I want to code the following formula in GAMS,
R(i)= Phi[beta*Log10(M(i)/W*D)]
Where 'Phi' is a standard normal cumulative distribution function.
Scalar beta=0.34, W=70, D=41;
Parameter M(i)/1 375, 2 450, 3 876,4 212,5 125/;
I didn't find standard normal cumulative distribution function in GAMS, is it available? How can I code this formulation in GAMS?
You can do this in GAMS with extrinsic libraries, stolib. For cumulative normal, you would use:
$funclibin stolib stodclib
function cdfnorm / stolib.cdfnormal /
Implementation follows the syntax:
parameter_x = cdfnorm(a,mu,sd);
...where a is the point up to which you want to evaluate the distribution; and mu and sd are its parameters.
See here for more details: https://www.gams.com/mccarl/newsletter/news35.pdf or search the McCarl guide that comes with your distribution of GAMS for stolib (if it's at least v23.6 (I think)).
Related
I am new to the field of optimization and I need help in the following optimization problem. I have tried to solve it using normal coding to make sure that I got he correct results. However, the results I got are different and I am not sure my way of analysis is correct or not. This is a short description of the problem:
The objective function shown in the picture is used to find the optimal temperature of the insulating system that minimizes the total cost over a given horizon.
[This image provides the mathematical description of the objective function and the constraints] (https://i.stack.imgur.com/yidrO.png)
The data of the problems are as follow:
1-
Problem data:
A=1.07×10^8
h=1
T_ref=87.5
N=20
p1=0.001;
p2=0.0037;
This is the curve I want to obtain
2- Optimization variable:
u_t
3- Model type:
The model is a nonlinear cost function with non-linear constraints and it is solved using non-linear solver SNOPT.
4-The meaning of the symbols in the objective and constrained functions
The optimization is performed over a prediction horizon of N years.
T_ref is The reference temperature.
Represent the degree of polymerization in the kth year.
X_DP Represents the temperature of the insulating system in the kth year.
h is the time step (1 year) of the discrete-time model.
R is the ratio of the load loss at the rated load to the no-load loss.
E is the activation energy.
A is the pre-exponential constant.
beta is a linear coefficient representing the cost due to the decrement of the temperature.
I have developed the source code in MATLAB, this code is used to check if my analysis is correct or not.
I have tried to initialize the Ut value in its increasing or decreasing states so that I can have the curves similar to the original one. [This is the curve I obtained] (https://i.stack.imgur.com/KVv2q.png)
I have tried to simulate the problem using conventional coding without optimization and I got the figure shown above.
close all; clear all;
h=1;
N=20;
a=250;
R=8.314;
A=1.07*10^8;
E=111000;
Tref=87.5;
p1=0.0019;
p2=0.0037;
p3=0.0037;
Utt=[80,80.7894736842105,81.5789473684211,82.3684210526316,83.1578947368421,... % The value of Utt given here represent the temperature increament over a predictive horizon.
83.9473684210526,84.7368421052632,85.5263157894737,86.3157894736842,...
87.1052631578947,87.8947368421053,88.6842105263158,89.4736842105263,...
90.2631578947369,91.0526315789474,91.8421052631579,92.6315789473684,...
93.4210526315790,94.2105263157895,95];
Utt1 = [95,94.2105263157895,93.4210526315790,92.6315789473684,91.8421052631579,... % The value of Utt1 given here represent the temperature decreament over a predictive horizon.
91.0526315789474,90.2631578947369,89.4736842105263,88.6842105263158,...
87.8947368421053,87.1052631578947,86.3157894736842,85.5263157894737,...
84.7368421052632,83.9473684210526,83.1578947368421,82.3684210526316,...
81.5789473684211,80.7894736842105,80];
Ut1=zeros(1,N);
Ut2=zeros(1,N);
Xdp =zeros(N,N);
Xdp(1,1)=1000;
Xdp1 =zeros(N,N);
Xdp1(1,1)=1000;
for L=1:N-1
for k=1:N-1
%vt(k+L)=Ut(k-L+1);
Xdq(k+1,L) =(1/Xdp(k,L))+A*exp((-1*E)/(R*(Utt(k)+273)))*24*365*h;
Xdp(k+1,L)=1/(Xdq(k+1,L));
Xdp(k,L+1)=1/(Xdq(k+1,L));
Xdq1(k+1,L) =(1/Xdp1(k,L))+A*exp((-1*E)/(R*(Utt1(k)+273)))*24*365*h;
Xdp1(k+1,L)=1/(Xdq1(k+1,L));
Xdp1(k,L+1)=1/(Xdq1(k+1,L));
end
end
% MATLAB code
for j =1:N-1
Ut1(j)= -p1*(Utt(j)-Tref);
Ut2(j)= -p2*(Utt1(j)-Tref);
end
sum00=sum(Ut1);
sum01=sum(Ut2);
X1=1./Xdp(:,1);
Xf=1./Xdp(:,20);
Total= table(X1,Xf);
Tdiff =a*(Total.Xf-Total.X1);
X22=1./Xdp1(:,1);
X2f=1./Xdp1(:,20);
Total22= table(X22,X2f);
Tdiff22 =a*(Total22.X2f-Total22.X22);
obj=(sum00+(Tdiff));
ob1 = min(obj);
obj2=sum01+Tdiff22;
ob2 = min(obj2);
plot(Utt,obj,'-o');
hold on
plot(Utt1,obj)
Has anyone managed to obtain a Monte Carlo error for a parameter when running bayesian model un R2OpenBugs?
It is provided in a standard output of OpenBugs, but when run under R2OpenBugs, the log file doesn't have MC error.Is there a way to ask R2OpenBugs to calculate MC error? Or maybe there is a way to calculate it manually? Please, let me know if you heard of any way to do that. Thank you!
Here is the standard log output of R2OpenBugs:
$stats
mean sd val2.5pc median val97.5pc sample
beta0 1.04700 0.13250 0.8130 1.03800 1.30500 1500
beta1 -0.31440 0.18850 -0.6776 -0.31890 0.03473 1500
beta2 -0.05437 0.05369 -0.1648 -0.05408 0.04838 1500
deviance 588.70000 7.87600 575.3000 587.50000 606.90000 1500
$DIC
Dbar Dhat DIC pD
t 588.7 570.9 606.5 17.78
total 588.7 570.9 606.5 17.78
A simple way to calculate Monte Carlo standard error (MCSE) is to divide the standard deviation of the chain by the square root of the effective number of samples. The standard deviation is provided in your output, but the effective sample size should be given as n.eff (the rightmost column) when you print the model output - or at least that is the impression I get from:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/R2OpenBUGS/vignettes/R2OpenBUGS.pdf
I don't use OpenBugs any more so can't easily check for you, but there should be something there that indicates the effective sample size (this is NOT the same as the number of iterations you have sampled, as it also takes into account the loss of information due to correlation within the chains).
Otherwise you can obtain it yourself by extracting the raw MCMC chains and then either computing the effective sample size using the coda package (?coda::effectiveSize) or just use LaplacesDemon::MCSE to calculate the Monte Carlo standard error directly. For more information see:
https://rdrr.io/cran/LaplacesDemon/man/MCSE.html
Note that some people (including me!) would suggest focusing on the effective sample size directly rather than looking at the MCSE, as the old "rule of thumb" that MCSE should be less than 5% of the sample standard deviation is equivalent to saying that the effective sample size should be at least 400 (1/0.05^2). But opinions do vary :)
The MCMC-error is named Time-series SE, and can be found in the statistics section of the summary of the coda object:
library(R2OpenBUGS)
library(coda)
my_result <- bugs(...., codaPg = TRUE)
my_coda <- read.bugs(my_result)
summary(my_coda$statistics)
I need to create a fictitious log-normal distribution of household income in a particular area. The data I have are: Average: 13,600 and Standard Deviation 7,900.
What should be the parameters in the function numpy.random.lognormal?
When i set the mean and the standard deviation as they are most of the values in the distribution are "inf", and the values also doesn't make sense when i set the parameters as the log of the mean and standard deviation.
If someone can help me to figure out what the parameters are it would be great.
Thanks!
This is indeed a nontrivial task as the moments of the log-normal distribution should be solved for the unknown parameters. By looking at say [Wikipedia][1], you will find the mean and variance of the log-normal distribution to be exp(mu + sigma2) and [exp(sigma2)-1]*exp(2*mu+sigma**2), respectively.
The choice of mu and sigma should solve exp(mu + sigma**2) = 13600 and [exp(sigma**2)-1]*exp(2*mu+sigma**2)= 7900**2. This can be solved analytically because the first equation squared provides exactly exp(2*mu+sigma**2) thus eliminating the variable mu from the second equation.
A sample code is provided below. I took a large sample size to explicitly show that the mean and standard deviation of the simulated data are close to the desired numbers.
import numpy as np
# Input characteristics
DataAverage = 13600
DataStdDev = 7900
# Sample size
SampleSize = 100000
# Mean and variance of the standard lognormal distribution
SigmaLogNormal = np.sqrt( np.log(1+(DataStdDev/DataAverage)**2))
MeanLogNormal = np.log( DataAverage ) - SigmaLogNormal**2/2
print(MeanLogNormal, SigmaLogNormal)
# Obtain draw from log-normal distribution
Draw = np.random.lognormal(mean=MeanLogNormal, sigma=SigmaLogNormal, size=SampleSize)
# Check
print( np.mean(Draw), np.std(Draw))
I am trying to minimize the difference of a function with a data point over different time points. So the objective function is the sum of the squares of the difference between the model (my function) and the data points over different times.
My model has analytical first and second order derivatives. How can I provide these derivatives to Gekko Python?
There are several examples in the APMonitor webpage regarding parameter estimation. Please check the link below. It also provides the data and model that you can use for practice.
TCLab C - Parameter Estimation
You can also get the idea how to implement the higher order differential equations in GEKKO in the link below. You basically want to introduce additional variable which links the first derivative variable to the 2nd derivative variable. That way, you can collapse the higer order DE down into the multiple 1st order DEs.
Solve 2nd Order Differential Equation
I use the scipy.optimize.minimize ( https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/tutorial/optimize.html ) function with method='L-BFGS-B.
An example of what it returns is here above:
fun: 32.372210618549758
hess_inv: <6x6 LbfgsInvHessProduct with dtype=float64>
jac: array([ -2.14583906e-04, 4.09272616e-04, -2.55795385e-05,
3.76587650e-05, 1.49213975e-04, -8.38440428e-05])
message: 'CONVERGENCE: REL_REDUCTION_OF_F_<=_FACTR*EPSMCH'
nfev: 420
nit: 51
status: 0
success: True
x: array([ 0.75739412, -0.0927572 , 0.11986434, 1.19911266, 0.27866406,
-0.03825225])
The x value correctly contains the fitted parameters. How do I compute the errors associated to those parameters?
TL;DR: You can actually place an upper bound on how precisely the minimization routine has found the optimal values of your parameters. See the snippet at the end of this answer that shows how to do it directly, without resorting to calling additional minimization routines.
The documentation for this method says
The iteration stops when (f^k - f^{k+1})/max{|f^k|,|f^{k+1}|,1} <= ftol.
Roughly speaking, the minimization stops when the value of the function f that you're minimizing is minimized to within ftol of the optimum. (This is a relative error if f is greater than 1, and absolute otherwise; for simplicity I'll assume it's an absolute error.) In more standard language, you'll probably think of your function f as a chi-squared value. So this roughly suggests that you would expect
Of course, just the fact that you're applying a minimization routine like this assumes that your function is well behaved, in the sense that it's reasonably smooth and the optimum being found is well approximated near the optimum by a quadratic function of the parameters xi:
where Δxi is the difference between the found value of parameter xi and its optimal value, and Hij is the Hessian matrix. A little (surprisingly nontrivial) linear algebra gets you to a pretty standard result for an estimate of the uncertainty in any quantity X that's a function of your parameters xi:
which lets us write
That's the most useful formula in general, but for the specific question here, we just have X = xi, so this simplifies to
Finally, to be totally explicit, let's say you've stored the optimization result in a variable called res. The inverse Hessian is available as res.hess_inv, which is a function that takes a vector and returns the product of the inverse Hessian with that vector. So, for example, we can display the optimized parameters along with the uncertainty estimates with a snippet like this:
ftol = 2.220446049250313e-09
tmp_i = np.zeros(len(res.x))
for i in range(len(res.x)):
tmp_i[i] = 1.0
hess_inv_i = res.hess_inv(tmp_i)[i]
uncertainty_i = np.sqrt(max(1, abs(res.fun)) * ftol * hess_inv_i)
tmp_i[i] = 0.0
print('x^{0} = {1:12.4e} ± {2:.1e}'.format(i, res.x[i], uncertainty_i))
Note that I've incorporated the max behavior from the documentation, assuming that f^k and f^{k+1} are basically just the same as the final output value, res.fun, which really ought to be a good approximation. Also, for small problems, you can just use np.diag(res.hess_inv.todense()) to get the full inverse and extract the diagonal all at once. But for large numbers of variables, I've found that to be a much slower option. Finally, I've added the default value of ftol, but if you change it in an argument to minimize, you would obviously need to change it here.
One approach to this common problem is to use scipy.optimize.leastsq after using minimize with 'L-BFGS-B' starting from the solution found with 'L-BFGS-B'. That is, leastsq will (normally) include and estimate of the 1-sigma errors as well as the solution.
Of course, that approach makes several assumption, including that leastsq can be used and may be appropriate for solving the problem. From a practical view, this requires the objective function return an array of residual values with at least as many elements as variables, not a cost function.
You may find lmfit (https://lmfit.github.io/lmfit-py/) useful here: It supports both 'L-BFGS-B' and 'leastsq' and gives a uniform wrapper around these and other minimization methods, so that you can use the same objective function for both methods (and specify how to convert the residual array into the cost function). In addition, parameter bounds can be used for both methods. This makes it very easy to first do a fit with 'L-BFGS-B' and then with 'leastsq', using the values from 'L-BFGS-B' as starting values.
Lmfit also provides methods to more explicitly explore confidence limits on parameter values in more detail, in case you suspect the simple but fast approach used by leastsq might be insufficient.
It really depends what you mean by "errors". There is no general answer to your question, because it depends on what you're fitting and what assumptions you're making.
The easiest case is one of the most common: when the function you are minimizing is a negative log-likelihood. In that case the inverse of the hessian matrix returned by the fit (hess_inv) is the covariance matrix describing the Gaussian approximation to the maximum likelihood.The parameter errors are the square root of the diagonal elements of the covariance matrix.
Beware that if you are fitting a different kind of function or are making different assumptions, then that doesn't apply.