotients as a sum of the two quotients * some constants:
1/(y * (1-y)) = A/y + B/(1-y)
The values for A and B can be worked out by putting the rhs on the same denominator and comparing constant and first order y terms on both sides. In this case it is simple, A=B=1. Thus we have to integrate
1/y + 1/(1-y) dy
The first term integrates to ln(y), the second term can be integrated with a change of variables u = 1-y to -ln(1-y). Our integrated equation therefor looks like:
100 * t + C = ln(y) - ln(1-y)
not forgetting the constant of integration (it is convenient to write it on the lhs here). We can combine the two logarithm terms:
100 * t + C = ln( y / (1-y) )
In order to solve t for an exact value of y, we first need to work out the value of C. We do this using the initial conditions. It is clear that if y starts at 1, dy/dt = 0 and the value of y never changes. Thus plug in the values for y and t at the beginning
100 * 0 + C = ln( y(0) / (1 - y(0) )
This will give a value for C (assuming y is not 0 or 1) and then use y=0.8 to get a value for t. Note that because of the logarithm and the factor 100 multiplying t y will reach 0.8 within a relatively short range of t values, unless the initial value of y is incredibly small. It is of course also straightforward to rearrange the equation above to express y in terms of t, then you can plot the function as well.
Edit: Numerical integration
For a more complexed ODE which cannot be solved analytically, you will have to try numerically. Initially we only know the value of the function at zero time y(0) (we have to know at least that in order to uniquely define the trajectory of the function), and how to evaluate the gradient. The idea of numerical integration is that we can use our knowledge of the gradient (which tells us how the function is changing) to work out what the value of the function will be in the vicinity of our starting point. The simplest way to do this is Euler integration:
y(dt) = y(0) + dy/dt * dt
Euler integration assumes that the gradient is constant between t=0 and t=dt. Once y(dt) is known, the gradient can be calculated there also and in turn used to calculate y(2 * dt) and so on, gradually building up the complete trajectory of the function. If you are looking for a particular target value, just wait until the trajectory goes past that value, then interpolate between the last two positions to get the precise t.
The problem with Euler integration (and with all other numerical integration methods) is that its results are only accurate when its assumptions are valid. Because the gradient is not constant between pairs of time points, a certain amount of error will arise for each integration step, which over time will build up until the answer is completely inaccurate. In order to improve the quality of the integration, it is necessary to use more sophisticated approximations to the gradient. Check out for example the Runge-Kutta methods, which are a family of integrators which remove progressive orders of error term at the cost of increased computation time. If your function is differentiable, knowing the second or even third derivatives can also be used to reduce the integration error.
Fortunately of course, somebody else has done the hard work here, and you don't have to worry too much about solving problems like numerical stability or have an in depth understanding of all the details (although understanding roughly what is going on helps a lot). Check out http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.integrate.ode.html#scipy.integrate.ode for an example of an integrator class which you should be able to use straightaway. For instance
from scipy.integrate import ode
def deriv(t, y):
return 0.01 * y * (1 - y)
my_integrator = ode(deriv)
my_integrator.set_initial_value(0.5)
t = 0.1 # start with a small value of time
while t < 3000:
y = my_integrator.integrate(t)
if y > 0.8:
print "y(%f) = %f" % (t, y)
break
t += 0.1
This code will print out the first t value when y passes 0.8 (or nothing if it never reaches 0.8). If you want a more accurate value of t, keep the y of the previous t as well and interpolate between them.

As an addition to Krastanov`s answer:
Aside of PyDSTool there are other packages, like Pysundials and Assimulo which provide bindings to the solver IDA from Sundials. This solver has root finding capabilites.

Use scipy.integrate.odeint to handle your integration, and analyse the results afterward.
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import odeint
ts = np.arange(0,3000,1) # time series - start, stop, step
def rhs(y,t):
return 0.01*y*(1-y)
y0 = np.array([1]) # initial value
ys = odeint(rhs,y0,ts)
Then analyse the numpy array ys to find your answer (dimensions of array ts matches ys). (This may not work first time because I am constructing from memory).
This might involve using the scipy interpolate function for the ys array, such that you get a result at time t.
EDIT: I see that you wish to solve a spring in 3D. This should be fine with the above method; Odeint on the scipy website has examples for systems such as coupled springs that can be solved for, and these could be extended.

What you are asking for is a ODE integrator with root finding capabilities. They exist and the low-level code for such integrators is supplied with scipy, but they have not yet been wrapped in python bindings.
For more information see this mailing list post that provides a few alternatives: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/2010-March/024890.html
You can use the following example implementation which uses backtracking (hence it is not optimal as it is a bolt-on addition to an integrator that does not have root finding on its own): https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4904/files