Develop Reference

Plotting solution of complex equation with parameters with Python

This sounds to be something well explored, so I just need a reference.
I need to take a look (i.e. sketch the plot) to the solution of certain complex equations with several complex parameters and I would like to do that using Python/NumPy.
I have a certain number of complex functions of one complex variable depending on two parameters, and I need to add and compose them and finally to study the set of complex numbers such that the modulus of the above sum and composition is equal to a fixed positive real number.
For short: I have to plot the graph of the solutions of a certain complex equation, and see how does it move when parameters are touched.
Can somebody give a reference, please?
Thanks

How can I use implicit components to assemble a full system?

I'm working on a panel method code at the moment. To keep us from being bogged down in the minutia, I won't show the code - this is a question about overall program structure.
Currently, I solve my system by:
Generating the corresponding rows of the A matrix and b vector in an explicit component for each boundary condition
Assembling the partial outputs into the full A, b.
Solving the linear system, Ax=b, using a LinearSystemComp.
Here's a (crude) diagram:
I would prefer to be able to do this by just writing one implicit component to represent each boundary condition, vectorising the inputs/outputs to represent multiple rows/cols in the matrix, then allowing openMDAO to solve for the x while driving the residual for each boundary condition to 0.
I've run into trouble trying to make this work, as each implicit component is underdetermined (more rows in the output vector x than the component output residuals; that is, A1.x - b1= R1, length(R1) < length(x). Essentially, I would like openMDAO to take each of these underdetermined implicit systems, and find the value of x that solves the determined full system - without needing to do all of the assembling stuff myself.
Something like this:
To try and make my goal clearer, I'll explain what I actually want from the perspective of my panel method. I'd like a component, let's say Influence, that computes the potential induced by a given panel at a given point in the panel's reference frame. I'd like to vectorise the input panels and points such that it can compute the influence coefficent of many panels on one point, of many points on one panel, or of many points on many panels.
I'd then like a system of implicit boundary conditions to find the correct value of mu to solve the system. These boundary conditions, again, should be able to be vectorised to compute the violation of the boundary condition at many points under the influence of many panels.
I get confused again at this part. Not every boundary condition will use the influence coefficient values - some, like the Kutta condition, are just enforced on the mu vector, e.g .
How would I implement this as an implicit component? It has no inputs, and doesn't output the full mu vector.
I appreciate that the question is rather long and rambling, but I'm pretty confused. To summarise:
How can I use openMDAO to solve multiple individually underdetermined (but combined, fully determined) implicit systems?
How can I use openMDAO to write an implicit component that takes no inputs and only uses a portion of the overall solution vector?

In the OpenMDAO docs there is a close analog to what you are trying to accomplish, with the node-voltage analysis tutorial. In that code, the balance comp is used to create an implicit relationship that is similar to what you're describing. Its singular on its own, but part of a larger group is a well defined system.
You'll need to find a way to build similar components for your model. Each "row" in your equation will be associated with one state variables (one entry in your x vector).
In the simplest case, each row (or set of rows) would have one input which is the associated row of the A matrix, and a second input which is ALL of the other values for x, and a final input which is the entry of the b vector (right hand side vector). Then you could evaluate the residual for that specific row, which would be the following
R['x_i'] = np.sum(A*x_full) - b
where x_full is the assembly of the full x-vector from the x_other input and the x_i state variable.
#########
Having proposed the above solution, I have to say that I don't think this is a particularly efficient way to build or solve this linear system. It is modular, and might give you some flexibility, but you're jumping through a lot of hoops to avoid doing some index-math, and shoving everything into a matrix.
Granted, the derivatives might be a bit easier in your design, because the matrix assembly is going to get handled "magically" by the connections you have to create between the various row-components. So maybe its worth the trade... but i would say you might be better of trying a more traditional coding approach and using JAX or some other AD code to make the derivatives easier.

Why are finite differences of static input variables used to calculate the Jacobian? (OpenMDAO 2.4)

I have been using the SLSQP algorithm to run some MDO problems with ExplicitComponents only. Each component has a runtime of around 10 seconds and 60-100 input variables. Most of the input variables are static input variables that will remain constant during the entire optimization. The static input variables originate from an IndepVarComp. The ExplicitComponents are black boxes, so no information is available on the partials.
I noticed that when the Jacobian is calculated in the compute_totals(), the components are linearized with respect to all their input values. In the compute_approximations() a finite difference is calculated over all the input values, including the static input values. So, my question is: why is a finite difference calculation performed over these static input variables? As the values remain constant, I’m not sure why this information would be useful?
Furthermore, if I understand it correctly, the components are linearized to get the sub-Jacobians, which are then used to calculate the total Jacobian. However, is it possible to directly calculate a finite-difference over the entire group instead of linearizing each component? With the runtimes of my components and amount of input variables, it will take a long time to perform the linearization of each component. However, the optimization problem has only 3 design variables. So, if I could perform three finite difference calculations over the entire MDA to calculate the total Jacobian, the total runtime will decrease significantly.

To answer your questions in reverse order:
1) Can you FD over the entire model instead of each individual component? Yes!
You can set up FD over any group in your model, including the top-level group. Then the FD is taken across that group rather than across each component in it.
We call that computing a semi-total derivative, because in general you can select a sub-group in your model, in which case the FD is approximating a total-derivative across that group but that total-derivative is still effectively a partial-derivative for the overall model. hence semi-total derivative.
2) Why is a finite difference calculation performed over these static input variables?
In theory, you're correct that you don't really need partial derivatives of the inputs that can't change. As of OpenMDAO 2.4, we don't handle that situation automatically though, and we don't have plans to add that in the near future. However, the framework is only taking FD across the partials you tell it to. It sounds like you are declaring your partials like this:
self.declare_partials(of=['*'], wrt=['*'], method='fd')
So you're specifically asking the framework to compute all those partials. Instead, you could specify in the wrt argument only the inputs you know are actually changing. Of course, this is mathematically incorrect because there is a derivative wrt to the static-inputs. If someone later on connects something to those inputs and tries and optimization, they would get a wrong answer. But as long as your careful, you can specifically ask for only the partials you wanted from any component and simple leave the non-changing inputs as effectively 0.

parameter within an interval while optimizing

Usually I use Mathematica, but now trying to shift to python, so this question might be a trivial one, so I am sorry about that.
Anyways, is there any built-in function in python which is similar to the function named Interval[{min,max}] in Mathematica ? link is : http://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/Interval.html
What I am trying to do is, I have a function and I am trying to minimize it, but it is a constrained minimization, by that I mean, the parameters of the function are only allowed within some particular interval.
For a very simple example, lets say f(x) is a function with parameter x and I am looking for the value of x which minimizes the function but x is constrained within an interval (min,max) . [ Obviously the actual problem is just not one-dimensional rather multi-dimensional optimization, so different paramters may have different intervals. ]
Since it is an optimization problem, so ofcourse I do not want to pick the paramter randomly from an interval.
Any help will be highly appreciated , thanks!

If it's a highly non-linear problem, you'll need to use an algorithm such as the Generalized Reduced Gradient (GRG) Method.
The idea of the generalized reduced gradient algorithm (GRG) is to solve a sequence of subproblems, each of which uses a linear approximation of the constraints. (Ref)
You'll need to ensure that certain conditions known as the KKT conditions are met, etc. but for most continuous problems with reasonable constraints, you'll be able to apply this algorithm.
This is a good reference for such problems with a few examples provided. Ref. pg. 104.
Regarding implementation:
While I am not familiar with Python, I have built solver libraries in C++ using templates as well as using function pointers so you can pass on functions (for the objective as well as constraints) as arguments to the solver and you'll get your result - hopefully in polynomial time for convex problems or in cases where the initial values are reasonable.
If an ability to do that exists in Python, it shouldn't be difficult to build a generalized GRG solver.
The Python Solution:
Edit: Here is the python solution to your problem: Python constrained non-linear optimization

Constrained least-squares estimation in Python

I'm trying to perform a constrained least-squares estimation using Scipy such that all of the coefficients are in the range (0,1) and sum to 1 (this functionality is implemented in Matlab's LSQLIN function).
Does anybody have tips for setting up this calculation using Python/Scipy. I believe I should be using scipy.optimize.fmin_slsqp(), but am not entirely sure what parameters I should be passing to it.[1]
Many thanks for the help,
Nick
[1] The one example in the documentation for fmin_slsqp is a bit difficult for me to parse without the referenced text -- and I'm new to using Scipy.

scipy-optimize-leastsq-with-bound-constraints on SO givesleastsq_bounds, which is
leastsq
with bound constraints such as 0 <= x_i <= 1.
The constraint that they sum to 1 can be added in the same way.
(I've found leastsq_bounds / MINPACK to be good on synthetic test functions in 5d, 10d, 20d;
how many variables do you have ?)

Have a look at this tutorial, it seems pretty clear.

Since MATLAB's lsqlin is a bounded linear least squares solver, you would want to check out scipy.optimize.lsq_linear.

Non-negative least squares optimization using scipy.optimize.nnls is a robust way of doing it. Note that, if the coefficients are constrained to be positive and sum to unity, they are automatically limited to interval [0,1], that is one need not additionally constrain them from above.
scipy.optimize.nnls automatically makes variables positive using Lawson and Hanson algorithm, whereas the sum constraint can be taken care of as discussed in this thread and this one.
Scipy nnls uses an old fortran backend, which is apparently widely used in equivalent implementations of nnls by other software.