The ppsim
package is used for simulating population protocols. The package and further example notebooks can be found on Github.
The core of the simulator uses a batching algorithm which gives significant asymptotic gains for protocols with relatively small reachable state sets. The package is designed to be run in a Python notebook, to concisely describe complex protocols, efficiently simulate their dynamics, and provide helpful visualization of the simulation.
If you find ppsim useful in a scientific project, please cite its associated paper:
ppsim: A software package for efficiently simulating and visualizing population protocols.
David Doty and Eric Severson.
CMSB 2021: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Methods in Systems Biology
[ paper | arXiv version | BibTeX ]
- Installation
- First example protocol
- Larger state protocol
- Protocol with Multiple Fields
- Simulating Chemical Reaction Networks (CRNs)
The package can be installed with pip
via
pip install ppsim
The most important part of the package is the Simulation
class, which is responsible for parsing a protocol, performing the simulation, and giving data about the simulation.
from ppsim import Simulation
A state can be any hashable Python object. The simplest way to describe a protocol is a dictionary mapping pairs of input states to pairs of output states.
For example, here is a description of the classic 3-state approximate majority protocol. There are two initial states A
and B
, and the protocol converges with high probability to the majority state with the help of a third "undecided" state U
.
a, b, u = 'A', 'B', 'U'
approximate_majority = {
(a,b): (u,u),
(a,u): (a,a),
(b,u): (b,b)
}
To instantiate a Simulation
, we must specify a protocol along with an initial condition, which is a dictionary mapping states to counts. Let's simulate approximate majority with in a population of one billion agents with a slight majority of A
agents.
n = 10 ** 9
init_config = {a: 0.501 * n, b: 0.499 * n}
sim = Simulation(init_config, approximate_majority)
Now let's run this simulation for 10
units of parallel time (10 * n
interactions). We will record the configuration every 0.1
units of time.
sim.run(10, 0.1)
Time: 10.000
The Simulation
class can display all these configurations in a pandas
dataframe in the attribute history
.
sim.history
A | B | U | |
---|---|---|---|
time (n interactions) | |||
0.0 | 501000000 | 499000000 | 0 |
0.1 | 459457762 | 457439751 | 83102487 |
0.2 | 430276789 | 428217565 | 141505646 |
0.3 | 409027376 | 406898254 | 184074370 |
0.4 | 393162729 | 390949934 | 215887337 |
... | ... | ... | ... |
9.7 | 771074143 | 55357812 | 173568045 |
9.8 | 789103074 | 48973925 | 161923001 |
9.9 | 806667929 | 43076383 | 150255688 |
10.0 | 823641388 | 37668547 | 138690065 |
10.0 | 823641389 | 37668547 | 138690064 |
102 rows × 3 columns
p = sim.history.plot()
Without specifying an end time, run
will run the simulation until the configuration is silent (all interactions are null). In this case, that will be when the protocol reaches a silent majority consensus configuration.
sim.run()
p = sim.history.plot()
Time: 21.000
Note that by default, Simulation
assumes that input pair (b,a)
will have the same transition as (a,b)
, so order doesn't matter, with the default setting transition_order = 'symmetric'
.
Thus we have the exact same protocol as if we had spent more time explicitly specifying
approximate_majority_symmetric = {
(a,b): (u,u), (b,a): (u,u),
(a,u): (a,a), (u,a): (a,a),
(b,u): (b,b), (u,b): (b,b)
}
If we intentionally meant for these pairwise transitions to only happen in this specified order, we can declare that. We see in this case that it has the same behavior, but just runs twice as slow because now every interaction must happen in a specified order.
sim = Simulation(init_config, approximate_majority, transition_order='asymmetric')
print(sim.reactions)
sim.run()
p = sim.history.plot()
A, B --> U, U with probability 0.5
A, U --> A, A with probability 0.5
B, U --> B, B with probability 0.5
Time: 44.000
A key result about this protocol is it converges in expected O(log n) time, which surprisingly is very nontrivial to prove. We can use this package to very quickly gather some convincing data that the convergence really is O(log n) time, with the function time_trials
.
from ppsim import time_trials
import numpy as np
ns = [int(n) for n in np.geomspace(10, 10 ** 8, 20)]
def initial_condition(n):
return {'A': n // 2, 'B': n // 2}
df = time_trials(approximate_majority, ns, initial_condition, num_trials=100, max_wallclock_time = 30)
df
n | time | |
---|---|---|
0 | 10 | 3.0 |
1 | 10 | 2.1 |
2 | 10 | 2.8 |
3 | 10 | 2.7 |
4 | 10 | 3.8 |
... | ... | ... |
1492 | 42813323 | 23.8 |
1493 | 100000000 | 28.1 |
1494 | 100000000 | 25.2 |
1495 | 100000000 | 25.1 |
1496 | 100000000 | 24.6 |
1497 rows × 2 columns
This dataframe collected time from up to 100 trials for each population size n across a many orders of magnitude, limited by the budget of 30 seconds of wallclock time that we gave it.
We can now use the seaborn
library to get a convincing plot of the data.
import seaborn as sns
lp = sns.lineplot(x='n', y='time', data=df)
lp.set_xscale('log')
For more complicated protocols, it would be very tedious to use this dictionary format. Instead we can give an arbitrary Python function which takes a pair of states as input (along with possible other protocol parameters) and returns a pair of states as output (or if we wanted a randomized transition, it would output a dictionary which maps pairs of states to probabilities).
As a quick example, let's take a look at the discrete averaging dynamics, as analyzed here and here, which have been a key subroutine used in counting and majority protocols.
from math import ceil, floor
def discrete_averaging(a, b):
avg = (a + b) / 2
return floor(avg), ceil(avg)
n = 10 ** 6
sim = Simulation({0: n // 2, 50: n // 2}, discrete_averaging)
We did not need to explicitly describe the state set. Upon initialization, Simulation
used breadth first search to find all states reachable from the initial configuration.
print(sim.state_list)
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]
This enumeration will call the function rule
we give it O(q^2) times, where q is the number of reachable states. This preprocessing step also builds an internal representation of the transition function, so it will not need to continue calling rule
. Thus we don't need to worry too much about our code for rule
being efficient.
Rather than the dictionary format used to input the configuration, internally Simulation
represents the configuration as an array of counts, where the ordering of the indices is given by state_list
.
sim.config_dict
{0: 500000, 50: 500000}
sim.config_array
array([500000, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
0, 0, 500000], dtype=int64)
A key result about these discrete averaging dynamics is that they converge in O(log n) time to at most 3 consecutive values. It could take longer to reach the ultimate silent configuration with only 2 consecutive values, so if we wanted to check for the faster convergence condition, we could use a function that checks for the condition. This function takes a configuration dictionary (mapping states to counts) as input and returns True
if the convergence criterion has been met.
def three_consecutive_values(config):
states = config.keys()
return max(states) - min(states) <= 2
Now we can run until this condition is met (or also use time_trials
as above to generate statistics about this convergence time).
sim.run(three_consecutive_values, 0.1)
sim.history
Time: 14.800
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
time (n interactions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
0.0 | 500000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 500000 |
0.1 | 450215 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 3 | 1 | 391 | 134 | 2 | 8 | ... | 9 | 0 | 125 | 395 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 450243 |
0.2 | 401257 | 11 | 11 | 229 | 30 | 14 | 2125 | 694 | 18 | 199 | ... | 188 | 26 | 684 | 2165 | 11 | 27 | 176 | 10 | 7 | 401337 |
0.3 | 354726 | 46 | 61 | 715 | 146 | 70 | 4818 | 1643 | 114 | 721 | ... | 753 | 134 | 1730 | 5086 | 75 | 122 | 720 | 53 | 33 | 354312 |
0.4 | 310248 | 106 | 145 | 1572 | 360 | 251 | 8297 | 2953 | 340 | 1720 | ... | 1708 | 399 | 2926 | 8523 | 233 | 327 | 1653 | 161 | 116 | 309999 |
... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
14.4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14.7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
149 rows × 51 columns
With a much larger number of states, the history
dataframe is more unwieldly, so trying to directly call history.plot()
would be very messy and not very useful. Instead, we will define a function that makes a barplot, using the data in a single row of sim.history
to visualize the distribution at that recorded time step.
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
def plot_row(row):
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(12,5))
sim.history.iloc[row].plot(ax=ax, kind='bar',
title=f'Discrete averaging at time {sim.history.index[row]:.2f}',
xlabel='minute',
ylim=(0,n))
plot_row(0)
plot_row(30)
plot_row(-1)
The ipywidgets
library gives a quick way to make a slider that lets us visualize the evolution of this distribution:
import ipywidgets as widgets
bar = widgets.interact(plot_row, row = widgets.IntSlider(
min=0, max=len(sim.history)-1, step=1, value=0, layout = widgets.Layout(width='100%')))
It is recommended to use an interactive matplotlib backend, such as ipympl
, which can be installed with pip install ipympl
and then activated with the cell magic %matplotlib widget
. The recommended environment to use for these notebooks is Jupyter Lab. Unfortunately, these interactive backends are not supported with Google Colab, so there does not seem to be an easy way to have access to interactive backends with something that can be run only in a browser without local installation.
The code with the slider above was designed to work in the non-interactive backend. The following cell shows how to accomplish the same thing with an interactive backend:
# The following example uses the ipympl backend. It creates one figure and axis once and then modifies the axis directly with plot_row.
# If ipympl is installed, then uncommenting and running the following code will produce a slider that changes one single interactive figure object.
# %matplotlib widget
# def plot_row(row):
# ax.clear()
# sim.history.iloc[row].plot(ax=ax, kind='bar',
# title=f'Discrete averaging at time {sim.history.index[row]:.2f}',
# xlabel='minute',
# ylim=(0,n))
# fig.canvas.draw()
# fig, ax = plt.subplots()
# bar = widgets.interact(plot_row, row = widgets.IntSlider(
# min=0, max=len(sim.history)-1, step=1, value=0, layout = widgets.Layout(width='100%')))
Because the population average was exactly 25, the ultimate silent configuration will have every agent in state 50, but it will take a a very long time to reach, as we must wait for pairwise interactions between dwindling counts of states 24 and 26. We can check that this reaction is now the only possible non-null interaction.
print(sim.enabled_reactions)
24, 26 --> 25, 25
As a result, the probability of a non-null interaction will grow very small, upon which the simulator will switch to the Gillespie algorithm. This allows it to relatively quickly run all the way until silence, which we can confirm takes a very long amount of parallel time.
# Setting history_interval to be a function of time t that shrinks, to not record too many configurations over a long time scale
sim.run(history_interval=lambda t: 10 ** len(str(int(t))) / 100)
Time: 578983.800
To better visualize small count states, we add an option to change yscale
from linear
to symlog
.
def plot_row(row, yscale):
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(12,5))
sim.history.iloc[row].plot(ax=ax, kind='bar',
title=f'Discrete averaging at time {sim.history.index[row]:.2f}',
xlabel='minute',
ylim=(0,n))
ax.set_yscale(yscale)
bar = widgets.interact(plot_row,
row = widgets.IntSlider(min=0, max=len(sim.history)-1, step=1, value=0, layout = widgets.Layout(width='100%')),
yscale = ['linear','symlog'])
For more complicated protocol, it is helpful to have the states be more complicated Python objects. A recommended method is to define an Agent dataclass that includes various fields.
As a concrete example, we will use the protocol from Simple and Efficient Leader Election. We start by translating the explicit description of an agents state into our Agent class.
import dataclasses
from dataclasses import dataclass
# The parameter unsafe_hash=True makes the state hashable, as required, but still lets the transition code change the field values
# Note that ppsim will by default make safe copies of the agent states before applying the rule,
# so it is safe to mutate the fields of an agent in the transition rule
@dataclass(unsafe_hash=True)
class Agent:
role: str = 'contender'
flip_bit: int = 0
marker: int = 0
phase: str = 'marking'
counter: int = 0
def leader_election(v: Agent, u: Agent, loglogn: int, Ulogn: int):
# marking phase
if v.phase == 'marking':
if v.counter >= 3 * loglogn and u.flip_bit == 0:
v.phase = 'tournament'
else:
v.counter += 1
if v.counter == 4 * loglogn:
v.marker = 1
v.phase = 'tournament'
if v.phase == 'tournament':
if v.role == 'contender':
if u.marker and v.counter <= Ulogn:
v.counter += 1
if v.counter < u.counter:
v.role = 'minion'
if u.role == 'contender' and v.counter == u.counter and v.flip_bit < u.flip_bit:
v.role = 'minion'
v.counter = max(v.counter, u.counter)
v.flip_bit = 1 - v.flip_bit
return v
The pseudocode was described in the following way:
We can implement this assumption by having our transition rule call the the leader_election
function twice:
def transition(v: Agent, u: Agent, loglogn: int, Ulogn: int):
return leader_election(v, dataclasses.replace(u), loglogn, Ulogn), leader_election(u, dataclasses.replace(v), loglogn, Ulogn)
We can first check instantiate the protocol for various population sizes, to confirm that the number of reachable states is scaling like we expect.
import numpy as np
ns = [int(n) for n in np.geomspace(10, 10 ** 8, 8)]
states = []
for n in ns:
sim = Simulation({Agent(): n}, transition, loglogn=int(np.log2(np.log2(n))), Ulogn= u * int(np.log2(n)))
states.append(len(sim.state_list))
plt.plot(ns, states)
plt.xscale('log')
plt.xlabel('population size n')
plt.ylabel('number of states')
plt.show()
Now we will simulate the rule for a population of one billion agents, and run it until it gets to one leader.
n = 10 ** 9
sim = Simulation({Agent(): n}, transition, loglogn=int(np.log2(np.log2(n))), Ulogn= u * int(np.log2(n)))
def one_leader(config):
leader_states = [state for state in config.keys() if state.role == 'contender']
return len(leader_states) == 1 and config[leader_states[0]] == 1
sim.run(one_leader)
Time: 67.253
Because there are hundreds of states, the full history dataframe is more complicated.
sim.history
role | contender | ... | minion | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
flip_bit | 0 | ... | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
marker | 0 | ... | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
phase | marking | tournament | ... | tournament | |||||||||||||||||
counter | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 12 | 13 | ... | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
time (n interactions) | |||||||||||||||||||||
0.000000 | 1000000000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
1.000000 | 135336837 | 270661696 | 90227329 | 12028156 | 859080 | 38162 | 1148 | 6 | 10 | 8 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2.000000 | 18312018 | 146524448 | 195383216 | 104189030 | 29773512 | 5298122 | 641440 | 13908 | 30153 | 14976 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3.000000 | 2478690 | 44626126 | 133867363 | 160631023 | 103263148 | 41305948 | 11269344 | 556907 | 1287669 | 649759 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4.000000 | 335736 | 10736616 | 57260444 | 122138990 | 139568370 | 99261227 | 48123925 | 4232398 | 10487317 | 5527630 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
64.000000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
65.000000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
66.000000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
67.000000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
67.252549 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ... | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
69 rows × 384 columns
Because we defined a state as a dataclass Agent
, which had fields, the columns of the history
dataframe are a pandas MultiIndex.
sim.history.columns
MultiIndex([('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 0),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 2),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 4),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 6),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 8),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 10),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 12),
('contender', 0, 0, 'marking', 14),
('contender', 0, 0, 'tournament', 12),
('contender', 0, 0, 'tournament', 13),
...
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 50),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 51),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 52),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 53),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 54),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 55),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 56),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 57),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 58),
( 'minion', 1, 1, 'tournament', 59)],
names=['role', 'flip_bit', 'marker', 'phase', 'counter'], length=384)
We can use the pandas groupby function to conveniently look at the values of just one field. For a field whose name is the string field
, then calling sim.history.groupby(field, axis=1).sum()
gives the counts of values of just a single state. If we have a set of fields field1, field2, ...
then calling sim.history.groupby([field1, field2, ...], axis=1).sum()
will give the counts of values of just those fields.
sim.history.groupby('role', axis=1).sum()
role | contender | minion |
---|---|---|
time (n interactions) | ||
0.000000 | 1000000000 | 0 |
1.000000 | 1000000000 | 0 |
2.000000 | 999999972 | 28 |
3.000000 | 999969579 | 30421 |
4.000000 | 998042414 | 1957586 |
... | ... | ... |
64.000000 | 2 | 999999998 |
65.000000 | 2 | 999999998 |
66.000000 | 2 | 999999998 |
67.000000 | 2 | 999999998 |
67.252549 | 1 | 999999999 |
69 rows × 2 columns
This lets us quickly plot the counts of leaders, to see how it decreases down to one leader, and the count in each phase, to see when the agents transition from the marking phase to the tournament phase.
sim.history.groupby('role', axis=1).sum().plot()
plt.yscale('symlog')
plt.ylim(0, 2*n)
plt.show()
sim.history.groupby('phase', axis=1).sum().plot()
plt.show()
For this protocol, a good understanding of why it is working comes from looking at the product of role
and counter
values. The way the protocol works is that contenders increase their counter values, which spread by epidemic among all minions, to eliminate other contenders with smaller counter values.
We will again try to visualize a single row of the dataframe that projects onto just the role
and counter
values. Calling df.iloc[index]
gives us a Series
df = sim.history.groupby(['counter','role'], axis=1).sum()
df.iloc[10]
counter role
0 contender 2
1 contender 48
2 contender 441
3 contender 2876
4 contender 13600
...
57 minion 0
58 contender 0
minion 0
59 contender 0
minion 0
Name: 10.0, Length: 108, dtype: int64
Then calling unstack()
on the series will give pull off the first field, and give us a dataframe that can immediately plotted as a multibar plot.
df.iloc[10].unstack()
role | contender | minion |
---|---|---|
counter | ||
0 | 2.0 | NaN |
1 | 48.0 | NaN |
2 | 441.0 | NaN |
3 | 2876.0 | NaN |
4 | 13600.0 | NaN |
5 | 55257.0 | NaN |
6 | 183276.0 | NaN |
7 | 523542.0 | NaN |
8 | 1305762.0 | NaN |
9 | 2908411.0 | NaN |
10 | 5815321.0 | NaN |
11 | 10577404.0 | NaN |
12 | 19519273.0 | 144731.0 |
13 | 15633037.0 | 2774308.0 |
14 | 12659059.0 | 11179251.0 |
15 | 9794528.0 | 30343520.0 |
16 | 31088600.0 | 522306882.0 |
17 | 7599591.0 | 292467764.0 |
18 | 951336.0 | 21176355.0 |
19 | 82136.0 | 856059.0 |
20 | 5498.0 | 30677.0 |
21 | 277.0 | 1087.0 |
22 | 10.0 | 68.0 |
23 | 0.0 | 11.0 |
24 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
25 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
26 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
27 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
28 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
29 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
30 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
31 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
32 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
33 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
34 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
35 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
36 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
37 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
38 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
39 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
40 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
41 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
42 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
43 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
44 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
45 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
46 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
47 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
48 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
49 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
50 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
51 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
52 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
53 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
54 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
55 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
56 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
57 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
58 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
59 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
df.iloc[10].unstack().plot(kind='bar', figsize=(12,5))
plt.show()
Now we can define a function that creates one of these plots at an arbitrary row, to get a similar slider that lets us quickly visualize the evolution of the distributions.
def plot_row(row, yscale):
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(12,5))
df.iloc[row].unstack().plot(ax=ax, kind='bar',
ylim=(0,n))
ax.set_yscale(yscale)
bar = widgets.interact(plot_row,
row = widgets.IntSlider(min=0, max=len(sim.history)-1, step=1, value=0, layout = widgets.Layout(width='100%')),
yscale = ['linear','symlog'])
ppsim
is able to simulate any Chemical Reaction Network that has only bimolecular (2-input, 2-output) and unimolecular (1-input, 1-output) reactions. There is a special syntax used to specify CRNs, such as
from ppsim import species
a,b,c,d = species('A B C D')
crn = [(a+b | 2*c).k(0.5).r(4), (c >> d).k(5)]
First we define species
objects a,b,c,d
. We then create crn
, a list of reaction
objects, which are created by composing these species. Using the >>
operator creates an irreversible (one-way) reaction, while using the |
operator creates a reversible (two-way) reaction. A rate constant can be added with the method reaction.k(...)
, and the reverse rate constant is added with the method reaction.r(...)
. If not specified, rate constants are assumed to be 1.
sim = Simulation({a: 2000, b:1000}, crn)
sim.run()
p = sim.history.plot()
Time: 37.000
CRNs are normally modelled by Gillespie kinetics, which gives a continuous time Markov process. The unimolecular reaction C ->(5) D
happens as a Poisson process with rate 5. The forward bimolecular reaction A+B ->(0.5) 2C
happens as a Poisson process with rate 0.5 (#A * #B / v)
, and the reverse bimolecular reaction happens as a Poisson process with rate 4 * #B (\#B - 1) / (2*v)
, where v
is the volume parameter.
When creating a Simulation
with a list of reaction
objects, ppsim
will by default use this continuous time model.
By default, ppsim
sets the volume v
to be the population size n
, which makes the time units independent of population size. In some models, this volume parameter is instead baked directly into the numerical rate constant. In this case, the volume should be set manually in the Simulation constructor, with Simulation(..., volume = 1)
. In addition, if these numerical rate constants are specified in specific time units (such as per second), this can be specified with Simulation(..., time_units='seconds')
, and then all times will appear with appropriate units.
For more details about the CRN model and how it is faithfully represented as a continuous time population protocol, see this paper.