Skip to main content

random - Boundary condition for stochastic differential equation


I have a simple stochastic differential equation (SDE) with white noise:


mysde[q_, I_, n0_, sd_] := 
  ItoProcess[

    \[DifferentialD]n[t] == 
      ( I - q n[t]) \[DifferentialD]t + sd \[DifferentialD]w[t], n[t], 
    {n, n0}, t, w \[Distributed] WienerProcess[]]

I want to impose a condition that n[t] cannot fall below zero. At below zero, or an arbitrarily low value of n[t], it is considered zero. I am not sure how to implement this in the ItoProcess function and/or in the numerical solution:


sol[q_, I_, n0_, sd_] := RandomFunction[mysde[q, I, n0, sd], {0, 100, 0.1}, 1]

The variable drops below zero many times, which is not a desired behaviour:


With[{q = 2, I = 0.1, n0 = 1, sd = 0.1}, 
  Show[ListLinePlot[sol[q, I, n0, sd]], ImageSize -> 400]]


What are some ways to implement such a condition?


I have tried various functions on n[t] within the ItoProcess[], to attempt to re-set negative values of n[t] to zero, like If[], Max[], Clip[], and Piecewise[] to no avail. Any reasons why these functions do not dynamically work within the solver?


Also is there a way to extract the values of the noise, w[t], in a particular simulated path of the temporal data timeseries object?


One potential solution, which is not confirmed to be correct, is to write the equation for the log of my variable, ln[t] and to use the Geometric Brownian motion random process formulation, obtaining:


logsde[q_, I_, ln0_, sd_] := 
  ItoProcess[
    \[DifferentialD]ln[t] == 
      ( I - q ln[t] - sd^2/2) \[DifferentialD]t + sd \[DifferentialD]w[t], ln[t], 
   {ln, ln0}, t, w \[Distributed] GeometricBrownianMotionProcess[I - q ln[t], sd, n0]]


logsol[q_, I_, ln0_, sd_] := RandomFunction[logsde[q, I, ln0, sd], {0, 100, 0.1}, 1]

Then I extract the simulated values, and exponentiate them to obtain the time series or path in the original scale:


td = With[{q = 0.1, I1 = 0.1, ln0 = 1, sd = .1}, 
  logsol[q, I1, ln0, sd]];
ListLinePlot[Exp[td["States"]]]

However I have lost the stochastic signal in this model; the simulation smooths out and looks continuous with no noise, except at the beginning of the simulation. This is obviously an incorrect formulation. What did I do here? How might I formulate this properly?


Are there other approaches?



So overall I have three questions:



  1. How to implement a boundary condition in ItoProcess[] for one of the state variables?

  2. How to recover the simulated values of the random variable? <- self-answered below

  3. How to properly specify a log-transformed version of the ItoProcess[]?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more