I've been using GEKKO successfully for a variety of problems but one thing I haven't been able to pin down is what the limits are in terms of non-linear terms in objective functions or constraints. I've found that some non-linear terms are tolerated, e.g.
m.Obj(sum(x * values) / sum(x))
seems to work fine, however
m.Obj(sum(x * values + x ** 2 * other_values) / sum(x))
seems to be unsolvable. Is there any documentation about the limits of GEKKO to handle certain forms of non-linearities that might help me reformat my problem?
Model building functions are listed in the Gekko documentation and include any nonlinear function that can be mathematically expressed with continuous first and second derivatives. Gekko gives the problem to a solver to attempt a solution. Sometimes the solver (IPOPT, BPOPT, APOPT) identifies the problem as infeasible or fails to find a solution. This doesn't mean that Gekko can't use these functions, only that a numerical solution was not found. You can try switching solvers with m.options.SOLVER=1. You may also need to use more efficient versions of the functions such as the Gekko m.sum() instead of the Python sum() function.
m.Minimize(m.sum(x * values + x ** 2 * other_values) / m.sum(x))
Certain solvers such as a APOPT also allow mixed integer problems. Differential and algebraic equations are also solvable with Gekko. There is more information in the documentation on switching solving modes with IMODE. There is a preview of applications with the 18 example applications.
Related
I am studying Stochastic calculus, and occasionally we need to compute an integral (from -infinity to +infinity) for some complex distribution. In this case, it was
with the answer on the right. This is the code I put into Matlab (and I have the symbolic math toolbox), which Matlab simply cannot process:
>> syms x t
>> f = exp(1+2*x)*(1/((2*pi*t)^0.5))*exp(-(x^2)/(2*t))
>> int(f,-inf,inf)
ans =
-((2^(1/2)*pi^(1/2)*exp(2*t + 1)*limit(erf((2^(1/2)*((x*1i)/t - 2i))/(2*(-1/t)^(1/2))), x, -Inf)*1i)/(2*(-1/t)^(1/2)) - (2^(1/2)*pi^(1/2)*exp(2*t + 1)*limit(erf((2^(1/2)*((x*1i)/t - 2i))/(2*(-1/t)^(1/2))), x, Inf)*1i)/(2*(-1/t)^(1/2)))/(2*pi*t)^(1/2)
This answer at the end looks like nonsense, while Wolfram (via their free tool), gives me the answer that the picture above has. Am I missing something fundamental about doing such integrations in Matlab that the basic Mathworks pages don't cover? Where am I proceeding incorrectly?
In order to explain what is happening, we need some theory:
Symbolic systems such as Matlab or Mathematica calculate integrals symbolically by the Risch algorithm (yes, there is a method to mechanically calculate integrals, just like derivatives).
However, the Risch algorithms works differently than using derivation rules. Strictly spoken, it is not an algorithm but a semi-algorithm. This is, it is not deterministic one (as algorithms are).
This (semi) algorithm makes a series of transformations on the input expression (the one to be integrated), and in a specific point, it requires to ask if the transformed expression is equals to zero, because if it were zero, it cannot continue (the input is not integrable using a finite set of terms).
The problem (and the reason of the "semi-algoritmicity") is that, the (apparently simple) equation:
E = 0
Is indecidable (it is also called the constant problem). It means that there cannot exist a formal method to solve the constant problem, for any expression E. Of course, we know to solve the constant problem for specific forms of the expression E (i.e. polynomials), but it is impossible to solve the problem for the general case.
It also means that the Risch algorithm cannot be perfect (being able to solve any integral -integrable in finite terms-). In other words, the Risch algorithm will be as powerful as our ability to solve the constant problem for as many forms of the expression E as we can, but losing any hope of solving for the general case.
Different symbolic systems have similar, but different methods to try to solve equations (and therefore the constant problem), it explains why some of them can "solve" different sets of integrals than others.
And generalizing, because no symbolic system will never be able to solve the constant problem for the general case, it will neither be able to solve any integral (integrable in finite terms).
The second parameter of int() needs to be the variable you're integrating over (which looks like t in this case):
syms x t
f = exp(1+2*x)*(1/((2*pi*t)^0.5))*exp(-(x^2)/(2*t))
int(f,'t',-inf,inf) % <- integrate over t
I'm building a Media-Library in Dymola similar to Helmholtz-Media but for Ammonia+Water, a mixture.
You get a lot of not explicitly solvable equations.
Because of the structure of the Media and Fluid libraries in Modelica I need to be able to get my thermodynamic state from p, h and x. The state-vector consists of d, T, and x.
This is a simple example how to get the state-vector:
model getState_phX
parameter AbsolutePressure p = 500000 "pressure";
parameter SpecificEnthalpy h = 2500000 "enthalpy";
parameter SI.MassFraction x = 0.7 "mole fraction of amonia";
parameter Real[2] start = getStart_Td_phx(p,h,xL);
output ThermodynamicState state(d(start=start[2]),T(start=start[1]),X={(1 - xL),xL});
DerivateFull f = Derivates(state);
equation
p = (1 + f.delta*f.phirdelta)*R*state.T*state.d/molarMass(state);
h = state.T*R*(1 + f.delta*f.phirdelta + f.tau*f.phirtau + f.tau0*f.phi0tau0)/molarMass(state);
end getState_phX;
Please don't mind the parts of the equations. They consist of many parts (sums and log) dependent on the state-vector.
This is solved by the solver in Dymola with good start values.
But I don't really need all of the 'time-dependent' solving capabilities of Dassl.
Are there build in libraries for solving such stationary equation systems without the solver?
Is it possible to make a Function out of this Model using these?
I know I could write a simple solver by hand but for other parts of the Media-Model (VLE) I need highly reliable stationary solver too (but with 4 nonlinear independent equations)
Please tell me if I didn't explain myself clearly. Thank you for the help.
The basis of your fluid properties library is a forward part, that is the actual Helmholtz energy equation of state (EoS). It takes d,T,X as input. That part is more or less straigthforward to implement.
If you want to specify the thermodynamic state using p,h,X or if you want to find the equilibrium between multiple phases, you will usually set up a system of resdiual functions and try to find the root of your system of equations using some iterative procedures. Span (2000) writes
"the formulation of reliable iterative procedures [for root finding]
is often the most crucial problem when setting up program packages for
the evaluation of equations of state".
Re-using existing solvers has advantages and disadvantages, they are usually very well tested, writing them takes a lot of effort, but if you write your own solver, you have more control about what it does. As far as I know, Dassl has various strength, but solving that kind of equations is not its original objective.
Olson, Tummescheit and Elmqvist (2005) tried to use the Dymola solver to find the VLE, see section 3.2 of the linked pdf. Sounds like it works, but not very reliable.
The MSL already includes a non-linear solver, based on the Brent algorithm, which works with one unknown only, see Modelica.Math.Nolinear.solveOneNonlinearEquation. You could, if you want, add additional generic solvers.
Before writing your own solver, you should get in touch with the developers of the Modelica.Media interface (it will be extended in future versions of the MSL to include multi-component, multi-phase mixtures) and also consider re-using existing fluid properties libraries like RefProp, CoolProp, FluidProp or MultiFlash, to name just a few.
I'm using the genetic algorithm from the MATLAB Global Optimization Toolbox with SimEvents, in order to implement a mixed integer optimization making use of simulation outputs to evaluate the fitness function. My model is pretty similar to the one described in this video from MathWorks website:
http://www.mathworks.it/videos/optimizing-manufacturing-production-processes-68961.html
Reading the documentation, I found that ga can solve constrained problems only if such constraints are linear inequalities. The constraints are supposed to be written as functions of the problem's variables, that in this case are the number of resources used during the simulation.
I would like, instead, to set a constraint that takes into account another simulation output (e.g. the drain utilization), i.e. minimize
objfun = backlog*10000 + cost
where backlog is a simulation output (obtained using simOut.get), considering the following constraint:
drain_utilization > 0.7
where drain_ utilization is another simulation output (again, obtained using simOut.get).
Is it possible or this feature is not supported by the Global Optimization Toolbox?
Thank you in advance and forgive me for any improper term, but I'm new to the Global Optimization Toolbox.
As far as I understand, CPLEX, LP_solve and GLPK, among other LP solvers, offer sensitivity analysis.
I have the above three solvers installed on my machine, along with these two MATLAB wrappers:
CPLEX for MATLAB API (for CPLEX)
YALMIP (a general MATLAB wrapper for several solvers)
I looked in the documentation of these two wrappers but could not find a way of running sensitivity analysis from them. Do they support it? If not, are there any LP solvers that offer MATLAB support for their sensitivity analysis?
What do I mean by sensitivity analysis?
I mean sensitivity analysis with respect to the cost function and constraints. Conceptually speaking, sensitivity analysis tries to address the following question:
How would the solution change if some aspect of the problem is
changed?
For example:
What is the range of values the coefficient for the variable j can
take without affecting the optimality of the solution?
More specifically, here is a list of the Java, C++ and C APIs that CPLEX provides for sensitivity analysis.
Here is information about the sensitivity analysis provided by LP_solve. You can find the help text for the previous link within LP_solve's main reference guide by searching for "sensitivity" here.
i want to solve this problem:
alt text http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/6598/greenshot20100727091025.png
i don't want to use "int", i want to use "quad" family (quad,dblquad,triplequad)
but i can't.
can you help me?
I assume that your real problem is more complex than this trivial one. The best solution is just to use a symbolic integral. Why is numerical integration difficult?
Numerical integration in ONE dimension typically requires on the order of say 100 function evaluations. (The exact number will be very dependent on the accuracy required, the limits, etc.) This makes a 2-d integral typically require on the order of 100^2 = 10000 function evals. So an adaptive, 5-d integral will require on the order of 100^5 = 1e10 function evaluations. (This is only a very rough order of magnitude estimate here.) My point is, you simply don't want to do that!
Better is to reduce the problem in complexity. If your integral is separable (as is this one) then do so! Reduce a 5-d problem into multiple 1-d problems.
Also, in many cases I see people wanting to do a numerical integration of a Gaussian PDF. See that this is easily solved using a call to erf or erfc, coupled with a transformation. The point is that in many cases special functions are defined to greatly reduce the complexity of a problem.
I should add that in many cases, the key to solving a difficult problem in mathematics is to use mathematics to reduce the problem to something simpler. If you can find a way to reduce the dimensionality of your problem just a bit, it will become much more tractable.
The integral you show is
Analytically solvable: always do analytically what you can
?equal to a number: constant expressions should be eliminated from numerical calculations
not easy to get calculated in MATLAB (or very correct).
You can use cumtrapz to integrate over each variable alone, and call trapz the final integration. Remember that this will blow up the error on any problem that is more complicated than the simple sum of linear functions.
Mathematica is more suited to nD integrations, if you have access to that.
matlab can do symbolic integration
>> x = sym('x'); y = sym('y'); z = sym('z'); u = sym('u'); v = sym('v');
>> int(int(int(int(int(x+y+z+u+v,1,5),-2,3),0,1),-1,1),0,1)
ans =
180
Just noticed you want to do numeric, not symbolic integration
If you look at the source of dblquad and triplequad
>> edit dblquad
you see that they just call the lower versions.
it should be possible for you to add a quadquad and a quintquad (or recursively an n-quad)