Is there a way to access what the current time step is in scipy.integrate.odeint?
I am trying to solve a system of ODEs where the form of the ode depends on whether or not a population will be depleted. Basically I take from population x provided x doesn't go below a threshold. If the amount I need to take this timestep is greater than that threshold I will take all of x to that point and the rest from z.
I am trying to do this by checking how much I will take this time step, and then allocating between populations x and z in the DEs.
To do this I need to be able to access the step size within the ODE solver to calculate what will be taken this time step. I am using scipy.integrate.odeint - is there a way to access the time step within the function defining the odes?
Alternatively, can you access what the last time was in the solver? I know it won't necessarily be the next time step, but it's likely a good enough approximation for me if that is the best I can do. Or is there another option I've not thought of to do this?
The below MWE is not my system of equations but what I could come up with to try to illustrate what I'm doing. The problem is that on the first time step, if the time step were 1 then the population will go too low, but since the timestep will be small, initially you can take all from x.
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import odeint
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
plt.interactive(False)
tend = 5
tspan = np.linspace(0.0, tend, 1000)
A = 3
B = 4.09
C = 1.96
D = 2.29
def odefunc(P,t):
x = P[0]
y = P[1]
z = P[2]
if A * x - B * x * y < 0.6:
dxdt = A/5 * x
dydt = -C * y + D * x * y
dzdt = - B * z * y
else:
dxdt = A * x - B * x * y
dydt = -C * y + D * x * y
dzdt = 0
dPdt = np.ravel([dxdt, dydt, dzdt])
return dPdt
init = ([0.75,0.95,100])
sol = odeint(odefunc, init, tspan, hmax = 0.01)
x = sol[:, 0]
y = sol[:, 1]
z = sol[:, 2]
plt.figure(1)
plt.plot(tspan,x)
plt.plot(tspan,y)
plt.plot(tspan,z)
Of course you can hack something together that might work.
You could log t but you have to be aware that the values
might not be constantly increasing. This depends on the ODE algorithm and how it works (forward, backward, and central finite differences).
But it will give you an idea where about you are.
logger = [] # visible in odefunc
def odefunc(P,t):
x = P[0]
y = P[1]
z = P[2]
print(t)
logger.append(t)
if logger: # if the list is not empty
if logger[-1] > 2.5: # then read the last value
print('hua!')
if A * x - B * x * y < 0.6:
dxdt = A/5 * x
dydt = -C * y + D * x * y
dzdt = - B * z * y
else:
dxdt = A * x - B * x * y
dydt = -C * y + D * x * y
dzdt = 0
dPdt = np.ravel([dxdt, dydt, dzdt])
return dPdt
print(logger)
As pointed out in the another answer, time may not be strictly increasing at each call to the ODE function in odeint, especially for stiff problems.
The most robust way to handle this kind of discontinuity in the ode function is to use an event to find the location of the zero of (A * x - B * x * y) - 0.6 in your example. For a discontinuous solution, use a terminal event to stop the computation precisely at the zero, and then change the ode function. In solve_ivp you can do this with the events parameter. See the solve ivp documentation and specifically the examples related to the cannonball trajectories. odeint does not support events, and solve_ivp has an LSODA method available that calls the same Fortran library as odeint.
Here is a short example, but you may want to additionally check that sol1 reached the terminal event before solving for sol2.
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
tend = 10
def discontinuity_zero(t, y):
return y[0] - 10
discontinuity_zero.terminal = True
def ode_func1(t, y):
return y
def ode_func2 (t, y):
return -y**2
sol1 = solve_ivp(ode_func1, t_span=[0, tend], y0=[1], events=discontinuity_zero, rtol=1e-8)
t1 = sol1.t[-1]
y1 = [sol1.y[0, -1]]
print(f'time={t1} y={y1} discontinuity_zero={discontinuity_zero(t1, y1)}')
sol2 = solve_ivp(ode_func2, t_span=[t1, tend], y0=y1, rtol=1e-8)
plt.plot(sol1.t, sol1.y[0,:])
plt.plot(sol2.t, sol2.y[0,:])
plt.show()
This prints the following, where the time of the discontinuity is accurate to 7 digits.
time=2.302584885712467 y=[10.000000000000002] discontinuity_zero=1.7763568394002505e-15
Related
My Problem:
A positively charged particle (mass = 2 * 10-27 kg) is moving along the x-axis. It is travelling in a homogenous magnetic field such that the field axis in z-direction. The energy of the particle is 2 MeV and B = 4 T. Use a ODE solver to plot the motion of the particle for 1 microseconds.
My attempt of solving the problem
Note that I have used question marks where I am unsure.
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
initialZ = [?, ?, ?, ?, ?, ?] # = [positionX, positionY, positionZ, velocityX, velocityY, velocityZ]
t0 = 0
tf = 1*(10**-6) # 1 microsecond = 1*10^6 seconds
times = (t0, tf)
def ivf(t, Z):
x, y, z = Z[0], Z[1], Z[2]
u, v, w = Z[3], Z[4], Z[5]
return np.array([u, v, w, ?, ?, ?])
s = solve_ivp(ivf, times, initialZ)
My question
what should the question marks (?) in the code be replaced with?
I have tried to solve the ODE as an initial value problem. I tried to determine inital velocity by equating the lorentz force and centripetal force. I am very new to differential equations and it is therefore difficult to know If I am doing things in the correct way. (note that the first three values of my initialZ vector represents positions x, y and z, and the last three values represent velocity in the x, y and z direction). I am grateful for any help or guidance.
Let us set up the ode and then the initial conditions. From the magnetic force equations and Newton's second law, a = (q B / m) v * z. I'm using * to represent the cross product and x, y, and z are unit vectors. In your question you didn't give a charge q for the particle, I'm assuming you are doing a proton and just rounded the mass of 1.67 to 2. You will see that we just need 4 equations and 4 initial conditions as this problem is 2D in nature.
We have that a = (q B / m) (v_y x - v_x y). Note there is no z term! We need to write these 2 second order odes as four first order odes so ode solver can work it out. We know that a = dv/dt.
dv_x / dt = (q B / m) v_y
dv_y / dt = -(q B / m) v_x
dx/dt = v_x
dy/dt = v_y
The initial condition is that the velocity is v_x0 = Sqrt(2 E / m) where E is 2 MeV, v_y0 = 0, and lets just have the particle start at the origin, so x0 = y0 = 0.
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# make sure everything is SI
q = 1.602176634E-19 # charge assuming it is a proton
B = 4 # magnetic field magnitude
m = 2E-27 # mass
E = 2 * 1.60218E-13 # kinetic energy in joules
C = q * B / m # constant for convenience
v0x = np.sqrt(2 * E / m)
initialZ = [0, 0, v0x, 0] # = [positionX, positionY, velocityX, velocityY]
def ivf(t, Z) :
# Z[2] is vx, Z[3] is vy
dxdt = Z[2]
dydt = Z[3]
dvxdt = C * Z[3]
dvydt = -C * Z[2]
return [dxdt, dydt, dvxdt, dvydt]
sol = solve_ivp(ivf, [0, 1E-6], initialZ, method='Radau') # 1 microsecond = 1*10^6 seconds
plt.plot(sol.y[0], sol.y[1])
plt.xlabel('x')
plt.ylabel('y')
plt.title('Displacement on point particle')
plt.show()
What I am expecting is circular motion like in a cyclotron. Here is a rough graph I made,
I was able to get it a bit smooth by playing with the integration method. I'm sure you will be able to tinker and play around with different things until you get a satisfactory result.
Background
I've been working for some time on attempting to solve the (notoriously painful) Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA) multi-lateration problem, in 3-dimensions and using 4 nodes. If you're unfamiliar with the problem, it is to determine the coordinates of some signal source (X,Y,Z), given the coordinates of n nodes, the time of arrival of the signal at each node, and the velocity of the signal v.
My solution is as follows:
For each node, we write (X-x_i)**2 + (Y-y_i)**2 + (Z-z_i)**2 = (v(t_i - T)**2
Where (x_i, y_i, z_i) are the coordinates of the ith node, and T is the time of emission.
We have now 4 equations in 4 unknowns. Four nodes are obviously insufficient. We could try to solve this system directly, however that seems next to impossible given the highly nonlinear nature of the problem (and, indeed, I've tried many direct techniques... and failed). Instead, we simplify this to a linear problem by considering all i/j possibilities, subtracting equation i from equation j. We obtain (n(n-1))/2 =6 equations of the form:
2*(x_j - x_i)*X + 2*(y_j - y_i)*Y + 2*(z_j - z_i)*Z + 2 * v**2 * (t_i - t_j) = v**2 ( t_i**2 - t_j**2) + (x_j**2 + y_j**2 + z_j**2) - (x_i**2 + y_i**2 + z_i**2)
Which look like Xv_1 + Y_v2 + Z_v3 + T_v4 = b. We try now to apply standard linear least squares, where the solution is the matrix vector x in A^T Ax = A^T b. Unfortunately, if you were to try feeding this into any standard linear least squares algorithm, it'll choke up. So, what do we do now?
...
The time of arrival of the signal at node i is given (of course) by:
sqrt( (X-x_i)**2 + (Y-y_i)**2 + (Z-z_i)**2 ) / v
This equation implies that the time of arrival, T, is 0. If we have that T = 0, we can drop the T column in matrix A and the problem is greatly simplified. Indeed, NumPy's linalg.lstsq() gives a surprisingly accurate & precise result.
...
So, what I do is normalize the input times by subtracting from each equation the earliest time. All I have to do then is determine the dt that I can add to each time such that the residual of summed squared error for the point found by linear least squares is minimized.
I define the error for some dt to be the squared difference between the arrival time for the point predicted by feeding the input times + dt to the least squares algorithm, minus the input time (normalized), summed over all 4 nodes.
for node, time in nodes, times:
error += ( (sqrt( (X-x_i)**2 + (Y-y_i)**2 + (Z-z_i)**2 ) / v) - time) ** 2
My problem:
I was able to do this somewhat satisfactorily by using brute-force. I started at dt = 0, and moved by some step up to some maximum # of iterations OR until some minimum RSS error is reached, and that was the dt I added to the normalized times to obtain a solution. The resulting solutions were very accurate and precise, but quite slow.
In practice, I'd like to be able to solve this in real time, and therefore a far faster solution will be needed. I began with the assumption that the error function (that is, dt vs error as defined above) would be highly nonlinear-- offhand, this made sense to me.
Since I don't have an actual, mathematical function, I can automatically rule out methods that require differentiation (e.g. Newton-Raphson). The error function will always be positive, so I can rule out bisection, etc. Instead, I try a simple approximation search. Unfortunately, that failed miserably. I then tried Tabu search, followed by a genetic algorithm, and several others. They all failed horribly.
So, I decided to do some investigating. As it turns out the plot of the error function vs dt looks a bit like a square root, only shifted right depending upon the distance from the nodes that the signal source is:
Where dt is on horizontal axis, error on vertical axis
And, in hindsight, of course it does!. I defined the error function to involve square roots so, at least to me, this seems reasonable.
What to do?
So, my issue now is, how do I determine the dt corresponding to the minimum of the error function?
My first (very crude) attempt was to get some points on the error graph (as above), fit it using numpy.polyfit, then feed the results to numpy.root. That root corresponds to the dt. Unfortunately, this failed, too. I tried fitting with various degrees, and also with various points, up to a ridiculous number of points such that I may as well just use brute-force.
How can I determine the dt corresponding to the minimum of this error function?
Since we're dealing with high velocities (radio signals), it's important that the results be precise and accurate, as minor variances in dt can throw off the resulting point.
I'm sure that there's some infinitely simpler approach buried in what I'm doing here however, ignoring everything else, how do I find dt?
My requirements:
Speed is of utmost importance
I have access only to pure Python and NumPy in the environment where this will be run
EDIT:
Here's my code. Admittedly, a bit messy. Here, I'm using the polyfit technique. It will "simulate" a source for you, and compare results:
from numpy import poly1d, linspace, set_printoptions, array, linalg, triu_indices, roots, polyfit
from dataclasses import dataclass
from random import randrange
import math
#dataclass
class Vertexer:
receivers: list
# Defaults
c = 299792
# Receivers:
# [x_1, y_1, z_1]
# [x_2, y_2, z_2]
# [x_3, y_3, z_3]
# Solved:
# [x, y, z]
def error(self, dt, times):
solved = self.linear([time + dt for time in times])
error = 0
for time, receiver in zip(times, self.receivers):
error += ((math.sqrt( (solved[0] - receiver[0])**2 +
(solved[1] - receiver[1])**2 +
(solved[2] - receiver[2])**2 ) / c ) - time)**2
return error
def linear(self, times):
X = array(self.receivers)
t = array(times)
x, y, z = X.T
i, j = triu_indices(len(x), 1)
A = 2 * (X[i] - X[j])
b = self.c**2 * (t[j]**2 - t[i]**2) + (X[i]**2).sum(1) - (X[j]**2).sum(1)
solved, residuals, rank, s = linalg.lstsq(A, b, rcond=None)
return(solved)
def find(self, times):
# Normalize times
times = [time - min(times) for time in times]
# Fit the error function
y = []
x = []
dt = 1E-10
for i in range(50000):
x.append(self.error(dt * i, times))
y.append(dt * i)
p = polyfit(array(x), array(y), 2)
r = roots(p)
return(self.linear([time + r for time in times]))
# SIMPLE CODE FOR SIMULATING A SIGNAL
# Pick nodes to be at random locations
x_1 = randrange(10); y_1 = randrange(10); z_1 = randrange(10)
x_2 = randrange(10); y_2 = randrange(10); z_2 = randrange(10)
x_3 = randrange(10); y_3 = randrange(10); z_3 = randrange(10)
x_4 = randrange(10); y_4 = randrange(10); z_4 = randrange(10)
# Pick source to be at random location
x = randrange(1000); y = randrange(1000); z = randrange(1000)
# Set velocity
c = 299792 # km/ns
# Generate simulated source
t_1 = math.sqrt( (x - x_1)**2 + (y - y_1)**2 + (z - z_1)**2 ) / c
t_2 = math.sqrt( (x - x_2)**2 + (y - y_2)**2 + (z - z_2)**2 ) / c
t_3 = math.sqrt( (x - x_3)**2 + (y - y_3)**2 + (z - z_3)**2 ) / c
t_4 = math.sqrt( (x - x_4)**2 + (y - y_4)**2 + (z - z_4)**2 ) / c
print('Actual:', x, y, z)
myVertexer = Vertexer([[x_1, y_1, z_1],[x_2, y_2, z_2],[x_3, y_3, z_3],[x_4, y_4, z_4]])
solution = myVertexer.find([t_1, t_2, t_3, t_4])
print(solution)
It seems like the Bancroft method applies to this problem? Here's a pure NumPy implementation.
# Implementation of the Bancroft method, following
# https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Bancroft_Method
M = np.diag([1, 1, 1, -1])
def lorentz_inner(v, w):
return np.sum(v * (w # M), axis=-1)
B = np.array(
[
[x_1, y_1, z_1, c * t_1],
[x_2, y_2, z_2, c * t_2],
[x_3, y_3, z_3, c * t_3],
[x_4, y_4, z_4, c * t_4],
]
)
one = np.ones(4)
a = 0.5 * lorentz_inner(B, B)
B_inv_one = np.linalg.solve(B, one)
B_inv_a = np.linalg.solve(B, a)
for Lambda in np.roots(
[
lorentz_inner(B_inv_one, B_inv_one),
2 * (lorentz_inner(B_inv_one, B_inv_a) - 1),
lorentz_inner(B_inv_a, B_inv_a),
]
):
x, y, z, c_t = M # np.linalg.solve(B, Lambda * one + a)
print("Candidate:", x, y, z, c_t / c)
My answer might have mistakes (glaring) as I had not heard the TDOA term before this afternoon. Please double check if the method is right.
I could not find solution to your original problem of finding dt corresponding to the minimum error. My answer also deviates from the requirement that other than numpy no third party library had to be used (I used Sympy and largely used the code from here). However I am still posting this thinking that somebody someday might find it useful if all one is interested in ... is to find X,Y,Z of the source emitter. This method also does not take into account real-life situations where white noise or errors might be present or curvature of the earth and other complications.
Your initial test conditions are as below.
from random import randrange
import math
# SIMPLE CODE FOR SIMULATING A SIGNAL
# Pick nodes to be at random locations
x_1 = randrange(10); y_1 = randrange(10); z_1 = randrange(10)
x_2 = randrange(10); y_2 = randrange(10); z_2 = randrange(10)
x_3 = randrange(10); y_3 = randrange(10); z_3 = randrange(10)
x_4 = randrange(10); y_4 = randrange(10); z_4 = randrange(10)
# Pick source to be at random location
x = randrange(1000); y = randrange(1000); z = randrange(1000)
# Set velocity
c = 299792 # km/ns
# Generate simulated source
t_1 = math.sqrt( (x - x_1)**2 + (y - y_1)**2 + (z - z_1)**2 ) / c
t_2 = math.sqrt( (x - x_2)**2 + (y - y_2)**2 + (z - z_2)**2 ) / c
t_3 = math.sqrt( (x - x_3)**2 + (y - y_3)**2 + (z - z_3)**2 ) / c
t_4 = math.sqrt( (x - x_4)**2 + (y - y_4)**2 + (z - z_4)**2 ) / c
print('Actual:', x, y, z)
My solution is as below.
import sympy as sym
X,Y,Z = sym.symbols('X,Y,Z', real=True)
f = sym.Eq((x_1 - X)**2 +(y_1 - Y)**2 + (z_1 - Z)**2 , (c*t_1)**2)
g = sym.Eq((x_2 - X)**2 +(y_2 - Y)**2 + (z_2 - Z)**2 , (c*t_2)**2)
h = sym.Eq((x_3 - X)**2 +(y_3 - Y)**2 + (z_3 - Z)**2 , (c*t_3)**2)
i = sym.Eq((x_4 - X)**2 +(y_4 - Y)**2 + (z_4 - Z)**2 , (c*t_4)**2)
print("Solved coordinates are ", sym.solve([f,g,h,i],X,Y,Z))
print statement from your initial condition gave.
Actual: 111 553 110
and the solution that almost instantly came out was
Solved coordinates are [(111.000000000000, 553.000000000000, 110.000000000000)]
Sorry again if something is totally amiss.
I am trying to maximize a target function f(x) with function scipy.optimize.minimum. But it usually takes 4-5 hrs to run the code because the function f(x) involves a lot of computation of complex matrix. To improve its speed, I want to use gpu. And I've already tried tensorflow package. Since I use numpy to define f(x), I have to convert it into tensorflow's format. However, it doesn't support the computation of complex matrix. What else package or means I can use? Any suggestions?
To specific my problem, I will show calculate scheme below:
Calculate the expectation :
-where H=x*H_0, x is the parameter
Let \phi go through the dynamics of Schrödinger equation
-Different H is correspond to a different \phi_end. Thus, parameter x determines the expectation
Change x, calculate the corresponding expectation
Find a specific x that minimize the expectation
Here is a simple example of part of my code:
import numpy as np
import cmath
from scipy.linalg import expm
import scipy.optimize as opt
# create initial complex matrixes
N = 2 # Dimension of matrix
H = np.array([[1.0 + 1.0j] * N] * N) # a complex matrix with shape(N, N)
A = np.array([[0.0j] * N] * N)
A[0][0] = 1.0 + 1j
# calculate the expectation
def value(phi):
exp_H = expm(H) # put the matrix in the exp function
new_phi = np.linalg.linalg.matmul(exp_H, phi)
# calculate the expectation of the matrix
x = np.linalg.linalg.matmul(H, new_phi)
expectation = np.inner(np.conj(phi), x)
return expectation
# Contants
tmax = 1
dt = 0.1
nstep = int(tmax/dt)
phi_init = [1.0 + 1.0j] * N
# 1st derivative of Schrödinger equation
def dXdt(t, phi, H): # 1st derivative of the function
return -1j * np.linalg.linalg.matmul(H, phi)
def f(X):
phi = [[0j] * N] * nstep # store every time's phi
phi[0] = phi_init
# phi go through the dynamics of Schrödinger equation
for i in range(nstep - 1):
phi[i + 1] = phi[i] - dXdt(i * dt, X[i] * H, phi[i]) * dt
# calculate the corresponding value
f_result = value(phi[-1])
return f_result
# Initialize the parameter
X0 = np.array(np.ones(nstep))
results = opt.minimize(f, X0) # minimize the target function
opt_x = results.x
PS:
Python Version: 3.7
Operation System: Win 10
The problem is that I would like to be able to integrate the differential equations starting for each point of the grid at once instead of having to loop over the scipy integrator for each coordinate. (I'm sure there's an easy way)
As background for the code I'm trying to solve the trajectories of a Couette flux alternating the direction of the velocity each certain period, that is a well known dynamical system that produces chaos. I don't think the rest of the code really matters as the part of the integration with scipy and my usage of the meshgrid function of numpy.
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from matplotlib.animation import FuncAnimation, writers
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
start_T = 100
L = 1
V = 1
total_run_time = 10*3
grid_points = 10
T_list = np.arange(start_T, 1, -1)
x = np.linspace(0, L, grid_points)
y = np.linspace(0, L, grid_points)
X, Y = np.meshgrid(x, y)
condition = True
totals = np.zeros((start_T, total_run_time, 2))
alphas = np.zeros(start_T)
i = 0
for T in T_list:
alphas[i] = L / (V * T)
solution = np.array([X, Y])
for steps in range(int(total_run_time/T)):
t = steps*T
if condition:
def eq(t, x):
return V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x[1] / L), 0.0
condition = False
else:
def eq(t, x):
return 0.0, V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x[1] / L)
condition = True
time_steps = np.arange(t, t + T)
xt = solve_ivp(eq, time_steps, solution)
solution = np.array([xt.y[0], xt.y[1]])
totals[i][t: t + T][0] = solution[0]
totals[i][t: t + T][1] = solution[1]
i += 1
np.save('alphas.npy', alphas)
np.save('totals.npy', totals)
The error given is :
ValueError: y0 must be 1-dimensional.
And it comes from the 'solve_ivp' function of scipy because it doesn't accept the format of the numpy function meshgrid. I know I could run some loops and get over it but I'm assuming there must be a 'good' way to do it using numpy and scipy. I accept advice for the rest of the code too.
Yes, you can do that, in several variants. The question remains if it is advisable.
To implement a generally usable ODE integrator, it needs to be abstracted from the models. Most implementations do that by having the state space a flat-array vector space, some allow a vector space engine to be passed as parameter, so that structured vector spaces can be used. The scipy integrators are not of this type.
So you need to translate the states to flat vectors for the integrator, and back to the structured state for the model.
def encode(X,Y): return np.concatenate([X.flatten(),Y.flatten()])
def decode(U): return U.reshape([2,grid_points,grid_points])
Then you can implement the ODE function as
def eq(t,U):
X,Y = decode(U)
Vec = V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x[1] / L)
if int(t/T)%2==0:
return encode(Vec, np.zeros(Vec.shape))
else:
return encode(np.zeros(Vec.shape), Vec)
with initial value
U0 = encode(X,Y)
Then this can be directly integrated over the whole time span.
Why this might be not such a good idea: Thinking of each grid point and its trajectory separately, each trajectory has its own sequence of adapted time steps for the given error level. In integrating all simultaneously, the adapted step size is the minimum over all trajectories at the given time. Thus while the individual trajectories might have only short intervals with very small step sizes amid long intervals with sparse time steps, these can overlap in the ensemble to result in very small step sizes everywhere.
If you go beyond the testing stage, switch to a more compiled solver implementation, odeint is a Fortran code with wrappers, so half a solution. JITcode translates to C code and links with the compiled solver behind odeint. Leaving python you get sundials, the diffeq module of julia-lang, or boost::odeint.
TL;DR
I don't think you can "integrate the differential equations starting for each point of the grid at once".
MWE
Please try to provide a MWE to reproduce your problem, like you said : "I don't think the rest of the code really matters", and it makes it harder for people to understand your problem.
Understanding how to talk to the solver
Before answering your question, there are several things that seem to be misunderstood :
by defining time_steps = np.arange(t, t + T) and then calling solve_ivp(eq, time_steps, solution) : the second argument of solve_ivp is the time span you want the solution for, ie, the "start" and "stop" time as a 2-uple. Here your time_steps is 30-long (for the first loop), so I would probably replace it by (t, t+T). Look for t_span in the doc.
from what I understand, it seems like you want to control each iteration of the numerical resolution : that's not how solve_ivp works. More over, I think you want to switch the function "eq" at each iteration. Since you have to pass the "the right hand side" of the equation, you need to wrap this behavior inside a function. It would not work (see right after) but in terms of concept something like this:
def RHS(t, x):
# unwrap your variables, condition is like an additional variable of your problem,
# with a very simple differential equation
x0, x1, condition = x
# compute new results for x0 and x1
if condition:
x0_out, x1_out = V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x[1] / L), 0.0
else:
x0_out, x1_out = 0.0, V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x[1] / L)
# compute new result for condition
condition_out = not(condition)
return [x0_out, x1_out, condition_out]
This would not work because the evolution of condition doesn't satisfy some mathematical properties of derivation/continuity. So condition is like a boolean switch that parametrizes the model, we can use global to control the state of this boolean :
condition = True
def RHS_eq(t, y):
global condition
x0, x1 = y
# compute new results for x0 and x1
if condition:
x0_out, x1_out = V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x1 / L), 0.0
else:
x0_out, x1_out = 0.0, V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x1 / L)
# update condition
condition = 0 if condition==1 else 1
return [x0_out, x1_out]
finaly, and this is the ValueError you mentionned in your post : you define solution = np.array([X, Y]) which actually is initial condition and supposed to be "y0: array_like, shape (n,)" where n is the number of variable of the problem (in the case of [x0_out, x1_out] that would be 2)
A MWE for a single initial condition
All that being said, lets start with a simple MWE for a single starting point (0.5,0.5), so we have a clear view of how to use the solver :
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# initial conditions for x0, x1, and condition
initial = [0.5, 0.5]
condition = True
# time span
t_span = (0, 100)
# constants
V = 1
L = 1
# define the "model", ie the set of equations of t
def RHS_eq(t, y):
global condition
x0, x1 = y
# compute new results for x0 and x1
if condition:
x0_out, x1_out = V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x1 / L), 0.0
else:
x0_out, x1_out = 0.0, V * np.sin(2 * np.pi * x1 / L)
# update condition
condition = 0 if condition==1 else 1
return [x0_out, x1_out]
solution = solve_ivp(RHS_eq, # Right Hand Side of the equation(s)
t_span, # time span, a 2-uple
initial, # initial conditions
)
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
ax.plot(solution.t,
solution.y[0],
label="x0")
ax.plot(solution.t,
solution.y[1],
label="x1")
ax.legend()
Final answer
Now, what we want is to do the exact same thing but for various initial conditions, and from what I understand, we can't : again, quoting the doc
y0 : array_like, shape (n,) : Initial state. . The solver's initial condition only allows one starting point vector.
So to answer the initial question : I don't think you can "integrate the differential equations starting for each point of the grid at once".
I'm using Scipy 14.0 to solve a system of ordinary differential equations describing the dynamics of a gas bubble rising vertically (in the z direction) in a standing still fluid because of buoyancy forces. In particular, I have an equation expressing the rising velocity U as a function of bubble radius R, i.e. U=dz/dt=f(R), and one expressing the radius variation as a function of R and U, i.e. dR/dT=f(R,U). All the rest appearing in the code below are material properties.
I'd like to implement something to account for the physical constraint on z which, obviously, is limited by the liquid height H. I consequently implemented a sort of z<=H constraint in order to stop integration in advance if needed: I used set_solout in order to do so. The situation is that the code runs and gives good results, but set_solout is not working at all (it seems like z_constraint is never called actually...). Do you know why?
Is there somebody with a more clever idea, may be also in order to interrupt exactly when z=H (i.e. a final value problem) ? is this the right way/tool or should I reformulate the problem?
thanks in advance
Emi
from scipy.integrate import ode
Db0 = 0.001 # init bubble radius
y0, t0 = [ Db0/2 , 0. ], 0. #init conditions
H = 1
def y_(t,y,g,p0,rho_g,mi_g,sig_g,H):
R = y[0]
z = y[1]
z_ = ( R**2 * g * rho_g ) / ( 3*mi_g ) #velocity
R_ = ( R/3 * g * rho_g * z_ ) / ( p0 + rho_g*g*(H-z) + 4/3*sig_g/R ) #R dynamics
return [R_, z_]
def z_constraint(t,y):
H = 1 #should rather be a variable..
z = y[1]
if z >= H:
flag = -1
else:
flag = 0
return flag
r = ode( y_ )
r.set_integrator('dopri5')
r.set_initial_value(y0, t0)
r.set_f_params(g, 5*1e5, 2000, 40, 0.31, H)
r.set_solout(z_constraint)
t1 = 6
dt = 0.1
while r.successful() and r.t < t1:
r.integrate(r.t+dt)
You're running into this issue. For set_solout to work correctly, it must be called right after set_integrator, before set_initial_value. If you introduce this modification into your code (and set a value for g), integration will terminate when z >= H, as you want.
To find the exact time when the bubble reached the surface, you can make a change of variables after the integration is terminated by solout and integrate back with respect to z (rather than t) to z = H. A paper that describes the technique is M. Henon, Physica 5D, 412 (1982); you may also find this discussion helpful. Here's a very simple example in which the time t such that y(t) = 0.5 is found, given dy/dt = -y:
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import ode
def f(t, y):
"""Exponential decay: dy/dt = -y."""
return -y
def solout(t, y):
if y[0] < 0.5:
return -1
else:
return 0
y_initial = 1
t_initial = 0
r = ode(f).set_integrator('dopri5')
r.set_solout(solout)
r.set_initial_value(y_initial, t_initial)
# Integrate until solout constraint violated
r.integrate(2)
# New system with t as independent variable: see Henon's paper for details.
def g(y, t):
return -1.0/y
r2 = ode(g).set_integrator('dopri5')
r2.set_initial_value(r.t, r.y)
r2.integrate(0.5)
y_final = r2.t
t_final = r2.y
# Error: difference between found and analytical solution
print t_final - np.log(2)