We Keep Coding

not able to resolve LinAlgError: Last 2 dimensions of the array must be square [duplicate]

I need to solve a set of simultaneous equations of the form Ax = B for x. I've used the numpy.linalg.solve function, inputting A and B, but I get the error 'LinAlgError: Last 2 dimensions of the array must be square'. How do I fix this?
Here's my code:
A = matrix([[v1x, v2x], [v1y, v2y], [v1z, v2z]])
print A
B = [(p2x-p1x-nmag[0]), (p2y-p1y-nmag[1]), (p2z-p1z-nmag[2])]
print B
x = numpy.linalg.solve(A, B)
The values of the matrix/vector are calculated earlier in the code and this works fine, but the values are:
A =
(-0.56666301, -0.52472909)
(0.44034147, 0.46768087)
(0.69641397, 0.71129036)
B =
(-0.38038602567630364, -24.092279373295057, 0.0)
x should have the form (x1,x2,0)

In case you still haven't found an answer, or in case someone in the future has this question.
To solve Ax=b:
numpy.linalg.solve uses LAPACK gesv. As mentioned in the documentation of LAPACK, gesv requires A to be square:
LA_GESV computes the solution to a real or complex linear system of equations AX = B, where A is a square matrix and X and B are rectangular matrices or vectors. Gaussian elimination with row interchanges is used to factor A as A = PL*U , where P is a permutation matrix, L is unit lower triangular, and U is upper triangular. The factored form of A is then used to solve the above system.
If A matrix is not square, it means that you either have more variables than your equations or the other way around. In these situations, you can have the cases of no solution or infinite number of solutions. What determines the solution space is the rank of the matrix compared to the number of columns. Therefore, you first have to check the rank of the matrix.
That being said, you can use another method to solve your system of linear equations. I suggest having a look at factorization methods like LU or QR or even SVD. In LAPACK you can use getrs, in Python you can different things:
first do the factorization like QR and then feed the resulting matrices to a method like scipy.linalg.solve_triangular
solve the least-squares using numpy.linalg.lstsq
Also have a look here where a simple example is formulated and solved.

A square matrix is a matrix with the same number of rows and columns. The matrix you are doing is a 3 by 2. Add a column of zeroes to fix this problem.

Estimation of fundamental matrix or essential matrix from feature matching

I am estimating the fundamental matrix and the essential matrix by using the inbuilt functions in opencv.I provide input points to the function by using ORB and brute force matcher.These are the problems that i am facing:
1.The essential matrix that i compute from in built function does not match with the one i find from mathematical computation using fundamental matrix as E=k.t()FK.
2.As i vary the number of points used to compute F and E,the values of F and E are constantly changing.The function uses Ransac method.How do i know which value is the correct one??
3.I am also using an inbuilt function to decompose E and find the correct R and T from the 4 possible solutions.The value of R and T also change with the changing E.More concerning is the fact that the direction vector T changes without a pattern.Say it was in X direction at a value of E,if i change the value of E ,it changes to Y or Z.Y is this happening????.Has anyone else had the same problem.???
How do i resolve this problem.My project involves taking measurements of objects from images.
Any suggestions or help would be welcome!!

Both F and E are defined up to a scale factor. It may help to normalize the matrices, e. g. by dividing by the last element.
RANSAC is a randomized algorithm, so you will get a different result every time. You can test how much it varies by triangulating the points, or by computing the reprojection errors. If the results vary too much, you may want to increase the number of RANSAC trials or decrease the distance threshold, to make sure that RANSAC converges to the correct solution.

Yes, Computing Fundamental Matrix gives a different matrix every time as it is defined up to a scale factor.
It is a Rank 2 matrix with 7DOF(3 rot, 3 trans, 1 scaling).
The fundamental matrix is a 3X3 matrix, F33(3rd col and 3rd row) is scale factor.
You make ask why do we append matrix with constant at F33, Because of (X-Left)F(x-Right)=0, This is a homogenous equation with infinite solutions, we are adding a constraint by making F33 constant.

scipy integrate over array with variable bounds

I am trying to integrate a function over a list of point and pass the whole array to an integration function in order ot vectorize the thing. For starters, calling scipy.integrate.quad is way too slow since I have something like 10 000 000 points to integrate. Using scipy.integrate.romberg does the trick much faster, almost instantaneous while quad is slow since you must loop over it or vectorize it.
My function is quite complicated, but for demonstation purpose, let's say I want to integrate x^2 from a to b, but x is an array of scalar to evaluate x. For example
import numpy as np
from scipy.integrate import quad, romberg
def integrand(x, y):
return x**2 + y**2
quad(integrand, 0, 10, args=(10) # this fails since y is not a scalar
romberg(integrand, 0, 10) # y works here, giving the integral over
# the entire range
But this only work for fixed bounds. Is there a way to do something like
z = np.arange(20,30)
romberg(integrand, 0, z) # Fails since the function doesn't seem to
# support variable bounds
Only way I see it is to re-implement the algorithm itself in numpy and use that instead so I can have variable bounds. Any function that supports something like this? There is also romb, where you must supply the values of integrand directly and a dx interval, but that will be too imprecise for my complicated function (the marcum Q function, couldn't find any implementation, that could be another way to dot it).

The best approach when trying to evaluate a special function is to write a function that uses the properties of the function to quickly and accurately evaluate it in all parameter regimes. It is quite unlikely that a single approach will give accurate (or even stable) results for all ranges of parameters. Direct evaluation of an integral, as in this case, will almost certainly break down in many cases.
That being said, the general problem of evaluating an integral over many ranges can be solved by turning the integral into a differential equation and solving that. Roughly, the steps would be
Given an integral I(t) which I will assume is an integral of a function f(x) from 0 to t [this can be generalized to an arbitrary lower limit], write it as the differential equation dI/dt = f(x).
Solve this differential equation using scipy.integrate.odeint() for some initial conditions (here I(0)) over some range of times from 0 to t. This range should contain all limits of interest. How finely this is sampled depends on the function and how accurately it needs to be evaluated.
The result will be the value of the integral from 0 to t for the set of t we input. We can turn this into a "continuous" function using interpolation. For example, using a spline we can define i = scipy.interpolate.InterpolatedUnivariateSpline(t,I).
Given a set of upper and lower limits in arrays b and a, respectively, then we can evaluate them all at once as res=i(b)-i(a).
Whether this approach will work in your case will require you to carefully study it over your range of parameters. Also note that the Marcum Q function involves a semi-infinite integral. In principle this is not a problem, just transform the integral to one over a finite range. For example, consider the transformation x->1/x. There is no guarantee this approach will be numerically stable for your problem.

Derivative of an array in python?

Currently I have two numpy arrays: x and y of the same size.
I would like to write a function (possibly calling numpy/scipy... functions if they exist):
def derivative(x, y, n = 1):
# something
return result
where result is a numpy array of the same size of x and containing the value of the n-th derivative of y regarding to x (I would like the derivative to be evaluated using several values of y in order to avoid non-smooth results).

This is not a simple problem, but there are a lot of methods that have been devised to handle it. One simple solution is to use finite difference methods. The command numpy.diff() uses finite differencing where you can specify the order of the derivative.
Wikipedia also has a page that lists the needed finite differencing coefficients for different derivatives of different accuracies. If the numpy function doesn't do what you want.
Depending on your application you can also use scipy.fftpack.diff which uses a completely different technique to do the same thing. Though your function needs a well defined Fourier transform.
There are lots and lots and lots of variants (e.g. summation by parts, finite differencing operators, or operators designed to preserve known evolution constants in your system of equations) on both of the two ideas above. What you should do will depend a great deal on what the problem is that you are trying to solve.
The good thing is that there is a lot of work has been done in this field. The Wikipedia page for Numerical Differentiation has some resources (though it is focused on finite differencing techniques).

The findiff project is a Python package that can do derivatives of arrays of any dimension with any desired accuracy order (of course depending on your hardware restrictions). It can handle arrays on uniform as well as non-uniform grids and also create generalizations of derivatives, i.e. general linear combinations of partial derivatives with constant and variable coefficients.

Would something like this solve your problem?
def get_inflection_points(arr, n=1):
"""
returns inflextion points from array
arr: array
n: n-th discrete difference
"""
inflections = []
dx = 0
for i, x in enumerate(np.diff(arr, n)):
if x >= dx and i > 0:
inflections.append(i*n)
dx = x
return inflections

Scipy - Inverse Sampling Method from custom probability density function

I am trying to perform an inverse sampling from a custom probability density function (PDF). I am just wondering if this even possible, i.e. integrating the PDF, inverting the result and then solving it for a given uniform number. The PDF has the shape f(x, alpha, mean(x))=(1/Gamma(alpha+1)(x))((x*(alpha+1)/mean(x))^(alpha+1))exp(-(alpha+1)*(x/mean(x)) where x > 0. From the shape the only values sub-150 are relevant, and for what I am trying to do the sub-80 values are good enough. Extending the range shouldnt be too hard though.
I have tried to do the inversion method, but only found a numerical way to do the integral, which isnt necessarily helpful considering that I need to invert the function to solve:
u = integral(f(x, alpha, mean(x))dx) from 0 to y, where y is unknown and u is uniform random variable between 0 and 1.
The integral has a gamma function and an incomplete gamma function, so trying to invert it is kind of a mess. Any help is welcome.
Thanks a bunch in advance.
Cheers

Assuming you mean that you're trying to randomly choose values which will be distributed according to your PDF, then yes, it is possible. This is described on Wikipedia as inverse transform sampling. Basically, it's just what you said: integrate the PDF to produce the cumulative distribution (CDF), invert it (which can be done ahead of time), and then choose a random number and run it through the inverted CDF.
If your domain is 0 to positive infinity, your distribution appears to match the gamma distribution which is built into Numpy and Scipy, with theta = 1/alpha and k = alpha+1.