Related
I am looking for a way to set a fixed step size for solving my initial value problem by Runge-Kutta method in Python. Accordingly, how I can tell the scipy.integrate.RK45 to keep a constant update (step size) for its integration procedure?
Thank you very much.
Scipy.integrate is usually used with changeable step method by controlling the TOL(one step error) while integrating numerically. The TOL is usually computed by checking with another numerical method. For example RK45 uses the 5th order Runge-Kutta to check the TOL of the 4th order Runge-Kutta method to determine the integrating step.
Hence if you must integrate ODEs with fixed step, just turn off the TOL check by setting atol, rtol with a rather large constant. For example, like the form:
solve_ivp(your function, t_span=[0, 10], y0=..., method="RK45", max_step=0.01, atol = 1, rtol = 1)
The TOL check is set to be so large that the integrating step would be the max_step you choose.
It is quite easy to code the Butcher tableau for the Dormand-Prince RK45 method.
0
1/5 | 1/5
3/10 | 3/40 9/40
4/5 | 44/45 −56/15 32/9
8/9 | 19372/6561 −25360/2187 64448/6561 −212/729
1 | 9017/3168 −355/33 46732/5247 49/176 −5103/18656
1 | 35/384 0 500/1113 125/192 −2187/6784 11/84
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 35/384 0 500/1113 125/192 −2187/6784 11/84 0
| 5179/57600 0 7571/16695 393/640 −92097/339200 187/2100 1/40
first in a function for a single step
import numpy as np
def DoPri45Step(f,t,x,h):
k1 = f(t,x)
k2 = f(t + 1./5*h, x + h*(1./5*k1) )
k3 = f(t + 3./10*h, x + h*(3./40*k1 + 9./40*k2) )
k4 = f(t + 4./5*h, x + h*(44./45*k1 - 56./15*k2 + 32./9*k3) )
k5 = f(t + 8./9*h, x + h*(19372./6561*k1 - 25360./2187*k2 + 64448./6561*k3 - 212./729*k4) )
k6 = f(t + h, x + h*(9017./3168*k1 - 355./33*k2 + 46732./5247*k3 + 49./176*k4 - 5103./18656*k5) )
v5 = 35./384*k1 + 500./1113*k3 + 125./192*k4 - 2187./6784*k5 + 11./84*k6
k7 = f(t + h, x + h*v5)
v4 = 5179./57600*k1 + 7571./16695*k3 + 393./640*k4 - 92097./339200*k5 + 187./2100*k6 + 1./40*k7;
return v4,v5
and then in a standard fixed-step loop
def DoPri45integrate(f, t, x0):
N = len(t)
x = [x0]
for k in range(N-1):
v4, v5 = DoPri45Step(f,t[k],x[k],t[k+1]-t[k])
x.append(x[k] + (t[k+1]-t[k])*v5)
return np.array(x)
Then test it for some toy example with known exact solution y(t)=sin(t)
def mms_ode(t,y): return np.array([ y[1], sin(sin(t))-sin(t)-sin(y[0]) ])
mms_x0 = [0.0, 1.0]
and plot the error scaled by h^5
for h in [0.2, 0.1, 0.08, 0.05, 0.01][::-1]:
t = np.arange(0,20,h);
y = DoPri45integrate(mms_ode,t,mms_x0)
plt.plot(t, (y[:,0]-np.sin(t))/h**5, 'o', ms=3, label = "h=%.4f"%h);
plt.grid(); plt.legend(); plt.show()
to get the confirmation that this is indeed an order 5 method, as the graphs of the error coefficients come close together.
By looking at the implementation of the step, you'll find that the best you can do is to control the initial step size (within the bounds set by the minimum and maximum step size) by setting the attribute h_abs prior to calling RK45.step:
In [27]: rk = RK45(lambda t, y: t, 0, [0], 1e6)
In [28]: rk.h_abs = 30
In [29]: rk.step()
In [30]: rk.step_size
Out[30]: 30.0
If you are interested in data-wise fix step size, then I highly recommend you to use the scipy.integrate.solve_ivp function and its t_eval argument.
This function wraps up all of the scipy.integrate ode solvers in one function, thus you have to choose the method by giving value to its method argument. Fortunately, the default method is the RK45, so you don't have to bother with that.
What is more interesting for you is the t_eval argument, where you have to give a flat array. The function samples the solution curve at t_eval values and only returns these points. So if you want a uniform sampling by the step size then just give the t_eval argument the following: numpy.linspace(t0, tf, samplingResolution), where t0 is the start and tf is the end of the simulation.
Thusly you can have uniform sampling without having to resort fix step size that causes instability for some ODEs.
You've said you want a fixed-time step behaviour, not just a fixed evluation time step. Therefore, you have to "hack" your way through that if you not want to reimplement the solver yourself. Just set the integration tolerances atol and rtol to 1e90, and max_step and first_step to the value dt of the time step you want to use. This way the estimated integration error will always be very small, thus tricking the solver into not shrinking the time step dynamically.
However, only use this trick with EXPLICIT algortithms (RK23,RK45,DOP853) !
The implicit algorithms from "solve_ivp" (Radau, BDF, maybe LSODA as well) adjust the precision of the nonlinear Newton solver according to atol and rtol, therefore you might end up having a solution which does not make any sense...
I suggest to write your own rk4 fixed step program in py. There are many internet examples to help. That guarantees that you know precisely how each value is being computed. Furthermore, there will normally be no 0/0 calculations and if so they will be easy to trace and prompt another look at the ode's being solved.
I was given two equations one for the growth healthy people in the population,
dh/dt=-.05*h*s+.0003*h,
and the other equation is for the infection rate of sick people
ds/dt=.05*h*s-.01*s.
assume that after 10 days of being infected the people die.
for initial variables h=9000 and s=100
using the differential equations generate a figure predicting the impact of the out come of the infection on the population. It was suggested that eulers method be used, how would I use Eulers method using multiple differential equations? or is there a better method you would suggest and how would you use it?
In python you would use, for instance, scipy.integrate.odeint and compute
def odesys(u,t):
h, s = u
return [ -.05*h*s+.0003*h, .05*h*s-.01*s]
h0, s0 = 9000, 100
t0, tf = 0, 0.10
t = linspace(t0, tf, 301)
sol = odeint(odesys, [h0, s0], t)
h, s = sol.T
plot(t,h, label="healthy")
plot(t,s, label="sick")
And if you have to use Euler, using the same interface if would look like
def odeinteuler(f, y0, tspan):
y = zeros([len(tspan),len(y0)])
y[0,:]=y0
for k in range(1, len(tspan)):
y[k,:] = y[k-1,:]+(t[k]-t[k-1])*array(f(y[k-1], t[k-1]))
return y
sol = odeint(odesys, [h0, s0], t)
I am trying to solve this differential equation as part of my assignment. I am not able to understand on how can i put the condition for u in the code. In the code shown below, i arbitrarily provided
u = 5.
2dx(t)dt=−x(t)+u(t)
5dy(t)dt=−y(t)+x(t)
u=2S(t−5)
x(0)=0
y(0)=0
where S(t−5) is a step function that changes from zero to one at t=5. When it is multiplied by two, it changes from zero to two at that same time, t=5.
def model(x,t,u):
dxdt = (-x+u)/2
return dxdt
def model2(y,x,t):
dydt = -(y+x)/5
return dydt
x0 = 0
y0 = 0
u = 5
t = np.linspace(0,40)
x = odeint(model,x0,t,args=(u,))
y = odeint(model2,y0,t,args=(u,))
plt.plot(t,x,'r-')
plt.plot(t,y,'b*')
plt.show()
I do not know the SciPy Library very well, but regarding the example in the documentation I would try something like this:
def model(x, t, K, PT)
"""
The model consists of the state x in R^2, the time in R and the two
parameters K and PT regarding the input u as step function, where K
is the infimum of u and PT is the delay of the step.
"""
x1, x2 = x # Split the state into two variables
u = K if t>=PT else 0 # This is the system input
# Here comes the differential equation in vectorized form
dx = [(-x1 + u)/2,
(-x2 + x1)/5]
return dx
x0 = [0, 0]
K = 2
PT = 5
t = np.linspace(0,40)
x = odeint(model, x0, t, args=(K, PT))
plt.plot(t, x[:, 0], 'r-')
plt.plot(t, x[:, 1], 'b*')
plt.show()
You have a couple of issues here, and the step function is only a small part of it. You can define a step function with a simple lambda and then simply capture it from the outer scope without even passing it to your function. Because sometimes that won't be the case, we'll be explicit and pass it.
Your next problem is the order of arguments in the function to integrate. As per the docs (y,t,...). Ie, First the function, then the time vector, then the other args arguments. So for the first part we get:
u = lambda t : 2 if t>5 else 0
def model(x,t,u):
dxdt = (-x+u(t))/2
return dxdt
x0 = 0
y0 = 0
t = np.linspace(0,40)
x = odeint(model,x0,t,args=(u,))
Moving to the next part, the trouble is, you can't feed x as an arg to y because it's a vector of values for x(t) for particular times and so y+x doesn't make sense in the function as you wrote it. You can follow your intuition from math class if you pass an x function instead of the x values. Doing so requires that you interpolate the x values using the specific time values you are interested in (which scipy can handle, no problem):
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
xfunc = interp1d(t.flatten(),x.flatten(),fill_value="extrapolate")
#flatten cuz the shape is off , extrapolate because odeint will go out of bounds
def model2(y,t,x):
dydt = -(y+x(t))/5
return dydt
y = odeint(model2,y0,t,args=(xfunc,))
Then you get:
#Sven's answer is more idiomatic for vector programming like scipy/numpy. But I hope my answer provides a clearer path from what you know already to a working solution.
I currently have a system of odes with a time-dependent constant. E.g.
def fun(u, t, a, b, c):
x = u[0]
y = u[1]
z = u[2]
dx_dt = a * x + y * z
dy_dt = b * (y-z)
dz_dt = -x*y+c*y-z
return [dx_dt, dy_dt, dz_dt]
The constants are "a", "b" and "c". I currently have a list of "a"s for every time-step which I would like to insert at every time-step, when using the scipy ode solver...is this possible?
Thanks!
Yes, this is possible. In the case where a is constant, I guess you called scipy.integrate.odeint(fun, u0, t, args) where fun is defined as in your question, u0 = [x0, y0, z0] is the initial condition, t is a sequence of time points for which to solve for the ODE and args = (a, b, c) are the extra arguments to pass to fun.
In the case where a depends on time, you simply have to reconsider a as a function, for example (given a constant a0):
def a(t):
return a0 * t
Then you will have to modify fun which computes the derivative at each time step to take the previous change into account:
def fun(u, t, a, b, c):
x = u[0]
y = u[1]
z = u[2]
dx_dt = a(t) * x + y * z # A change on this line: a -> a(t)
dy_dt = b * (y - z)
dz_dt = - x * y + c * y - z
return [dx_dt, dy_dt, dz_dt]
Eventually, note that u0, t and args remain unchanged and you can again call scipy.integrate.odeint(fun, u0, t, args).
A word about the correctness of this approach. The performance of the approximation of the numerical integration is affected, I don't know precisely how (no theoretical guarantees) but here is a simple example which works:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import scipy as sp
import scipy.integrate
tmax = 10.0
def a(t):
if t < tmax / 2.0:
return ((tmax / 2.0) - t) / (tmax / 2.0)
else:
return 1.0
def func(x, t, a):
return - (x - a(t))
x0 = 0.8
t = np.linspace(0.0, tmax, 1000)
args = (a,)
y = sp.integrate.odeint(func, x0, t, args)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.add_subplot(111)
h1, = ax.plot(t, y)
h2, = ax.plot(t, [a(s) for s in t])
ax.legend([h1, h2], ["y", "a"])
ax.set_xlabel("t")
ax.grid()
plt.show()
I Hope this will help you.
No, that is not possible in the literal sense of
"I currently have a list of "a"s for every time-step which I would like to insert at every time-step"
as the solver has adaptive step size control, that is, it will use internal time steps that you have no control over, and each time step uses several evaluations of the function. Thus there is no connection between the solver time steps and the data time steps.
In the extended sense that the given data defines a piecewise constant step function however, there are several approaches to get to a solution.
You can integrate from jump point to jump point, using the ODE function with the constant parameter for this time segment. After that use numpy array operations like concatenate to assemble the full solution.
You can use interpolation functions like numpy.interp or scipy.interpolate.interp1d. The first gives a piecewise linear interpolation, which may not be desired here. The second returns a function object that can be configured to be a "zero-order hold", which is a piecewise constant step function.
You could implement your own logic to go from the time t to the correct values of those parameters. This mostly applies if there is some structure to the data, for instance, if they have the form f(int(t/h)).
Note that the approximation order of the numerical integration is not only bounded by the order of the RK (solve_ivp) or multi-step (odeint) method, but also by the differentiability order of the (parts of) the differential equation. If the ODE is much less smooth than the order of the method, the implicit assumptions for the step size control mechanism are violated, which may result in a very small step size requiring a huge number of integration steps.
I also encountered similar problem. In my case, parameters a, b, and c are not in direct function with time, but determined by x, y, and z at that time. So I have to get x, y, z at time t, and calculate a, b, c for the integration calculation for x, y, z at t+dt. It turns out that if I change dt value, the whole integration result will change dramatically, even to something unreasonable.
I have a function which is actually a call to another program (some Fortran code). When I call this function (run_moog) I can parse 4 variables, and it returns 6 values. These values should all be close to 0 (in order to minimize). However, I combined them like this: np.sum(results**2). Now I have a scalar function. I would like to minimize this function, i.e. get the np.sum(results**2) as close to zero as possible.
Note: When this function (run_moog) takes the 4 input parameters, it creates an input file for the Fortran code that depends on these parameters.
I have tried several ways to optimize this from the scipy docs. But none works as expected. The minimization should be able to have bounds on the 4 variables. Here is an attempt:
from scipy.optimize import minimize # Tried others as well from the docs
x0 = 4435, 3.54, 0.13, 2.4
bounds = [(4000, 6000), (3.00, 4.50), (-0.1, 0.1), (0.0, None)]
a = minimize(fun_mmog, x0, bounds=bounds, method='L-BFGS-B') # I've tried several different methods here
print a
This then gives me
status: 0
success: True
nfev: 5
fun: 2.3194639999999964
x: array([ 4.43500000e+03, 3.54000000e+00, 1.00000000e-01,
2.40000000e+00])
message: 'CONVERGENCE: NORM_OF_PROJECTED_GRADIENT_<=_PGTOL'
jac: array([ 0., 0., -54090399.99999981, 0.])
nit: 0
The third parameter changes slightly, while the others are exactly the same. Also there have been 5 function calls (nfev) but no iterations (nit). The output from scipy is shown here.
Couple of possibilities:
Try COBYLA. It should be derivative-free, and supports inequality constraints.
You can't use different epsilons via the normal interface; so try scaling your first variable by 1e4. (Divide it going in, multiply coming back out.)
Skip the normal automatic jacobian constructor, and make your own:
Say you're trying to use SLSQP, and you don't provide a jacobian function. It makes one for you. The code for it is in approx_jacobian in slsqp.py. Here's a condensed version:
def approx_jacobian(x,func,epsilon,*args):
x0 = asfarray(x)
f0 = atleast_1d(func(*((x0,)+args)))
jac = zeros([len(x0),len(f0)])
dx = zeros(len(x0))
for i in range(len(x0)):
dx[i] = epsilon
jac[i] = (func(*((x0+dx,)+args)) - f0)/epsilon
dx[i] = 0.0
return jac.transpose()
You could try replacing that loop with:
for (i, e) in zip(range(len(x0)), epsilon):
dx[i] = e
jac[i] = (func(*((x0+dx,)+args)) - f0)/e
dx[i] = 0.0
You can't provide this as the jacobian to minimize, but fixing it up for that is straightforward:
def construct_jacobian(func,epsilon):
def jac(x, *args):
x0 = asfarray(x)
f0 = atleast_1d(func(*((x0,)+args)))
jac = zeros([len(x0),len(f0)])
dx = zeros(len(x0))
for i in range(len(x0)):
dx[i] = epsilon
jac[i] = (func(*((x0+dx,)+args)) - f0)/epsilon
dx[i] = 0.0
return jac.transpose()
return jac
You can then call minimize like:
minimize(fun_mmog, x0,
jac=construct_jacobian(fun_mmog, [1e0, 1e-4, 1e-4, 1e-4]),
bounds=bounds, method='SLSQP')
It sounds like your target function doesn't have well-behaving derivatives. The line in the output jac: array([ 0., 0., -54090399.99999981, 0.]) means that changing only the third variable value is significant. And because the derivative w.r.t. to this variable is virtually infinite, there is probably something wrong in the function. That is also why the third variable value ends up in its maximum.
I would suggest that you take a look at the derivatives, at least in a few points in your parameter space. Compute them using finite differences and the default step size of SciPy's fmin_l_bfgs_b, 1e-8. Here is an example of how you could compute the derivates.
Try also plotting your target function. For instance, keep two of the parameters constant and let the two others vary. If the function has multiple local optima, you shouldn't use gradient-based methods like BFGS.
How difficult is it to get an analytical expression for the gradient? If you have that you can then approximate the product of Hessian with a vector using finite difference. Then you can use other optimization routines available.
Among the various optimization routines available in SciPy, the one called TNC (Newton Conjugate Gradient with Truncation) is quite robust to the numerical values associated with the problem.
The Nelder-Mead Simplex Method (suggested by Cristián Antuña in the comments above) is well known to be a good choice for optimizing (posibly ill-behaved) functions with no knowledge of derivatives (see Numerical Recipies In C, Chapter 10).
There are two somewhat specific aspects to your question. The first is the constraints on the inputs, and the second is a scaling problem. The following suggests solutions to these points, but you might need to manually iterate between them a few times until things work.
Input Constraints
Assuming your input constraints form a convex region (as your examples above indicate, but I'd like to generalize it a bit), then you can write a function
is_in_bounds(p):
# Return if p is in the bounds
Using this function, assume that the algorithm wants to move from point from_ to point to, where from_ is known to be in the region. Then the following function will efficiently find the furthermost point on the line between the two points on which it can proceed:
from numpy.linalg import norm
def progress_within_bounds(from_, to, eps):
"""
from_ -- source (in region)
to -- target point
eps -- Eucliedan precision along the line
"""
if norm(from_, to) < eps:
return from_
mid = (from_ + to) / 2
if is_in_bounds(mid):
return progress_within_bounds(mid, to, eps)
return progress_within_bounds(from_, mid, eps)
(Note that this function can be optimized for some regions, but it's hardly worth the bother, as it doesn't even call your original object function, which is the expensive one.)
One of the nice aspects of Nelder-Mead is that the function does a series of steps which are so intuitive. Some of these points can obviously throw you out of the region, but it's easy to modify this. Here is an implementation of Nelder Mead with modifications made marked between pairs of lines of the form ##################################################################:
import copy
'''
Pure Python/Numpy implementation of the Nelder-Mead algorithm.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelder%E2%80%93Mead_method
'''
def nelder_mead(f, x_start,
step=0.1, no_improve_thr=10e-6, no_improv_break=10, max_iter=0,
alpha = 1., gamma = 2., rho = -0.5, sigma = 0.5):
'''
#param f (function): function to optimize, must return a scalar score
and operate over a numpy array of the same dimensions as x_start
#param x_start (numpy array): initial position
#param step (float): look-around radius in initial step
#no_improv_thr, no_improv_break (float, int): break after no_improv_break iterations with
an improvement lower than no_improv_thr
#max_iter (int): always break after this number of iterations.
Set it to 0 to loop indefinitely.
#alpha, gamma, rho, sigma (floats): parameters of the algorithm
(see Wikipedia page for reference)
'''
# init
dim = len(x_start)
prev_best = f(x_start)
no_improv = 0
res = [[x_start, prev_best]]
for i in range(dim):
x = copy.copy(x_start)
x[i] = x[i] + step
score = f(x)
res.append([x, score])
# simplex iter
iters = 0
while 1:
# order
res.sort(key = lambda x: x[1])
best = res[0][1]
# break after max_iter
if max_iter and iters >= max_iter:
return res[0]
iters += 1
# break after no_improv_break iterations with no improvement
print '...best so far:', best
if best < prev_best - no_improve_thr:
no_improv = 0
prev_best = best
else:
no_improv += 1
if no_improv >= no_improv_break:
return res[0]
# centroid
x0 = [0.] * dim
for tup in res[:-1]:
for i, c in enumerate(tup[0]):
x0[i] += c / (len(res)-1)
# reflection
xr = x0 + alpha*(x0 - res[-1][0])
##################################################################
##################################################################
xr = progress_within_bounds(x0, x0 + alpha*(x0 - res[-1][0]), prog_eps)
##################################################################
##################################################################
rscore = f(xr)
if res[0][1] <= rscore < res[-2][1]:
del res[-1]
res.append([xr, rscore])
continue
# expansion
if rscore < res[0][1]:
xe = x0 + gamma*(x0 - res[-1][0])
##################################################################
##################################################################
xe = progress_within_bounds(x0, x0 + gamma*(x0 - res[-1][0]), prog_eps)
##################################################################
##################################################################
escore = f(xe)
if escore < rscore:
del res[-1]
res.append([xe, escore])
continue
else:
del res[-1]
res.append([xr, rscore])
continue
# contraction
xc = x0 + rho*(x0 - res[-1][0])
##################################################################
##################################################################
xc = progress_within_bounds(x0, x0 + rho*(x0 - res[-1][0]), prog_eps)
##################################################################
##################################################################
cscore = f(xc)
if cscore < res[-1][1]:
del res[-1]
res.append([xc, cscore])
continue
# reduction
x1 = res[0][0]
nres = []
for tup in res:
redx = x1 + sigma*(tup[0] - x1)
score = f(redx)
nres.append([redx, score])
res = nres
Note This implementation is GPL, which is either fine for you or not. It's extremely easy to modify NM from any pseudocode, though, and you might want to throw in simulated annealing in any case.
Scaling
This is a trickier problem, but jasaarim has made an interesting point regarding that. Once the modified NM algorithm has found a point, you might want to run matplotlib.contour while fixing a few dimensions, in order to see how the function behaves. At this point, you might want to rescale one or more of the dimensions, and rerun the modified NM.
–