MCP HubMCP Hub
SKILL·D20543

analyze-diffusion-dynamics

pjt222
Actualizado 1 month ago
9 vistas
26
3
26
Ver en GitHub
Otroai

Acerca de

Esta Skill de Claude analiza procesos de difusión utilizando ecuaciones diferenciales estocásticas y ecuaciones de Fokker-Planck para modelar la evolución de la densidad de probabilidad. Calcula distribuciones de tiempo de primer paso y realiza análisis de sensibilidad de parámetros para los coeficientes de deriva y difusión. Úsala cuando necesites validar soluciones analíticas mediante simulaciones o analizar dinámicas de difusión en tiempo continuo.

Instalación rápida

Claude Code

Recomendado
Principal
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
Comando PluginAlternativo
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git CloneAlternativo
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/analyze-diffusion-dynamics

Copia y pega este comando en Claude Code para instalar esta habilidad

Documentación

Analyze Diffusion Dynamics

Characterize diffusion process behavior → SDEs, Fokker-Planck, FPT distributions, param sensitivity, MC simulation valid.

Use When

  • Derive prob density evolution → continuous-time diffusion
  • Compute mean FPT or full FPT distributions → bounded diffusion
  • Analyze drift/diffusion/boundary param effects
  • Validate closed-form vs stochastic sim
  • Build intuition for drift-diffusion or generative diffusion

In

  • Required: SDE spec (drift fn, diffusion coeff, domain/boundaries)
  • Required: Param values/ranges
  • Required: Boundary conditions (absorbing, reflecting, mixed)
  • Optional: Time horizon (default: auto-detect)
  • Optional: Spatial discretization resolution (default: dx=0.001)
  • Optional: MC trajectories (default: 10000)

Do

Step 1: Specify SDE Model

Define drift, diffusion coeff, boundaries.

  1. SDE in Ito form:
dX(t) = mu(X, t) dt + sigma(X, t) dW(t)

where mu = drift, sigma = diffusion coeff, W(t) = Wiener proc.

  1. Impl SDE:
import numpy as np

class DiffusionProcess:
    """A one-dimensional diffusion process specified by drift and diffusion functions."""

    def __init__(self, drift_fn, diffusion_fn, lower_bound=None, upper_bound=None,
                 boundary_type="absorbing"):
        self.drift = drift_fn
        self.diffusion = diffusion_fn
        self.lower_bound = lower_bound
        self.upper_bound = upper_bound
        self.boundary_type = boundary_type

# Example: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process on [0, a]
ou_process = DiffusionProcess(
    drift_fn=lambda x, t: 2.0 * (0.5 - x),     # mean-reverting drift
    diffusion_fn=lambda x, t: 0.1,               # constant diffusion
    lower_bound=0.0,
    upper_bound=1.0,
    boundary_type="absorbing"
)

# Example: Standard DDM (constant drift and diffusion)
ddm_process = DiffusionProcess(
    drift_fn=lambda x, t: 0.5,        # drift rate v
    diffusion_fn=lambda x, t: 1.0,    # unit diffusion (s=1, convention)
    lower_bound=0.0,                   # lower absorbing boundary
    upper_bound=1.5,                   # upper absorbing boundary (a)
    boundary_type="absorbing"
)
  1. Define initial condition:
# Point source at x0
x0 = 0.75  # starting point (e.g., midpoint between boundaries for DDM with z=a/2)

# Or a distribution
initial_distribution = lambda x: np.exp(-50 * (x - 0.75)**2)  # narrow Gaussian
  1. Validate param consistency:
def validate_process(process, x0):
    """Check that the SDE specification is self-consistent."""
    assert process.lower_bound < process.upper_bound, "Lower bound must be less than upper bound"
    assert process.lower_bound <= x0 <= process.upper_bound, \
        f"Initial position {x0} outside bounds [{process.lower_bound}, {process.upper_bound}]"
    test_drift = process.drift(x0, 0)
    test_diff = process.diffusion(x0, 0)
    assert np.isfinite(test_drift), f"Drift is not finite at x0={x0}"
    assert test_diff > 0, f"Diffusion coefficient must be positive, got {test_diff}"
    print(f"Process validated: drift={test_drift:.4f}, diffusion={test_diff:.4f} at x0={x0}")

validate_process(ddm_process, x0=0.75)

Fully spec'd SDE, finite drift, strictly pos diffusion, x0 in domain.

If err: Diffusion zero/neg anywhere → degenerate → check form. Drift infinite at boundary → reflecting may be better.

Step 2: Derive Fokker-Planck

SDE → PDE for prob density.

  1. FPE for transition density p(x, t):
dp/dt = -d/dx [mu(x,t) * p(x,t)] + (1/2) * d^2/dx^2 [sigma(x,t)^2 * p(x,t)]
  1. Constant coeffs (standard DDM) simplifies:
dp/dt = -v * dp/dx + (s^2 / 2) * d^2p/dx^2
  1. Numerical solution via finite diffs:
from scipy.sparse import diags
from scipy.sparse.linalg import spsolve

def solve_fokker_planck(process, x0, t_max, dx=0.001, dt=None):
    """Solve the FPE numerically using Crank-Nicolson scheme."""
    x_grid = np.arange(process.lower_bound, process.upper_bound + dx, dx)
    N = len(x_grid)

    if dt is None:
        max_sigma = max(process.diffusion(x, 0) for x in x_grid)
        dt = 0.4 * dx**2 / max_sigma**2  # CFL-like stability condition

    # Initial condition: narrow Gaussian centered at x0
    p = np.exp(-((x_grid - x0)**2) / (2 * (2*dx)**2))
    p[0] = 0  # absorbing boundary
    p[-1] = 0  # absorbing boundary
    p = p / (np.sum(p) * dx)

    t_steps = int(t_max / dt)
    survival = np.zeros(t_steps)
    density_snapshots = []

    for step in range(t_steps):
        mu_vals = np.array([process.drift(x, step*dt) for x in x_grid])
        sigma_vals = np.array([process.diffusion(x, step*dt) for x in x_grid])
        D = 0.5 * sigma_vals**2

        # Finite difference operators (interior points)
        advection = -mu_vals[1:-1] / (2 * dx)
        diffusion_coeff = D[1:-1] / dx**2

        main_diag = 1 + dt * 2 * diffusion_coeff
        upper_diag = dt * (-diffusion_coeff[:-1] - advection[:-1])
        lower_diag = dt * (-diffusion_coeff[1:] + advection[1:])

        A = diags([lower_diag, main_diag, upper_diag], [-1, 0, 1], format="csc")
        p[1:-1] = spsolve(A, p[1:-1])
        p[0] = 0
        p[-1] = 0

        survival[step] = np.sum(p[1:-1]) * dx

        if step % (t_steps // 10) == 0:
            density_snapshots.append((step * dt, p.copy()))

    return x_grid, survival, density_snapshots
  1. Run + plot evolving density:
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

x_grid, survival, snapshots = solve_fokker_planck(ddm_process, x0=0.75, t_max=5.0)

fig, (ax1, ax2) = plt.subplots(1, 2, figsize=(14, 5))
for t_val, density in snapshots:
    ax1.plot(x_grid, density, label=f"t={t_val:.2f}")
ax1.set_xlabel("x")
ax1.set_ylabel("p(x, t)")
ax1.set_title("Fokker-Planck Density Evolution")
ax1.legend()

t_vals = np.linspace(0, 5.0, len(survival))
ax2.plot(t_vals, survival)
ax2.set_xlabel("Time")
ax2.set_ylabel("Survival probability")
ax2.set_title("Survival Probability S(t)")
fig.tight_layout()
fig.savefig("fokker_planck_solution.png", dpi=150)

Density starts narrow peak at x0, spreads + drifts per SDE coeffs, decays as absorbed at boundaries. Survival monotonic 1 → 0.

If err: Oscillations/neg values → dt too large → reduce. Survival stays near 1 → boundaries too far or drift pushes away. Check solver boundary conditions.

Step 3: FPT Distributions

Derive distribution of times first reaching boundary.

  1. FPT density from survival:
def first_passage_time_density(survival, dt):
    """FPT density is the negative derivative of survival probability."""
    fpt_density = -np.gradient(survival, dt)
    fpt_density = np.maximum(fpt_density, 0)  # enforce non-negativity
    return fpt_density
  1. Standard DDM constant drift → known analytic:
def ddm_fpt_upper(t, v, a, z, s=1.0, n_terms=50):
    """Analytic FPT density at the upper boundary for constant-drift DDM.

    Uses the infinite series representation (large-time expansion).
    """
    if t <= 0:
        return 0.0
    density = 0.0
    for k in range(1, n_terms + 1):
        density += (k * np.pi * s**2 / a**2) * \
            np.exp(-v * (a - z) / s**2 - 0.5 * v**2 * t / s**2) * \
            np.sin(k * np.pi * z / a) * \
            np.exp(-0.5 * (k * np.pi * s / a)**2 * t)
    return density
  1. Summary stats of FPT:
def fpt_statistics(fpt_density, dt):
    """Compute mean, variance, and quantiles of the FPT distribution."""
    t_vals = np.arange(len(fpt_density)) * dt
    total_mass = np.sum(fpt_density) * dt

    # Normalize
    fpt_normed = fpt_density / total_mass if total_mass > 0 else fpt_density

    mean_fpt = np.sum(t_vals * fpt_normed) * dt
    var_fpt = np.sum((t_vals - mean_fpt)**2 * fpt_normed) * dt

    # Quantiles via CDF
    cdf = np.cumsum(fpt_normed) * dt
    quantile_10 = t_vals[np.searchsorted(cdf, 0.1)]
    quantile_50 = t_vals[np.searchsorted(cdf, 0.5)]
    quantile_90 = t_vals[np.searchsorted(cdf, 0.9)]

    return {
        "mean": mean_fpt,
        "std": np.sqrt(var_fpt),
        "q10": quantile_10,
        "q50": quantile_50,
        "q90": quantile_90,
        "total_probability": total_mass
    }
  1. Two-boundary → separate FPT by boundary via prob flux at each absorbing wall (finite diff of density at boundary grid pts).

FPT density right-skewed unimodal. DDM pos drift → upper boundary FPT more mass + shorter mode than lower. Typical DDM (v=1, a=1.5, z=0.75) → mean FPT ~0.5-2.0s.

If err: Neg values → numerical diff noisy → apply small Gaussian smoothing. Total prob not ~1.0 → horizon too short (increase t_max) or prob leakage in solver.

Step 4: Param Sensitivity

Quantify param change effects on FPT.

  1. Define param grid:
param_ranges = {
    "v": np.linspace(0.2, 3.0, 15),     # drift rate
    "a": np.linspace(0.5, 2.5, 15),      # boundary separation
    "z_ratio": np.linspace(0.3, 0.7, 9)  # starting point as fraction of a
}

base_params = {"v": 1.0, "a": 1.5, "z_ratio": 0.5}
  1. Sweep each param, others at baseline:
sensitivity_results = {}

for param_name, param_values in param_ranges.items():
    means = []
    accuracies = []
    for val in param_values:
        params = base_params.copy()
        params[param_name] = val
        z = params["z_ratio"] * params["a"]

        process = DiffusionProcess(
            drift_fn=lambda x, t, v=params["v"]: v,
            diffusion_fn=lambda x, t: 1.0,
            lower_bound=0.0,
            upper_bound=params["a"],
            boundary_type="absorbing"
        )

        _, survival, _ = solve_fokker_planck(process, x0=z, t_max=10.0)
        fpt = first_passage_time_density(survival, dt=10.0/len(survival))
        stats = fpt_statistics(fpt, dt=10.0/len(survival))
        means.append(stats["mean"])
        accuracies.append(stats["total_probability"])  # proxy for upper boundary

    sensitivity_results[param_name] = {
        "values": param_values,
        "mean_fpt": np.array(means),
        "accuracy": np.array(accuracies)
    }
  1. Plot sensitivity curves:
fig, axes = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(18, 5))
for idx, (param_name, result) in enumerate(sensitivity_results.items()):
    ax = axes[idx]
    ax.plot(result["values"], result["mean_fpt"], "b-o", label="Mean FPT")
    ax.set_xlabel(param_name)
    ax.set_ylabel("Mean FPT")
    ax.set_title(f"Sensitivity to {param_name}")

    ax2 = ax.twinx()
    ax2.plot(result["values"], result["accuracy"], "r--s", label="P(upper)")
    ax2.set_ylabel("P(upper boundary)")
    ax.legend(loc="upper left")
    ax2.legend(loc="upper right")

fig.tight_layout()
fig.savefig("parameter_sensitivity.png", dpi=150)
  1. Partial derivatives (local sensitivity at baseline):
for param_name, result in sensitivity_results.items():
    idx_base = np.argmin(np.abs(result["values"] - base_params[param_name]))
    if idx_base > 0 and idx_base < len(result["values"]) - 1:
        d_mean = (result["mean_fpt"][idx_base+1] - result["mean_fpt"][idx_base-1]) / \
                 (result["values"][idx_base+1] - result["values"][idx_base-1])
        print(f"d(mean_FPT)/d({param_name}) at baseline: {d_mean:.4f}")

Drift (v) strong neg effect mean FPT + strong pos accuracy. Boundary sep (a) strong pos mean FPT (speed-accuracy tradeoff). Start (z) shifts accuracy, smaller effect on mean FPT.

If err: Flat or non-monotonic → check range wide + solver horizon captures full FPT. Non-monotonic mean FPT vs drift → solver bug.

Step 5: Validate vs Sim

MC sim of SDE → confirm analytic + numerical PDE.

  1. Euler-Maruyama sim:
def simulate_sde(process, x0, dt_sim=0.0001, t_max=10.0, n_trajectories=10000):
    """Simulate SDE paths and record first-passage times."""
    n_steps = int(t_max / dt_sim)
    fpt_upper = np.full(n_trajectories, np.nan)
    fpt_lower = np.full(n_trajectories, np.nan)

    x = np.full(n_trajectories, x0)
    sqrt_dt = np.sqrt(dt_sim)

    for step in range(n_steps):
        t = step * dt_sim
        active = np.isnan(fpt_upper) & np.isnan(fpt_lower)
        if not active.any():
            break

        mu = np.array([process.drift(xi, t) for xi in x[active]])
        sigma = np.array([process.diffusion(xi, t) for xi in x[active]])
        dW = np.random.randn(active.sum()) * sqrt_dt

        x[active] += mu * dt_sim + sigma * dW

        # Check boundary crossings
        hit_upper = active & (x >= process.upper_bound)
        hit_lower = active & (x <= process.lower_bound)
        fpt_upper[hit_upper] = (step + 1) * dt_sim
        fpt_lower[hit_lower] = (step + 1) * dt_sim

    return fpt_upper, fpt_lower
  1. Run sim + compute empirical FPT:
fpt_upper_sim, fpt_lower_sim = simulate_sde(ddm_process, x0=0.75, n_trajectories=50000)

# Empirical statistics
valid_upper = fpt_upper_sim[~np.isnan(fpt_upper_sim)]
valid_lower = fpt_lower_sim[~np.isnan(fpt_lower_sim)]
total_absorbed = len(valid_upper) + len(valid_lower)
accuracy_sim = len(valid_upper) / total_absorbed

print(f"Simulated accuracy: {accuracy_sim:.4f}")
print(f"Mean FPT (upper): {valid_upper.mean():.4f} +/- {valid_upper.std()/np.sqrt(len(valid_upper)):.4f}")
print(f"Mean FPT (lower): {valid_lower.mean():.4f} +/- {valid_lower.std()/np.sqrt(len(valid_lower)):.4f}")
  1. Compare sim vs analytic or PDE:
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(10, 6))

# Empirical histogram
ax.hist(valid_upper, bins=100, density=True, alpha=0.5, label="Simulation (upper)")
ax.hist(valid_lower, bins=100, density=True, alpha=0.5, label="Simulation (lower)")

# Analytical solution overlay
t_vals_analytic = np.linspace(0.01, 5.0, 500)
v, a, z = 0.5, 1.5, 0.75
fpt_analytic = [ddm_fpt_upper(t, v, a, z) for t in t_vals_analytic]
ax.plot(t_vals_analytic, fpt_analytic, "k-", linewidth=2, label="Analytic (upper)")

ax.set_xlabel("First-passage time")
ax.set_ylabel("Density")
ax.set_title("FPT Distribution: Simulation vs. Analytic")
ax.legend()
fig.savefig("fpt_validation.png", dpi=150)
  1. Quantify agreement:
from scipy.stats import ks_2samp

# Kolmogorov-Smirnov test between simulated and analytically-derived samples
analytic_cdf = np.cumsum(fpt_analytic) * (t_vals_analytic[1] - t_vals_analytic[0])
sim_sorted = np.sort(valid_upper)
sim_cdf = np.arange(1, len(sim_sorted)+1) / len(sim_sorted)

# Interpolate analytic CDF at simulation quantiles
from scipy.interpolate import interp1d
analytic_interp = interp1d(t_vals_analytic, analytic_cdf, bounds_error=False, fill_value=(0, 1))
max_diff = np.max(np.abs(sim_cdf - analytic_interp(sim_sorted)))
print(f"Max CDF difference (simulation vs. analytic): {max_diff:.4f}")
assert max_diff < 0.05, f"Simulation and analytic FPT differ by {max_diff:.4f} (threshold: 0.05)"

Sim histograms closely match analytic FPT. KS max CDF diff <0.05 for 50K trajectories. Mean FPT sim within 2 SE of analytic.

If err: Disagree → check Euler-Maruyama step → dt_sim small enough (try dt_sim=0.00001) → boundary crossings not missed. Series no converge → increase n_terms. Non-constant coeffs no analytic → compare 2 numerical methods (PDE vs sim).

Check

  • SDE spec passes consistency (finite drift, pos diffusion, x0 in domain)
  • FPE density integrates → decreases monotonic (survival)
  • FPE solution no artifacts (oscillations, neg)
  • FPT density non-neg + integrates ~1.0 across boundaries
  • Sensitivity monotonic expected (v vs accuracy, a vs mean FPT)
  • MC mean FPT within 2 SE of PDE/analytic
  • KS max CDF diff sim vs analytic <0.05

Traps

  • Euler-Maruyama step too large: Large dt_sim → trajectories overshoot boundaries → biased FPT. Use dt_sim ≤1/10 expected mean FPT or boundary-corrected scheme.
  • Truncate FPT series too early: Analytic DDM FPT uses infinite series. <20 terms → visible artifacts at short times. ≥50 + check convergence.
  • Ignore numerical diffusion in PDE: 1st-order finite diff → artificial diffusion broadens FPT. Use Crank-Nicolson or higher-order.
  • Confuse Ito + Stratonovich: FPE differs by SDE convention. Above assumes Ito. Stratonovich → add noise-induced drift correction.
  • Not accounting both boundaries: Two-boundary → total absorption prob = 1.0. Only upper → incorrect stats.

  • fit-drift-diffusion-model — applies dynamics → estimate params from behavioral data
  • implement-diffusion-network — generative diffusion models discretize same SDE framework
  • write-testthat-tests — testing numerical solvers + analytic impls
  • create-technical-report — document diffusion analysis results

Repositorio GitHub

pjt222/agent-almanac
Ruta: i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/analyze-diffusion-dynamics
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is the analyze-diffusion-dynamics skill?

analyze-diffusion-dynamics is a Claude Skill by pjt222. Skills package instructions and resources that Claude loads on demand, so Claude can perform analyze-diffusion-dynamics-related tasks without extra prompting.

How do I install analyze-diffusion-dynamics?

Use the install commands on this page: add analyze-diffusion-dynamics to Claude Code as a plugin, or clone its repository into your skills directory, then restart Claude so it picks up the skill.

What category does analyze-diffusion-dynamics belong to?

analyze-diffusion-dynamics is in the Other category, tagged ai.

Is analyze-diffusion-dynamics free to use?

Yes. analyze-diffusion-dynamics is listed on AIMCP and free to install. It runs inside Claude, so no separate service account is required to use the skill itself.

Habilidades relacionadas

llamaguard
Otro

LlamaGuard es el modelo de Meta de 7-8B parámetros para moderar las entradas y salidas de LLM en seis categorías de seguridad como violencia y discurso de odio. Ofrece una precisión del 94-95% y puede implementarse usando vLLM, Hugging Face o Amazon SageMaker. Utiliza esta skill para integrar fácilmente filtrado de contenido y barreras de seguridad en tus aplicaciones de IA.

Ver habilidad
cost-optimization
Otro

Esta Skill de Claude ayuda a los desarrolladores a optimizar los costes en la nube mediante el ajuste de tamaño de recursos, estrategias de etiquetado y análisis de gastos. Proporciona un marco para reducir los gastos en la nube e implementar una gobernanza de costes en AWS, Azure y GCP. Úsala cuando necesites analizar los costes de infraestructura, ajustar el tamaño de los recursos o cumplir con restricciones presupuestarias.

Ver habilidad
sports-betting-analyzer
Otro

Esta habilidad de Claude analiza los mercados de apuestas deportivas, incluyendo spreads, over/unders y apuestas de propuestas, mediante el examen de tendencias históricas y estadísticas situacionales para identificar apuestas de valor. Proporciona una salida en markdown estructurado con recomendaciones accionables con fines educativos. Los desarrolladores deben utilizar esto para herramientas de análisis de apuestas deportivas, teniendo en cuenta que está diseñado únicamente para entretenimiento/educación.

Ver habilidad
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
Otro

Esta habilidad cuantiza LLMs a precisión de 8 o 4 bits utilizando bitsandbytes, logrando una reducción de memoria del 50-75% con pérdida mínima de precisión. Es ideal para ejecutar modelos más grandes en memoria GPU limitada o para acelerar la inferencia, admitiendo formatos como INT8, NF4 y FP4. La habilidad se integra con HuggingFace Transformers y permite entrenamiento QLoRA y optimizadores de 8 bits.

Ver habilidad