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)
Related
I am trying to simulate a model that solves elastic labor supply in macroeconomics—trying to do it by Value Function Iteration. However, I am getting an error that says
runfile('C:/Users/sence/untitled0.py', wdir='C:/Users/sence')
C:\Users\sence\untitled0.py:52: RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in subtract
if np.max(np.abs(V - V_new)) < tol:
My code is the following.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Set parameters
beta = 0.95 # discount factor
rho = 0.1 # utility weight on leisure
alpha = 0.3 # capital share
k_min = 0 # minimum capital level
k_max = 10 # maximum capital level
n_min = 0 # minimum labor supply
n_max = 1 # maximum labor supply
tol = 1e-6 # convergence tolerance
# Define grid over capital
num_points = 100
k_grid = np.linspace(k_min, k_max, num_points)
# Initialize value function
V = np.zeros(num_points)
# Iterate over value function
while True:
# Initialize value function for this iteration
V_new = np.zeros(num_points)
# Iterate over capital levels
for i, k in enumerate(k_grid[:-1]):
# Initialize maximum value and optimal labor supply
max_value = -np.inf
opt_n = n_min
# Iterate over labor supply levels
for n in np.linspace(n_min, n_max, num_points):
# Compute consumption
c = k * alpha * n * (1 - alpha) - k_grid[i + 1]
# Compute value at this point
if c > 0 and 0 < n < 1:
value = np.log(c) + rho * np.log(1 - n) + beta * V[i + 1]
else:
value = -np.inf
# Update maximum value and optimal labor supply
if value > max_value:
max_value = value
opt_n = n
# Update value function for this iteration
V_new[i] = max_value
# Check for convergence
if np.max(np.abs(V - V_new)) < tol:
break
else:
V = V_new
# Compute policy functions
c_policy = k_grid[:-1] * alpha * opt_n * (1 - alpha) - k_grid[1:]
n_policy = opt_n
# Plot policy functions
plt.plot(k_grid, k_grid, 'k--', label='45 degree line')
plt.plot(k_grid[:-1], c_policy, label='Consumption')
plt.plot(k_grid, n_policy, label='Labor supply')
plt.xlabel('Capital')
plt.ylabel('Policy function')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
k_path = [5] # start at k0 = 5
for t in range(20):
# Compute consumption
c = k_path[-1] * alpha * n_policy * (1 - alpha) - k_path[-1]
k_path.append(k_path[-1] * (1 - n_policy) + c)
plt.plot(k_path)
plt.xlabel('Time')
plt.ylabel('Capital')
plt.show()
I don't know where I made a mistake. I solved the model correctly, and everything should work smoothly, yet I keep getting errors. Any help would be appreciated. I am unable to solve it on my own.
This is more of a computational physics problem, and I've asked it on physics stack exchange, but no answers on there. This is, I suppose, a mix of the disciplines on here and there (and maybe even mathematics stack exchange), so finding the right place to post is a task in of itself apparently...
I'm attempting to use Crank-Nicolson scheme to solve the TDSE in 1D. The initial wave is a real Gaussian that has been normalised wrt its probability density. As the solution evolves, a depression grows in the central peak of the real part of the wave, and the imaginary part's central trough is perhaps a bit higher than I expect (image below).
Does this behaviour seem reasonable? I have searched around and not seen questions/figures that are similar. I've tested another person's code from Github and it exhibits the same behaviour, which makes me feel a bit better. But I still think the center peak should just decrease in height and increase in width. The likelihood of me getting a physics-based explanation is relatively low here I'd assume, but a computational-based explanation on errors I may have made is more likely.
I'm happy to give more information, for example my code, or the matrices used in the scheme, etc. Thanks in advance!
Here's a link to GIF of time evolution:
And the part of my code relevant to solving the 1D TDSE:
(pretty much the entire thing except the plotting)
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.animation import FuncAnimation
# Define function for norm.
def normf(dxc, uc, ic):
return sum(dxc * np.square(np.abs(uc[ic, :])))
# Define function for expectation value of position.
def xexpf(dxc, xc, uc, ic):
return sum(dxc * xc * np.square(np.abs(uc[ic, :])))
# Define function for expectation value of squared position.
def xexpsf(dxc, xc, uc, ic):
return sum(dxc * np.square(xc) * np.square(np.abs(uc[ic, :])))
# Define function for standard deviation.
def sdaf(xexpc, xexpsc, ic):
return np.sqrt(xexpsc[ic] - np.square(xexpc[ic]))
# Time t: t0 =< t =< tf. Have N steps at which to evaluate the CN scheme. The
# time interval is dt. decp: variable for plotting to certain number of decimal
# places.
t0 = 0
tf = 20
N = 200
dt = tf / N
t = np.linspace(t0, tf, num = N + 1, endpoint = True)
decp = str(dt)[::-1].find('.')
# Initialise array for filling with norm values at each time step.
norm = np.zeros(len(t))
# Initialise array for expectation value of position.
xexp = np.zeros(len(t))
# Initialise array for expectation value of squared position.
xexps = np.zeros(len(t))
# Initialise array for alternate standard deviation.
sda = np.zeros(len(t))
# Position x: -a =< x =< a. M is an even number. There are M + 1 total discrete
# positions, for the points to be symmetric and centred at x = 0.
a = 100
M = 1200
dx = (2 * a) / M
x = np.linspace(-a, a, num = M + 1, endpoint = True)
# The gaussian function u diffuses over time. sd sets the width of gaussian. u0
# is the initial gaussian at t0.
sd = 1
var = np.power(sd, 2)
mu = 0
u0 = np.sqrt(1 / np.sqrt(np.pi * var)) * np.exp(-np.power(x - mu, 2) / (2 * \
var))
u = np.zeros([len(t), len(x)], dtype = 'complex_')
u[0, :] = u0
# Normalise u.
u[0, :] = u[0, :] / np.sqrt(normf(dx, u, 0))
# Set coefficients of CN scheme.
alpha = dt * -1j / (4 * np.power(dx, 2))
beta = dt * 1j / (4 * np.power(dx, 2))
# Tridiagonal matrices Al and AR. Al to be solved using Thomas algorithm.
Al = np.zeros([len(x), len(x)], dtype = 'complex_')
for i in range (0, M):
Al[i + 1, i] = alpha
Al[i, i] = 1 - (2 * alpha)
Al[i, i + 1] = alpha
# Corner elements for BC's.
Al[M, M], Al[0, 0] = 1 - alpha, 1 - alpha
Ar = np.zeros([len(x), len(x)], dtype = 'complex_')
for i in range (0, M):
Ar[i + 1, i] = beta
Ar[i, i] = 1 - (2 * beta)
Ar[i, i + 1] = beta
# Corner elements for BC's.
Ar[M, M], Ar[0, 0] = 1 - 2*beta, 1 - beta
# Thomas algorithm variables. Following similar naming as in Wiki article.
a = np.diag(Al, -1)
b = np.diag(Al)
c = np.diag(Al, 1)
NT = len(b)
cp = np.zeros(NT - 1, dtype = 'complex_')
for n in range(0, NT - 1):
if n == 0:
cp[n] = c[n] / b[n]
else:
cp[n] = c[n] / (b[n] - (a[n - 1] * cp[n - 1]))
d = np.zeros(NT, dtype = 'complex_')
dp = np.zeros(NT, dtype = 'complex_')
# Iterate over each time step to solve CN method. Maintain boundary
# conditions. Keep track of standard deviation.
for i in range(0, N):
# BC's.
u[i, 0], u[i, M] = 0, 0
# Find RHS.
d = np.dot(Ar, u[i, :])
for n in range(0, NT):
if n == 0:
dp[n] = d[n] / b[n]
else:
dp[n] = (d[n] - (a[n - 1] * dp[n - 1])) / (b[n] - (a[n - 1] * \
cp[n - 1]))
nc = NT - 1
while nc > -1:
if nc == NT - 1:
u[i + 1, nc] = dp[nc]
nc -= 1
else:
u[i + 1, nc] = dp[nc] - (cp[nc] * u[i + 1, nc + 1])
nc -= 1
norm[i] = normf(dx, u, i)
xexp[i] = xexpf(dx, x, u, i)
xexps[i] = xexpsf(dx, x, u, i)
sda[i] = sdaf(xexp, xexps, i)
# Fill in final norm value.
norm[N] = normf(dx, u, N)
# Fill in final position expectation value.
xexp[N] = xexpf(dx, x, u, N)
# Fill in final squared position expectation value.
xexps[N] = xexpsf(dx, x, u, N)
# Fill in final standard deviation value.
sda[N] = sdaf(xexp, xexps, N)
The function HH_model(I,area_factor) has as return value the number of spikes which are triggered by n runs. Assuming 1000 runs, there are 157 times that max(v[]-v_rest) > 60, then the return value of HH_model(I,area_factor) is 157.
Now I know value pairs from another model - the x-values are related to the stimulus I, while the y-values are the number of spikes.
I have written these values as a comment under the code. I want to choose my input parameters I and area_factor in a way that the error to the data is as small as possible. I have no idea how I should do this optimization.
import matplotlib.pyplot as py
import numpy as np
import scipy.optimize as optimize
# HH parameters
v_Rest = -65 # in mV
gNa = 1200 # in mS/cm^2
gK = 360 # in mS/cm^2
gL = 0.3*10 # in mS/cm^2
vNa = 115 # in mV
vK = -12 # in mV
vL = 10.6 # in mV
#Number of runs
runs = 1000
c = 1 # in uF/cm^2
ROOT = False
def HH_model(I,area_factor):
count = 0
t_end = 10 # in ms
delay = 0.1 # in ms
duration = 0.1 # in ms
dt = 0.0025 # in ms
area_factor = area_factor
#geometry
d = 2 # diameter in um
r = d/2 # Radius in um
l = 10 # Length of the compartment in um
A = (1*10**(-8))*area_factor # surface [cm^2]
I = I
C = c*A # uF
for j in range(0,runs):
# Introduction of equations and channels
def alphaM(v): return 12 * ((2.5 - 0.1 * (v)) / (np.exp(2.5 - 0.1 * (v)) - 1))
def betaM(v): return 12 * (4 * np.exp(-(v) / 18))
def betaH(v): return 12 * (1 / (np.exp(3 - 0.1 * (v)) + 1))
def alphaH(v): return 12 * (0.07 * np.exp(-(v) / 20))
def alphaN(v): return 12 * ((1 - 0.1 * (v)) / (10 * (np.exp(1 - 0.1 * (v)) - 1)))
def betaN(v): return 12 * (0.125 * np.exp(-(v) / 80))
# compute the timesteps
t_steps= t_end/dt+1
# Compute the initial values
v0 = 0
m0 = alphaM(v0)/(alphaM(v0)+betaM(v0))
h0 = alphaH(v0)/(alphaH(v0)+betaH(v0))
n0 = alphaN(v0)/(alphaN(v0)+betaN(v0))
# Allocate memory for v, m, h, n
v = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
m = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
h = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
n = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
# Set Initial values
v[:, 0] = v0
m[:, 0] = m0
h[:, 0] = h0
n[:, 0] = n0
### Noise component
knoise= 0.0005 #uA/(mS)^1/2
### --------- Step3: SOLVE
for i in range(0, int(t_steps)-1, 1):
# Get current states
vT = v[i]
mT = m[i]
hT = h[i]
nT = n[i]
# Stimulus current
IStim = 0
if delay / dt <= i <= (delay + duration) / dt:
IStim = I # in uA
else:
IStim = 0
# Compute change of m, h and n
m[i + 1] = (mT + dt * alphaM(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaM(vT) + betaM(vT)))
h[i + 1] = (hT + dt * alphaH(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaH(vT) + betaH(vT)))
n[i + 1] = (nT + dt * alphaN(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaN(vT) + betaN(vT)))
# Ionic currents
iNa = gNa * m[i + 1] ** 3. * h[i + 1] * (vT - vNa)
iK = gK * n[i + 1] ** 4. * (vT - vK)
iL = gL * (vT-vL)
Inoise = (np.random.normal(0, 1) * knoise * np.sqrt(gNa * A))
IIon = ((iNa + iK + iL) * A) + Inoise #
# Compute change of voltage
v[i + 1] = (vT + ((-IIon + IStim) / C) * dt)[0] # in ((uA / cm ^ 2) / (uF / cm ^ 2)) * ms == mV
# adjust the voltage to the resting potential
v = v + v_Rest
# test if there was a spike
if max(v[:]-v_Rest) > 60:
count += 1
return count
# some datapoints from another model out of 1000 runs. ydata means therefore 'count' out of 1000 runs.
# xdata = np.array([0.92*I,0.925*I,0.9535*I,0.975*I,0.9789*I,I,1.02*I,1.043*I,1.06*I,1.078*I,1.09*I])
# ydata = np.array([150,170,269,360,377,500,583,690,761,827,840])
EDIT:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from scipy.optimize import minimize
# HH parameters
v_Rest = -65 # in mV
gNa = 120 # in mS/cm^2
gK = 36 # in mS/cm^2
gL = 0.3 # in mS/cm^2
vNa = 115 # in mV
vK = -12 # in mV
vL = 10.6 # in mV
#Number of runs
runs = 1000
c = 1 # in uF/cm^2
def HH_model(x,I,area_factor):
count = 0
t_end = 10 # in ms
delay = 0.1 # in ms
duration = 0.1 # in ms
dt = 0.0025 # in ms
area_factor = area_factor
#geometry
d = 2 # diameter in um
r = d/2 # Radius in um
l = 10 # Length of the compartment in um
A = (1*10**(-8))*area_factor # surface [cm^2]
I = I*x
C = c*A # uF
for j in range(0,runs):
# Introduction of equations and channels
def alphaM(v): return 12 * ((2.5 - 0.1 * (v)) / (np.exp(2.5 - 0.1 * (v)) - 1))
def betaM(v): return 12 * (4 * np.exp(-(v) / 18))
def betaH(v): return 12 * (1 / (np.exp(3 - 0.1 * (v)) + 1))
def alphaH(v): return 12 * (0.07 * np.exp(-(v) / 20))
def alphaN(v): return 12 * ((1 - 0.1 * (v)) / (10 * (np.exp(1 - 0.1 * (v)) - 1)))
def betaN(v): return 12 * (0.125 * np.exp(-(v) / 80))
# compute the timesteps
t_steps= t_end/dt+1
# Compute the initial values
v0 = 0
m0 = alphaM(v0)/(alphaM(v0)+betaM(v0))
h0 = alphaH(v0)/(alphaH(v0)+betaH(v0))
n0 = alphaN(v0)/(alphaN(v0)+betaN(v0))
# Allocate memory for v, m, h, n
v = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
m = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
h = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
n = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
# Set Initial values
v[:, 0] = v0
m[:, 0] = m0
h[:, 0] = h0
n[:, 0] = n0
### Noise component
knoise= 0.0005 #uA/(mS)^1/2
### --------- Step3: SOLVE
for i in range(0, int(t_steps)-1, 1):
# Get current states
vT = v[i]
mT = m[i]
hT = h[i]
nT = n[i]
# Stimulus current
IStim = 0
if delay / dt <= i <= (delay + duration) / dt:
IStim = I # in uA
else:
IStim = 0
# Compute change of m, h and n
m[i + 1] = (mT + dt * alphaM(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaM(vT) + betaM(vT)))
h[i + 1] = (hT + dt * alphaH(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaH(vT) + betaH(vT)))
n[i + 1] = (nT + dt * alphaN(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaN(vT) + betaN(vT)))
# Ionic currents
iNa = gNa * m[i + 1] ** 3. * h[i + 1] * (vT - vNa)
iK = gK * n[i + 1] ** 4. * (vT - vK)
iL = gL * (vT-vL)
Inoise = (np.random.normal(0, 1) * knoise * np.sqrt(gNa * A))
IIon = ((iNa + iK + iL) * A) + Inoise #
# Compute change of voltage
v[i + 1] = (vT + ((-IIon + IStim) / C) * dt)[0] # in ((uA / cm ^ 2) / (uF / cm ^ 2)) * ms == mV
# adjust the voltage to the resting potential
v = v + v_Rest
# test if there was a spike
if max(v[:]-v_Rest) > 60:
count += 1
return count
def loss(parameters, model, x_ref, y_ref):
# unpack multiple parameters
I, area_factor = parameters
# compute prediction
y_predicted = np.array([model(x, I, area_factor) for x in x_ref])
# compute error and use it as loss
mse = ((y_ref - y_predicted) ** 2).mean()
return mse
# some datapoints from another model out of 1000 runs. ydata means therefore 'count' out of 1000 runs.
xdata = np.array([0.92,0.925,0.9535, 0.975, 0.9789, 1])
ydata = np.array([150,170,269, 360, 377, 500])
y_data_scaled = ydata / runs
y_predicted = np.array([HH_model(x,I=10**(-3), area_factor=1) for x in xdata])
parameters = (10**(-3), 1)
mse0 = loss(parameters, HH_model, xdata, y_data_scaled)
# compute the parameters that minimize the loss (alias, the error between the data and the predictions of the model)
optimum = minimize(loss, x0=np.array([10**(-3), 1]), args=(HH_model, xdata, y_data_scaled))
# compute the predictions with the optimized parameters
I = optimum['x'][0]
area_factor = optimum['x'][1]
y_predicted_opt = np.array([HH_model(x, I, area_factor) for x in xdata])
# plot the raw data, the model with handcrafted guess and the model with optimized parameters
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1)
ax.set_xlabel('input')
ax.set_ylabel('output predictions')
ax.plot(xdata, y_data_scaled, marker='o')
ax.plot(xdata, y_predicted, marker='*')
ax.plot(xdata, y_predicted_opt, marker='v')
ax.legend([
"raw data points",
"initial guess",
"predictions with optimized parameters"
])
I started using your function,
then I noticed it was very slow to execute.
Hence, I decided to show the process with a toy (linear) model.
The process remains the same.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import minimize
def loss(parameters, model, x_ref, y_ref):
# unpack multiple parameters
m, q = parameters
# compute prediction
y_predicted = np.array([model(x, m, q) for x in x_ref])
# compute error and use it as loss
mse = ((y_ref - y_predicted) ** 2).mean()
return mse
# load a dataset to fit a model
x_data = np.array([0.92, 0.925, 0.9535, 0.975, 0.9789, 1, 1.02, 1.043, 1.06, 1.078, 1.09])
y_data = np.array([150, 170, 269, 360, 377, 500, 583, 690, 761, 827, 840])
# normalise the data - input is already normalised
y_data_scaled = y_data / 1000
# create a model (linear, as an example) using handcrafted parameters, ex:(1,1)
linear_fun = lambda x, m, q: m * x + q
y_predicted = np.array([linear_fun(x, m=1, q=1) for x in x_data])
# create a function that given a model (linear_fun), a dataset(x,y) and the parameters, compute the error
parameters = (1, 1)
mse0 = loss(parameters, linear_fun, x_data, y_data_scaled)
# compute the parameters that minimize the loss (alias, the error between the data and the predictions of the model)
optimum = minimize(loss, x0=np.array([1, 1]), args=(linear_fun, x_data, y_data_scaled))
# compute the predictions with the optimized parameters
m = optimum['x'][0]
q = optimum['x'][1]
y_predicted_opt = np.array([linear_fun(x, m, q) for x in x_data])
# plot the raw data, the model with handcrafted guess and the model with optimized parameters
fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 1)
ax.set_xlabel('input')
ax.set_ylabel('output predictions')
ax.plot(x_data, y_data_scaled, marker='o')
ax.plot(x_data, y_predicted, marker='*')
ax.plot(x_data, y_predicted_opt, marker='v')
ax.legend([
"raw data points",
"initial guess",
"predictions with optimized parameters"
])
# Note1: good practise is to validate your model with a different set of data,
# respect to the one that you have used to find the parameters
# here, however, it is shown just the optimization procedure
# Note2: in your case you should use the HH_model instead of the linear_fun
# and I and Area_factor instead of m and q.
Output:
-- EDIT: To use the HH_model:
I went deeper in your code,
I tried few values for area and stimulus
and I executed a single run of HH_Model without taking the threshold.
Then, I checked the predicted dynamic of voltage (v):
the sequence is always diverging ( all values become nan after few steps )
if you have an initial guess for stimulus and area that could make the code to work, great.
if you have no idea of the order of magnitude of these parameters
the unique solution I see is a grid search over them - just to find this initial guess.
however, it might take a very long time without guarantee of success.
given that the code is based on a physical model, I would suggest to:
1 - find pen and paper a reasonable values.
2 - check that this simulation works for these values.
3 - then, run the optimizer to find the minimum.
Or, worst case scenario, reverse engineer the code and find the value that makes the equation to converge
Here the refactored code:
import math
import numpy as np
# HH parameters
v_Rest = -65 # in mV
gNa = 1200 # in mS/cm^2
gK = 360 # in mS/cm^2
gL = 0.3 * 10 # in mS/cm^2
vNa = 115 # in mV
vK = -12 # in mV
vL = 10.6 # in mV
# Number of runs
c = 1 # in uF/cm^2
# Introduction of equations and channels
def alphaM(v):
return 12 * ((2.5 - 0.1 * (v)) / (np.exp(2.5 - 0.1 * (v)) - 1))
def betaM(v):
return 12 * (4 * np.exp(-(v) / 18))
def betaH(v):
return 12 * (1 / (np.exp(3 - 0.1 * (v)) + 1))
def alphaH(v):
return 12 * (0.07 * np.exp(-(v) / 20))
def alphaN(v):
return 12 * ((1 - 0.1 * (v)) / (10 * (np.exp(1 - 0.1 * (v)) - 1)))
def betaN(v):
return 12 * (0.125 * np.exp(-(v) / 80))
def predict_voltage(A, C, delay, dt, duration, stimulus, t_end):
# compute the timesteps
t_steps = t_end / dt + 1
# Compute the initial values
v0 = 0
m0 = alphaM(v0) / (alphaM(v0) + betaM(v0))
h0 = alphaH(v0) / (alphaH(v0) + betaH(v0))
n0 = alphaN(v0) / (alphaN(v0) + betaN(v0))
# Allocate memory for v, m, h, n
v = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
m = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
h = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
n = np.zeros((int(t_steps), 1))
# Set Initial values
v[:, 0] = v0
m[:, 0] = m0
h[:, 0] = h0
n[:, 0] = n0
# Noise component
knoise = 0.0005 # uA/(mS)^1/2
for i in range(0, int(t_steps) - 1, 1):
# Get current states
vT = v[i]
mT = m[i]
hT = h[i]
nT = n[i]
# Stimulus current
if delay / dt <= i <= (delay + duration) / dt:
IStim = stimulus # in uA
else:
IStim = 0
# Compute change of m, h and n
m[i + 1] = (mT + dt * alphaM(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaM(vT) + betaM(vT)))
h[i + 1] = (hT + dt * alphaH(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaH(vT) + betaH(vT)))
n[i + 1] = (nT + dt * alphaN(vT)) / (1 + dt * (alphaN(vT) + betaN(vT)))
# Ionic currents
iNa = gNa * m[i + 1] ** 3. * h[i + 1] * (vT - vNa)
iK = gK * n[i + 1] ** 4. * (vT - vK)
iL = gL * (vT - vL)
Inoise = (np.random.normal(0, 1) * knoise * np.sqrt(gNa * A))
IIon = ((iNa + iK + iL) * A) + Inoise #
# Compute change of voltage
v[i + 1] = (vT + ((-IIon + IStim) / C) * dt)[0] # in ((uA / cm ^ 2) / (uF / cm ^ 2)) * ms == mV
# stop simulation if it diverges
if math.isnan(v[i + 1]):
return [None]
# adjust the voltage to the resting potential
v = v + v_Rest
return v
def HH_model(stimulus, area_factor, runs=1000):
count = 0
t_end = 10 # in ms
delay = 0.1 # in ms
duration = 0.1 # in ms
dt = 0.0025 # in ms
area_factor = area_factor
# geometry
d = 2 # diameter in um
r = d / 2 # Radius in um
l = 10 # Length of the compartment in um
A = (1 * 10 ** (-8)) * area_factor # surface [cm^2]
stimulus = stimulus
C = c * A # uF
for j in range(0, runs):
v = predict_voltage(A, C, delay, dt, duration, stimulus, t_end)
if max(v[:] - v_Rest) > 60:
count += 1
return count
And the attempt to run one simulation:
import time
from ex_21.equations import c, predict_voltage
area_factor = 0.1
stimulus = 70
# input signal
count = 0
t_end = 10 # in ms
delay = 0.1 # in ms
duration = 0.1 # in ms
dt = 0.0025 # in ms
# geometry
d = 2 # diameter in um
r = d / 2 # Radius in um
l = 10 # Length of the compartment in um
A = (1 * 10 ** (-8)) * area_factor # surface [cm^2]
C = c * A # uF
start = time.time()
voltage_dynamic = predict_voltage(A, C, delay, dt, duration, stimulus, t_end)
elapse = time.time() - start
print(voltage_dynamic)
Output:
[None]
I want to generate two linear chains of 20 monomers each at some distance to each other. The following code generates a single chain. Could someone help me with how to generate the second chain?
The two chains are fixed to a surface i.e the first monomer of the chain is fixed and the rest of the monomers move freely in x-y-z directions but the z component of the monomers should be positive.
Something like this:
import numpy as np
import numba as nb
#import pandas as pd
#nb.jit()
def gen_chain(N):
x = np.zeros(N)
y = np.zeros(N)
z = np.linspace(0, (N)*0.9, num=N)
return np.column_stack((x, y, z)), np.column_stack((x1, y1, z1))
#coordinates = np.loadtxt('2GN_50_T_10.txt', skiprows=199950)
#return coordinates
#nb.jit()
def lj(rij2):
sig_by_r6 = np.power(sigma**2 / rij2, 3)
sig_by_r12 = np.power(sigma**2 / rij2, 6)
lje = 4 * epsilon * (sig_by_r12 - sig_by_r6)
return lje
#nb.jit()
def fene(rij2):
return (-0.5 * K * np.power(R, 2) * np.log(1 - ((np.sqrt(rij2) - r0) / R)**2))
#nb.jit()
def total_energy(coord):
# Non-bonded energy.
e_nb = 0.0
for i in range(N):
for j in range(i - 1):
ri = coord[i]
rj = coord[j]
rij = ri - rj
rij2 = np.dot(rij, rij)
if (rij2 < rcutoff_sq):
e_nb += lj(rij2)
# Bonded FENE potential energy.
e_bond = 0.0
for i in range(1, N):
ri = coord[i]
rj = coord[i - 1] # Can be [i+1] ??
rij = ri - rj
rij2 = np.dot(rij, rij)
e_bond += fene(rij2)
return e_nb + e_bond
#nb.jit()
def move(coord):
trial = np.ndarray.copy(coord)
for i in range(1, N):
while True:
delta = (2 * np.random.rand(3) - 1) * max_delta
trial[i] += delta
#while True:
if trial[i,2] > 0.0:
break
trial[i] -= delta
return trial
#nb.jit()
def accept(delta_e):
beta = 1.0 / T
if delta_e < 0.0:
return True
random_number = np.random.rand(1)
p_acc = np.exp(-beta * delta_e)
if random_number < p_acc:
return True
return False
if __name__ == "__main__":
# FENE potential parameters.
K = 40.0
R = 0.3
r0 = 0.7
# L-J potential parameters
sigma = 0.5716
epsilon = 1.0
# MC parameters
N = 20 # Numbers of monomers
rcutoff = 2.5 * sigma
rcutoff_sq = rcutoff * rcutoff
max_delta = 0.01
n_steps = 100000
T = 10
# MAIN PART OF THE CODE
coord = gen_chain(N)
energy_current = total_energy(coord)
traj = open('2GN_20_T_10.xyz', 'w')
traj_txt = open('2GN_20_T_10.txt', 'w')
for step in range(n_steps):
if step % 1000 == 0:
traj.write(str(N) + '\n\n')
for i in range(N):
traj.write("C %10.5f %10.5f %10.5f\n" % (coord[i][0], coord[i][1], coord[i][2]))
traj_txt.write("%10.5f %10.5f %10.5f\n" % (coord[i][0], coord[i][1], coord[i][2]))
print(step, energy_current)
coord_trial = move(coord)
energy_trial = total_energy(coord_trial)
delta_e = energy_trial - energy_current
if accept(delta_e):
coord = coord_trial
energy_current = energy_trial
traj.close()
I except the chain of particles to collapse into a globule.
There is some problem with the logic of the MC you are implementing.
To perform a MC you need to ATTEMPT a move, evaluate the energy of the new state and then accept/reject according to a random number.
In your code there is not the slightest sign of the attempt to move a particle.
You need to move one (or more of them), evaluate the energy, and then update your coordinates.
By the way, I suppose this is not your entire code. There are many parameters that are not defined like the "k" and the "R0" in your fene potential
The FENE potential models bond interactions. What your code is saying is that all particles within the cutoff are bonded by FENE springs, and that the bonds are not fixed but rather defined by the cutoff. With a r_cutoff = 3.0, larger than equilibrium distance of the LJ well, you are essentially considering that each particle is bonded to potentially many others. You are treating the FENE potential as a non-bonded one.
For the bond interactions you should ignore the cutoff and only evaluate the energy for the actual pairs that are bonded according to your topology, which means that first you need to define a topology. I suggest generating a linear molecule of N atoms in a box big enough to contain the whole stretched molecule, and consider the i-th atom as bonded to the (i-1)-th atom, with i = 2, ..., N. In this way the topology is well defined and persistent. Then consider both interactions separately, non-bonded and bond, and add them at the end.
Something like this, in pseudo-code:
e_nb = 0
for particle i = 1 to N:
for particle j = 1 to i-1:
if (dist(i, j) < rcutoff):
e_nb += lj(i, j)
e_bond = 0
for particle i = 2 to N:
e_bond += fene(i, i-1)
e_tot = e_nb + e_bond
Below you can find a modified version of your code. To make things simpler, in this version there is no box and no boundary conditions, just a chain in free space. The chain is initialized as a linear sequence of particles each distant 80% of R0 from the next, since R0 is the maximum length of the FENE bond. The code considers that particle i is bonded with i+1 and the bond is not broken. This code is just a proof of concept.
#!/usr/bin/python
import numpy as np
def gen_chain(N, R):
x = np.linspace(0, (N-1)*R*0.8, num=N)
y = np.zeros(N)
z = np.zeros(N)
return np.column_stack((x, y, z))
def lj(rij2):
sig_by_r6 = np.power(sigma/rij2, 3)
sig_by_r12 = np.power(sig_by_r6, 2)
lje = 4.0 * epsilon * (sig_by_r12 - sig_by_r6)
return lje
def fene(rij2):
return (-0.5 * K * R0**2 * np.log(1-(rij2/R0**2)))
def total_energy(coord):
# Non-bonded
e_nb = 0
for i in range(N):
for j in range(i-1):
ri = coord[i]
rj = coord[j]
rij = ri - rj
rij2 = np.dot(rij, rij)
if (rij2 < rcutoff):
e_nb += lj(rij2)
# Bonded
e_bond = 0
for i in range(1, N):
ri = coord[i]
rj = coord[i-1]
rij = ri - rj
rij2 = np.dot(rij, rij)
e_bond += fene(rij2)
return e_nb + e_bond
def move(coord):
trial = np.ndarray.copy(coord)
for i in range(N):
delta = (2.0 * np.random.rand(3) - 1) * max_delta
trial[i] += delta
return trial
def accept(delta_e):
beta = 1.0/T
if delta_e <= 0.0:
return True
random_number = np.random.rand(1)
p_acc = np.exp(-beta*delta_e)
if random_number < p_acc:
return True
return False
if __name__ == "__main__":
# FENE parameters
K = 40
R0 = 1.5
# LJ parameters
sigma = 1.0
epsilon = 1.0
# MC parameters
N = 50 # number of particles
rcutoff = 3.5
max_delta = 0.01
n_steps = 10000000
T = 1.5
coord = gen_chain(N, R0)
energy_current = total_energy(coord)
traj = open('traj.xyz', 'w')
for step in range(n_steps):
if step % 1000 == 0:
traj.write(str(N) + '\n\n')
for i in range(N):
traj.write("C %10.5f %10.5f %10.5f\n" % (coord[i][0], coord[i][1], coord[i][2]))
print(step, energy_current)
coord_trial = move(coord)
energy_trial = total_energy(coord_trial)
delta_e = energy_trial - energy_current
if accept(delta_e):
coord = coord_trial
energy_current = energy_trial
traj.close()
The code prints the current configuration at each step, you can just load it up on VMD and see how it behaves. The bonds will not show correctly at first on VMD, you must use a bead representation for the particles and define the bonds manually or with a script within VMD. In any case, you don't need to see the bonds to notice that the chain does not collapse.
Please bear in mind that if you want to simulate a chain at a certain density, you need to be careful to generate the correct topology. I recommend the EMC package to efficiently generate polymers at the desired thermodynamic conditions. It is by no means a trivial problem, especially for larger chains.
By the way, your code had an error in the FENE energy evaluation. rij2 is already squared, you squared it again.
Below you can see how the total energy as a function of the number of steps behaves for T = 1.0, N = 20, rcutoff = 3.5, and also the last current configuration after 10 thousand steps.
And below for N = 50, T = 1.5, max_delta = 0.01, K = 40, R = 1.5, rcutoff = 3.5, and 10 million steps. This is the last current configuration.
The full "trajectory", which isn't really a trajectory since this is MC, you can find here (it's under 6 MB).
I am using scipy.optimize.minimize, with the default method ('Neldear-Mead').
The function I try to minimize is not strictly convex. It stays at the same value on some significant areas.
The issue that I have is that the steps taken by the algorithm are too small. For example my starting point has a first coordinate x0 = 0.2 . I know that the function will result in a different value only for a significant step, for example moving by 0.05. Unfortunately, I can see that the algorithm makes very small step (moving by around 0.000001). As a result, my function returns the same value, and the algorithm does not converge. Can I change that behaviour?
For convenience, here's the scipy code:
def _minimize_neldermead(func, x0, args=(), callback=None,
xtol=1e-4, ftol=1e-4, maxiter=None, maxfev=None,
disp=False, return_all=False,
**unknown_options):
"""
Minimization of scalar function of one or more variables using the
Nelder-Mead algorithm.
Options for the Nelder-Mead algorithm are:
disp : bool
Set to True to print convergence messages.
xtol : float
Relative error in solution `xopt` acceptable for convergence.
ftol : float
Relative error in ``fun(xopt)`` acceptable for convergence.
maxiter : int
Maximum number of iterations to perform.
maxfev : int
Maximum number of function evaluations to make.
This function is called by the `minimize` function with
`method=Nelder-Mead`. It is not supposed to be called directly.
"""
_check_unknown_options(unknown_options)
maxfun = maxfev
retall = return_all
fcalls, func = wrap_function(func, args)
x0 = asfarray(x0).flatten()
N = len(x0)
rank = len(x0.shape)
if not -1 < rank < 2:
raise ValueError("Initial guess must be a scalar or rank-1 sequence.")
if maxiter is None:
maxiter = N * 200
if maxfun is None:
maxfun = N * 200
rho = 1
chi = 2
psi = 0.5
sigma = 0.5
one2np1 = list(range(1, N + 1))
if rank == 0:
sim = numpy.zeros((N + 1,), dtype=x0.dtype)
else:
sim = numpy.zeros((N + 1, N), dtype=x0.dtype)
fsim = numpy.zeros((N + 1,), float)
sim[0] = x0
if retall:
allvecs = [sim[0]]
fsim[0] = func(x0)
nonzdelt = 0.05
zdelt = 0.00025
for k in range(0, N):
y = numpy.array(x0, copy=True)
if y[k] != 0:
y[k] = (1 + nonzdelt)*y[k]
else:
y[k] = zdelt
sim[k + 1] = y
f = func(y)
fsim[k + 1] = f
ind = numpy.argsort(fsim)
fsim = numpy.take(fsim, ind, 0)
# sort so sim[0,:] has the lowest function value
sim = numpy.take(sim, ind, 0)
iterations = 1
while (fcalls[0] < maxfun and iterations < maxiter):
if (numpy.max(numpy.ravel(numpy.abs(sim[1:] - sim[0]))) <= xtol and
numpy.max(numpy.abs(fsim[0] - fsim[1:])) <= ftol):
break
xbar = numpy.add.reduce(sim[:-1], 0) / N
xr = (1 + rho) * xbar - rho * sim[-1]
fxr = func(xr)
doshrink = 0
if fxr < fsim[0]:
xe = (1 + rho * chi) * xbar - rho * chi * sim[-1]
fxe = func(xe)
if fxe < fxr:
sim[-1] = xe
fsim[-1] = fxe
else:
sim[-1] = xr
fsim[-1] = fxr
else: # fsim[0] <= fxr
if fxr < fsim[-2]:
sim[-1] = xr
fsim[-1] = fxr
else: # fxr >= fsim[-2]
# Perform contraction
if fxr < fsim[-1]:
xc = (1 + psi * rho) * xbar - psi * rho * sim[-1]
fxc = func(xc)
if fxc <= fxr:
sim[-1] = xc
fsim[-1] = fxc
else:
doshrink = 1
else:
# Perform an inside contraction
xcc = (1 - psi) * xbar + psi * sim[-1]
fxcc = func(xcc)
if fxcc < fsim[-1]:
sim[-1] = xcc
fsim[-1] = fxcc
else:
doshrink = 1
if doshrink:
for j in one2np1:
sim[j] = sim[0] + sigma * (sim[j] - sim[0])
fsim[j] = func(sim[j])
ind = numpy.argsort(fsim)
sim = numpy.take(sim, ind, 0)
fsim = numpy.take(fsim, ind, 0)
if callback is not None:
callback(sim[0])
iterations += 1
if retall:
allvecs.append(sim[0])
x = sim[0]
fval = numpy.min(fsim)
warnflag = 0
if fcalls[0] >= maxfun:
warnflag = 1
msg = _status_message['maxfev']
if disp:
print('Warning: ' + msg)
elif iterations >= maxiter:
warnflag = 2
msg = _status_message['maxiter']
if disp:
print('Warning: ' + msg)
else:
msg = _status_message['success']
if disp:
print(msg)
print(" Current function value: %f" % fval)
print(" Iterations: %d" % iterations)
print(" Function evaluations: %d" % fcalls[0])
result = OptimizeResult(fun=fval, nit=iterations, nfev=fcalls[0],
status=warnflag, success=(warnflag == 0),
message=msg, x=x)
if retall:
result['allvecs'] = allvecs
return result
I have used Nelder-Mead long time ago,but as I remember that you will find different local minima if you start from different starting points.You didn't give us your function,so we could only guess what should be best strategy for you.You should also read this
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~fuchang/res/ANMS.pdf
Then you can try pure Python implementation
https://github.com/fchollet/nelder-mead/blob/master/nelder_mead.py