I have endeavored this problem which was an easy solution in GAMS file but I cannot do it with PYOMO.
My problem is that I would like to put a limit in production as a daily basis as a constraint for a certain generation.
The generation is variable with 8760 hourly set and summation of this generation per day should be lower than certain limit.
In GAMS, I can easily solve it with following code;
set t hours in a year /1*8760/ ;
set d day /1*365/;
I make parameter day(t) for spliting hours in a year
parameter day(t) ;
day(t)$(ord(t) <= 24)=1;
day(t)$(ord(t)>24 and mod(ord(t),24) ne 0)=round(ord(t)/24-mod(ord(t),24)/24)+1;
day(t)$(ord(t)>24 and mod(ord(t),24) eq 0)= ord(t)/24;
with the sets and paramter day(t) I can make following equation as constraint
hydro_day(d)..sum(t$(day(t)=ord(d)),hydro_el(t))=l=6*spec('Hydro', 'cap');
In Pyomo, I have tried as follow but it doesn't work for now
def dcap_rule(model) :
dailyLimit = {}
for k in range(365) :
dailyLimit[k] = sum(model.discharge[i] for i in sequence((24*(k-1)+1), 24*k))
return dailyLimit[k]<= model.capa['pumped']*5
model.dcap_limit = Constraint( rule=dcap_rule)
This code only applied to the first day(1-24hours) then after the first day, there seems to be no constraint .
Could you help me solve this issue?
Thanks in advance
You are declaring a scalar constraint, so only one constraint is being generated. You want to change your code to generate an indexed constraint:
def dcap_rule(model, k):
return sum(model.discharge[i] for i in sequence((24*(k-1)+1), 24*k)) \
<= model.capa['pumped']*5
model.dcap_limit = Constraint(range(365), rule=dcap_rule)
Related
I have a vector of nominal values and I need to know the probability of occurring each of the nominal values. Basically, I need those to obtain the min, max, mean, std of the probability of observing the nominal values and to get the Class Entropy value.
For example, lets assume there is a data-set in which the target is predicting 0, 1, or 2. In the training data-set. We can count the number of records which their target is 1, and call it n_1 and similarly we can define n_0 and n_2. Then, the probability of observing class 1 in the training data-set is simply p_1=n_1/(n_0 + n_2). Once p_0, p_1, and p_2 are obtained, one can get min, max, mean, and std of the these probabilitis.
It is easy to get that in python by pandas, but want to avoid reading the data-set twice. I was wondering if there is any CAS-action in SAS that can provide it to me. Note that I use the Python API of SAS through swat and I need to have the API in python.
I found the following solution and it works fine. It uses s.dataPreprocess.highcardinality to get the number of classes and then uses s.dataPreprocess.binning to obtain the number of observations within each class. Then, there is just some straightforward calculation.
import swat
# create a CAS server
s = swat.CAS(server, port)
# load the table
tbl_name = 'hmeq'
s.upload("./data/hmeq.csv", casout=dict(name=tbl_name, replace=True))
# call to get the number of classes
cardinality_result = s.dataPreprocess.highcardinality(table=tbl_name, vars=[target_var])
cardinality_result_df = pd.DataFrame(cardinality_result["HighCardinalityDetails"])
number_of_classes = int(cardinality_result_df["CardinalityEstimate"])
# call dataPreprocess.binning action to get the probability of each class
s.loadactionset(actionset="dataPreprocess")
result_binning = s.dataPreprocess.binning(table=tbl_name, vars=[target_var], nBinsArray=[number_of_classes])
result_binning_df = pd.DataFrame(result_binning["BinDetails"])
probs = result_binning_df["NInBin"]/result_binning_df["NInBin"].sum()
prob_min = probs.min()
prob_max = probs.max()
prob_mean = probs.mean()
prob_std = probs.std()
entropy = -sum(probs*np.log2(probs))
I have a Pyomo model connected to a Django-created website.
My decision variable has 4 indices and I have a huge amount of constraints running on it.
Since Pyomo takes a ton of time to read in the constraints with so many variables, I want to sparse out the index set to only contain variables that actually could be 1 (i have some conditions on that)
I saw this post
Create a variable with sparse index in pyomo
and tried a for loop for all my conditions. I created a set "AllowedVariables" to later put this inside my constraints.
But Django's server takes so long to create this set while performing the system check, it never comes out.
Currently i have this model:
model = AbstractModel()
model.x = Var(model.K, model.L, model.F, model.Z, domain=Boolean)
def ObjRule(model):
# some rule, sense maximize
model.Obj = pyomo.environ.Objective(rule=ObjRule, sense=maximize)
def ARule(model,l):
maxA = sum(model.x[k,l,f,z] * for k in model.K for f in model.F
for z in model.Z and (k,l,f,z) in model.AllowedVariables)
return maxA <= 1
model.maxA = Constraint(model.L, rule=ARule)
The constraint is exemplary, I have 15 more similar ones. I currently create "AllowedVariables" this way:
AllowedVariables = []
for k in model.K:
for l in model.L:
..... check all sorts of conditions, break if not valid
AllowedVaraibles.append((k,l,f,z))
model.AllowedVariables = Set(initialize=AllowedVariables)
Using this, the Django server starts checking....and never stops
performing system checks...
Sadly, I somehow need some restriction on the variables or else the reading for the solver will take way to long since the constraints contain so many unnecessary variables that have to be 0 anyways.
Any ideas on how I can sparse my variable set?
I am new to Pyomo. I want to add an if..then.. type constraint to my linear programming problem. I have an abstract model and this is an example what I'd like to do:
if node j1 is receiving less than half of its water demand, the minimum flow in the link between j2 and j1 must be set to demand value in j1 (A and B are model variables, d is a known parameter).
if A(j1)<0.5 then B(j2,j1)>=d(j1)
I tried the following when I define model constraints. But since the model has not yet created the instance from its data file, it doesn't recognize j1 and j2.
def rule_(model):
term1=floor(model.A[j1]/0.5)
return (term1*model.B[j1,j2]>term1*mdoel.demand[j1])
model.rule=Constraint(rule=rule_)
If I take these lines after instantiating the model using data file, I think the constraint will not be implemented at all.
Can anyone help with this, please? Thanks.
"If/then" expressions and floor() are not linear, so they can't be inserted directly into a linear program. However, you can get the same effect by setting a binary flag and using that to activate and deactivate the constraint. Note that binary variables are also not linear, but they are commonly handled by mixed-integer solvers.
model.flag = Var(within=Binary)
def set_flag_rule(model):
# force the flag to be set if A[j1] < 0.5
return ((1 - model.flag) * 0.5 <= model.A[j1])
model.set_flag = Constraint(rule=set_flag_rule)
def rule(model):
# force B[j1, j2] to meet demand if the flag is set
return (model.B[j1,j2] >= model.flag * model.demand[j1])
model.rule=Constraint(rule=rule)
I have a query sequence that I blasted online using NCBIWWW.qblast. In my xml blast file result I obtained for a query sequence a list of hit (i.e: gi|). Each hit or gi| have multiple hsp. I made a dictionary my_dict1 where I placed gi| as key and I appended the bit score as value. So multiple values for each key.
my_dict1 = {
gi|1002819492|: [437.702, 384.47, 380.86, 380.86, 362.83],
gi|675820360| : [2617.97, 2614.37, 122.112],
gi|953764029| : [414.258, 318.66, 122.112, 86.158],
gi|675820410| : [450.653, 388.08, 386.27] }
Then I looked for max value in each key using:
for key, value in my_dict1.items():
max_value = max(value)
And made a second dictionary my_dict2:
my_dict2 = {
gi|1002819492|: 437.702,
gi|675820360| : 2617.97,
gi|953764029| : 414.258,
gi|675820410| : 450.653 }
I want to compare both dictionary. So I can extract the hsp with the highest score bits. I am also including other parameters like query coverage and identity percentage (Not shown here). The finality is to get the best gi| with the highest bit scores, coverage and identity percentage.
I tried many things to compare both dictionary like this :
First code :
matches[]
if my_dict1.keys() not in my_dict2.keys():
matches[hit_id] = bit_score
else:
matches = matches[hit_id], bit_score
Second code:
if hit_id not in matches.keys():
matches[hit_id]= bit_score
else:
matches = matches[hit_id], bit_score
Third code:
intersection = set(set(my_dict1.items()) & set(my_dict2.items()))
Howerver I always end up with 2 types of errors:
1 ) TypeError: list indices must be integers, not unicode
2 ) ... float not iterable...
Please I need some help and guidance. Thank you very much in advance for your time. Best regards.
It's not clear what you're trying to do. What is hit_id? What is bit_score? It looks like your second dict is always going to have the same keys as your first if you're creating it by pulling the max value for each key of the first dict.
You say you're trying to compare them, but don't really state what you're actually trying to do. Find those with values under a certain max? Find those with the highest max?
Your first code doesn't work because I'm assuming you're trying to use a dict key value as an index to matches, which you define as a list. That's probably where your first error is coming from, though you haven't given the lines where the error is actually occurring.
See in-code comments below:
# First off, this needs to be a dict.
matches{}
# This will never happen if you've created these dicts as you stated.
if my_dict1.keys() not in my_dict2.keys():
matches[hit_id] = bit_score # Not clear what bit_score is?
else:
# Also not sure what you're trying to do here. This will assign a tuple
# to matches with whatever the value of matches[hit_id] is and bit_score.
matches = matches[hit_id], bit_score
Regardless, we really need more information and the full code to figure out your actual goal and what's going wrong.
I have been trying to implement the Stupid Backoff language model (the description is available here, though I believe the details are not relevant to the question).
The thing is, the code's working and producing the result that is expected, but works slower than I expected. I figured out the part that was slowing down everything is here (and NOT in the training part):
def compute_score(self, sentence):
length = len(sentence)
assert length <= self.n
if length == 1:
word = tuple(sentence)
return float(self.ngrams[length][word]) / self.total_words
else:
words = tuple(sentence[::-1])
count = self.ngrams[length][words]
if count == 0:
return self.alpha * self.compute_score(sentence[1:])
else:
return float(count) / self.ngrams[length - 1][words[:-1]]
def score(self, sentence):
""" Takes a list of strings as argument and returns the log-probability of the
sentence using your language model. Use whatever data you computed in train() here.
"""
output = 0.0
length = len(sentence)
for idx in range(length):
if idx < self.n - 1:
current_score = self.compute_score(sentence[:idx+1])
else:
current_score = self.compute_score(sentence[idx-self.n+1:idx+1])
output += math.log(current_score)
return output
self.ngrams is a nested dictionary that has n entries. Each of these entries is a dictionary of form (word_i, word_i-1, word_i-2.... word_i-n) : the count of this combination.
self.alpha is a constant that defines the penalty for going n-1.
self.n is the maximum length of that tuple that the program is looking for in the dictionary self.ngrams. It is set to 3 (though setting it to 2 or even 1 doesn't anything). It's weird because the Unigram and Bigram models work just fine in fractions of a second.
The answer that I am looking for is not a refactored version of my own code, but rather a tip which part of it is the most computationally expensive (so that I could figure out myself how to rewrite it and get the most educational profit from solving this problem).
Please, be patient, I am but a beginner (two months into the world of programming). Thanks.
UPD:
I timed the running time with the same data using time.time():
Unigram = 1.9
Bigram = 3.2
Stupid Backoff (n=2) = 15.3
Stupid Backoff (n=3) = 21.6
(It's on some bigger data than originally because of time.time's bad precision.)
If the sentence is very long, most of the code that's actually running is here:
def score(self, sentence):
for idx in range(len(sentence)): # should use xrange in Python 2!
self.compute_score(sentence[idx-self.n+1:idx+1])
def compute_score(self, sentence):
words = tuple(sentence[::-1])
count = self.ngrams[len(sentence)][words]
if count == 0:
self.compute_score(sentence[1:])
else:
self.ngrams[len(sentence) - 1][words[:-1]]
That's not meant to be working code--it just removes the unimportant parts.
The flow in the critical path is therefore:
For each word in the sentence:
Call compute_score() on that word plus the following 2. This creates a new list of length 3. You could avoid that with itertools.islice().
Construct a 3-tuple with the words reversed. This creates a new tuple. You could avoid that by passing the -1 step argument when making the slice outside this function.
Look up in self.ngrams, a nested dict, with the first key being a number (might be faster if this level were a list; there are only three keys anyway?), and the second being the tuple just created.
Recurse with the first word removed, i.e. make a new tuple (sentence[2], sentence[1]), or
Do another lookup in self.ngrams, implicitly creating another new tuple (words[:-1]).
In summary, I think the biggest problem you have is the repeated and nested creation and destruction of lists and tuples.