Continuous-Time Markov Chain populations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a Continuous-Time Markov Chain (CTMC) model with three states to determine the time-dependent population of the final state G. The rate matrix K is provided, and the user seeks to compute the matrix exponential exp(tK) to derive the population of state G, given an initial population of state S. Key questions include ensuring the rate matrix satisfies Markov probability conservation, the implications of a zero eigenvalue, and the correct ordering of eigenvalues obtained from R. The user also explores how different constraints on the constants in the probability equation affect the results, questioning whether to base these on an initial population of 1 or 0. The conversation emphasizes the complexities of eigenvalue decomposition and its impact on modeling outcomes.
jinx
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm working on a CTMC three-state model to obtain time-dependent populations of each state.

S <=> E <=> G
I have built a rate matrix for this (diffusion) process.

<br /> K =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> K_{SS} &amp; K_{SE} &amp; K_{SG}\\<br /> K_{ES} &amp; K_{EE} &amp; K_{EG}\\<br /> K_{GS} &amp; K_{GE} &amp; K_{GG}<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br /> =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -3.13E+06 &amp; 4.29E+07 &amp; 0\\<br /> 3.13E+06 &amp;-4.29E+07 &amp; 3.33E+09\\<br /> 0 &amp; 2.26E+06 &amp; -3.33E+09<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

The time-dependent population of state G (final state), is given as the product of (I) sum of the (elements??) of the matrix exponential of the transition matrix multiplied by time, and (II) the initial population of state S, P_S(0)=1.

<br /> P_G(t) = \left( \sum_{S}(exp(tK))\right)*P_S(0)=\left(\sum_{S}(\frac{t^n*K^n}{n!} )\right)*P_S(0)<br />

My question: I have many difficulties understanding how I could solve this matrix exponential to obtain the population of state G in practice, given the above transition matrix.In this handout, they estimate the population but for the initial state (here, denoted S) instead of final (G, what I seek). They do so by obtaining by an eigenvalue decomposition of the rate matrix, to obtain a final expression for P(t) in terms of t.
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~laws/AppliedProb/handout5.pdf
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-1-12_21-12-17.png
    upload_2015-1-12_21-12-17.png
    2.3 KB · Views: 546
  • upload_2015-1-12_21-13-30.png
    upload_2015-1-12_21-13-30.png
    726 bytes · Views: 540
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Your question is how to compute the matrix exponential \exp(tK). If this is a numerical computation, what programming language will you use?
 
Let me rephrase my question with more detail:

I'm working on a CTMC three-state model to obtain time-dependent populations of each state.
S &lt;=&gt; E &lt;=&gt; G
I have built a rate matrix for this (diffusion) process.

<br /> K =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> K_{SS} &amp; K_{SE} &amp; K_{SG}\\<br /> K_{ES} &amp; K_{EE} &amp; K_{EG}\\<br /> K_{GS} &amp; K_{GE} &amp; K_{GG}<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br /> =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -3.13E+06 &amp; 4.29E+07 &amp; 0\\<br /> 3.13E+06 &amp;-4.29E+07 &amp; 1.90E+10\\<br /> 0 &amp; 1.83E+06 &amp; -1.90E+09<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

The time-dependent probability population of state G (final state), is given as the product of (I) sum of the (elements??) of the matrix exponential of the transition matrix multiplied by time, and (II) the initial population of state S, P_S(0)=1.

<br /> P_G(t) = \left( \sum_{S}(exp(tK))\right)*P_S(0)=\left(\sum_{S}(\frac{t^n*K^n}{n!} )\right)*P_S(0)<br />

My question: I'm trying to work out the probability (population) of state G (state C). Initially only state S is population (P_S(0) = 1, P_E(0)=0 and P_G(0)=0 )

(1) In order to obey Markov probability conservation, I have ensured that matrix K obeys the property that
each column adds to zero. Is this correct?(2) One consequence of obeying probability conservation is that upon diagonalisation, one eigenvalue
will be zero. What is the consequence of a zero eigenvalue for the physics of the problem?<br /> K =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> \lambda_{1} &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; \lambda_{2} &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; \lambda_{3}<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br /> =<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; -46247656 &amp; 0\\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; -19022904594<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

When I solve for the eigenvalues in R, it lists the eigenvalues according to INCREMENTAL size, so -19022904594, -46247656, 0
however from linear algebra exercises the value is 0, -46247656, -19022904594 so how to determine the right order of eigenvalues?

A textbook example is<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -2 &amp; 1 &amp; 1\\<br /> 1 &amp;-1 &amp; 0\\<br /> 2 &amp; 1 &amp; -3<br /> \end{pmatrix}<br />

This gives eigenvalues 0, -2, -4 [true order] but R program ranks them as -4, -2, 0.
Is there a way to determine the true order of eigenvalues?

(3) When I input this, I build a probability equation using three arbitrary diagonalisation
constants
\alpha, \beta, \gamma<br />

P_(G) = \alpha*(exp(- \lambda_{1} *t))+\beta*(exp(- \lambda_{2} *t))+\gamma*(exp(- \lambda_{3} *t))

The three constants are solved using a 3x3 system of equations depending on the populations
of state G ( as per matrix exponential algebra of Markov chain models using the forward and
backward equations)
<br /> \alpha+\beta+\gamma=1<br />
<br /> \alpha*\lambda_{1} + \beta*\lambda_{2} + \gamma*\lambda_{3} = k_GG<br />
<br /> \alpha*( \lambda_{1})^2 + \beta*(\lambda_{2})^2 + \gamma*(\lambda_{3})^2 = k_EG*k_GG + k_GG^2<br />

Now, depending on whether we choose the constraint
<br /> \alpha + \beta + \gamma =1<br />

<br /> \alpha + \beta + \gamma =0<br />

I get very different behaviour. Do we solve this relative to a state with initial population 1 or 0?I attach a link for this

http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~laws/AppliedProb/handout5.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top