My code is as follows:
gekko = GEKKO(remote=True)
# create variable, each variable is a vector, each element
# of the vector is a binary
s = []
for i in range(N):
s.append(gekko.Array(gekko.Var, s_len[i], value=0, lb=0, ub=1, integer=True))
# some constants used in the objective/constraint function
c, d, r, m, L = create_c_d_r_m_L() # they are all numpy ndarry
# define the objective function
def objective():
obj = 0
for i in range(N):
obj += np.dot(s[i], c[i]) + np.dot(s[i], d[i])
for idx, (i, j) in enumerate(E):
obj += np.dot(np.dot(s[i], r[idx].reshape(s_len[i], s_len[j])),\
s[j]) # s[i] * r[i, j] * s[j]
return obj
# add constraints
# (a) each vector can only have and must have one 1
for i in range(N):
gekko.Equation(gekko.sum(s[i]) == 1)
# (b)
for t in range(N):
peak_mem = gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
gekko.Equation(peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM)
# DEVICE_MEM is a predefined big int
# solve
gekko.Obj(objective())
gekko.solve(disp=True)
I found that when removing constraint (b), the solver can output the optimal solution for s. However, if we add (b) and set DEVICE_MEM to a very large number (which should not affect the solution), the s is not optimal anymore. I'm wondering if I am doing something wrong here because I tried both APOPT(solvertype=1) and IPOPT (solvertype=3) and they give the same nonoptimal results.
To give more context to the problem: this is an optimization over the graph. N represents the number of nodes in the graph. E is the set that contains all edges in the graph. c, d, m are three types of cost of a node. r is the cost of edges. Each node has multiple strategies (represented by the vector s[i]), and we need to select the best strategy for each node so that the overall cost is minimal.
Detailed constants:
# s_len: record the length of each vector
# (the # of strategies for each node,
# here we assume the length are all 10)
s_len = np.ones(N) * 10
# c, d, m are the costs of each node
# let's assume the c/d/m cost for i node is just i
c, d, m = [], [], []
for i in range(N):
c[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
d[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
m[i] = s_len[i] * [i]
# r is the edge cost, let's assume the cost for
# each edge is just i * j
r = []
for (i,j) in E: # E records all edges
cur_r = s_len[i] * s_len[j] * [i*j]
r.append(cur_r)
# L contains the node ids, we just randomly generate 10 integers here
L = []
for i in range(N):
cur_L = [randrange(N) for _ in range(10)]
L.append(cur_L)
I've been stuck on this for a while and any comments/answers are highly appreciated! Thanks!
Try reframing the inequality constraint:
for t in range(N):
peak_mem = gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
gekko.Equation(peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM)
as a variable with an upper bound:
peak_mem = m.Array(m.Var,N,ub=DEVICE_MEM)
for t in range(N):
m.Equation(peak_mem[t]==\
gekko.sum([np.dot(s[i], m[i]) for i in L[t]])
The N inequality constraints peak_mem < DEVICE_MEM are converted to equality constraints with slack variables as s[i] = DEVICE_MEM - peak_mem with a simple inequality constraint on the slack s[i]>=0. If the inequality constraint far from the bound, then the slack variable can be very large. Formulating the equation as a variable may help.
I tried using the information in the question to pose a minimal problem that could reproduce the error and the potential solution. If you need more specific suggestions, please modify the code to be a complete and minimal example that reproduces the error. This helps with verifying the solution.
The renewal function for Weibull distribution m(t) with t = 10 is given as below.
I want to find the value of m(t). I wrote the following r code to compute m(t)
last_term = NULL
gamma_k = NULL
n = 50
for(k in 1:n){
gamma_k[k] = gamma(2*k + 1)/factorial(k)
}
for(j in 1: (n-1)){
prev = gamma_k[n-j]
last_term[j] = gamma(2*j + 1)/factorial(j)*prev
}
final_term = NULL
find_value = function(n){
for(i in 2:n){
final_term[i] = gamma_k[i] - sum(last_term[1:(i-1)])
}
return(final_term)
}
all_k = find_value(n)
af_sum = NULL
m_t = function(t){
for(k in 1:n){
af_sum[k] = (-1)^(k-1) * all_k[k] * t^(2*k)/gamma(2*k + 1)
}
return(sum(na.omit(af_sum)))
}
m_t(20)
The output is m(t) = 2.670408e+93. Does my iteratvie procedure correct? Thanks.
I don't think it will work. First, lets move Γ(2k+1) from denominator of m(t) into Ak. Thus, Ak will behave roughly as 1/k!.
In the nominator of the m(t) terms there is t2k, so roughly speaking you're computing sum with terms
100k/k!
From Stirling formula
k! ~ kk, making terms
(100/k)k
so yes, they will start to decrease and converge to something but after 100th term
Anyway, here is the code, you could try to improve it, but it breaks at k~70
N <- 20
A <- rep(0, N)
# compute A_k/gamma(2k+1) terms
ps <- 0.0 # previous sum
A[1] = 1.0
for(k in 2:N) {
ps <- ps + A[k-1]*gamma(2*(k-1) + 1)/factorial(k-1)
A[k] <- 1.0/factorial(k) - ps/gamma(2*k+1)
}
print(A)
t <- 10.0
t2 <- t*t
r <- 0.0
for(k in 1:N){
r <- r + (-t2)^k*A[k]
}
print(-r)
UPDATE
Ok, I calculated Ak as in your question, got the same answer. I want to estimate terms Ak/Γ(2k+1) from m(t), I believe it will be pretty much dominated by 1/k! term. To do that I made another array k!*Ak/Γ(2k+1), and it should be close to one.
Code
N <- 20
A <- rep(0.0, N)
psum <- function( pA, k ) {
ps <- 0.0
if (k >= 2) {
jmax <- k - 1
for(j in 1:jmax) {
ps <- ps + (gamma(2*j+1)/factorial(j))*pA[k-j]
}
}
ps
}
# compute A_k/gamma(2k+1) terms
A[1] = gamma(3)
for(k in 2:N) {
A[k] <- gamma(2*k+1)/factorial(k) - psum(A, k)
}
print(A)
B <- rep(0.0, N)
for(k in 1:N) {
B[k] <- (A[k]/gamma(2*k+1))*factorial(k)
}
print(B)
shows that
I got the same Ak values as you did.
Bk is indeed very close to 1
It means that term Ak/Γ(2k+1) could be replaced by 1/k! to get quick estimate of what we might get (with replacement)
m(t) ~= - Sum(k=1, k=Infinity) (-1)k (t2)k / k! = 1 - Sum(k=0, k=Infinity) (-t2)k / k!
This is actually well-known sum and it is equal to exp() with negative argument (well, you have to add term for k=0)
m(t) ~= 1 - exp(-t2)
Conclusions
Approximate value is positive. Probably will stay positive after all, Ak/Γ(2k+1) is a bit different from 1/k!.
We're talking about 1 - exp(-100), which is 1-3.72*10-44! And we're trying to compute it precisely summing and subtracting values on the order of 10100 or even higher. Even with MPFR I don't think this is possible.
Another approach is needed
OK, so I ended up going down a pretty different road on this. I have implemented a simple discretization of the integral equation which defines the renewal function:
m(t) = F(t) + integrate (m(t - s)*f(s), s, 0, t)
The integral is approximated with the rectangle rule. Approximating the integral for different values of t gives a system of linear equations. I wrote a function to generate the equations and extract a matrix of coefficients from it. After looking at some examples, I guessed a rule to define the coefficients directly and used that to generate solutions for some examples. In particular I tried shape = 2, t = 10, as in OP's example, with step = 0.1 (so 101 equations).
I found that the result agrees pretty well with an approximate result which I found in a paper (Baxter et al., cited in the code). Since the renewal function is the expected number of events, for large t it is approximately equal to t/mu where mu is the mean time between events; this is a handy way to know if we're anywhere in the neighborhood.
I was working with Maxima (http://maxima.sourceforge.net), which is not efficient for numerical stuff, but which makes it very easy to experiment with different aspects. At this point it would be straightforward to port the final, numerical stuff to another language such as Python.
Thanks to OP for suggesting the problem, and S. Pappadeux for insightful discussions. Here is the plot I got comparing the discretized approximation (red) with the approximation for large t (blue). Trying some examples with different step sizes, I saw that the values tend to increase a little as step size gets smaller, so I think the red line is probably a little low, and the blue line might be more nearly correct.
Here is my Maxima code:
/* discretize weibull renewal function and formulate system of linear equations
* copyright 2020 by Robert Dodier
* I release this work under terms of the GNU General Public License
*
* This is a program for Maxima, a computer algebra system.
* http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
*/
"Definition of the renewal function m(t):" $
renewal_eq: m(t) = F(t) + 'integrate (m(t - s)*f(s), s, 0, t);
"Approximate integral equation with rectangle rule:" $
discretize_renewal (delta_t, k) :=
if equal(k, 0)
then m(0) = F(0)
else m(k*delta_t) = F(k*delta_t)
+ m(k*delta_t)*f(0)*(delta_t / 2)
+ sum (m((k - j)*delta_t)*f(j*delta_t)*delta_t, j, 1, k - 1)
+ m(0)*f(k*delta_t)*(delta_t / 2);
make_eqs (n, delta_t) :=
makelist (discretize_renewal (delta_t, k), k, 0, n);
make_vars (n, delta_t) :=
makelist (m(k*delta_t), k, 0, n);
"Discretized integral equation and variables for n = 4, delta_t = 1/2:" $
make_eqs (4, 1/2);
make_vars (4, 1/2);
make_eqs_vars (n, delta_t) :=
[make_eqs (n, delta_t), make_vars (n, delta_t)];
load (distrib);
subst_pdf_cdf (shape, scale, e) :=
subst ([f = lambda ([x], pdf_weibull (x, shape, scale)), F = lambda ([x], cdf_weibull (x, shape, scale))], e);
matrix_from (eqs, vars) :=
(augcoefmatrix (eqs, vars),
[submatrix (%%, length(%%) + 1), - col (%%, length(%%) + 1)]);
"Subsitute Weibull pdf and cdf for shape = 2 into discretized equation:" $
apply (matrix_from, make_eqs_vars (4, 1/2));
subst_pdf_cdf (2, 1, %);
"Just the right-hand side matrix:" $
rhs_matrix_from (eqs, vars) :=
(map (rhs, eqs),
augcoefmatrix (%%, vars),
[submatrix (%%, length(%%) + 1), col (%%, length(%%) + 1)]);
"Generate the right-hand side matrix, instead of extracting it from equations:" $
generate_rhs_matrix (n, delta_t) :=
[delta_t * genmatrix (lambda ([i, j], if i = 1 and j = 1 then 0
elseif j > i then 0
elseif j = i then f(0)/2
elseif j = 1 then f(delta_t*(i - 1))/2
else f(delta_t*(i - j))), n + 1, n + 1),
transpose (makelist (F(k*delta_t), k, 0, n))];
"Generate numerical right-hand side matrix, skipping over formulas:" $
generate_rhs_matrix_numerical (shape, scale, n, delta_t) :=
block ([f, F, numer: true], local (f, F),
f: lambda ([x], pdf_weibull (x, shape, scale)),
F: lambda ([x], cdf_weibull (x, shape, scale)),
[genmatrix (lambda ([i, j], delta_t * if i = 1 and j = 1 then 0
elseif j > i then 0
elseif j = i then f(0)/2
elseif j = 1 then f(delta_t*(i - 1))/2
else f(delta_t*(i - j))), n + 1, n + 1),
transpose (makelist (F(k*delta_t), k, 0, n))]);
"Solve approximate integral equation (shape = 3, t = 1) via LU decomposition:" $
fpprintprec: 4 $
n: 20 $
t: 1;
[AA, bb]: generate_rhs_matrix_numerical (3, 1, n, t/n);
xx_by_lu: linsolve_by_lu (ident(n + 1) - AA, bb, floatfield);
"Iterative solution of approximate integral equation (shape = 3, t = 1):" $
xx: bb;
for i thru 10 do xx: AA . xx + bb;
xx - (AA.xx + bb);
xx_iterative: xx;
"Should find iterative and LU give same result:" $
xx_diff: xx_iterative - xx_by_lu[1];
sqrt (transpose(xx_diff) . xx_diff);
"Try shape = 2, t = 10:" $
n: 100 $
t: 10 $
[AA, bb]: generate_rhs_matrix_numerical (2, 1, n, t/n);
xx_by_lu: linsolve_by_lu (ident(n + 1) - AA, bb, floatfield);
"Baxter, et al., Eq. 3 (for large values of t) compared to discretization:" $
/* L.A. Baxter, E.M. Scheuer, D.J. McConalogue, W.R. Blischke.
* "On the Tabulation of the Renewal Function,"
* Econometrics, vol. 24, no. 2 (May 1982).
* H(t) is their notation for the renewal function.
*/
H(t) := t/mu + sigma^2/(2*mu^2) - 1/2;
tx_points: makelist ([float (k/n*t), xx_by_lu[1][k, 1]], k, 1, n);
plot2d ([H(u), [discrete, tx_points]], [u, 0, t]), mu = mean_weibull(2, 1), sigma = std_weibull(2, 1);
I'm trying to learn R. I'm trying to write a program which calculates (approximately) pi.
Read About the method
My code is not working right now!
f <- 0
s <- 0
range <- 10000
for (i in (1:range)) {
v <- sample(1:range, 1)/range
n <- sample(1:range, 1)/range
if ( sqrt (v*v + n*n) <= 1) {
f <- f + 1
} else if ( v <=1 && n <= 1) {
s <- s+1
}
}
print ( f/s )
Here's an improved version of your code
range = 100000
v = runif(range)
n = runif(range)
f = sum(sqrt(v^2 + n^2) <= 1)
print(4 * f / range)
You should use runif to get samples from a uniform instead of sample(...) / range.
The s is unnecessary since what you're doing is counting the number of times, f, that your random point (v,n) is within the circle in that quadrant, divided by the number of attempted draws, which would just be range in your case.
You need to multiply by 4 since f / range approximates the area of one-quarter of the unit circle.
I'm trying to implement the spiking neuron of the Izhikevich model. The formula for this type of neuron is really simple:
v[n+1] = 0.04*v[n]^2 + 5*v[n] + 140 - u[n] + I
u[n+1] = a*(b*v[n] - u[n])
where v is the membrane potential and u is a recovery variable.
If v gets above 30, it is reset to c and u is reset to u + d.
Given such a simple equation I wouldn't expect any problems. But while the graph should look like , all I'm getting is this:
I'm completely at loss what I'm doing wrong exactly because there's so little to do wrong. I've looked for other implementations but the code I'm looking for is always hidden in a dll somewhere. However I'm pretty sure I'm doing exactly what the Matlab code of the author (2) is doing. Here is my full R code:
v = -70
u = 0
a = 0.02
b = 0.2
c = -65
d = 6
history <- c()
for (i in 1:100) {
if (v >= 30) {
v = c
u = u + d
}
v = 0.04*v^2 + 5*v + 140 - u + 0
u=a*(b*v-u);
history <- c(history, v)
}
plot(history, type = "l")
To anyone who's ever implemented an Izhikevich model, what am I missing?
usefull links:
(1) http://www.opensourcebrain.org/projects/izhikevichmodel/wiki
(2) http://www.izhikevich.org/publications/spikes.pdf
Answer
So it turns out I read the formula wrong. Apparently v' means new v = v + 0.04*v^2 + 5*v + 140 - u + I. My teachers would have written this as v' = 0.04*v^2 + 6*v + 140 - u + I. I'm very grateful for your help in pointing this out to me.
Take a look at the code that implements the Izhikevich model in R below. It results in the following R plots:
Regular Spiking Cell:
Chattering Cell:
And the R code:
# Simulation parameters
dt = 0.01 # ms
simtime = 500 # ms
t = 0
# Injection current
I = 15
delay = 100 # ms
# Model parameters (RS)
a = 0.02
b = 0.2
c = -65
d = 8
# Params for chattering cell (CH)
# c = -50
# d = 2
# Initial conditions
v = -80 # mv
u = 0
# Input current equation
current = function()
{
if(t >= delay)
{
return(I)
}
return (0)
}
# Model state equations
deltaV = function()
{
return (0.04*v*v+5*v+140-u+current())
}
deltaU = function()
{
return (a*(b*v-u))
}
updateState = function()
{
v <<- v + deltaV()*dt
u <<- u + deltaU()*dt
if(v >= 30)
{
v <<- c
u <<- u + d
}
}
# Simulation code
runsim = function()
{
steps = simtime / dt
resultT = rep(NA, steps)
resultV = rep(NA, steps)
for (i in seq(steps))
{
updateState()
t <<- dt*(i-1)
resultT[i] = t
resultV[i] = v
}
plot(resultT, resultV,
type="l", xlab = "Time (ms)", ylab = "Membrane Potential (mV)")
}
runsim()
Some notes:
I've picked the parameters for the "Regular Spiking (RS)" cell from Izhikevich's site. You can pick other parameters from the two upper-right plots on that page. Uncomment the CH parameters to get a plot for the "Chattering" type cell.
As commenters have suggested, the first two equations in the question are incorrectly implemented differential equations. The correct way to implement the first one would be something like: "v[n+1] = v[n] + (0.04*v[n]^2 + 5*v[n] + 140 - u[n] + I) * dt". See the code above for example. dt refers to the user specified time step integration variable and usually dt << 1 ms.
In the for loop in the question, the state variables u and v should be updated first, then the condition checked after.
As noted by others, a current source is needed for both of these cell types. I've used 15 (I believe these are pico amps) from this page on the author's site (bottom value for I in the screenshot). I've also implemented a delay for the current onset (100 ms parameter).
The simulation code should implement some kind of time tracking so it's easier to know when the spikes are occurring in resulting plot. The above code implements this, and runs the simulation for 500 ms.
I've just been working though converting some MATLAB scripts to work in R, however having never used MATLAB in my life, and not exactly being an expert on R I'm having some trouble.
Edit: It's a script I was given designed to correct temperature measurements for lag generated by insulation mass effects. My understanding is that It looks at the rate of change of the temperature and attempts to adjust for errors generated by the response time of the sensor. Unfortunately there is no literature available to me to give me an indication of the numbers i am expecting from the function, and the only way to find out will be to experimentally test it at a later date.
the original script:
function [Tc, dT] = CTD_TempTimelagCorrection(T0,Tau,t)
N1 = Tau/t;
Tc = T0;
N = 3;
for j=ceil(N/2):numel(T0)-ceil(N/2)
A = nan(N,1);
# Compute weights
for k=1:N
A(k) = (1/N) + N1 * ((12*k - (6*(N+1))) / (N*(N^2 - 1)));
end
A = A./sum(A);
# Verify unity
if sum(A) ~= 1
disp('Error: Sum of weights is not unity');
end
Comp = nan(N,1);
# Compute components
for k=1:N
Comp(k) = A(k)*T0(j - (ceil(N/2)) + k);
end
Tc(j) = sum(Comp);
dT = Tc - T0;
end
where I've managed to get to:
CTD_TempTimelagCorrection <- function(temp,Tau,t){
## Define which equation to use based on duration of lag and frequency
## With ESM2 profiler sampling # 2hz: N1>tau/t = TRUE
N1 = Tau/t
Tc = temp
N = 3
for(i in ceiling(N/2):length(temp)-ceiling(N/2)){
A = matrix(nrow=N,ncol=1)
# Compute weights
for(k in 1:N){
A[k] = (1/N) + N1 * ((12*k - (6*(N+1))) / (N*(N^2 - 1)))
}
A = A/sum(A)
# Verify unity
if(sum(A) != 1){
print("Error: Sum of weights is not unity")
}
Comp = matrix(nrow=N,ncol=1)
# Compute components
for(k in 1:N){
Comp[k] = A[k]*temp[i - (ceiling(N/2)) + k]
}
Tc[i] = sum(Comp)
dT = Tc - temp
}
return(dT)
}
I think the problem is the Comp[k] line, could someone point out what I've done wrong? I'm not sure I can select the elements of the array in such a way.
by the way, Tau = 1, t = 0.5 and temp (or T0) will be a vector.
Thanks
edit: apparently my description is too brief in explaining my code samples, not really sure what more I could write that would be relevant and not just wasting peoples time. Is this enough Mr Filter?
The error is as follows:
Error in Comp[k] = A[k] * temp[i - (ceiling(N/2)) + k] :
replacement has length zero
In addition: Warning message:
In Comp[k] = A[k] * temp[i - (ceiling(N/2)) + k] :
number of items to replace is not a multiple of replacement length
If you write print(i - (ceiling(N/2)) + k) before that line, you will see that you are using incorrect indices for temp[i - (ceiling(N/2)) + k], which means that nothing is returned to be inserted into Comp[k]. I assume this problem is due to Matlab allowing the use of 0 as an index and not R, and the way negative indices are handled (they don't work the same in both languages). You need to implement a fix to return the correct indices.