We Keep Coding

2D Heat Conduction with Python

the output of the study///// I just started learning Python, so I am new with python. I have written a simple code for 2D Heat Conduction. I don't know what is the problem with my code. The result is so strange.I think the Temperature distribution is not shown correctly. I have searched about it a lot but unfortunately I could not find any answer for my problem . can anyone help me?
Thank you
# Library
import numpy
from matplotlib import pyplot
# Grid Generation
nx = 200
ny = 200
dx = 2 / (nx-1)
dy = 2 / (ny-1)
# Time Step
nt = 50
alpha = 1
dt = 0.001
# Initial Condition (I.C) and Boundry Condition (B.C)
T = numpy.ones((nx, ny)) # I.C (U = Velocity)
x = numpy.linspace(0,2,nx) # B.C
y = numpy.linspace(0,2,ny) # B.C
Tn = numpy.empty_like(T) #initialize a temporary array
X, Y = numpy.meshgrid(x,y)
T[0, :] = 20 # B.C
T[-1,:] = -100 # B.C
T[:, 0] = 150 # B.C
T[:,-1] = 100 # B.C
# Solver
###Run through nt timesteps
for n in range(nt + 1):
Tn = T.copy()
T[1:-1, 1:-1] = (Tn[1:-1,1:-1] +
((alpha * dt / dx**2) *
(Tn[1:-1, 2:] - 2 * Tn[1:-1, 1:-1] + Tn[1:-1, 0:-2])) +
((alpha * dt / dy**2) *
(Tn[2:,1: -1] - 2 * Tn[1:-1, 1:-1] + Tn[0:-2, 1:-1])))
T[0, :] = 20 # From B.C
T[-1,:] = -100 # From B.C
T[:, 0] = 150 # From B.C
T[:,-1] = 100 # From B.C
fig = pyplot.figure(figsize=(11, 7), dpi=100)
pyplot.contourf(X, Y, T)
pyplot.colorbar()
pyplot.contour(X, Y, T)
pyplot.xlabel('X')
pyplot.ylabel('Y');

You are using a Forward Time Centered Space discretisation scheme to solve your heat equation which is stable if and only if alpha*dt/dx**2 + alpha*dt/dy**2 < 0.5. With your values for dt, dx, dy, and alpha you get
alpha*dt/dx**2 + alpha*dt/dy**2 = 19.8 > 0.5
Which means your numerical solution will diverge very quickly. To get around this you need to make dt smaller and/or dx and dy larger. For example, for dt=2.5e-5 and the rest as before you get alpha*dt/dx**2 + alpha*dt/dy**2 = 0.495, and the solution will look like this after 1000 iterations:
Alternatively, you could use a different discretisation scheme like for ex the API scheme which is unconditionally stable but will be harder to implement.

Solving PDE with implicit euler in python - incorrect output

I will try and explain exactly what's going on and my issue.
This is a bit mathy and SO doesn't support latex, so sadly I had to resort to images. I hope that's okay.
I don't know why it's inverted, sorry about that.
At any rate, this is a linear system Ax = b where we know A and b, so we can find x, which is our approximation at the next time step. We continue doing this until time t_final.
This is the code
import numpy as np
tau = 2 * np.pi
tau2 = tau * tau
i = complex(0,1)
def solution_f(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) + np.exp(tau * i * x) * np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
def solution_g(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) - np.exp(tau * i * x) * np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
for l in range(2, 12):
N = 2 ** l #number of grid points
dx = 1.0 / N #space between grid points
dx2 = dx * dx
dt = dx #time step
t_final = 1
approximate_f = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
approximate_g = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
#Insert initial conditions
for k in range(N):
approximate_f[k, 0] = np.cos(tau * k * dx)
approximate_g[k, 0] = -i * np.sin(tau * k * dx)
#Create coefficient matrix
A = np.zeros((2 * N, 2 * N), dtype = np.complex)
#First row is special
A[0, 0] = 1 -3*i*dt
A[0, N] = ((2 * dt / dx2) + dt) * i
A[0, N + 1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[0, -1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
#Last row is special
A[N - 1, N - 1] = 1 - (3 * dt) * i
A[N - 1, N] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[N - 1, -2] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[N - 1, -1] = ((2 * dt / dx2) + dt) * i
#middle
for k in range(1, N - 1):
A[k, k] = 1 - (3 * dt) * i
A[k, k + N - 1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[k, k + N] = ((2 * dt / dx2) + dt) * i
A[k, k + N + 1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
#Bottom half
A[N :, :N] = A[:N, N:]
A[N:, N:] = A[:N, :N]
Ainv = np.linalg.inv(A)
#Advance through time
time = 0
while time < t_final:
b = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g), axis = 0)
x = np.dot(Ainv, b) #Solve Ax = b
approximate_f = x[:N]
approximate_g = x[N:]
time += dt
approximate_solution = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g), axis=0)
#Calculate the actual solution
actual_f = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
actual_g = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
for k in range(N):
actual_f[k, 0] = solution_f(t_final, k * dx)
actual_g[k, 0] = solution_g(t_final, k * dx)
actual_solution = np.concatenate((actual_f, actual_g), axis = 0)
print(np.sqrt(dx) * np.linalg.norm(actual_solution - approximate_solution))
It doesn't work. At least not in the beginning, it shouldn't start this slow. I should be unconditionally stable and converge to the right answer.
What's going wrong here?

The L2-norm can be a useful metric to test convergence, but isn't ideal when debugging as it doesn't explain what the problem is. Although your solution should be unconditionally stable, backward Euler won't necessarily converge to the right answer. Just like forward Euler is notoriously unstable (anti-dissipative), backward Euler is notoriously dissipative. Plotting your solutions confirms this. The numerical solutions converge to zero. For a next-order approximation, Crank-Nicolson is a reasonable candidate. The code below contains the more general theta-method so that you can tune the implicit-ness of the solution. theta=0.5 gives CN, theta=1 gives BE, and theta=0 gives FE.
A couple other things that I tweaked:
I selected a more appropriate time step of dt = (dx**2)/2 instead of dt = dx. That latter doesn't converge to the right solution using CN.
It's a minor note, but since t_final isn't guaranteed to be a multiple of dt, you weren't comparing solutions at the same time step.
With regards to your comment about it being slow: As you increase the spatial resolution, your time resolution needs to increase too. Even in your case with dt=dx, you have to perform a (1024 x 1024)*1024 matrix multiplication 1024 times. I didn't find this to take particularly long on my machine. I removed some unneeded concatenation to speed it up a bit, but changing the time step to dt = (dx**2)/2 will really bog things down, unfortunately. You could trying compiling with Numba if you are concerned with speed.
All that said, I didn't find tremendous success with the consistency of CN. I had to set N=2^6 to get anything at t_final=1. Increasing t_final makes this worse, decreasing t_final makes it better. Depending on your needs, you could looking into implementing TR-BDF2 or other linear multistep methods to improve this.
The code with a plot is below:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
tau = 2 * np.pi
tau2 = tau * tau
i = complex(0,1)
def solution_f(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) + np.exp(tau * i * x) * np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
def solution_g(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) - np.exp(tau * i * x) *
np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
l=6
N = 2 ** l
dx = 1.0 / N
dx2 = dx * dx
dt = dx2/2
t_final = 1.
x_arr = np.arange(0,1,dx)
approximate_f = np.cos(tau*x_arr)
approximate_g = -i*np.sin(tau*x_arr)
H = np.zeros([2*N,2*N], dtype=np.complex)
for k in range(N):
H[k,k] = -3*i*dt
H[k,k+N] = (2/dx2+1)*i*dt
if k==0:
H[k,N+1] = -i/dx2*dt
H[k,-1] = -i/dx2*dt
elif k==N-1:
H[N-1,N] = -i/dx2*dt
H[N-1,-2] = -i/dx2*dt
else:
H[k,k+N-1] = -i/dx2*dt
H[k,k+N+1] = -i/dx2*dt
### Bottom half
H[N :, :N] = H[:N, N:]
H[N:, N:] = H[:N, :N]
### Theta method. 0.5 -> Crank Nicolson
theta=0.5
A = np.eye(2*N)+H*theta
B = np.eye(2*N)-H*(1-theta)
### Precompute for faster computations
mat = np.linalg.inv(A)#B
t = 0
b = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g))
while t < t_final:
t += dt
b = mat#b
approximate_f = b[:N]
approximate_g = b[N:]
approximate_solution = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g))
#Calculate the actual solution
actual_f = solution_f(t,np.arange(0,1,dx))
actual_g = solution_g(t,np.arange(0,1,dx))
actual_solution = np.concatenate((actual_f, actual_g))
plt.figure(figsize=(7,5))
plt.plot(x_arr,actual_f.real,c="C0",label=r"$Re(f_\mathrm{true})$")
plt.plot(x_arr,actual_f.imag,c="C1",label=r"$Im(f_\mathrm{true})$")
plt.plot(x_arr,approximate_f.real,c="C0",ls="--",label=r"$Re(f_\mathrm{num})$")
plt.plot(x_arr,approximate_f.imag,c="C1",ls="--",label=r"$Im(f_\mathrm{num})$")
plt.legend(loc=3,fontsize=12)
plt.xlabel("x")
plt.savefig("num_approx.png",dpi=150)

I am not going to go through all of your math, but I'm going to offer a suggestion.
The use of a direct calculation for fxx and gxx seems like a good candidate for being numerically unstable. Intuitively a first order method should be expected to make second order mistakes in the terms. Second order mistakes in the individual terms, after passing through that formula, wind up as constant order mistakes in the second derivative. Plus when your step size gets small, you are going to find that a quadratic formula makes even small roundoff mistakes turn into surprisingly large errors.
Instead I would suggest that you start by turning this into a first-order system of 4 functions, f, fx, g, and gx. And then proceed with backward's Euler on that system. Intuitively, with this approach, a first order method creates second order mistakes, which pass through a formula that creates first order mistakes of them. And now you are converging as you should from the start, and are also not as sensitive to propagation of roundoff errors.

How to correctly solve 1D wave equation to get displacement profile (periodic Boundary Condition problem)?

I'm trying to solve a 1D wave equation for the pile with periodic BC (periodic load).
I'm pretty sure about my discretization formulas. The only thing I'm not sure about is the periodic BC and time (t) in there ==> sin(omega*t).
When I set it up as it is right now, it's giving me a weird displacement profile. However, if I set it up to be sin(omega*1) or sin(omega*2),... etc, it resembles a sine wave, but it basically means that sin(omega*t), i.e. sin(2*pi*f*t), is equal to 0 when t is an integer value..
I code everything up in Jupyter Notebook together with the visualization part, but the solution is nowhere near the propagating sine wave.
Here is the relevant Python code:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
def oned_wave(L, dz, T, p0, Ep, ro, f):
"""Solve u_tt=c^2*u_xx on (0,L)x(0,T]"""
"""Assume C = 1"""
p = p0
E = Ep
ro = ro
omega = 2*np.pi*f
c = np.sqrt(E/ro)
C = 1 # Courant number
Nz = int(round(L/dz))
z = np.linspace(0, L, Nz+1) # Mesh points in space
dt = dz/c # Time step based on Courant Number
Nt = int(round(T/dt))
t = np.linspace(0, Nt*dt, Nt+1) # Mesh points in time
C2 = C**2 # Help variable in the scheme
# Make sure dz and dt are compatible with z and t
dz = z[1] - z[0]
dt = t[1] - t[0]
w = np.zeros(Nz+1) # Solution array at new time level
w_n = np.zeros(Nz+1) # Solution at 1 time level back
w_nm1 = np.zeros(Nz+1) # Solution at 2 time levels back
# Set initial condition into w_n
for i in range(0,Nz+1):
w_n[i] = 0
result_matrix = w_n[:] # Solution matrix where each row is displacement at given time step
# Special formula for first time step
for i in range(1, Nz):
w[i] = 0.5*C2 * w_n[i-1] + (1 - C2) * w_n[i] + 0.5*C2 * w_n[i+1]
# Set BC
w[0] = (1 - C2) * w_n[i] + C2 * w_n[i+1] - C2*dz*((p*np.sin(omega*dt))/E) # this is where, I think, the mistake is: sin(omega*t)
w[Nz] = 0
result_matrix = np.vstack((result_matrix, w)) # Append a row to the solution matrix
w_nm1[:] = w_n; w_n[:] = w # Switch variables before next step
for n in range(1, Nt):
# Update all inner points at time t[n+1]
for i in range(1, Nz):
w[i] = - w_nm1[i] + C2 * w_n[i-1] + 2*(1 - C2) * w_n[i] + C2 * w_n[i+1]
# Set BC
w[0] = - w_nm1[i] + 2*(1 - C2) * w_n[i] + 2*C2 * w_n[i+1] - 2*dz*((p*np.sin(omega*(dt*n)))/E) # this is where, I think, the mistake is: sin(omega*t)
w[Nz] = 0
result_matrix = np.vstack((result_matrix, w)) # Append a row to the solution matrix
w_nm1[:] = w_n; w_n[:] = w # Switch variables before next step
return result_matrix
My Jupyter Notebook document.

IndexError: index 10000 is out of bounds for axis 0 with size 10000

For my physics degree, I have to take some Python lessons. I'm an absolute beginner and as such, I can't understand other answers. The code is to plot an object's trajectory with air resistance. I would really appreciate a quick fix - I think it has something to do with the time variable being too small but increasing it doesn't help.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import math # need math module for trigonometric functions
g = 9.81 #gravitational constant
dt = 1e-3 #integration time step (delta t)
v0 = 40 # initial speed at t = 0
angle = math.pi/4 #math.pi = 3.14, launch angle in radians
time = np.arange(0, 10, dt) #time axis
vx0 = math.cos(angle)*v0 # starting velocity along x axis
vy0 = math.sin(angle)*v0 # starting velocity along y axis
xa = vx0*time # compute x coordinates
ya = -0.5*g*time**2 + vy0*time # compute y coordinates
def traj_fric(angle, v0): # function for trajectory
vx0 = math.cos(angle) * v0 # for some launch angle and starting velocity
vy0 = math.sin(angle) * v0 # compute x and y component of starting velocity
x = np.zeros(len(time)) #initialise x and y arrays
y = np.zeros(len(time))
x[0], y[0], 0 #projecitle starts at 0,0
x[1], y[1] = x[0] + vx0 * dt, y[0] + vy0 * dt # second elements of x and
# y are determined by initial
# velocity
i = 1
while y[i] >= 0: # conditional loop continuous until
# projectile hits ground
gamma = 0.005 # constant of friction
height = 100 # height at which air friction disappears
f = 0.5 * gamma * (height - y[i]) * dt
x[i + 1] = (2 * x[i] - x[i - 1] + f * x[i - 1])/1 + f # numerical integration to find x[i + 1]
y[i + 1] = (2 * y[i] - y[i - 1] + f * y[i - 1] - g * dt ** 2)/ 1 + f # and y[i + 1]
i = i + 1 # increment i for next loop
x = x[0:i+1] # truncate x and y arrays
y = y[0:i+1]
return x, y, (dt*i), x[i] # return x, y, flight time, range of projectile
x, y, duration, distance = traj_fric(angle, v0)
fig1 = plt.figure()
plt.plot(xa, ya) # plot y versus x
plt.xlabel ("x")
plt.ylabel ("y")
plt.ylim(0, max(ya)+max(ya)*0.2)
plt.xlim(0, distance+distance*0.1)
plt.show()
print "Distance:" ,distance
print "Duration:" ,duration
n = 5
angles = np.linspace(0, math.pi/2, n)
maxrange = np.zeros(n)
for i in range(n):
x,y, duration, maxrange [i] = traj_fric(angles[i], v0)
angles = angles/2/math.pi*360 #convert rad to degress
print "Optimum angle:", angles[np.where(maxrange==np.max(maxrange))]
The error is:
File "C:/Python27/Lib/site-packages/xy/projectile_fric.py", line 43, in traj_fric
x[i + 1] = (2 * x[i] - x[i - 1] + f * x[i - 1])/1 + f # numerical integration to find x[i + 1]
IndexError: index 10000 is out of bounds for axis 0 with size 10000

This is pretty straightforward. When you have a size of 10000, element index 10000 is out of bounds because indexing begins with 0, not 1. Therefore, the 10,000th element is index 9999, and anything larger than that is out of bounds.

Mason Wheeler's answer told you what Python was telling you. The problem occurs in this loop:
while y[i] >= 0: # conditional loop continuous until
# projectile hits ground
gamma = 0.005 # constant of friction
height = 100 # height at which air friction disappears
f = 0.5 * gamma * (height - y[i]) * dt
x[i + 1] = (2 * x[i] - x[i - 1] + f * x[i - 1])/1 + f # numerical integration to find x[i + 1]
y[i + 1] = (2 * y[i] - y[i - 1] + f * y[i - 1] - g * dt ** 2)/ 1 + f # and y[i + 1]
i = i + 1 # increment i for next loop
The simple fix is to change the loop to something like (I don't know Python syntax, so bear with me):
while (y[i] >= 0) and (i < len(time)):
That will stop the sim when you run out of array, but it will (potentially) also stop the sim with the projectile hanging in mid-air.
What you have here is a very simple ballistic projectile simulation, modeling atmospheric friction as a linear function of altitude. QUALITATIVELY, what is happening is that your projectile is not hitting the ground in the time you allowed, and you are attempting to overrun your tracking arrays. This is caused by failure to allow sufficient time-of-flight. Observe that the greatest possible time-of-flight occurs when atmospheric friction is zero, and it is then trivial to compute a closed-form upper bound for time-of-flight. You then use that upper bound as your time, and you will allocate sufficient array space to simulate the projectile all the way to impact.

enter code heredef data_to_array(total):
random.shuffle(total)
X = np.zeros((len(total_train), 224, 224, 3)).astype('float')
y = []
for i, img_path in enumerate(total):
img = cv2.imread('/content/gdrive/My Drive/PP/Training/COVID/COVID-19 (538).jpg')
img = cv2.resize(img, (224, 224))
X[i] = img - 1
if len(re.findall('covid', '/content/gdrive/My Drive/PP/Training/COVID/COVID-19 (538).jpg')) == 3:
y.append(0)
else:
y.append(1)
y = np.array(y)
return X, y
X_train, y_train = data_to_array(total_train)
X_test, y_test = data_to_array(total_val)

Python implementation of the Wilson Score Interval?

After reading How Not to Sort by Average Rating, I was curious if anyone has a Python implementation of a Lower bound of Wilson score confidence interval for a Bernoulli parameter?

Reddit uses the Wilson score interval for comment ranking, an explanation and python implementation can be found here
#Rewritten code from /r2/r2/lib/db/_sorts.pyx
from math import sqrt
def confidence(ups, downs):
n = ups + downs
if n == 0:
return 0
z = 1.0 #1.44 = 85%, 1.96 = 95%
phat = float(ups) / n
return ((phat + z*z/(2*n) - z * sqrt((phat*(1-phat)+z*z/(4*n))/n))/(1+z*z/n))

I think this one has a wrong wilson call, because if you have 1 up 0 down you get NaN because you can't do a sqrt on the negative value.
The correct one can be found when looking at the ruby example from the article How not to sort by average page:
return ((phat + z*z/(2*n) - z * sqrt((phat*(1-phat)+z*z/(4*n))/n))/(1+z*z/n))

To get the Wilson CI without continuity correction, you can use proportion_confint in statsmodels.stats.proportion. To get the Wilson CI with continuity correction, you can use the code below.
# cf.
# [1] R. G. Newcombe. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion, 1998
# [2] R. G. Newcombe. Interval Estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods, 1998
import numpy as np
from statsmodels.stats.proportion import proportion_confint
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
def propci_wilson_cc(count, nobs, alpha=0.05):
# get confidence limits for proportion
# using wilson score method w/ cont correction
# i.e. Method 4 in Newcombe [1];
# verified via Table 1
from scipy import stats
n = nobs
p = count/n
q = 1.-p
z = stats.norm.isf(alpha / 2.)
z2 = z**2
denom = 2*(n+z2)
num = 2.*n*p+z2-1.-z*np.sqrt(z2-2-1./n+4*p*(n*q+1))
ci_l = num/denom
num = 2.*n*p+z2+1.+z*np.sqrt(z2+2-1./n+4*p*(n*q-1))
ci_u = num/denom
if p == 0:
ci_l = 0.
elif p == 1:
ci_u = 1.
return ci_l, ci_u
def dpropci_wilson_nocc(a,m,b,n,alpha=0.05):
# get confidence limits for difference in proportions
# a/m - b/n
# using wilson score method WITHOUT cont correction
# i.e. Method 10 in Newcombe [2]
# verified via Table II
theta = a/m - b/n
l1, u1 = proportion_confint(count=a, nobs=m, alpha=0.05, method='wilson')
l2, u2 = proportion_confint(count=b, nobs=n, alpha=0.05, method='wilson')
ci_u = theta + np.sqrt((a/m-u1)**2+(b/n-l2)**2)
ci_l = theta - np.sqrt((a/m-l1)**2+(b/n-u2)**2)
return ci_l, ci_u
def dpropci_wilson_cc(a,m,b,n,alpha=0.05):
# get confidence limits for difference in proportions
# a/m - b/n
# using wilson score method w/ cont correction
# i.e. Method 11 in Newcombe [2]
# verified via Table II
theta = a/m - b/n
l1, u1 = propci_wilson_cc(count=a, nobs=m, alpha=alpha)
l2, u2 = propci_wilson_cc(count=b, nobs=n, alpha=alpha)
ci_u = theta + np.sqrt((a/m-u1)**2+(b/n-l2)**2)
ci_l = theta - np.sqrt((a/m-l1)**2+(b/n-u2)**2)
return ci_l, ci_u
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# single proportion testing
# these come from Newcombe [1] (Table 1)
a_vec = np.array([81, 15, 0, 1])
m_vec = np.array([263, 148, 20, 29])
for (a,m) in zip(a_vec,m_vec):
l1, u1 = proportion_confint(count=a, nobs=m, alpha=0.05, method='wilson')
l2, u2 = propci_wilson_cc(count=a, nobs=m, alpha=0.05)
print(a,m,l1,u1,' ',l2,u2)
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# difference in proportions testing
# these come from Newcombe [2] (Table II)
a_vec = np.array([56,9,6,5,0,0,10,10],dtype=float)
m_vec = np.array([70,10,7,56,10,10,10,10],dtype=float)
b_vec = np.array([48,3,2,0,0,0,0,0],dtype=float)
n_vec = np.array([80,10,7,29,20,10,20,10],dtype=float)
print('\nWilson without CC')
for (a,m,b,n) in zip(a_vec,m_vec,b_vec,n_vec):
l, u = dpropci_wilson_nocc(a,m,b,n,alpha=0.05)
print('{:2.0f}/{:2.0f}-{:2.0f}/{:2.0f} ; {:6.4f} ; {:8.4f}, {:8.4f}'.format(a,m,b,n,a/m-b/n,l,u))
print('\nWilson with CC')
for (a,m,b,n) in zip(a_vec,m_vec,b_vec,n_vec):
l, u = dpropci_wilson_cc(a,m,b,n,alpha=0.05)
print('{:2.0f}/{:2.0f}-{:2.0f}/{:2.0f} ; {:6.4f} ; {:8.4f}, {:8.4f}'.format(a,m,b,n,a/m-b/n,l,u))
HTH

The accepted solution seems to use a hard-coded z-value (best for performance).
In the event that you wanted a direct python equivalent of the ruby formula from the blogpost with a dynamic z-value (based on the confidence interval):
import math
import scipy.stats as st
def ci_lower_bound(pos, n, confidence):
if n == 0:
return 0
z = st.norm.ppf(1 - (1 - confidence) / 2)
phat = 1.0 * pos / n
return (phat + z * z / (2 * n) - z * math.sqrt((phat * (1 - phat) + z * z / (4 * n)) / n)) / (1 + z * z / n)

If you'd like to actually calculate z directly from a confidence bound and want to avoid installing numpy/scipy, you can use the following snippet of code,
import math
def binconf(p, n, c=0.95):
'''
Calculate binomial confidence interval based on the number of positive and
negative events observed. Uses Wilson score and approximations to inverse
of normal cumulative density function.
Parameters
----------
p: int
number of positive events observed
n: int
number of negative events observed
c : optional, [0,1]
confidence percentage. e.g. 0.95 means 95% confident the probability of
success lies between the 2 returned values
Returns
-------
theta_low : float
lower bound on confidence interval
theta_high : float
upper bound on confidence interval
'''
p, n = float(p), float(n)
N = p + n
if N == 0.0: return (0.0, 1.0)
p = p / N
z = normcdfi(1 - 0.5 * (1-c))
a1 = 1.0 / (1.0 + z * z / N)
a2 = p + z * z / (2 * N)
a3 = z * math.sqrt(p * (1-p) / N + z * z / (4 * N * N))
return (a1 * (a2 - a3), a1 * (a2 + a3))
def erfi(x):
"""Approximation to inverse error function"""
a = 0.147 # MAGIC!!!
a1 = math.log(1 - x * x)
a2 = (
2.0 / (math.pi * a)
+ a1 / 2.0
)
return (
sign(x) *
math.sqrt( math.sqrt(a2 * a2 - a1 / a) - a2 )
)
def sign(x):
if x < 0: return -1
if x == 0: return 0
if x > 0: return 1
def normcdfi(p, mu=0.0, sigma2=1.0):
"""Inverse CDF of normal distribution"""
if mu == 0.0 and sigma2 == 1.0:
return math.sqrt(2) * erfi(2 * p - 1)
else:
return mu + math.sqrt(sigma2) * normcdfi(p)

Here is a simplified (no need for numpy) and slightly improved (0 and n values for k do not cause a math domain error) version of the Wilson score confidence interval with continuity correction, from the original sourcecode written by batesbatesbates in another answer, and also a pure python no-numpy non-continuity correction version, with 2 equivalent ways to calculate (can be switched with eqmode argument, but both ways give the exact same non-continuity correction results):
import math
def propci_wilson_nocc(k, n, z=1.96, eqmode=0):
# Calculates the Binomial Proportion Confidence Interval using the Wilson Score method without continuation correction
# Equations eqmode == 1 from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Binomial_proportion_confidence_interval&oldid=1101942017#Wilson_score_interval
# Equations eqmode == 0 from: https://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html
# The results should be close to:
# from statsmodels.stats.proportion import proportion_confint
# proportion_confint(k, n, alpha=0.05, method='wilson')
#z=1.44 = 85%, 1.96 = 95%
if n == 0:
return 0
p_hat = float(k) / n
z2 = z**2
if eqmode == 0:
ci_l = (p_hat + z2/(2*n) - z*math.sqrt(max(0.0, (p_hat*(1 - p_hat) + z2/(4*n))/n))) / (1 + z2 / n)
else:
ci_l = (1.0 / (1.0 + z2/n)) * (p_hat + z2/(2*n)) - (z / (1 + z2/n)) * math.sqrt(max(0.0, (p_hat*(1 - p_hat)/n + z2/(4*(n**2)))))
if eqmode == 0:
ci_u = (p_hat + z2/(2*n) + z*math.sqrt(max(0.0, (p_hat*(1 - p_hat) + z2/(4*n))/n))) / (1 + z2 / n)
else:
ci_u = (1.0 / (1.0 + z2/n)) * (p_hat + z2/(2*n)) + (z / (1 + z2/n)) * math.sqrt(max(0.0, (p_hat*(1 - p_hat)/n + z2/(4*(n**2)))))
return [ci_l, ci_u]
def propci_wilson_cc(n, k, z=1.96):
# Calculates the Binomial Proportion Confidence Interval using the Wilson Score method with continuation correction
# i.e. Method 4 in Newcombe [1]: R. G. Newcombe. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion, 1998;
# verified via Table 1
# originally written by batesbatesbates https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10029588/python-implementation-of-the-wilson-score-interval/74021634#74021634
p_hat = k/n
q = 1.0-p
z2 = z**2
denom = 2*(n+z2)
num = 2.0*n*p_hat + z2 - 1.0 - z*math.sqrt(max(0.0, z2 - 2 - 1.0/n + 4*p_hat*(n*q + 1)))
ci_l = num/denom
num2 = 2.0*n*p_hat + z2 + 1.0 + z*math.sqrt(max(0.0, z2 + 2 - 1.0/n + 4*p_hat*(n*q - 1)))
ci_u = num2/denom
if p_hat == 0:
ci_l = 0.0
elif p_hat == 1:
ci_u = 1.0
return [ci_l, ci_u]
Note that the returned value will always be bounded between [0.0, 1.0] (due to how p_hat is a ratio of k/n), this is why it's a score and not really a confidence interval, but it's easy to project back to a confidence interval by multiplying ci_l * n and ci_u * n, these values will be in the same domain as k and can be plotted alongside.

Here is a much more readable version for how to compute the Wilson Score interval without continuity correction, by Bartosz Mikulski:
from math import sqrt
def wilson(p, n, z = 1.96):
denominator = 1 + z**2/n
centre_adjusted_probability = p + z*z / (2*n)
adjusted_standard_deviation = sqrt((p*(1 - p) + z*z / (4*n)) / n)
lower_bound = (centre_adjusted_probability - z*adjusted_standard_deviation) / denominator
upper_bound = (centre_adjusted_probability + z*adjusted_standard_deviation) / denominator
return (lower_bound, upper_bound)