This report summarizes the work done in my GSoC 2020 project, Implementation of Vector Integration with SymPy. Blog posts with step by step development of the project are available at friyaz.github.io.
I am Faisal Riyaz and I have completed my third year of B.Tech in Computer Engineering student from Aligarh Muslim University.
The goal of the project is to add functions and class structure to support the integration of scalar and vector fields over curves, surfaces, and volumes. My mentors were Francesco Bonazzi (Primary) and Divyanshu Thakur.
Here is a list of PRs which were opened during the span of GSoC:
(Merged) #19472: Adds ParametricRegion
class to represent parametrically defined regions.
(Merged) #19539: Adds ParametricIntegral
class to represent integral of scalar or vector field over a parametrically defined region.
(Merged) #19580: Modified API of ParametricRegion
.
(Merged) #19650: Added support to integrate over objects of geometry module.
(Merged) #19681: Added ImplicitRegion
class to represent implicitly defined regions.
(Megred) #19807: Implemented the algorithm for rational parametrization of conics.
(Merged) #20000: Added API of newly added classes to sympy’s documentation.
(Open) #19883: Allow vector_integrate
to handle ImplicitRegion
objects.
(Open) #20021: Add usage examples.
We had an important discussion regarding our initial approach and possible problems on issue #19320
The ParametricRegion
class is used to represent a parametric region in space.
>>> from sympy.vector import CoordSys3D, ParametricRegion, vector_integrate
>>> from sympy.abc import r, theta, phi, t, x, y, z
>>> from sympy import pi, sin, cos, Eq
>>> C = CoordSys3D('C')
>>> circle = ParametricRegion((4*cos(theta), 4*sin(theta)), (theta, 0, 2*pi))
>>> disc = ParametricRegion((r*cos(theta), r*sin(theta)), (r, 0, 4), (theta, 0, 2*pi))
>>> box = ParametricRegion((x, y, z), (x, 0, 1), (y, 1, 1), (z, 0, 2))
>>> cone = ParametricRegion((r*cos(theta), r*sin(theta), r), (theta, 0, 2*pi), (r, 0, 3))
>>> vector_integrate(1, circle)
8*pi
>>> vector_integrate(C.x*C.x  8*C.y*C.x, disc)
64*pi
>>> vector_integrate(C.i + C.j, box)
(Integral(1, (x, 0, 1), (y, 1, 1), (z, 0, 2)))*C.i + (Integral(1, (x, 0, 1), (y, 1, 1), (z, 0, 2)))*C.j
>>> _.doit()
4*C.i + 4*C.j
>>> vector_integrate(C.x*C.i  C.z*C.j, cone)
9*pi
geometry
moduleMany regions like circle are commonly encountered in problems of vector calculus. the geometry module of SymPy already had classes for some of these regions. The functionparametric_region_list
was added to determine the parametric representation of such classes. vector_integrate
can directly integrate objects of Point, Curve, Ellipse, Segment and Polygon class of geometry
module.
>>> from sympy.geometry import Point, Segment, Polygon, Segment
>>> s = Segment(Point(4, 1, 9), Point(1, 5, 7))
>>> triangle = Polygon((0, 0), (1, 0), (1, 1))
>>> circle2 = Circle(Point(2, 3), 6)
>>> vector_integrate(6, s)
42
>>> vector_integrate(C.x*C.y, circle2)
72*pi
>>> vector_integrate(C.y*C.z*C.i + C.x*C.x*C.k, triangle)
C.z/2
In many cases, it is difficult to determine the parametric representation of a region. Instead, the region is defined using its implicit equation. To represent implicitly defined regions, we implemented the ImplicitRegion
class.
But to integrate over a region, we need to determine its parametric representation. the rationl_parametrization
method was added to ImplicitRegion
.
>>> from sympy.vector import ImplicitRegion
>>> circle3 = ImplicitRegion((x, y), (x4)**2 + (y+3)**2  16)
>>> parabola = ImplicitRegion((x, y), (y  1)**2  4*(x + 6))
>>> ellipse = ImplicitRegion((x, y), (x**2/4 + y**2/16  1))
>>> rect_hyperbola = ImplicitRegion((x, y), x*y  1)
>>> sphere = ImplicitRegion((x, y, z), Eq(x**2 + y**2 + z**2, 2*x))
>>> circle3.rational_parametrization()
(8*t/(t**2 + 1) + 4, 8*t**2/(t**2 + 1)  7)
>>> parabola.rational_parametrization()
(6 + 4/t**2, 1 + 4/t)
>>> rect_hyperbola.rational_parametrization(t)
(1 + (t + 1)/t, t)
>>> ellipse.rational_parametrization()
(t/(2*(t**2/16 + 1/4)), t**2/(2*(t**2/16 + 1/4))  4)
>>> sphere.rational_parametrization()
(2/(s**2 + t**2 + 1), 2*s/(s**2 + t**2 + 1), 2*t/(s**2 + t**2 + 1))
After PR #19883 gets merged, vector_integrate
can directly work upon ImplicitRegion
objects.
In vector calculus, many regions cannot be defined using a single implicit equation. Instead, inequality or a combination of the implicit equation and conditional equations is required. For Example, a disc can only be represented using an inequality ImplicitRegion(x**2 + y**2 < 9)
and a semicircle can be represented as ImplicitRegion(x**2 + y**2 4) & (y < 0))
. Support for such implicit regions needs to be added.
The parametrization obtained using the rational_parametrization
method in most cases is a large expression. SymPy’s Integral
is unable to work over such expressions. It takes too long and often does not returns a result. We need to either simplify the parametric equations obtained or fix Integral to handle them.
Adding the support to plot objects of ParamRegion
and ImplicitRegion
This summer has been a great learning experience. Writing a functionality, testing, debugging it has given me good experience in testdriven development. I think I realized many of the goals that I described in my proposal, though there were some major differences in the plan and actual implementation. Personally, I hoped I could have done better. I could not work much on the project during the last phase due to the start of the academic year.
I would like to thank Francesco for his valuable suggestions and being readily available for discussions. He was always very friendly and helpful. I would love to work more with him. S.Y Lee also provided useful suggestions.
Special thanks to Johann Mitteramskogler, Professor Sonia Perez Diaz, and Professor Sonia L.Rueda. They personally helped me in finding the algorithm for determining the rational parametrization of conics.
SymPy is an amazing project with a great community. I would mostly stick around after the GSoC period as well and continue contributing to SymPy, hopefully, exploring the other modules as well.


This report summarises the work I have done during GSoC 2020 for SymPy. The links to the PRs are in chronological order. For following the progress made during GSoC, see my blog for the weekly posts.
I am Sachin Agarwal, a thirdyear undergraduate student majoring in Computer Science and Engineering from the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati.
My project involved fixing and amending functions related to series expansions and limit evaluation. For further information, my proposal for the project can be referred.
This section describes the actual work done during the coding period in terms of merged PRs.
#19292 : This PR added a condition to limitinf
method of gruntz.py
resolving incorrect limit evaluations.
#19297 : This PR replaced xreplace()
with subs()
in rewrite
method of gruntz.py
resolving incorrect limit evaluations.
#19369 : This PR fixed _eval_nseries
method of mul.py
.
#19432 : This PR added a functionality to the doit
method of limits.py
which uses is_meromorphic
for limit evaluations.
#19461 : This PR corrected the _eval_as_leading_term
method of tan
and sec
functions.
#19508 : This PR fixed _eval_nseries
method of power.py
.
#19515 : This PR added _eval_rewrite_as_factorial
and _eval_rewrite_as_gamma
methods to class subfactorial
.
#19555 : This PR added cdir
parameter to handle series expansions
on branch cuts
.
#19646 : This PR rectified the mrv
method of gruntz.py
and cancel
method of polytools.py
resolving RecursionError
and Timeout
in limit evaluations.
#19680 : This PR added is_Pow
heuristic to limits.py
to improve the limit evaluations of Pow objects
.
#19697 : This PR rectified _eval_rewrite_as_tractable
method of class erf
.
#19716 : This PR added _singularities
to LambertW
function.
#18696 : This PR fixed errors in assumptions when rewriting RisingFactorial
/ FallingFactorial
as gamma
or factorial
.
#19741 : This PR reduced symbolic multiples of pi
in trigonometric functions
.
#19916 : This PR added _eval_nseries
method to sin
and cos
.
#19963 : This PR added _eval_is_meromorphic
method to the class BesselBase
.
#18656 : This PR added Raabe's Test
to the concrete
module.
#19990 : This PR added _eval_is_meromorphic
and _eval_aseries
methods to class lowergamma
,
_eval_is_meromorphic
and _eval_rewrite_as_tractable
methods to class uppergamma
and rectified the eval
method of class besselk
.
#20002 : This PR fixed _eval_nseries
method of log
.
This section contains some of my PRs related to miscellaneous issues.
#19447 : This PR added some required testcases to test_limits.py
.
#19537 : This PR fixed a minor performance
issue.
#19604 : This PR fixed AttributeError
in limit evaluation.
This section contains some of the PRs which were reviewed by me.
This section contains some of the issues which were opened by me.
Poly(E**100000000)
is slow to create.gammasimp
can be improved for integer
variables.This section describes the bugs fixed and the new features added during GSoC.
>>> from sympy import limit, limit_seq
>>> n = Symbol('n', positive=True, integer=True)
>>> limit(factorial(n + 1)**(1/(n + 1))  factorial(n)**(1/n), n, oo)
exp(1) # Previously produced 0
>>> n = Symbol('n', positive=True, integer=True)
>>> limit(factorial(n)/sqrt(n)*(exp(1)/n)**n, n, oo)
sqrt(2)*sqrt(pi) # Previously produced 0
>>> n = Symbol('n', positive=True, integer=True)
>>> limit(n/(factorial(n)**(1/n)), n, oo)
exp(1) # Previously produced oo
>>> limit(log(exp(3*x) + x)/log(exp(x) + x**100), x, oo)
3 # Previously produced 9
>>> limit((2*exp(3*x)/(exp(2*x) + 1))**(1/x), x, oo)
exp(1) # Previously produced exp(7/3)
>>> limit(sin(x)**15, x, 0, '')
0 # Previously it hanged
>>> limit(1/x, x, 0, dir="+")
zoo # Previously raised ValueError
>>> limit(gamma(x)/(gamma(x  1)*gamma(x + 2)), x, 0)
1 # Previously it was returned unevaluated
>>> e = (x/2) * (2*x**3  2*(x**3  1) * x**2 * digamma(x**3 + 1) + 2*(x**3  1) * x**2 * digamma(x**3 + x + 1) + x + 3)
>>> limit(e, x, oo)
1/3 # Previously produced 5/6
>>> a, b, c, x = symbols('a b c x', positive=True)
>>> limit((a + 1)*x  sqrt((a + 1)**2*x**2 + b*x + c), x, oo)
b/(2*a + 2) # Previously produced nan
>>> limit_seq(subfactorial(n)/factorial(n), n)
1/e # Previously produced 0
>>> limit(x**(2**x*3**(x)), x, oo)
1 # Previously raised AttributeError
>>> limit(n**(Rational(1, 1e9)  1), n, oo)
0 # Previously it hanged
>>> limit((1/(log(x)**log(x)))**(1/x), x, oo)
1 # Previously raised RecursionError
>>> e = (2**x*(2 + 2**(x)*(2*2**x + x + 2))/(x + 1))**(x + 1)
>>> limit(e, x, oo)
exp(1) # Previously raised RecursionError
>>> e = (log(x, 2)**7 + 10*x*factorial(x) + 5**x) / (factorial(x + 1) + 3*factorial(x) + 10**x)
>>> limit(e, x, oo)
10 # Previously raised RecursionError
>>> limit((x**2000  (x + 1)**2000) / x**1999, x, oo)
2000 # Previously it hanged
>>> limit(((x**(x + 1) + (x + 1)**x) / x**(x + 1))**x, x, oo)
exp(exp(1)) # Previously raised RecursionError
>>> limit(Abs(log(x)/x**3), x, oo)
0 # Previously it was returned unevaluted
>>> limit(x*(Abs(log(x)/x**3)/Abs(log(x + 1)/(x + 1)**3)  1), x, oo)
3 # Previously raised RecursionError
>>> limit((1  S(1)/2*x)**(3*x), x, oo)
zoo # Previously produced 0
>>> d, t = symbols('d t', positive=True)
>>> limit(erf(1  t/d), t, oo)
1 # Previously produced 1
>>> s, x = symbols('s x', real=True)
>>> limit(erf(s*x)/erf(s), s, 0)
x # Previously produced 1
>>> limit(erfc(log(1/x)), x, oo)
2 # Previously produced 0
>>> limit(erf(sqrt(x)x), x, oo)
1 # Previously produced 1
>>> a, b = symbols('a b', positive=True)
>>> limit(LambertW(a), a, b)
LambertW(b) # Previously produced b
>>> limit(uppergamma(n, 1) / gamma(n), n, oo)
1 # Previously produced 0
>>> limit(besselk(0, x), x, oo)
0 # Previously produced besselk(0, oo)
>>> e = (exp(x)  1)/x
>>> e.nseries(x, 0, 3)
1 + x/2 + x**2/6 + O(x**3) # Previously produced 1 + x/2 + O(x**2, x)
>>> e = (2/x + 3/x**2)/(1/x + 1/x**2)
>>> e.nseries(x, n=3)
3  x + x**2 + O(x**3) # Previously produced 3 + O(x)
>>> e = (x**2 + x + 1) / (x**3 + x**2)
>>> series(e, x, oo)
x**(5)  1/x**4 + x**(3) + 1/x + O(x**(6), (x, oo))
# Previously produced x**(5) + x**(3) + 1/x + O(x**(6), (x, oo))
>>> e = (1  1/(x/2  1/(2*x))**4)**(S(1)/8)
>>> e.series(x, 0, n=17)
1  2*x**4  8*x**6  34*x**8  152*x**10  714*x**12  3472*x**14  17318*x**16 + O(x**17)
# Previously produced 1  2*x**4  8*x**6  34*x**8  24*x**10 + 118*x**12  672*x**14  686*x**16 + O(x**17)
>>> asin(I*x + I*x**3 + 2)._eval_nseries(x, 3, None, 1)
asin(2) + pi  sqrt(3)*x/3 + sqrt(3)*I*x**2/9 + O(x**3)
>>> limit(log(I*x  1), x, 0, '')
I*pi
>>> n = symbols('n', integer=True)
>>> combsimp(RisingFactorial(10, n))
3628800*(1)**n/factorial(10  n) # Previously produced 0
>>> ff(5, y).rewrite(gamma)
120/Gamma(6  y) # Previously produced 0
>>> Sum(factorial(n)/factorial(n + 2), (n, 1, oo)).is_convergent()
True # Previously raised NotImplementedError
>>> Sum((n + (n**3 + 1)**(S(1)/3))/log(n), (n, 1, oo)).is_convergent()
True # Previously raised NotImplementedError
>>> f = log(x/(1  x))
>>> f.series(x, 0.491, n=1).removeO()
0.0360038887560022 # Previously raised ValueError
series
, nseries
, lseries
and aseries
._eval_is_meromorphic
method or _singularities
to as many special functions as possible.This summer has been a great learning experience and has helped me get a good exposure of testdriven development. I plan to continue contributing to SymPy and will also try to help the new contributors. I am grateful to my mentors, Kalevi Suominen and Sartaj Singh for reviewing my work, giving me valuable suggestions, and being readily available for discussions.


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
_eval_nseries
method of log
to fix some minor issues.This marks the end of Phase3
of the program.
Finally, this brings us to the end of Google Summer of Code
and I am really thankful to the SymPy
Community and my mentor Kalevi Suominen
for always helping and supporting me.


This is the final blog post highlighting the work done in the final week of Google Summer of Code program 2020.
Merged PRs for this week:
PR19896: This PR added some other useful methods in the TransferFunction
class. It was a part of the “other”...


GSoC 2020 Report Smit Lunagariya: Improving and Extending stats module


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
Raabe's Test
helps to determine the convergence
of a series. It has been added to the concrete
module to handle those cases when the ratio test
becomes inconclusive
.
Fixed limit evaluations related to lowergamma, uppergamma and besselk function
We added _eval_is_meromorphic
method to class lowergamma
and uppergamma
so that some of the limits
involving lowergamma
and uppergamma
functions
get evaluated using the meromorphic check
already present in the limit codebase. Now, to make lowergamma
and uppergamma
functions tractable
for limit evaluations,
_eval_aseries
method was added to lowergamma
and _eval_rewrite_as_tractable
to uppergamma
.
Finally, we also rectified
the eval
method of class besselk
, so that besselk(nu, oo)
automatically evaluates to 0
.


Week 11 was spent mostly on applying suggestions from code review in the Transfer function matrix PR (19761). Prior to week 11, I was mostly involved in implementing a bunch of functionality but couldn’t add a good set of unit tests for that. So, I added tests for construction...


This is the final blog of the official program highlighting the final week. Some of the key discussions were:


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
Added _eval_is_meromorphic() to bessel function
_eval_is_meromorphic
method to the class BesselBase
so that some of the limits involving bessel functions
get evaluated using the meromorphic check
already present in the limit codebase.


This blog post describes my progress in Weeks 9 and 10 of Google Summer of Code 2020.
I ended up week 8 by making changes in the Parallel
class to make support for MIMO transfer function interconnection.
I decided to do the similar thing for...


This blog describes the 11th week of the program. Some of the key highlights of this week are:


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
Fixed periodicity of trigonometric function
_peeloff_pi
method of sin
had to be rectified to reduce the symbolic multiples of pi in trigonometric functions.
As a result of this fix, now sin(2*n*pi + 4)
automatically evaluates to sin(4)
, when n
is an integer
.
Fixed limit evaluations related to trigonometric functions
_eval_nseries
method to both sin
and cos
to make the limit evaluations more robust when it comes to trigonometric functions.
We also added a piece of code to cos.eval
method so that the limit of cos(m*x)
, where m
is nonzero
, and x
tends to oo
evaluates to AccumBounds(1, 1)
.


This blogs describes the 10th week of the program. Some of the highlights of this week are:


This blogs describes the week 9, the beginning week of the final phase. This week, I continued to work on the extension of Compound Distributions as well as completing the Matrix Distributions. Some of the highlights of this week are:
This blog post describes my progress in week 8, the last week of Phase 2. Since we already have a SISO transfer function object available for block diagram algebra, so now, I thought of adding a MIMO transfer function object in this control systems engineering package. The way it works...


This blog provides the brief description of last week of the second Phase i.e. week 8. Some of the key highlights of this week are:


Hi everyone :) Long time no see.
First of all, GOOD NEWS: My PR on adding a SISO transfer function object is finally merged. Yay!! A robust transfer function object is now available for Single Input Single Output (SISO) block diagram algebra.. Here is the documentation.
This week, I spent most of my time reading about algorithms to parametrize algebraic curves and surfaces.
In many cases, it is easiar to define a region using an implicit equation over its parametric form. For example, a sphere can be defined with the implict eqution x^{2} + y^{2} + z^{2} = 4. Its parametric equation although easy to determine are tedious to write.
To integrate over implicitly defined regions, it is necessary to determine its parametric representation. I found the report on conversion methods between parametric and implicit curves from Christopher M. Hoffmann very useful. It lists several algorithms for curves and surfaces of different nature.
Every plane parametric curve can be expressed as an implicit curve. Some, but not all implicit curves can be expressed as parametric curves. Similarly, we can state of algebraic surfaces. Every plane parametric surface can be expressed as an implicit surface. Some, but not all implicit surfaces can be expressed as parametric surfaces.
One of the algorithm to parametrize conics is given below:
The difficult part is to find a point on the conic. For the first implementation, I just iterated over a few points and selected the point which satisfied the equation. I need to implement an algorithm that can find a point on the curve.
The parametric equations determined by the algoithm are large and complex expressions. The vector_integrate
function in most cases is taking too much time to calculate the integral. I tried fixing this using simplification functions in SymPy like trigsimp and expand_trig. The problem still persist.
>>> ellipse = ImplicitRegion(x**2/4 + y**2/16  1, x, y)
>>> parametric_region_list(ellipse)
[ParametricRegion((8*tan(theta)/(tan(theta)**2 + 4), 4 + 8*tan(theta)**2/(tan(theta)**2 + 4)), (theta, 0, pi))]
>>> vector_integrate(2, ellipse)
### It gets stuck
The algorithm does not work for curves of higher algebraic degree like cubics.
A monoid is an algebraic curve of degree n that has a point of multiplicity n 1. All conics and singular cubics are monoids. Parametrizing a monoid is easy if the special point is known.
To parametrize a monoid, we need to determine a singular point of n  1 multiplicity. The singular points are those points on the curve where both partial derivatives vanish. A singular point (xo, yo) of a Curve C is said to be of multiplicity n if all the partial derivatives off to order n  1 vanish there. This paper describes an algorithm to calculate such a point but the algorithm is not trivial.
My goal is to complete the work on parametrizing conics. If I can find a simple algorithm to determine the singular point of the required multiplicity, I will start working on it.
My goal for this week was to add support of integration over objects of geometry module.
In my GSoC proposal, I mentioned implementing classes to represent commonly used regions. It will allow a user to easily define regions without bothering about its parametric representation. SymPy’s geometry module has classes to represent commonly used geometric entities like line, circle, and parabola. Francesco told me it would be better to add support to use these classes instead. The integral takes place over the boundary of the geometric entity, not over the area or volume enclosed.
My first approach was to add a function parametric_region
to the classes of geometry module. Francesco suggested not to modify the geometry module as this would make it dependent on vector module. We decided to implement a function parametric_region
to return a ParametricRegion
of objects of geometry module.
I learned about the singledispatch decorater of python. It is used to create overloaded functions.
Polygons cannot be represented as a single ParametricRegion
object. Each side of a polygon has its separate parametric representation. To resolve this, we decided to return a list of ParametricRegion objects.
My next step was to modify vector_integrate
to support objects of geometry module. This was easy and involved calling the parametric_region_list
function and integrating each ParametricRegion
object.
The PR for the work has been merged. Note that we still do not have any way to create regions like disc and cone without their parametric representation. To support such regions, I think we need to add new classes to the geometry module.
I plan to work on implementing a class to represent implicitly defined regions.
The first phase of GSoC is over. We can now integrate the scalar or vector field over a parametrically defined region.
The PR for ParametricIntegral
class has been merged. In my last post, I mentioned about a weird error. It turns out that I was importing pi
as a symbol instead of as a number. Due to this, the expressions were returned unevaluated causing tests to fail.
I had a detailed discussion with Francesco about the route ahead. My plan has drifted from my proposal because we have decided not to implement new classes for special regions like circles and spheres. The geometry module already has classes to represent some of these regions. We have decided to use these classes.
Francesco reminded me that we have to complete the documentation of these changes. I was planning to complete the documentation in the last phase. But I will try completing it soon as I may forget some details.
We also discussed adding support to perform integral transformation using Stoke’s and Green’s theorem. In many cases, such transformation can be useful but adding them may be outside the scope of this project.
I have convinced Francesco on adding classes to represent implicitly defined regions. It might be the most difficult part of the project but hopefully, it will be useful to SymPy users.
My next week’s goal is to make a PR for adding suppor to integrate over objects of the geometry module.


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
Fixed incorrect limit evaluation related to LambertW function
_singularities
feature to the LambertW
function so that its limit gets evaluated using the meromorphic check
already present in the limit codebase.
Fixed errors in assumptions when rewriting RisingFactorial / FallingFactorial as gamma or factorial
gamma
or factorial
methods of RisingFactorial
and FallingFactorial
did not handle all the possible cases, which caused errors in some evaluations.
Thus, we decided to come up with a proper rewrite using Piecewise
which accordingly returned the correct rewrite depending on the assumptions on the variables.
Handling such rewrites using Piecewise
is never easy, and thus there were a lot of failing testcases.
After spending a lot of time debugging and fixing each failing testcase, we were finally able to merge this.This marks the end of Phase2
of the program. I learnt a lot during these two months and gained many important things from my mentors.


This blog describes the 7th week of the program and the 3rd week of Phase 2. Some of the key highlights on the discussions and the implementations during this week are:


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
Improved the limit evaluations of Power objects
This PR improves the limit evaluations of Power objects.
We first check if the limit expression is a Power object
and then accordingly evaluate the limit depending on different cases.
First of all, we express b**e
in the form of exp(e*log(b))
. After this, we check if e*log(b)
is meromorphic
and accordingly evaluate the final result.
This check helps us to handle the trivial cases in the beginning itself.
Now, if e*log(b)
is not meromorphic, then we separately evaluate the limit of the base and the exponent.
This helps us to determine the indeterminant form
of the limit expression if present.
As we know, there are 3 indeterminate forms corresponding to power objects: 0**0
, oo**0
, and 1**oo
, which need to be handled carefully.
If there is no indeterminate form present, then no further evaluations are required. Otherwise, we handle all the three cases separately and correctly evaluate the final result.
We also added some code to improve the evaluation of limits having Abs()
expressions.
For every Abs()
term present in the limit expression, we replace it simply by its argument or the negative of its argument, depending on
whether the value of the limit of the argument is greater than zero or less than zero for the given limit variable.
Finally, we were able to merge this after resolving some failing testcases.
Fixed limit evaluations involving error functions
The incorrect limit evaluations of error functions
were mainly because the tractable
rewrite was wrong and did not handle all the possible cases.
For a proper rewrite, it was required that the limit variable be passed to the corresponding rewrite method.
This is because, to define a correct rewrite we had to evaluate the limit of the argument of the error function
, for the passed limit variable.
Thus, we added a default argument limitvar
to all the tractable rewrite
methods and resolved this issue.
While debugging, we also noticed that the _eval_as_leading_term
method of error function was wrong, hence it was also fixed.
Finally, we were able to merge this after resolving some failing testcases.


This blog describes the 6th week of the official program and the 2nd week of Phase 2. By the end of this week, Compound Distributions framework is ready as targeted and I would now focus on the Joint Distributions in the upcoming weeks of this Phase.
This blog post describes my progress in Week 5 of Google Summer of Code 2020!
I ended up Week 4 by adding unit tests and a rough draft for Series
and Parallel
classes. Now in this week, to complete the implementation, we decided to add another...


Key highlights
of this week’s work are:
Fixed RecursionError and Timeout in limit evaluations
The Recursion Errors
in limit evaluations were mainly due to the fact that the indeterminant form of 1**oo
was not handled accurately in the mrv()
function of the
Gruntz algorithm
. So, some minor changes were required to fix those.
The major issue was to handle those cases which were timing out. On deep digging, we identified that the
cancel()
function of polytools.py
was the reason. Thus, we decided to completely transform the cancel()
function to speed up its algorithm.
Now after this major modification, many testcases were failing as the cancel()
function plays an important role in simplifying evaluations and
is thus used at many places across the codebase. Therefore, a lot of time was spent in debugging and rectifying these testcases.
Finally we were able to merge this, enhancing the limit evaluation capabilities of SymPy
.


This blogs describes the week 5, the beginning week of the Phase 2. Phase 2 will be mostly focused on Compound Distributions which were stalled from 2018, and additions to Joint Distributions.
With this, the fourth week and phase 1 of GSoC 2020 is over. Here I will give you a brief summary of my progress this week.
The initial days were spent mostly on modifying unit tests for Series
and Parallel
classes which I added in the...
I spent this week working on the implementation of the ParametricIntegral
class.
When I was writing the test cases, I realized that the API of the ParametricRegion could be improved. Instead of passing limits as a dictionary, tuples can be used.
So I modified the API of the ParametricRegion class. The new API is closer to the API of the integral
class and more intuitive. I made a separate PR for this change to make it easy for reviewers.
Example of the new API:
ParametricRegion( ( x+y, x*y ), (x, 0, 2), (y, 0, 2))
As discussed in previous posts, we decided to not associate a coordinate system with the parametric region. Instead, we assume that the parametricregion is defined in the coordinate system of the field of which the integral is being calculated. We calculate the position vector and normal vector of the parametric region using the base scalars and vectors of the fields. This works fine for most cases. But when the field does not contain any base scalar or vector in its expression, we cannot extract the coordinate system from the field.
ParametricIntegral(150, circle)
# We cannot determine the coordinate system from the field.
# To calculate the line integral, we need to find the derivative of the position vector.
# This is not possible until we know the base vector of the field
To handle this situation, I assign a coordinate system C to the region. This does not affect the result in any way as the result is independent of it. It just allows the existing algorithm to work in this case.
Francesco suggested making separate classes based on the nature of the field: vector and scalar. I am open to this idea. But I think it will be more easy and intuitive for the users if they can use the same class to calculate the integral. I do not think they are different enough from a user’s perspective to have a separate interface.
Maybe we can have a function vectorintegrate
which returns the object of ParametricVectorIntegral
or ParametricScalarIntegral
depending on the nature of the field. This can work for other types of integrals too. Suppose we implement a class ImplicitIntegral
to calculate the integral over an implicit region. The vectorintegrate
function can then return an object of ImplicitIntegral
object by identifying the region is defined implicitly. I think this will be great. I will have more discussion with Francesco on this aspect.
When evaluating double integral, the result some times depend upon the order in which the integral is evaluated. If the bounds of one parameter u
depend on another parameter v
, we should integrate first with respect to u
and then v
.
For example, consider the problem of evaluating the area of the triangle.
T = ParametricRegion((x, y), (x, 0, 2), (y, 10  5*x))
The area of the triangle is 10 units and should be independent of the order parameters are specified at the time of object initialization. But the double integral depends on the order of integration.
>>> integrate(1, (x, 0, 2), (y, 10  5*x))
20  10*x
>>> integrate(1, (y, 0, 10  5*x), (x, 0, 2))
10
So parameters must be passed to integrate
in the correct order. To overcome this issue, we topologically sort the parameters. SymPy already had a function to perform topologically sort in its utilities module. I implemented a function that generates the graph and passes it to the topological_sort
function. This made my work easy.
Some integrals are taking too long to compute. When base scalars in the field are replaced by their parametric equivalents, the expression of the field becomes large. Further, the integrand is the dot product of the field with a vector or product of the field and the magnitude of the vector. The integrate function takes about 2030 seconds to calculate the integral. I think this behavior is due to the expression of integrand growing structurally despite it being simple.
For example,
>>>solidsphere = ParametricRegion((r*sin(phi)*cos(theta), r*sin(phi)*sin(theta), r*cos(phi)),\
(r, 0, 2), (theta, 0, 2*pi), (phi, 0, pi))
>>> ParametricIntegral(C.x**2 + C.y**2, solidsphere)
In this case, the parametric field when replaced with parametersr become r**2*sin(phi)**2*sin(theta)**2 + r**2*sin(phi)**2*cos(theta)**2
although it can be easily simplified to r**2*sin(phi)
.
SymPy has a function called simplify
. simplify
attempts to apply various methods to simplify an expression. When the integrand is simplified using it before passing to integrate, the result is returned almost immediately. Francesco rightly pointed out that simplify is computationally expensive and we can try to some specific simplification. I will look into it.
Some test cases are failing because of integrate function returning results in different forms. The results are mathematically equivalent but different in terms of structure. I found this strange. I do not think this has to do with hashing. I still have not figured out this problem.
Hopefully, I will complete the work on the ParamatricIntegral and get it merged. We can then start discussing about representing implicit regions.
Part of this week was spent in getting the PR for ParametricRegion
merged. I made some fixes to get the failing tests to pass. I also added the docstring.
I started working on the ParametricIntegral
class. ParametricIntegral
class returns the integral of a scalar or vector field over a region defined parametrically. It should be able to calculate line, surface, or volume integral depending on the nature of the parametric region. To identify the nature of the region, the dimensions
property needs to be added in the ParametricRegion
class.
I started with writing the test cases to avoid my previous mistake of working on the implementation before deciding the API. The API of the ParametricIntegral class:
ParametricIntegral(field, parametricregion)
Some examples:
>>> curve = ParametricRegion((3*t  2, t + 1), {t: (1, 2)})
>>> ParametricIntegral(C.x, curve)
5*sqrt(10)/2
>>> semisphere = ParametricRegion((theta, pi), (2*sin(phi)*cos(theta), 2*sin(phi)*sin(theta), 2*cos(phi)),\
{theta: (0, 2*pi), phi: (0, pi/2)})
>>> ParametricIntegral(C.z, semisphere)
8*pi
I initially thought to make it a subclass of Integral
as the ParametricIntegral
is a kind of integral. But there was no reuse of any code from Integral
in the ParametricIntegral
so decided against it.
A rough sketch of the algorithm to calculate integral is described below:
integrate
function to calculate the integral.integrate
function can evaluate the integral, return it otherwise return an object of the ParametricRegion
class.We also had discussion on whether swapping the upper and lower limit has any affect on the result of a vector integral. For multiple integrals, the sign of the result changes when the upper and lower bound of a parameter are interchanged. I do not think we came to any conclusion. But this won’t matter for integrals over parametric regions as the bounds are directly defined by the user.
I will start working on the implementation of the ParametricIntegral
class. I am also trying to get more involved in SymPy outside of my GSoC project. I hope I can become a contributing member of the community.
Planet SymPy is made from the blogs of SymPy's contributors. The opinions it contains are those of the contributor. This site is powered by Rawdog and Rawdog RSS. Feed readers can read Planet SymPy with RSS, FOAF or OPML.
Leave a comment Cancel reply