Related
I’m building a function in Octave that can solve N coupled ordinary differential equation of the type:
dx/dt = F(x,y,…,z,t)
dy/dt = G(x,y,…,z,t)
dz/dt = H(x,y,…,z,t)
With any of these three methods (Euler, Heun and Runge-Kutta-4).
The following code correspond to the function:
function sol = coupled_ode(E, dfuns, steps, a, b, ini, method)
range = b-a;
h=range/steps;
rows = (range/h)+1;
columns = size(dfuns)(2)+1;
sol= zeros(abs(rows),columns);
heun=zeros(1,columns-1);
for i=1:abs(rows)
if i==1
sol(i,1)=a;
else
sol(i,1)=sol(i-1,1)+h;
end
for j=2:columns
if i==1
sol(i,j)=ini(j-1);
else
if strcmp("euler",method)
sol(i,j)=sol(i-1,j)+h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,1:end));
elseif strcmp("heun",method)
heun(j-1)=sol(i-1,j)+h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,1:end));
elseif strcmp("rk4",method)
k1=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, [sol(i-1,1), sol(i-1,2:end)]);
k2=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, [sol(i-1,1)+(0.5*h), sol(i-1,2:end)+(0.5*h*k1)]);
k3=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, [sol(i-1,1)+(0.5*h), sol(i-1,2:end)+(0.5*h*k2)]);
k4=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, [sol(i-1,1)+h, sol(i-1,2:end)+(h*k3)]);
sol(i,j)=sol(i-1,j)+((1/6)*(k1+(2*k2)+(2*k3)+k4));
end
end
end
if strcmp("heun",method)
if i~=1
for k=2:columns
sol(i,k)=sol(i-1,k)+(h/2)*((dfuns{k-1}(E, sol(i-1,1:end)))+(dfuns{k-1}(E, [sol(i,1),heun])));
end
end
end
end
end
When I use the function for a single ordinary differential equation, the RK4 method is the best as expected, but when I ran the code for a couple system of differential equation, RK4 is the worst, I've been checking and checking and I don't know what I am doing wrong.
The following code is an example of how to call the function
F{1} = #(e, y) 0.6*y(3);
F{2} = #(e, y) -0.6*y(3)+0.001407*y(4)*y(3);
F{3} = #(e, y) -0.001407*y(4)*y(3);
steps = 24;
sol1 = coupled_ode(0,F,steps,0,24,[0 5 995],"euler");
sol2 = coupled_ode(0,F,steps,0,24,[0 5 995],"heun");
sol3 = coupled_ode(0,F,steps,0,24,[0 5 995],"rk4");
plot(sol1(:,1),sol1(:,4),sol2(:,1),sol2(:,4),sol3(:,1),sol3(:,4));
legend("Euler", "Heun", "RK4");
Careful: there's a few too many h's in the RK4 formulæ:
k2 = h*dfuns{ [...] +(0.5*h*k1)]);
k3 = h*dfuns{ [...] +(0.5*h*k2]);
should be
k2 = h*dfuns{ [...] +(0.5*k1)]);
k3 = h*dfuns{ [...] +(0.5*k2]);
(last h's removed).
However, this makes no difference for the example that you provided, since h=1 there.
But other than that little bug, I don't think you're actually doing anything wrong.
If I plot the solution generated by the more advanced, adaptive 4ᵗʰ/5ᵗʰ order RK implemented in ode45:
F{1} = #(e,y) +0.6*y(3);
F{2} = #(e,y) -0.6*y(3) + 0.001407*y(4)*y(3);
F{3} = #(e,y) -0.001407*y(4)*y(3);
tend = 24;
steps = 24;
y0 = [0 5 995];
plotN = 2;
sol1 = coupled_ode(0,F, steps, 0,tend, y0, 'euler');
sol2 = coupled_ode(0,F, steps, 0,tend, y0, 'heun');
sol3 = coupled_ode(0,F, steps, 0,tend, y0, 'rk4');
figure(1), clf, hold on
plot(sol1(:,1), sol1(:,plotN+1),...
sol2(:,1), sol2(:,plotN+1),...
sol3(:,1), sol3(:,plotN+1));
% New solution, generated by ODE45
opts = odeset('AbsTol', 1e-12, 'RelTol', 1e-12);
fcn = #(t,y) [F{1}(0,[0; y])
F{2}(0,[0; y])
F{3}(0,[0; y])];
[t,solN] = ode45(fcn, [0 tend], y0, opts);
plot(t, solN(:,plotN))
legend('Euler', 'Heun', 'RK4', 'ODE45');
xlabel('t');
Then we have something more believable to compare to.
Now, plain-and-simple RK4 indeed performs terribly for this isolated case:
However, if I simply flip the signs of the last term in the last two functions:
% ±
F{2} = #(e,y) +0.6*y(3) - 0.001407*y(4)*y(3);
F{3} = #(e,y) +0.001407*y(4)*y(3);
Then we get this:
The main reason RK4 performs badly for your case is because of the step size. The adaptive RK4/5 (with a tolerance set to 1 instead of 1e-12 as above) produces an average δt = 0.15. This means that basic error analysis has indicated that for this particular problem, h = 0.15 is the largest step you can take without introducing unacceptable error.
But you were taking h = 1, which then indeed gives a large accumulated error.
The fact that Heun and Euler perform so well for your case is, well, just plain luck, as demonstrated by the sign inversion example above.
Welcome to the world of numerical mathematics - there never is 1 method that's best for all problems under all circumstances :)
Apart from the error described in the older answer, there is indeed a fundamental methodological error in the implementation. First, the implementation is correct for scalar order-one differential equations. But the moment you try to use it on a coupled system, the de-coupled treatment of the stages in the Runge-Kutta method (note that Heun is just a copy of the Euler step) reduces them to an order-one method.
Specifically, starting in
k2=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, [sol(i-1,1)+(0.5*h), sol(i-1,2:end)+(0.5*h*k1)]);
the addition of 0.5*k1 to sol(i-1,2:end) means to add the vector of slopes of the first stage, not to add the same slope value to all components of the position vector.
Taking this into account results in the change to the implementation
function sol = coupled_ode(E, dfuns, steps, a, b, ini, method)
range = b-a;
h=range/steps;
rows = steps+1;
columns = size(dfuns)(2)+1;
sol= zeros(rows,columns);
k = ones(4,columns);
sol(1,1)=a;
sol(1,2:end)=ini(1:end);
for i=2:abs(rows)
sol(i,1)=sol(i-1,1)+h;
if strcmp("euler",method)
for j=2:columns
sol(i,j)=sol(i-1,j)+h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,1:end));
end
elseif strcmp("heun",method)
for j=2:columns
k(1,j) = h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,1:end));
end
for j=2:columns
sol(i,j)=sol(i-1,j)+h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,1:end)+k(1,1:end));
end
elseif strcmp("rk4",method)
for j=2:columns
k(1,j)=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,:));
end
for j=2:columns
k(2,j)=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,:)+0.5*k(1,:));
end
for j=2:columns
k(3,j)=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,:)+0.5*k(2,:));
end
for j=2:columns
k(4,j)=h*dfuns{j-1}(E, sol(i-1,:)+k(3,:));
end
sol(i,2:end)=sol(i-1,2:end)+(1/6)*(k(1,2:end)+(2*k(2,2:end))+(2*k(3,2:end))+k(4,2:end));
end
end
end
As can be seen, the loop over the vector components is recurring frequently. One can hide this by using a full vectorization using a vector-valued function for the right side of the coupled ODE system.
The plot for the second component of the solution with these changes gives the much more reasonable plot for step size 1
and with a subdivision into 120 intervals for step size 0.2
where the graph for RK4 did not change much while the other two moved towards it from below and above.
I have a mathematical equation that describes a dynamical system as
The parameters are defined as follows
k1=1; S=1; Kd=1; p=2; tau=10; k2=1; ET=1; Km=1;
I coded the system as
y(1) = 1; % based on the y-axes starting point in the last figure
y(2) = y(1) + k1*S*Kd^p/(Kd^p + y(1)^p) - k2*ET*y(1)/(Km + y(1)); % to avoid errors
for t=1:100
y(t+1) = y(t+1) + (k1*S*Kd^p/(Kd^p + y(t)^p) - k2*ET*y(t+1)/(Km + y(t+1)));
end
plot(y);
Note that I did not use tau=10 for simplicity and instead used a delayed version by 1 instead of 10 (because I am not sure how to insert a delay of 10)
And obtained the following result
However, I need to obtain this
Can anyone help me rectify the mistake in my code?
Thanking you in advance.
If we assume that for Y(t) = 0 for t < 0 then you're code could be modified to produce a similar plot. However, it looks like the plot you are looking to generate uses different initial conditions. If you're just looking to measure Tc then it appears that the signal stabilizes with the period you're looking for.
k1=1; S=1; Kd=1; p=2; tau=10; k2=1; ET=1; Km=1;
% time step size (tau MUST be divisible by dt to ensure proper array indexing)
dt = 0.01;
% time series
t = -10:dt:100;
% initialize y to all zeros so that y(t)=0 for all t<0 (initial condition)
y = zeros(size(t));
% Find starting and ending indexes to iterate from t=0 to t=100-dt
idx0 = find(t == 0);
idx1 = numel(t)-1;
% initial condition y(0) = 1
y(idx0) = 1;
for n = idx0:idx1
% The indexing used here ensures the following equivalences.
% y(n+1) = y(t+dt)
% y(n) = y(t)
% y(n - round(tau/dt)) = y(t-tau)
%
% Note that (y(t+dt)-y(t))/dt is approximately y'(t)
% Solving for y(t+dt) we get the following formula
y(n+1) = y(n) + dt*((k1*S*Kd^p/(Kd^p + y(n - round(tau/dt))^p) - k2*ET*y(n)/(Km + y(n))));
end
% plot y(t) for t > 0
plot(t(t>0),y(t>0));
Result
Seeing as things stabilize we can take the values in one of the periods and use those for the initial conditions and we get.
Edit: To elaborate, the function contains a delay of 10 which means that instead of just a single initial condition at y(0), we also need to initialize all values from t=-10 to 0. In the code posted in this answer I arbitrarily assumed that y(t) = 0 for t < 0 and y(0) = 1 because I don't know otherwise. Once we run the code and see that the signal becomes periodic we can borrow the values from one of these periods to use those as the initial conditions.
From the diagram you posted we can use our intuition to guess that, before time 0, the signal probably looks something like the region highlighted in the figure below.
If, rather than using zero to initialize y at y < 0, we copy the values in the red highlighted region, then we get a plot that is more like what you desire.
To get the plot shown above I ran the script once, then found the indices in y for the part I wanted to use as initial conditions, then copied those into a new array.
init_cond = y(7004:8004);
Then I changed script to use this array as the initial condition and changed the initial y values to
y = zeros(size(t));
y(1:1001) = init_cond;
and ran the modified script again.
Edit 2: The built-in function dde23 appears to be applicable for your problem. To see an example run the command edit ddex1 in the command window.
The problem says:
Three tensile tests were carried out on an aluminum bar. In each test the strain was measured at the same values of stress. The results were
where the units of strain are mm/m.Use linear regression to estimate the modulus of elasticity of the bar (modulus of elasticity = stress/strain).
I used this program for this problem:
function coeff = polynFit(xData,yData,m)
% Returns the coefficients of the polynomial
% a(1)*x^(m-1) + a(2)*x^(m-2) + ... + a(m)
% that fits the data points in the least squares sense.
% USAGE: coeff = polynFit(xData,yData,m)
% xData = x-coordinates of data points.
% yData = y-coordinates of data points.
A = zeros(m); b = zeros(m,1); s = zeros(2*m-1,1);
for i = 1:length(xData)
temp = yData(i);
for j = 1:m
b(j) = b(j) + temp;
temp = temp*xData(i);
end
temp = 1;
for j = 1:2*m-1
s(j) = s(j) + temp;
temp = temp*xData(i);
end
end
for i = 1:m
for j = 1:m
A(i,j) = s(i+j-1);
end
end
% Rearrange coefficients so that coefficient
% of x^(m-1) is first
coeff = flipdim(gaussPiv(A,b),1);
The problem is solved without a program as follows
MY ATTEMPT
T=[34.5,69,103.5,138];
D1=[.46,.95,1.48,1.93];
D2=[.34,1.02,1.51,2.09];
D3=[.73,1.1,1.62,2.12];
Mod1=T./D1;
Mod2=T./D2;
Mod3=T./D3;
xData=T;
yData1=Mod1;
yData2=Mod2;
yData3=Mod3;
coeff1 = polynFit(xData,yData1,2);
coeff2 = polynFit(xData,yData2,2);
coeff3 = polynFit(xData,yData3,2);
x1=(0:.5:190);
y1=coeff1(2)+coeff1(1)*x1;
subplot(1,3,1);
plot(x1,y1,xData,yData1,'o');
y2=coeff2(2)+coeff2(1)*x1;
subplot(1,3,2);
plot(x1,y2,xData,yData2,'o');
y3=coeff3(2)+coeff3(1)*x1;
subplot(1,3,3);
plot(x1,y3,xData,yData3,'o');
What do I have to do to get this result?
As a general advice:
avoid for loops wherever possible.
avoid using i and j as variable names, as they are Matlab built-in names for the imaginary unit (I really hope that disappears in a future release...)
Due to m being an interpreted language, for-loops can be very slow compared to their compiled alternatives. Matlab is named MATtrix LABoratory, meaning it is highly optimized for matrix/array operations. Usually, when there is an operation that cannot be done without a loop, Matlab has a built-in function for it that runs way way faster than a for-loop in Matlab ever will. For example: computing the mean of elements in an array: mean(x). The sum of all elements in an array: sum(x). The standard deviation of elements in an array: std(x). etc. Matlab's power comes from these built-in functions.
So, your problem. You have a linear regression problem. The easiest way in Matlab to solve this problem is this:
%# your data
stress = [ %# in Pa
34.5 69 103.5 138] * 1e6;
strain = [ %# in m/m
0.46 0.95 1.48 1.93
0.34 1.02 1.51 2.09
0.73 1.10 1.62 2.12]' * 1e-3;
%# make linear array for the data
yy = strain(:);
xx = repmat(stress(:), size(strain,2),1);
%# re-formulate the problem into linear system Ax = b
A = [xx ones(size(xx))];
b = yy;
%# solve the linear system
x = A\b;
%# modulus of elasticity is coefficient
%# NOTE: y-offset is relatively small and can be ignored)
E = 1/x(1)
What you did in the function polynFit is done by A\b, but the \-operator is capable of doing it way faster, way more robust and way more flexible than what you tried to do yourself. I'm not saying you shouldn't try to make these thing yourself (please keep on doing that, you learn a lot from it!), I'm saying that for the "real" results, always use the \-operator (and check your own results against it as well).
The backslash operator (type help \ on the command prompt) is extremely useful in many situations, and I advise you learn it and learn it well.
I leave you with this: here's how I would write your polynFit function:
function coeff = polynFit(X,Y,m)
if numel(X) ~= numel(X)
error('polynFit:size_mismathc',...
'number of elements in matrices X and Y must be equal.');
end
%# bad condition number, rank errors, etc. taken care of by \
coeff = bsxfun(#power, X(:), m:-1:0) \ Y(:);
end
I leave it up to you to figure out how this works.
I am trying to solve a system of differential equations by writing code in Matlab. I am posting on this forum, hoping that someone might be able to help me in some way.
I have a system of 10 coupled differential equations. It is a vector-host epidemic model, which captures the transmission of a disease between human population and insect population. Since it is a simple system of differential equations, I am using solvers (ode45) for non-stiff problem type.
There are 10 differential equations, each representing 10 different state variables. There are two functions which have the same system of 10 coupled ODEs. One is called NoEffects_derivative_6_15_2012.m which contains the original system of ODEs. The other function is called OnlyLethal_derivative_6_15_2012.m which contains the same system of ODEs with an increased withdrawal rate starting at time, gamma=32 %days and that withdrawal rate decays exponentially with time.
I use ode45 to solve both the systems, using the same initial conditions. Time vector is also the same for both systems, going from t0 to tfinal. The vector tspan contains the time values going from t0 to tfinal, each with a increment of 0.25 days, making a total of 157 time values.
The solution values are stored in matrices ye0 and yeL. Both these matrices contain 157 rows and 10 columns (for the 10 state variable values). When I compare the value of the 10th state variable, for the time=tfinal, in the matrix ye0 and yeL by plotting the difference, I find it to be becoming negative for some time values. (using the command: plot(te0,ye0(:,10)-yeL(:,10))). This is not expected. For all time values from t0 till tfinal, the value of the 10 state variable, should be greater, as it is the solution obtained from a system of ODEs which did not have an increased withdrawal rate applied to it.
I am told that there is a bug in my matlab code. I am not sure how to find out that bug. Or maybe the solver in matlab I am using (ode45) is not efficient and does give this kind of problem. Can anyone help.
I have tried ode23 and ode113 as well, and yet get the same problem. The figure (2), shows a curve which becomes negative for time values 32 and 34 and this is showing a result which is not expected. This curve should have a positive value throughout, for all time values. Is there any other forum anyone can suggest ?
Here is the main script file:
clear memory; clear all;
global Nc capitalambda muh lambdah del1 del2 p eta alpha1 alpha2 muv lambdav global dims Q t0 tfinal gamma Ct0 b1 b2 Ct0r b3 H C m_tilda betaHV bitesPERlanding IC global tspan Hs Cs betaVH k landingARRAY muARRAY
Nhh=33898857; Nvv=2*Nhh; Nc=21571585; g=354; % number of public health centers in Bihar state %Fix human parameters capitalambda= 1547.02; muh=0.000046142; lambdah= 0.07; del1=0.001331871263014; del2=0.000288658; p=0.24; eta=0.0083; alpha1=0.044; alpha2=0.0217; %Fix vector parameters muv=0.071428; % UNIT:2.13 SANDFLIES DEAD/SAND FLY/MONTH, SOURCE: MUBAYI ET AL., 2010 lambdav=0.05; % UNIT:1.5 TRANSMISSIONS/MONTH, SOURCE: MUBAYI ET AL., 2010
Ct0=0.054;b1=0.0260;b2=0.0610; Ct0r=0.63;b3=0.0130;
dimsH=6; % AS THERE ARE FIVE HUMAN COMPARTMENTS dimsV=3; % AS THERE ARE TWO VECTOR COMPARTMENTS dims=dimsH+dimsV; % THE TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPARTMENTS OR DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS
gamma=32; % spraying is done of 1st feb of the year
Q=0.2554; H=7933615; C=5392890;
m_tilda=100000; % assumed value 6.5, later I will have to get it for sand flies or mosquitoes betaHV=66.67/1000000; % estimated value from the short technical report sent by Anuj bitesPERlanding=lambdah/(m_tilda*betaHV); betaVH=lambdav/bitesPERlanding; IC=zeros(dims+1,1); % CREATES A MATRIX WITH DIMS+1 ROWS AND 1 COLUMN WITH ALL ELEMENTS AS ZEROES
t0=1; tfinal=40; for j=t0:1:(tfinal*4-4) tspan(1)= t0; tspan(j+1)= tspan(j)+0.25; end clear j;
% INITIAL CONDITION OF HUMAN COMPARTMENTS q1=0.8; q2=0.02; q3=0.0005; q4=0.0015; IC(1,1) = q1*Nhh; IC(2,1) = q2*Nhh; IC(3,1) = q3*Nhh; IC(4,1) = q4*Nhh; IC(5,1) = (1-q1-q2-q3-q4)*Nhh; IC(6,1) = Nhh; % INTIAL CONDITIONS OF THE VECTOR COMPARTMENTS IC(7,1) = 0.95*Nvv; %80 PERCENT OF TOTAL ARE ASSUMED AS SUSCEPTIBLE VECTORS IC(8,1) = 0.05*Nvv; %20 PRECENT OF TOTAL ARE ASSUMED AS INFECTED VECTORS IC(9,1) = Nvv; IC(10,1)=0;
Hs=2000000; Cs=3000000; k=1; landingARRAY=zeros(tfinal*50,2); muARRAY=zeros(tfinal*50,2);
[te0 ye0]=ode45(#NoEffects_derivative_6_15_2012,tspan,IC); [teL yeL]=ode45(#OnlyLethal_derivative_6_15_2012,tspan,IC);
figure(1) subplot(4,3,1); plot(te0,ye0(:,1),'b-',teL,yeL(:,1),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('S'); legend('susceptible humans'); subplot(4,3,2); plot(te0,ye0(:,2),'b-',teL,yeL(:,2),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('I'); legend('Infectious Cases'); subplot(4,3,3); plot(te0,ye0(:,3),'b-',teL,yeL(:,3),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('G'); legend('Cases in Govt. Clinics'); subplot(4,3,4); plot(te0,ye0(:,4),'b-',teL,yeL(:,4),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('T'); legend('Cases in Private Clinics'); subplot(4,3,5); plot(te0,ye0(:,5),'b-',teL,yeL(:,5),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('R'); legend('Recovered Cases');
subplot(4,3,6);plot(te0,ye0(:,6),'b-',teL,yeL(:,6),'r-'); hold on; plot(teL,capitalambda/muh); xlabel('time'); ylabel('Nh'); legend('Nh versus time');hold off;
subplot(4,3,7); plot(te0,ye0(:,7),'b-',teL,yeL(:,7),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('X'); legend('Susceptible Vectors');
subplot(4,3,8); plot(te0,ye0(:,8),'b-',teL,yeL(:,8),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('Z'); legend('Infected Vectors');
subplot(4,3,9); plot(te0,ye0(:,9),'b-',teL,yeL(:,9),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('Nv'); legend('Nv versus time');
subplot(4,3,10);plot(te0,ye0(:,10),'b-',teL,yeL(:,10),'r-'); xlabel('time'); ylabel('FS'); legend('Total number of human infections');
figure(2) plot(te0,ye0(:,10)-yeL(:,10)); xlabel('time'); ylabel('FS(without intervention)-FS(with lethal effect)'); legend('Diff. bet. VL cases with and w/o intervention:ode45');
The function file: NoEffects_derivative_6_15_2012
function dx = NoEffects_derivative_6_15_2012( t , x )
global Nc capitalambda muh del1 del2 p eta alpha1 alpha2 muv global dims m_tilda betaHV bitesPERlanding betaVH
dx = zeros(dims+1,1); % t % dx
dx(1,1) = capitalambda-(m_tilda)*bitesPERlanding*betaHV*x(1,1)*x(8,1)/(x(7,1)+x(8,1))-muh*x(1,1);
dx(2,1) = (m_tilda)*bitesPERlanding*betaHV*x(1,1)*x(8,1)/(x(7,1)+x(8,1))-(del1+eta+muh)*x(2,1);
dx(3,1) = p*eta*x(2,1)-(del2+alpha1+muh)*x(3,1);
dx(4,1) = (1-p)*eta*x(2,1)-(del2+alpha2+muh)*x(4,1);
dx(5,1) = alpha1*x(3,1)+alpha2*x(4,1)-muh*x(5,1);
dx(6,1) = capitalambda -del1*x(2,1)-del2*x(3,1)-del2*x(4,1)-muh*x(6,1);
dx(7,1) = muv*(x(7,1)+x(8,1))-bitesPERlanding*betaVH*x(7,1)*x(2,1)/(x(6,1)+Nc)-muv*x(7,1);
%dx(8,1) = lambdav*x(7,1)*x(2,1)/(x(6,1)+Nc)-muvIOFt(t)*x(8,1);
dx(8,1) = bitesPERlanding*betaVH*x(7,1)*x(2,1)/(x(6,1)+Nc)-muv*x(8,1);
dx(9,1) = (muv-muv)*x(9,1);
dx(10,1) = (m_tilda)*bitesPERlanding*betaHV*x(1,1)*x(8,1)/x(9,1);
The function file: OnlyLethal_derivative_6_15_2012
function dx=OnlyLethal_derivative_6_15_2012(t,x)
global Nc capitalambda muh del1 del2 p eta alpha1 alpha2 muv global dims m_tilda betaHV bitesPERlanding betaVH k muARRAY
dx=zeros(dims+1,1);
% the below code saves some values into the second column of the two arrays % t muARRAY(k,1)=t; muARRAY(k,2)=artificialdeathrate1(t); k=k+1;
dx(1,1)= capitalambda-(m_tilda)*bitesPERlanding*betaHV*x(1,1)*x(8,1)/(x(7,1)+x(8,1))-muh*x(1,1);
dx(2,1)= (m_tilda)*bitesPERlanding*betaHV*x(1,1)*x(8,1)/(x(7,1)+x(8,1))-(del1+eta+muh)*x(2,1);
dx(3,1)=p*eta*x(2,1)-(del2+alpha1+muh)*x(3,1);
dx(4,1)=(1-p)*eta*x(2,1)-(del2+alpha2+muh)*x(4,1);
dx(5,1)=alpha1*x(3,1)+alpha2*x(4,1)-muh*x(5,1);
dx(6,1)=capitalambda -del1*x(2,1)-del2*( x(3,1)+x(4,1) ) - muh*x(6,1);
dx(7,1)=muv*( x(7,1)+x(8,1) )- bitesPERlanding*betaVH*x(7,1)*x(2,1)/(x(6,1)+Nc) - (artificialdeathrate1(t) + muv)*x(7,1);
dx(8,1)= bitesPERlanding*betaVH*x(7,1)*x(2,1)/(x(6,1)+Nc)-(artificialdeathrate1(t) + muv)*x(8,1);
dx(9,1)= -artificialdeathrate1(t) * x(9,1);
dx(10,1)= (m_tilda)*bitesPERlanding*betaHV*x(1,1)*x(8,1)/x(9,1);
The function file: artificialdeathrate1
function art1=artificialdeathrate1(t)
global Q Hs H Cs C
art1= Q*Hs*iOFt(t)/H + (1-Q)*Cs*oOFt(t)/C ;
The function file: iOFt
function i = iOFt(t)
global gamma tfinal Ct0 b1
if t>=gamma && t<=tfinal
i = Ct0*exp(-b1*(t-gamma));
else
i =0;
end
The function file: oOFt
function o = oOFt(t)
global gamma Ct0 b2 tfinal
if (t>=gamma && t<=tfinal)
o = Ct0*exp(-b2*(t-gamma));
else
o = 0;
end
If your working code is even remotely as messy as the code you posted, then that should IMHO the first thing you should address.
I cleaned up iOFt, oOFt a bit for you, since those were quite easy to handle. I tried my best at NoEffects_derivative_6_15_2012. What I'd personally change to your code is using decent indexes. You have 10 variables, there is no way that if you let your code rest for a few weeks or months, that you will remember what state 7 is for example. So instead of using (7,1), you might want to rewrite your ODE either using verbose names and then retrieving/storing them in the x and dx vectors. Or use indexes that make it clear what is happening.
E.g.
function ODE(t,x)
insectsInfected = x(1);
humansInfected = x(2);
%etc
dInsectsInfected = %some function of the rest
dHumansInfected = %some function of the rest
% etc
dx = [dInsectsInfected; dHumansInfected; ...];
or
function ODE(t,x)
iInsectsInfected = 1;
iHumansInfected = 2;
%etc
dx(iInsectsInfected) = %some function of x(i...)
dx(iHumansInfected) = %some function of x(i...)
%etc
When you don't do such things, you might end up using x(6,1) instead of e.g. x(3,1) in some formulas and it might take you hours to spot such a thing. If you use verbose names, it takes a bit longer to type, but it makes debugging a lot easier and if you understand your equations, it should be more obvious when such an error happens.
Also, don't hesitate to put spaces inside your formulas, it makes reading much easier. If you have some sub-expressions that are meaningful (e.g. if (1-p)*eta*x(2,1) is the number of insects that are dying of the disease, just put it in a variable dyingInsects and use that everywhere it occurs). If you align your assignments (as I've done above), this might add to code that is easier to read and understand.
With regard to the ODE solver, if you are sure your implementation is correct, I'd also try a solver for stiff problems (unless you are absolutely sure you don't have a stiff system).
I am coding a perceptron to learn to categorize gender in pictures of faces. I am very very new to MATLAB, so I need a lot of help. I have a few questions:
I am trying to code for a function:
function [y] = testset(x,w)
%y = sign(sigma(x*w-threshold))
where y is the predicted results, x is the training/testing set put in as a very large matrix, and w is weight on the equation. The part after the % is what I am trying to write, but I do not know how to write this in MATLAB code. Any ideas out there?
I am trying to code a second function:
function [err] = testerror(x,w,y)
%err = sigma(max(0,-w*x*y))
w, x, and y have the same values as stated above, and err is my function of error, which I am trying to minimize through the steps of the perceptron.
I am trying to create a step in my perceptron to lower the percent of error by using gradient descent on my original equation. Does anyone know how I can increment w using gradient descent in order to minimize the error function using an if then statement?
I can put up the code I have up till now if that would help you answer these questions.
Thank you!
edit--------------------------
OK, so I am still working on the code for this, and would like to put it up when I have something more complete. My biggest question right now is:
I have the following function:
function [y] = testset(x,w)
y = sign(sum(x*w-threshold))
Now I know that I am supposed to put a threshold in, but cannot figure out what I am supposed to put in as the threshold! any ideas out there?
edit----------------------------
this is what I have so far. Changes still need to be made to it, but I would appreciate input, especially regarding structure, and advice for making the changes that need to be made!
function [y] = Perceptron_Aviva(X,w)
y = sign(sum(X*w-1));
end
function [err] = testerror(X,w,y)
err = sum(max(0,-w*X*y));
end
%function [w] = perceptron(X,Y,w_init)
%w = w_init;
%end
%------------------------------
% input samples
X = X_train;
% output class [-1,+1];
Y = y_train;
% init weigth vector
w_init = zeros(size(X,1));
w = w_init;
%---------------------------------------------
loopcounter = 0
while abs(err) > 0.1 && loopcounter < 100
for j=1:size(X,1)
approx_y(j) = Perceptron_Aviva(X(j),w(j))
err = testerror(X(j),w(j),approx_y(j))
if err > 0 %wrong (structure is correct, test is wrong)
w(j) = w(j) - 0.1 %wrong
elseif err < 0 %wrong
w(j) = w(j) + 0.1 %wrong
end
% -----------
% if sign(w'*X(:,j)) ~= Y(j) %wrong decision?
% w = w + X(:,j) * Y(j); %then add (or subtract) this point to w
end
you can read this question I did some time ago.
I uses a matlab code and a function perceptron
function [w] = perceptron(X,Y,w_init)
w = w_init;
for iteration = 1 : 100 %<- in practice, use some stopping criterion!
for ii = 1 : size(X,2) %cycle through training set
if sign(w'*X(:,ii)) ~= Y(ii) %wrong decision?
w = w + X(:,ii) * Y(ii); %then add (or subtract) this point to w
end
end
sum(sign(w'*X)~=Y)/size(X,2) %show misclassification rate
end
and it is called from code (#Itamar Katz) like (random data):
% input samples
X1=[rand(1,100);rand(1,100);ones(1,100)]; % class '+1'
X2=[rand(1,100);1+rand(1,100);ones(1,100)]; % class '-1'
X=[X1,X2];
% output class [-1,+1];
Y=[-ones(1,100),ones(1,100)];
% init weigth vector
w=[.5 .5 .5]';
% call perceptron
wtag=perceptron(X,Y,w);
% predict
ytag=wtag'*X;
% plot prediction over origianl data
figure;hold on
plot(X1(1,:),X1(2,:),'b.')
plot(X2(1,:),X2(2,:),'r.')
plot(X(1,ytag<0),X(2,ytag<0),'bo')
plot(X(1,ytag>0),X(2,ytag>0),'ro')
legend('class -1','class +1','pred -1','pred +1')
I guess this can give you an idea to make the functions you described.
To the error compare the expected result with the real result (class)
Assume your dataset is X, the datapoins, and Y, the labels of the classes.
f=newp(X,Y)
creates a perceptron.
If you want to create an MLP then:
f=newff(X,Y,NN)
where NN is the network architecture, i.e. an array that designates the number of neurons at each hidden layer. For example
NN=[5 3 2]
will correspond to an network with 5 neurons at the first layers, 3 at the second and 2 a the third hidden layer.
Well what you call threshold is the Bias in machine learning nomenclature. This should be left as an input for the user because it is used during training.
Also, I wonder why you are not using the builtin matlab functions. i.e newp or newff. e.g.
ff=newp(X,Y)
Then you can set the properties of the object ff to do your job for selecting gradient descent and so on.