I'm trying to call upon the famous multilateration algorithm in order to pinpoint a radiation emission source given a set of arrival times for various detectors. I have the necessary data, but I'm still having trouble implementing this calculation; I am relatively new with Python.
I know that, if I were to do this by hand, I would use matrices and carry out elementary row operations in order to find my 3 unknowns (x,y,z), but I'm not sure how to code this. Is there a way to have Python implement ERO, or is there a better way to carry out my computation?
Depending on your needs, you could try:
NumPy if your interested in numerical solutions. As far as I remember, it could solve linear equations. Don't know how it deals with non-linear resolution.
SymPy for symbolic math. It solves symbolically linear equations ... according to their main page.
The two above are "generic" math packages. I doubt you will find (easily) any dedicated (and maintained) library for your specific need. Their was already a question on that topic here: Multilateration of GPS Coordinates
Related
To solve the traveling salesman problem with simulated annealing, we need to start with an initial solution, a random permutation of the cities. This is the order in which the salesman is supposed to visit them. Then, we switch to a "neighboring solution" by swapping two cities. And then there are details around when to switch to the neighboring solution, etc.
I could implement all of this from scratch. But I wanted to see if I could use the inbuilt Scipy annealing solver. Looking at the documentation, looks like the old anneal method has been deprecated. The new methods that is supposed to have replaced it is basinhopping. But looking through the documentation and source code, it seems these are more towards optimizing a function of some array where any float values of that array are permissible (and then there are local and global optima). That's what all the examples in the documentation or code comments are geared towards. I can't imagine how I would use any of these inbuilt routines to solve the famous traveling salesman problem itself since the array there is a permutation array. If you just perturb its values by some floating point numbers, you won't get a valid solution.
So, the conclusion seems to be that those standard routines are inapplicable on a combinatorial optimization problem like the traveling salesman? Or am I missing something?
I'm working on this project where I've been tasked to model the band structure of various potentials, I've worked through all of the math on paper and have had success hard coding some results, but I'm looking to be able to produce results from scratch providing only the eigenvector, Hamiltonian, and potential being explored, I'm working in Python by the way.
So far I've been able to represent the components of my Hamiltonian that are just dependent on the (-h_bar^2/2m)(d^2/dx^2). I'm using Numpy to represent my bra's as arrays and then using Numpy's inner product function to evaluate the components of my Hamiltonian that are just dependent on the second derivative and its respective constants. Issues arise when I go to try and evaluate the components of the Hamiltonian that are potential dependent (seeing that the full Hamiltonian operator is (-h_bar^2/2m)(d^2/dx^2) + V(x)).
I'm not quite sure how to complete this part. I've tried evaluating the inner product in its integral form using SciPy, but I keep running into issues when trying to evaluate these integrals that have complex components (SciPy doesn't like that).
To get a more solid idea of what I'm doing, here's the PDF I'm working out of:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/4835014b-1dbc-48e1-bbec-c175c87c9b03/view/000b36c4-55ba-471b-aaf8-d9d1c5f5ee06/Pavelich_Robert_L_201609_MSc.pdf (page 19-22 as written in the actual document)
Any help would be much appreciated, I'm fairly new to Quantum Mechanics as a whole and even greener when it comes to modeling it. Thanks a lot!
The other way to compute Hamiltonian with your given Potential can be evaluated using Finite difference method where you can diagonalize your Hamiltonian and calculate eigen value and eigen states, Therefore could obtain the spectrum .
This code might be helpful https://github.com/mholtrop/QMPython/blob/master/Finite%20Well%20Bound%20States.ipynb
Is there any place with a brief description of each of the algorithms for the parameter method in the minimize function of the lmfit package? Both there and in the documentation of SciPy there is no explanation about the details of each algorithm. Right now I know I can choose between them but I don't know which one to choose...
My current problem
I am using lmfit in Python to minimize a function. I want to minimize the function within a finite and predefined range where the function has the following characteristics:
It is almost zero everywhere, which makes it to be numerically identical to zero almost everywhere.
It has a very, very sharp peak in some point.
The peak can be anywhere within the region.
This makes many minimization algorithms to not work. Right now I am using a combination of the brute force method (method="brute") to find a point close to the peak and then feed this value to the Nelder-Mead algorithm (method="nelder") to finally perform the minimization. It is working approximately 50 % of the times, and the other 50 % of the times it fails to find the minimum. I wonder if there are better algorithms for cases like this one...
I think it is a fair point that docs for lmfit (such as https://lmfit.github.io/lmfit-py/fitting.html#fit-methods-table) and scipy.optimize (such as https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/tutorial/optimize.html#optimization-scipy-optimize) do not give detailed mathematical descriptions of the algorithms.
Then again, most of the docs for scipy, numpy, and related libraries describe how to use the methods, but do not describe in much mathematical detail how the algorithms work.
In fairness, the different optimization algorithms share many features and the differences between them can get pretty technical. All of these methods try to minimize some metric (often called "cost" or "residual") by changing the values of parameters for the supplied function.
It sort of takes a text book (or at least a Wikipedia page) to establish the concepts and mathematical terms used for these methods, and then a paper (or at least a Wikipedia page) to describe how each method differs from the others. So, I think the basic answer would be to look up the different methods.
I want to simulate a propagating wave with absorption and reflection on some bodies in three dimensional space. I want to do it with python. Should I use numpy? Are there some special libraries I should use?
How can I simulate the wave? Can I use the wave equation? But what if I have a reflection?
Is there a better method? Should I do it with vectors? But when the ray diverge the intensity gets lower. Difficult.
Thanks in advance.
If you do any computationally intensive numerical simulation in Python, you should definitely use NumPy.
The most general algorithm to simulate an electromagnetic wave in arbitrarily-shaped materials is the finite-difference time domain method (FDTD). It solves the wave equation, one time-step at a time, on a 3-D lattice. It is quite complicated to program yourself, though, and you are probably better off using a dedicated package such as Meep.
There are books on how to write your own FDTD simulations: here's one, here's a document with some code for 1-D FDTD and explanations on more than 1 dimension, and Googling "writing FDTD" will find you more of the same.
You could also approach the problem by assuming all your waves are plane waves, then you could use vectors and the Fresnel equations. Or if you want to model Gaussian beams being transmitted and reflected from flat or curved surfaces, you could use the ABCD matrix formalism (also known as ray transfer matrices). This takes into account the divergence of beams.
If you are solving 3D custom PDEs, I would recommend at least a look at FiPy. It'll save you the trouble of building a lot of your matrix conditioners and solvers from scratch. It uses numpy and/or trilinos. Here are some examples.
I recommend you use my project GarlicSim as the framework in which you build the simulation. You will still need to write your algorithm yourself, probably in Numpy, but GarlicSim may save you a bunch of boilerplate and allow you to explore your simulation results in a flexible way, similar to version control systems.
Don't use Python. I've tried using it for computationally expensive things and it just wasn't made for that.
If you need to simulate a wave in a Python program, write the necessary code in C/C++ and export it to Python.
Here's a link to the C API: http://docs.python.org/c-api/
Be warned, it isn't the easiest API in the world :)
I'm looking for a good library that will integrate stiff ODEs in Python. The issue is, scipy's odeint gives me good solutions sometimes, but the slightest change in the initial conditions causes it to fall down and give up. The same problem is solved quite happily by MATLAB's stiff solvers (ode15s and ode23s), but I can't use it (even from Python, because none of the Python bindings for the MATLAB C API implement callbacks, and I need to pass a function to the ODE solver). I'm trying PyGSL, but it's horrendously complex. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT: The specific problem I'm having with PyGSL is choosing the right step function. There are several of them, but no direct analogues to ode15s or ode23s (bdf formula and modified Rosenbrock if that makes sense). So what is a good step function to choose for a stiff system? I have to solve this system for a really long time to ensure that it reaches steady-state, and the GSL solvers either choose a miniscule time-step or one that's too large.
If you can solve your problem with Matlab's ode15s, you should be able to solve it with the vode solver of scipy. To simulate ode15s, I use the following settings:
ode15s = scipy.integrate.ode(f)
ode15s.set_integrator('vode', method='bdf', order=15, nsteps=3000)
ode15s.set_initial_value(u0, t0)
and then you can happily solve your problem with ode15s.integrate(t_final). It should work pretty well on a stiff problem.
(See also Link)
Python can call C. The industry standard is LSODE in ODEPACK. It is public-domain. You can download the C version. These solvers are extremely tricky, so it's best to use some well-tested code.
Added: Be sure you really have a stiff system, i.e. if the rates (eigenvalues) differ by more than 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. Also, if the system is stiff, but you are only looking for a steady-state solution, these solvers give you the option of solving some of the equations algebraically. Otherwise, a good Runge-Kutta solver like DVERK will be a good, and much simpler, solution.
Added here because it would not fit in a comment: This is from the DLSODE header doc:
C T :INOUT Value of the independent variable. On return it
C will be the current value of t (normally TOUT).
C
C TOUT :IN Next point where output is desired (.NE. T).
Also, yes Michaelis-Menten kinetics is nonlinear. The Aitken acceleration works with it, though. (If you want a short explanation, first consider the simple case of Y being a scalar. You run the system to get 3 Y(T) points. Fit an exponential curve through them (simple algebra). Then set Y to the asymptote and repeat. Now just generalize to Y being a vector. Assume the 3 points are in a plane - it's OK if they're not.) Besides, unless you have a forcing function (like a constant IV drip), the MM elimination will decay away and the system will approach linearity. Hope that helps.
PyDSTool wraps the Radau solver, which is an excellent implicit stiff integrator. This has more setup than odeint, but a lot less than PyGSL. The greatest benefit is that your RHS function is specified as a string (typically, although you can build a system using symbolic manipulations) and is converted into C, so there are no slow python callbacks and the whole thing will be very fast.
I am currently studying a bit of ODE and its solvers, so your question is very interesting to me...
From what I have heard and read, for stiff problems the right way to go is to choose an implicit method as a step function (correct me if I am wrong, I am still learning the misteries of ODE solvers). I cannot cite you where I read this, because I don't remember, but here is a thread from gsl-help where a similar question was asked.
So, in short, seems like the bsimp method is worth taking a shot, although it requires a jacobian function. If you cannot calculate the Jacobian, I will try with rk2imp, rk4imp, or any of the gear methods.