Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add example of parameter estimation from multiple measurement trials #230

Closed
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
227 changes: 227 additions & 0 deletions examples-gallery/plot_parameter_estimation.py
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
# %%
"""

Parameter Estimation
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The title and filename are too generic.

  1. We use the terms "parameter identification" in opty not "parameter estimation", we should be consistent.
  2. This is a special parameter id example, in that it is showing how to use multiple measurement trials that constitute a set of discontinuous data. So the title should reflect this uniqueness (relative to the other simpler parameter id examples)

====================

Four noisy measurements of the location of a simple system consisting of a mass
connected to a fixed point by a spring and a damper. The movement is in a
horizontal direction. The the spring constant and the damping coefficient
are to be estimated.

The idea is to set up four sets of eoms, one for each of the measurements, with
identical parameters, and let opty estimate the parameters.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe we should add an explanation of why we have to do such a thing. Something like:

For parameter identification, it is common to collect measurements of a system's trajectories from distinct expeirments. For example, if you are identifying the parameters of a mass-spring-damper system you will excite the system with different initial conditions multiple times. The data cannot simply be stacked and the identification run because the measurement data would be discontinuous between trials. A work around in opty is to create a set of differential equations with unique state variables for each measurement trial that all share the same constant parameters. You can then identify the parameters from all measurement trials simultaneously by passing the uncoupled differential equations to opty.


**State Variables**

- :math:`x_1`: position of the mass of the first system [m]
- :math:`x_2`: position of the mass of the second system [m]
- :math:`x_3`: position of the mass of the third system [m]
- :math:`x_4`: position of the mass of the fourth system [m]
moorepants marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- :math:`u_1`: speed of the mass of the first system [m/s]
- :math:`u_2`: speed of the mass of the second system [m/s]
- :math:`u_3`: speed of the mass of the third system [m/s]
- :math:`u_4`: speed of the mass of the fourth system [m/s]

**Parameters**

- :math:`m`: mass for both systems system [kg]
- :math:`c`: damping coefficient for both systems [Ns/m]
- :math:`k`: spring constant for both systems [N/m]
- :math:`l_0`: natural length of the spring [m]

"""
# %%
# Set up the equations of motion and integrate them to get the noisy measurements.
#
import sympy as sm
import numpy as np
import sympy.physics.mechanics as me
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import solve_ivp
from opty import Problem
from opty.utils import parse_free

N = me.ReferenceFrame('N')
O, P1, P2, P3, P4 = sm.symbols('O P1 P2 P3 P4', cls=me.Point)

O.set_vel(N, 0)
t = me.dynamicsymbols._t

x1, x2, x3, x4 = me.dynamicsymbols('x1 x2 x3 x4')
u1, u2, u3, u4 = me.dynamicsymbols('u1 u2 h3 u4')
m, c, k, l0 = sm.symbols('m c k l0')

P1.set_pos(O, x1 * N.x)
P2.set_pos(O, x2 * N.x)
P3.set_pos(O, x3 * N.x)
P4.set_pos(O, x4 * N.x)
P1.set_vel(N, u1 * N.x)
P2.set_vel(N, u2 * N.x)
P3.set_vel(N, u3 * N.x)
P4.set_vel(N, u4 * N.x)

body1 = me.Particle('body1', P1, m)
body2 = me.Particle('body2', P2, m)
body3 = me.Particle('body3', P3, m)
body4 = me.Particle('body4', P4, m)
bodies = [body1, body2, body3, body4]

forces = [(P1, -k * (x1 - l0) * N.x - c * u1 * N.x),
(P2, -k * (x2 - l0) * N.x - c * u2 * N.x), (P3, -k * (x3 - l0) * N.x - c * u3 * N.x),
(P4, -k * (x4 - l0) * N.x - c * u4 * N.x)]

kd = sm.Matrix([u1 - x1.diff(), u2 - x2.diff(), u3 - x3.diff(), u4 - x4.diff()])

q_ind = [x1, x2, x3, x4]
u_ind = [u1, u2, u3, u4]

KM = me.KanesMethod(N, q_ind, u_ind, kd_eqs=kd)
moorepants marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
fr, frstar = KM.kanes_equations(bodies, forces)
eom = kd.col_join(fr + frstar)
sm.pprint(eom)

moorepants marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
rhs = KM.rhs()

qL = q_ind + u_ind
pL = [m, c, k, l0]

rhs_lam = sm.lambdify(qL + pL, rhs)


def gradient(t, x, args):
return rhs_lam(*x, *args).reshape(8)

t0, tf = 0, 20
num_nodes = 500
times = np.linspace(t0, tf, num_nodes)
t_span = (t0, tf)

x0 = np.array([2, 3, 4, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0])
pL_vals = [1.0, 0.25, 1.0, 1.0]

resultat1 = solve_ivp(gradient, t_span, x0, t_eval = times, args=(pL_vals,))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A more realistic measurement data set would be collected from trials that have different initial conditions. You often don't have control of the initial conditions in the experiments, you simply measure whatever the state happens to be.

resultat = resultat1.y.T
print('Shape of result: ', resultat.shape)
print(' the message is: ', resultat1.message)

noisy = []
np.random.seed(123)
for i in range(4):
noisy.append(resultat[:, i] + np.random.randn(resultat.shape[0]) * 0.5 +
np.random.randn(1))

fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 5))
for i in range(4):
ax.plot(times, resultat[:, i], label=f'x{i+1}')
ax.plot(times, noisy[i], label=f'noisy x{i+1}', lw=0.5)
plt.xlabel('Time')
ax.set_title('Noisy measurements of the position of the mass')
ax.legend();

plt.show()
moorepants marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved


# %%
# Set up the Estimation Problem.
# --------------------------------
#
# If some measurement is considered more reliable, its weight can be increased.
#
# objective = :math:`\int_{t_0}^{t_f} (weight_1 (x_1 - noisy_{x_1})^2 + weight_2 (x_2 - noisy_{x_2})^2 + weight_3 (x_3 - noisy_{x_3}))^2 + weight_4 (x_4 - noisy_{x_4})^2)\, dt`
#
state_symbols = [x1, x2, x3, x4, u1, u2, u3, u4]
unknown_parameters = [c, k]

interval_value = (tf - t0) / (num_nodes - 1)
par_map = {m: pL_vals[0], l0: pL_vals[3]}

weight =[1, 1, 1, 1]
def obj(free):
return interval_value *np.sum((weight[0] * free[:num_nodes] - noisy[0])**2 +
weight[1] * (free[num_nodes:2*num_nodes] - noisy[1])**2 +
weight[2] * (free[2*num_nodes:3*num_nodes] - noisy[2])**2 +
weight[3] * (free[3*num_nodes:4*num_nodes] - noisy[3])**2
)


def obj_grad(free):
grad = np.zeros_like(free)
grad[:num_nodes] = 2 * weight[0] * interval_value * (free[:num_nodes] - noisy[0])
grad[num_nodes:2*num_nodes] = 2 * weight[1] * (interval_value *
(free[num_nodes:2*num_nodes] - noisy[1]))
grad[2*num_nodes:3*num_nodes] = 2 * weight[2] * (interval_value *
(free[2*num_nodes:3*num_nodes] - noisy[2]))
grad[3*num_nodes:4*num_nodes] = 2 * weight[3] * (interval_value *
(free[3*num_nodes:4*num_nodes] - noisy[3]))
return grad

instance_constraints = (
x1.subs({t: t0}) - x0[0],
x2.subs({t: t0}) - x0[1],
x3.subs({t: t0}) - x0[2],
x4.subs({t: t0}) - x0[3],
u1.subs({t: t0}) - x0[4],
u2.subs({t: t0}) - x0[5],
u3.subs({t: t0}) - x0[6],
u4.subs({t: t0}) - x0[7],
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You generally don't want instance constraints in parameter estimation problems. This overly constrains the solution.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@Peter230655 Peter230655 Sep 14, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You generally don't want instance constraints in parameter estimation problems. This overly constrains the solution.

Sorry, I missed this in the PR I just started. Will correct it.
Question: Would you not know the initial conditionsd of the experiment, like im my case you would know how much you extended the mas, and at what initial speed it started?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My bet is that if you remove these, you'll get better parameter estimates.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Question: Would you not know the initial conditionsd of the experiment, like im my case you would know how much you extended the mas, and at what initial speed it started?

You know the initial conditions only as good as your error filled measurement might say. If you force the initial condition to the value of a measurement that has error, then you are not allowing for solutions that minimize the overall error.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Makes sense!
When I give reasonable bounds it finds good values.
I will try to incorporate all you suggested tomorrow.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Question: does it make sense to estimate continuous parameters this way? What I mean: say, I apply a time varying force to this sytem and try to estimate what it looks like?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I understand you, I think you can.

)

problem = Problem(
obj,
obj_grad,
eom,
state_symbols,
num_nodes,
interval_value,
known_parameter_map=par_map,
instance_constraints=instance_constraints,
time_symbol=me.dynamicsymbols._t,
)

# %%
# Initial guess.
#
initial_guess = np.array(list(np.random.randn(8*num_nodes + 2)))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In parameter identification problems you have the measured state values, so there is really no reason to not use the measurements as the initial guess for the state trajectories.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You also typically have some reasonable guess for the parameters and the parameters needs to be bounded.

# %%
# Solve the Optimization Problem.
#
solution, info = problem.solve(initial_guess)
print(info['status_msg'])
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

new cell before the plot command, basically a new cell should be after anything you print or plot

problem.plot_objective_value()
# %%
problem.plot_constraint_violations(solution)
# %%
# The method plot_trajectories does not work without input trajectories.
fig, ax = plt.subplots(8, 1, figsize=(8, 16), sharex=True)
names = ['x1', 'x2', 'x3', 'x4', 'u1', 'u2', 'u3', 'u4']
for i in range(8):
ax[i].plot(times, solution[i*num_nodes:(i+1)*num_nodes])
ax[i].set_ylabel(names[i])
ax[-1].set_xlabel('Time [s]')
ax[0].set_title('State Trajectories')
print(f'Relative error in the damping parameter is {(pL_vals[1]-solution[-2])/pL_vals[1] * 100:.2f} %')
print(f'Relative error in the spring constant is {(pL_vals[2]-solution[-1])/pL_vals[2] * 100:.2f} %')
# %%
# How close are the calculated trajectories to the true ones?
#
state_sol, input_sol, _ = parse_free(solution, len(state_symbols),
0, num_nodes)
state_sol = state_sol.T
error_x1 = (state_sol[:, 0] - resultat[:, 0]) / np.max(resultat[:, 0]) * 100
error_x2 = (state_sol[:, 1] - resultat[:, 1]) / np.max(resultat[:, 1]) * 100
error_x3 = (state_sol[:, 2] - resultat[:, 2]) / np.max(resultat[:, 2]) * 100
error_x4 = (state_sol[:, 3] - resultat[:, 3]) / np.max(resultat[:, 3]) * 100

fig, ax = plt.subplots(4, 1, figsize=(8, 8))
ax[0].plot(times, error_x1, label='Error in x1', color='blue')
ax[1].plot(times, error_x2, label='Error in x2', color='blue')
ax[2].plot(times, error_x3, label='Error in x3', color='blue')
ax[3].plot(times, error_x4, label='Error in x4', color='blue')

ax[3].set_xlabel('Time [s]')
ax[0].set_title('Deviaton in percent of the estimated trajectory from the true trajectory')
ax[0].legend();
ax[1].legend();
ax[2].legend();
ax[3].legend();
Loading