We Keep Coding

Differents results from create function in a different way - only length-1 arrays can be converted to Python scalars

I have defined the following functions in python:
from math import *
import numpy as np
import cmath
def BSM_CF(u, s0, T, r, sigma):
realp = -0.5*u**2*sigma**2*T
imagp = u*(s0+(r-0.5*sigma**2)*T)
zc = complex(realp, imagp)
return cmath.exp(zc)
def BSM_characteristic_function(v, x0, T, r, sigma):
cf_value = np.exp(((x0 / T + r - 0.5 * sigma ** 2) * 1j * v -
0.5 * sigma ** 2 * v ** 2) * T)
return cf_value
Parameters:
alpha = 1.5
K = 90
S0 = 100
T = 1
r = 0.05
sigma = 0.2
k = np.log(K / S0)
s0 = np.log(S0 / S0)
g = 1 # factor to increase accuracy
N = 2 ** 2
eta = 0.15
eps = (2*np.pi)/(N*eta)
b = 0.5 * N * eps - k
u = np.arange(1, N + 1, 1)
vo = eta * (u - 1)
v = vo - (alpha + 1) * 1j
BSMCF = BSM_characteristic_function(v, s0, T, r, sigma)
BSMCF_v2 = BSM_CF(0, s0, T, r, sigma)
print(BSMCF)
print(BSMCF_v2)
Both are the same functions. But, I get different results. How can I fix the function BSM_CF to get the same result from the function BSM_characteristic_function? The idea is get an array with len 4 values as in the funtion BSM_characteristic_function

Your calls are not identical. You are passing v in the first call and 0 in the second call. If I pass 0 for both, the results are identical. If I pass v, it complains because you can't call complex on a vector.

Numeric computation is Not always identical to symbolic algebra. For the first formula, you use complex computation as an alternative, which could result rounding errors in complex part. I came across such mistakes quite often as I used Mathematica, which loves to transfer a real formula to a complex one before doing the numeric computation.

How can I plot a 3D graph of a multivariate integral function, and find its global minima

I have a cost function f(r, Q), which is obtained in the code below. The cost function f(r, Q) is a function of two variables r and Q. I want to plot the values of the cost function for all values of r and Q in the range given below and also find the global minimum value of f(r, Q).
The range of r and Q are respectively :
0 < r < 5000
5000 < Q < 15000
The plot should be in r, Q and f(r,Q) axis.
Code for the cost function:
from numpy import sqrt, pi, exp
from scipy import optimize
from scipy.integrate import quad
import numpy as np
mean, std = 295, 250
l = 7
m = 30
p = 15
w = 7
K = 100
c = 5
h = 0.001 # per unit per day
# defining Cumulative distribution function
def cdf(x):
cdf_eqn = lambda t: (1 / (std * sqrt(2 * pi))) * exp(-(((t - mean) ** 2) / (2 * std ** 2)))
cdf = quad(cdf_eqn, -np.inf, x)[0]
return cdf
# defining Probability density function
def pdf(x):
return (1 / (std * sqrt(2 * pi))) * exp(-(((x - mean) ** 2) / (2 * std ** 2)))
# getting the equation in place
def G(r, Q):
return K + c * Q \
+ w * (quad(cdf, 0, Q)[0] + quad(lambda x: cdf(r + Q - x) * cdf(x), 0, r)[0]) \
+ p * (mean * l - r + quad(cdf, 0, r)[0])
def CL(r, Q):
return (Q - r + mean * l - quad(cdf, 0, Q)[0]
- quad(lambda x: cdf(r + Q - x) * cdf(x), 0, r)[0]
+ quad(cdf, 0, r)[0]) / mean
def I(r, Q):
return h * (Q + r - mean * l - quad(cdf, 0, Q)[0]
- quad(lambda x: cdf(r + Q - x) * cdf(x), 0, r)[0]
+ quad(cdf, 0, r)[0]) / 2
def f(params):
r, Q = params
TC = G(r, Q)/CL(r, Q) + I(r, Q)
return TC
How to plot this function f(r,Q) in a 3D plot and also get the global minima or minimas and values of r and Q at that particular point.
Additionally, I already tried using scipy.optimize.minimize to minimise the cost function f(r, Q) but the problem I am facing is that, it outputs the results - almost same as the initial guess given in the parameters for optimize.minimize. Here is the code for minimizing the function:
initial_guess = [2500., 10000.]
result = optimize.minimize(f, initial_guess, bounds=[(1, 5000), (5000, 15000)], tol=1e-3)
print(result)
Output:
fun: 2712.7698818644253
hess_inv: <2x2 LbfgsInvHessProduct with dtype=float64>
jac: array([-0.01195986, -0.01273293])
message: b'CONVERGENCE: REL_REDUCTION_OF_F_<=_FACTR*EPSMCH'
nfev: 6
nit: 1
status: 0
success: True
x: array([ 2500.01209628, 10000.0127784 ])
The output x: array([ 2500.01209628, 10000.0127784 ]) - Which I doubt is the real answer and also it is almost same as the initial guess provided. Am I doing anything wrong in minimizing or is there any other way to do it? So I want to plot the cost function and look around for myself.
It could be great if I can have an interactive plot to play around with

My answer is concerned only with plotting but in the end I'll comment on the issue of minimax.
For what you need a 3D surface plot is, imho, overkill, I'll show you instead show the use of contourf and contour to have a good idea of what is going on with your function.
First, the code — key points:
your code, as is, cannot be executed in a vector context, so I wrote an explicit loop to compute the values,
due to Matplotib design, the x axis of matrix data is associated on columns, this has to be accounted for,
the results of the countour and contourf must be saved because they are needed for the labels and the color bar, respectively,
no labels or legends because I don't know what you are doing.
That said, here it is the code
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from numpy import sqrt, pi, exp
from scipy.integrate import quad
mean, std = 295, 250
l, m, p = 7, 30, 15
w, K, c = 7, 100, 5
h = 0.001 # per unit per day
# defining Cumulative distribution function
def cdf(x):
cdf_eqn = lambda t: (1 / (std * sqrt(2 * pi))) * exp(-(((t - mean) ** 2) / (2 * std ** 2)))
cdf = quad(cdf_eqn, -np.inf, x)[0]
return cdf
# defining Probability density function
def pdf(x):
return (1 / (std * sqrt(2 * pi))) * exp(-(((x - mean) ** 2) / (2 * std ** 2)))
# getting the equation in place
def G(r, Q):
return K + c * Q \
+ w * (quad(cdf, 0, Q)[0] + quad(lambda x: cdf(r + Q - x) * cdf(x), 0, r)[0]) \
+ p * (mean * l - r + quad(cdf, 0, r)[0])
def CL(r, Q):
return (Q - r + mean * l - quad(cdf, 0, Q)[0]
- quad(lambda x: cdf(r + Q - x) * cdf(x), 0, r)[0]
+ quad(cdf, 0, r)[0]) / mean
def I(r, Q):
return h * (Q + r - mean * l - quad(cdf, 0, Q)[0]
- quad(lambda x: cdf(r + Q - x) * cdf(x), 0, r)[0]
+ quad(cdf, 0, r)[0]) / 2
# pulling it all together
def f(r, Q):
TC = G(r, Q)/CL(r, Q) + I(r, Q)
return TC
nr, nQ = 6, 11
r = np.linspace(0, 5000, nr)
Q = np.linspace(5000, 15000, nQ)
z = np.zeros((nr, nQ)) # r ←→ y, Q ←→ x
for i, ir in enumerate(r):
for j, jQ in enumerate(Q):
z[i, j] = f(ir, jQ)
print('%2d: '%i, ','.join('%8.3f'%v for v in z[i]))
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
cf = plt.contourf(Q, r, z)
cc = plt.contour( Q, r, z, colors='k')
plt.clabel(cc)
plt.colorbar(cf, orientation='horizontal')
ax.set_aspect(1)
plt.show()
and here the results of its execution
$ python cost.py
0: 4093.654,3661.777,3363.220,3120.073,2939.119,2794.255,2675.692,2576.880,2493.283,2426.111,2359.601
1: 4072.865,3621.468,3315.193,3068.710,2887.306,2743.229,2626.065,2528.934,2447.123,2381.802,2316.991
2: 4073.852,3622.443,3316.163,3069.679,2888.275,2744.198,2627.035,2529.905,2448.095,2382.775,2317.965
3: 4015.328,3514.874,3191.722,2939.397,2758.876,2618.292,2505.746,2413.632,2336.870,2276.570,2216.304
4: 3881.198,3290.628,2947.273,2694.213,2522.845,2394.095,2293.867,2213.651,2148.026,2098.173,2047.140
5: 3616.675,2919.726,2581.890,2352.015,2208.814,2106.289,2029.319,1969.438,1921.555,1887.398,1849.850
$
I can add that global minimum and global maximum are in the corners, while there are two sub-horizontal lines of local minima (lower line) and local maxima (upper line) in the approximate regions r ≈ 1000 and r ≈ 2000.

Stop Integrating when Output Reaches 0 in scipy.integrate.odeint

I've written a code which looks at projectile motion of an object with drag. I'm using odeint from scipy to do the forward Euler method. The integration runs until a time limit is reached. I would like to stop integrating either when this limit is reached or when the output for ry = 0 (i.e. the projectile has landed).
def f(y, t):
# takes vector y(t) and time t and returns function y_dot = F(t,y) as a vector
# y(t) = [vx(t), vy(t), rx(t), ry(t)]
# magnitude of velocity calculated
v = np.sqrt(y[0] ** 2 + y[1] **2)
# define new drag constant k
k = cd * rho * v * A / (2 * m)
return [-k * y[0], -k * y[1] - g, y[0], y[1]]
def solve_f(v0, ang, h0, tstep, tmax=1000):
# uses the forward Euler time integration method to solve the ODE using f function
# create vector for time steps based on args
t = np.linspace(0, tmax, tmax / tstep)
# convert angle from degrees to radians
ang = ang * np.pi / 180
return odeint(f, [v0 * np.cos(ang), v0 * np.sin(ang), 0, h0], t)
solution = solve_f(v0, ang, h0, tstep)
I've tried several loops and similar to try to stop integrating when ry = 0. And found this question below but have not been able to implement something similar with odeint. solution[:,3] is the output column for ry. Is there a simple way to do this with odeint?
Does scipy.integrate.ode.set_solout work?

Checkout scipy.integrate.ode here. It is more flexible than odeint and helps with what you want to do.
A simple example using a vertical shot, integrated until it touches ground:
from scipy.integrate import ode, odeint
import scipy.constants as SPC
def f(t, y):
return [y[1], -SPC.g]
v0 = 10
y0 = 0
r = ode(f)
r.set_initial_value([y0, v0], 0)
dt = 0.1
while r.successful() and r.y[0] >= 0:
print('time: {:.3f}, y: {:.3f}, vy: {:.3f}'.format(r.t + dt, *r.integrate(r.t + dt)))
Each time you call r.integrate, r will store current time and y value. You can pass them to a list if you want to store them.

Let's solve this as the boundary value problem that it is. We have the conditions x(0)=0, y(0)=h0, vx(0)=0, vy(0)=0 and y(T)=0. To have a fixed integration interval, set t=T*s, which means that dx/ds=T*dx/dt=T*vx etc.
def fall_ode(t,u,p):
vx, vy, rx, ry = u
T = p[0]
# magnitude of velocity calculated
v = np.hypot(vx, vy)
# define new drag constant k
k = cd * rho * v * A / (2 * m)
return np.array([-k * vx, -k * vy - g, vx, vy])*T
def solve_fall(v0, ang, h0):
# convert angle from degrees to radians
ang = ang * np.pi / 180
vx0, vy0 = v0*np.cos(ang), v0*np.sin(ang)
def fall_bc(y0, y1, p): return [ y0[0]-vx0, y0[1]-vy0, y0[2], y0[3]-h0, y1[3] ]
t_init = [0,1]
u_init = [[0,0],[0,0],[0,0], [h0,0]]
p_init = [1]
res = solve_bvp(fall_ode, fall_bc, t_init, u_init, p_init)
print res.message
if res.success:
print "time to ground: ", res.p[0]
# res.sol is a dense output, evaluation interpolates the computed values
return res.sol
sol = solve_fall(300, 30, 20)
s = np.linspace(0,1,501)
u = sol(s)
vx, vy, rx, ry = u
plt.plot(rx, ry)

Explicit Euler method doesn't behave how I expect

I have implemented the following explicit euler method in python:
def explicit_euler(df, x0, h, N):
"""Solves an ODE IVP using the Explicit Euler method.
Keyword arguments:
df - The derivative of the system you wish to solve.
x0 - The initial value of the system you wish to solve.
h - The step size.
N - The number off steps.
"""
x = np.zeros(N)
x[0] = x0
for i in range(0, N-1):
x[i+1] = x[i] + h * df(x[i])
return x
Following the article on wikipedia I can plot the function and verify that I get the same plot: . I believe that here the method I have written is working correctly.
Next I tried to use it to solve the last system given on this page and instead of the plot shown there I obtain this:
I am not sure why my plot doesn't match the one shown on the webpage. The explicit euler method seems to work fine when I use it to solve systems where the slope doesn't change, but for an oscillating function it never seems to mimic it at all. Not even showing the expected error gain as indicated on the linked webpage. I am not sure what is wrong with the method I have implemented.
Here is the code used for plotting and the derivative:
def g(t):
return -0.5 * np.exp(t * 0.5) * np.sin(5 * t) + 5 * np.exp(t * 0.5)
* np.cos(5 * t)
h = 0.001
x0 = 0
tn = 4
N = int(tn / h)
x = ee.explicit_euler(f, x0, h, N)
t = np.arange(0, tn, h)
fig = plt.figure()
plt.plot(t, x, label="Explicit Euler")
plt.plot(t, (np.exp(0.5 * t) * np.sin(5 * t)), label="Analytical
solution")
#plt.plot(t, np.exp(0.5 * t), label="Analytical solution")
plt.xlabel('Timesteps t')
plt.ylabel('x(t)=e^(0.5*t) * sin(5*t)')
plt.legend()
plt.grid()
plt.show()
Edit:
As requested here is the current equation I am applying the method to:
y'-y=-0.5*e^(t/2)*sin(5t)+5e^(t/2)*cos(5t)
Where y(0)=0.
I would like to make clear however that this behaviour doesn't occur just for this equation but all equations where the slope has a change in sign, or oscillating behaviour.
Edit 2:
Ok thanks. Yes the code below does indeed work. But I have one further question. In the simple example I had for the exponential function, I had defined a method:
def f(x):
return x
for the system f'(x)=x. This gave the output of my first graph which looks correct. I then defined another function:
def k(x):
return cos(x)
for the system f'(x)=cos(x), this does not give expected output. But when I change the function definition to
def k(t, x):
return cos(t)
I get the expected output. If I change my function
def f(t, x):
return t
I get an incorrect output. Am I always actually evaluating the function at a time step and is it just by chance for the system x'=x that at each time step the value is just the value of x?
I had understood that the Euler method used the value of the previously calculated value in order to get the next value. But if I run code for my function k(x)=cos(x), I get output pictured below, which must be incorrect. This now uses the updated code you provided.
def k(t, x):
return np.cos(x)
h = 0.1 # Step size
x0 = (0, 0) # Initial point of iteration
tn = 10 # Time step to iterate to
N = int(tn / h) # Number of steps
x = ee.explicit_euler(k, x0, h, N)
t = np.arange(0, tn, h)

The problem is that you have incorrectly raised the function g, you want to solve the equation:
From where we observe that:
y' = y -0.5*e^(t/2)*sin(5t)+5e^(t/2)*cos(5t)
Then we define the function f(t, y) = y -0.5*e^(t/2)*sin(5t)+5e^(t/2)*cos(5t) as:
def f(t, y):
return y -0.5 * np.exp(t * 0.5) * np.sin(5 * t) + 5 * np.exp(t * 0.5) * np.cos(5 * t)
The initial point of iteration is f0=(t(0), y(0)):
f0 = (0, 0)
Then from Euler's equations:
def explicit_euler(df, x0, h, N):
"""Solves an ODE IVP using the Explicit Euler method.
Keyword arguments:
df - The derivative of the system you wish to solve.
x0 - The initial value of the system you wish to solve.
h - The step size.
N - The number off steps.
"""
x = np.zeros(N)
t, x[0] = x0
for i in range(0, N-1):
x[i+1] = x[i] + h * df(t ,x[i])
t += h
return x
Complete Code:
def explicit_euler(df, x0, h, N):
"""Solves an ODE IVP using the Explicit Euler method.
Keyword arguments:
df - The derivative of the system you wish to solve.
x0 - The initial value of the system you wish to solve.
h - The step size.
N - The number off steps.
"""
x = np.zeros(N)
t, x[0] = x0
for i in range(0, N-1):
x[i+1] = x[i] + h * df(t ,x[i])
t += h
return x
def df(t, y):
return -0.5 * np.exp(t * 0.5) * np.sin(5 * t) + 5 * np.exp(t * 0.5) * np.cos(5 * t) + y
h = 0.001
f0 = (0, 0)
tn = 4
N = int(tn / h)
x = explicit_euler(df, f0, h, N)
t = np.arange(0, tn, h)
fig = plt.figure()
plt.plot(t, x, label="Explicit Euler")
plt.plot(t, (np.exp(0.5 * t) * np.sin(5 * t)), label="Analytical solution")
#plt.plot(t, np.exp(0.5 * t), label="Analytical solution")
plt.xlabel('Timesteps t')
plt.ylabel('x(t)=e^(0.5*t) * sin(5*t)')
plt.legend()
plt.grid()
plt.show()
Screenshot:
Dump y' and what is on the right side is what you should place in the df function.
We will modify the variables to maintain the same standard for the variables, and will y be the dependent variable, and t the independent variable.
Equation 2: In this case the equation f'(x)=cos(x) will be rewritten to:
y'=cos(t)
Then:
def df(t, y):
return np.cos(t)
In conclusion, if we have an equation of the following form:
y' = f(t, y)
Then:
def df(t, y):
return f(t, y)

Python scipy.optimize.minimize gives ZeroDivisionError

I am trying to implement SABR (Stochastic alpha, beta, rho) in Python to calculate implied volatility. This link here explains SABR very accurately and concisely starting on slide 17: http://lesniewski.us/papers/presentations/MIT_March2014.pdf
The method seems easy enough, but the problem I am having is that I am getting a ZeroDivisonError every time I run the program. I believe this may be because I am choosing my initial alpha, rho, and sigma0 incorrectly during calibration. However, I cannot find online how to choose the initial values to guarantee that a minimum will be found.
Here is my code:
# args = [alpha, rho, sigma0]
# The other parameters (T, K, F0, beta, rho, marketVol) are globals
def calcImpliedVol(args):
alpha = args[0]
rho = args[1]
sigma0 = args[2]
# From MIT powerpoint, slide 21
Fmid = (F0 + K) / 2.0
gamma1 = 1.0 * beta / Fmid
gamma2 = 1.0 * beta * (beta - 1) / Fmid**2
xi = 1.0 * alpha / (sigma0 * (1 - beta)) * (F0**(1-beta) - K**(1-beta))
e = T * alpha**2 # From MIT powerpoint, slide 19
# From MIT powerpoint, slide 21
impliedVol = \
1.0 * alpha * log(F0/K) / D(rho, xi) * \
(1 + ((2 * gamma2 - gamma1**2 + 1 / Fmid**2)/24.0 * (sigma0 * Fmid**beta / alpha)**2 + \
(rho * gamma1 / 4.0) * (sigma0 * Fmid**beta / alpha) + ((2 - 3 * rho**2) / 24.0)) * e) - \
marketVol
# Returns lambda function in terms of alpha, rho, sigma0
return impliedVol;
# From MIT powerpoint, slide 21
def D(rho, xi):
result = log((sqrt(1 - 2 * rho * xi + xi**2) + xi - rho) / (1-rho))
return result
# Find optimal alpha, rho, sigma0 that minimizes calcImpliedVol - marketVol
def optimize():
result = optimize.minimize(calcImpliedVol, [alpha_init, rho_init, sigma0_init])
return result
Thanks so, so much for any help!

This is a little late but bounding is the right way to go:
bounds = [(0.0001, None), (-0.9999, 0.9999), (0.0001, None)]
x_solved = minimize(obj_func, initial_guess, args=(mkt_vols, F, K, tau, beta),
method='L-BFGS-B', bounds=bounds, tol=0.00001)
alpha represents the base volatility (atm vol can be used here to as an initialization) so it is bounded by 0.0. rho is the correlation between the axes so it is bounded by -1 and 1. nu (vol of volatility) is bounded on the downside by 0.0.
The coefficient tuple is returned with:
x_solved.x

Work with bounding the search intervals.