We Keep Coding

Determine parabola with given arc length between two known points

Let (0,0) and (Xo,Yo) be two points on a Cartesian plane. We want to determine the parabolic curve, Y = AX^2 + BX + C, which passes from these two points and has a given arc length equal to S. Obviously, S > sqrt(Xo^2 + Yo^2). As the curve must pass from (0,0), it should be C=0. Hence, the curve equation reduces to: Y = AX^2 + BX. How can I determine {A,B} knowing {Xo,Yo,S}? There are two solutions, I want the one with A>0.
I have an analytical solution (complex) that gives S for a given set of {A,B,Xo,Yo}, though here the problem is inverted... I can proceed by solving numerically a complex system of equations... but perhaps there is a numerical routine out there that does exactly this?
Any useful Python library? Other ideas?
Thanks a lot :-)

Note that the arc length (line integral) of the quadratic a*x0^2 + b*x0 is given by the integral of sqrt(1 + (2ax + b)^2) from x = 0 to x = x0. On solving the integral, the value of the integral is obtained as 0.5 * (I(u) - I(l)) / a, where u = 2ax0 + b; l = b; and I(t) = 0.5 * (t * sqrt(1 + t^2) + log(t + sqrt(1 + t^2)), the integral of sqrt(1 + t^2).
Since y0 = a * x0^2 + b * x0, b = y0/x0 - a*x0. Substituting the value of b in u and l, u = y0/x0 + a*x0, l = y0/x0 - a*x0. Substituting u and l in the solution of the line integral (arc length), we get the arc length as a function of a:
s(a) = 0.5 * (I(y0/x0 + a*x0) - I(y0/x0 - a*x0)) / a
Now that we have the arc length as a function of a, we simply need to find the value of a for which s(a) = S. This is where my favorite root-finding algorithm, the Newton-Raphson method, comes into play yet again.
The working algorithm for the Newton-Raphson method of finding roots is as follows:
For a function f(x) whose root is to be obtained, if x(i) is the ith guess for the root,
x(i+1) = x(i) - f(x(i)) / f'(x(i))
Where f'(x) is the derivative of f(x). This process is continued till the difference between two consecutive guesses is very small.
In our case, f(a) = s(a) - S and f'(a) = s'(a). By simple application of the chain rule and the quotient rule,
s'(a) = 0.5 * (a*x0 * (I'(u) + I'(l)) + I(l) - I(u)) / (a^2)
Where I'(t) = sqrt(1 + t^2).
The only problem that remains is calculating a good initial guess. Due to the nature of the graph of s(a), the function is an excellent candidate for the Newton-Raphson method, and an initial guess of y0 / x0 converges to the solution in about 5-6 iterations for a tolerance/epsilon of 1e-10.
Once the value of a is found, b is simply y0/x0 - a*x0.
Putting this into code:
def find_coeff(x0, y0, s0):
def dI(t):
return sqrt(1 + t*t)
def I(t):
rt = sqrt(1 + t*t)
return 0.5 * (t * rt + log(t + rt))
def s(a):
u = y0/x0 + a*x0
l = y0/x0 - a*x0
return 0.5 * (I(u) - I(l)) / a
def ds(a):
u = y0/x0 + a*x0
l = y0/x0 - a*x0
return 0.5 * (a*x0 * (dI(u) + dI(l)) + I(l) - I(u)) / (a*a)
N = 1000
EPSILON = 1e-10
guess = y0 / x0
for i in range(N):
dguess = (s(guess) - s0) / ds(guess)
guess -= dguess
if abs(dguess) <= EPSILON:
print("Break:", abs((s(guess) - s0)))
break
print(i+1, ":", guess)
a = guess
b = y0/x0 - a*x0
print(a, b, s(a))
Run the example on CodeSkulptor.
Note that due to the rational approximation of the arc lengths given as input to the function in the examples, the coefficients obtained may ever so slightly differ from the expected values.

Python double integral taking too long to compute

I am trying to compute the fresnel integral over a grid of coordinates using dblquad. But its taking very long and finally it's not giving any result.
Below is my code. In this code I integrated only over a 10 x 10 grid but I need to integrate at least over a 500 x 500 grid.
import time
st = time.time()
import pylab
import scipy.integrate as inte
import numpy as np
print 'imhere 0'
def sinIntegrand(y,x, X , Y):
a = 0.0001
R = 2e-3
z = 10e-3
Lambda = 0.5e-6
alpha = 0.01
k = np.pi * 2 / Lambda
return np.cos(k * (((x-R)**2)*a + (R-(x**2 + y**2)) * np.tan(np.radians(alpha)) + ((x - X)**2 + (y - Y)**2) / (2 * z)))
print 'im here 1'
def cosIntegrand(y,x,X,Y):
a = 0.0001
R = 2e-3
z = 10e-3
Lambda = 0.5e-6
alpha = 0.01
k = np.pi * 2 / Lambda
return np.sin(k * (((x-R)**2)*a + (R-(x**2 + y**2)) * np.tan(np.radians(alpha)) + ((x - X)**2 + (y - Y)**2) / (2 * z)))
def y1(x,R = 2e-3):
return (R**2 - x**2)**0.5
def y2(x, R = 2e-3):
return -1*(R**2 - x**2)**0.5
points = np.linspace(-1e-3,1e-3,10)
points2 = np.linspace(1e-3,-1e-3,10)
yv,xv = np.meshgrid(points , points2)
#def integrate_on_grid(func, lo, hi,y1,y2):
# """Returns a callable that can be evaluated on a grid."""
# return np.vectorize(lambda n,m: dblquad(func, lo, hi,y1,y2,(n,m))[0])
#
#intensity = abs(integrate_on_grid(sinIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2)(yv,xv))**2 + abs(integrate_on_grid(cosIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2)(yv,xv))**2
Intensity = []
print 'im here2'
for i in points:
row = []
for j in points2:
print 'im here'
intensity = abs(inte.dblquad(sinIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2,(i,j))[0])**2 + abs(inte.dblquad(cosIntegrand,-1e-3 ,1e-3,y1, y2,(i,j))[0])**2
row.append(intensity)
Intensity.append(row)
Intensity = np.asarray(Intensity)
pylab.imshow(Intensity,cmap = 'gray')
pylab.show()
print str(time.time() - st)
I would really appreciate if you could tell any better way of doing this.

Using a scipy.integrate.dblquad to calculate every pixel of your image is going to be slow in any case.
You should try rewriting your mathematical problem so you can use some classical function in scipy.special instead. For instance, scipy.special.fresnel might work, although it is 1D and your problem seems to be in 2D. Otherwise, that there is a relationship between the Fresnel integral and the incomplete Gamma function (scipy.special.gammainc), if that helps.
If none of this work, as a last resort you can spend time optimizing your code and adapting it to Cython. This it will probably give a speed up of a factor of 10 to 100 (see this answer). Though this wouldn't be sufficient to go from a grid 10x10 to a grid 500x500.

RK4 implementation to solve Lotka Volterra Diff-EQ

I am trying to understand what's wrong with the code I have butchered together. The code below is one of many implementations I have done today to solve the Lotka Volterra Differential equations (2 Systems), it is the one that I have brought the closest to the desired result.
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
from pylab import *
def rk4( f, x0, t ):
"""
4th order Runge-Kutta method implementation to solve x' = f(x,t) with x(t[0]) = x0.
USE:
x = rk4(f, x0, t)
INPUT:
f - function of x and t equal to dx/dt.
x0 - the initial condition(s).
Specifies the value of x # t = t[0] (initial).
Can be a scalar of a vector (NumPy Array)
Example: [x0, y0] = [500, 20]
t - a time vector (array) at which the values of the solution are computed at.
t[0] is considered as the initial time point
h = t[i+1] - t[i] determines the step size h as suggested by the algorithm
Example: t = np.linspace( 0, 500, 200 ), creates 200 time points between 0 and 500
increasing the number of points in the intervall automatically decreases the step size
OUTPUT:
x - An array containing the solution evaluated at each point in the t array.
"""
n = len( t )
x = np.array( [ x0 ] * n ) # creating an array of length n
for i in xrange( n - 1 ):
h = t[i+1] - t[i] # step size, dependent on the time vector.
# starting below - the implementation of the RK4 algorithm:
# for further informations visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge-Kutta_methods
# k1 is the increment based on the slope at the beginning of the interval (same as Euler)
# k2 is the increment based on the slope at the midpoint of the interval (with x + 0.5 * k1)
# k3 is AGAIN the increment based on the slope at the midpoint (with x + 0.5 * k2)
# k4 is the increment based on the slope at the end of the interval
k1 = f( x[i], t[i] )
k2 = f( x[i] + 0.5 * k1, t[i] + 0.5 * h )
k3 = f( x[i] + 0.5 * k2, t[i] + 0.5 * h )
k4 = f( x[i] + h * k3, t[i] + h )
# finally computing the weighted average and storing it in the x-array
x[i+1] = x[i] + h * ( ( k1 + 2.0 * ( k2 + k3 ) + k4 ) / 6.0 )
return x
# model
def model(state,t):
"""
A function that creates an array containing the Lotka Volterra Differential equation
Parameter assignement convention:
a natural growth rate of the preys
b chance of being eaten by a predator
c dying rate of the predators per week
d chance of catching a prey
"""
x,y = state # will corresponding to initial conditions
# consider it as a vector too
a = 0.08
b = 0.002
c = 0.2
d = 0.0004
return np.array([ x*(a-b*y) , -y*(c - d*x) ]) # corresponds to [dx/dt, dy/dt]
################################################################
# initial conditions for the system
x0 = 500
y0 = 20
# vector of times
t = np.linspace( 0, 500, 1000 )
result = rk4( model, [x0,y0], t )
print result
plt.plot(t,result)
plt.xlabel('Time')
plt.ylabel('Population Size')
plt.legend(('x (prey)','y (predator)'))
plt.title('Lotka-Volterra Model')
plt.show()
The above code produces the following output
however if I move the from pylab import * code right above the initial conditions I get the correct output
why does this happen and how can I fix this?

pylab defines its own implementation of rk4, which it takes from matplotlib:
In [1]: import pylab
In [2]: pylab.rk4
Out[2]: <function matplotlib.mlab.rk4>
When you do a wildcard import like from pylab import *, you will override any local functions with the same name.
In particular, here you're redefining your own rk4 implementation (ie, the code you've written is never used).
This is why you should never do a wildcard import like that. pylab is particularly problematic, in that it defines several functions (such as any and all) which have completely different outputs than the python builtins for certain inputs.
Anyway, the root cause of your problem seems to be that your RK4 implementation is incorrect.
You need to use the step size in your calculation of k_n.
For example, here's a small snippet of my own RK4 implementation (which, I'll admit, is tuned for speed rather than readability):
while not target(xs):
...
# Do RK4
self.f(xs, self.k1)
self.f(xs + halfh*self.k1, self.k2)
self.f(xs + halfh*self.k2, self.k3)
self.f(xs + self.h*self.k3, self.k4)
xs += sixthh*(self.k1 + self.k2 + self.k2 + self.k3 + self.k3 \
+ self.k4)
You'll note that the entire state vector is multiplied by h, not just the time component.
Try fixing that up in your own code and seeing if the result is the same.
(In my opinion, the habit of wiki etc of treating time as a special case is a cause of a lot of these problems. Your time vector, ts, is simply a special derivative where t' = 1.)
So for your own code, I believe, but haven't tested, that something like this should work:
k1 = f( x[i], t[i] )
k2 = f( x[i] + 0.5 * h * k1, t[i] + 0.5 * h ) ## changed to use h
k3 = f( x[i] + 0.5 * h * k2, t[i] + 0.5 * h ) ## changed to use h
k4 = f( x[i] + h * k3, t[i] + h )

Try
import pylab
help(pylab.rk4)
You'll find a long explanation of the pylab.rk4 command.
This is why it's not a good idea to use from x import *. It's much better to do import pylab as py and then this won't be an issue.
Be aware that even with moving your import command, any later call you might have to rk4 will fail.

Any way to speed up this Python code?

I've written some Python code to do some image processing work, but it takes a huge amount of time to run. I've spent the last few hours trying to optimize it, but I think I've reached the end of my abilities.
Looking at the outputs from the profiler, the function below is taking a large proportion of the overall time of my code. Is there any way that it can be speeded up?
def make_ellipse(x, x0, y, y0, theta, a, b):
c = np.cos(theta)
s = np.sin(theta)
a2 = a**2
b2 = b**2
xnew = x - x0
ynew = y - y0
ellipse = (xnew * c + ynew * s)**2/a2 + (xnew * s - ynew * c)**2/b2 <= 1
return ellipse
To give the context, it is called with x and y as the output from np.meshgrid with a fairly large grid size, and all of the other parameters as simple integer values.
Although that function seems to be taking a lot of the time, there are probably ways that the rest of the code can be speeded up too. I've put the rest of the code at this gist.
Any ideas would be gratefully received. I've tried using numba and autojiting the main functions, but that doesn't help much.

Let's try to optimize make_ellipse in conjunction with its caller.
First, notice that a and b are the same over many calls. Since make_ellipse squares them each time, just have the caller do that instead.
Second, notice that np.cos(np.arctan(theta)) is 1 / np.sqrt(1 + theta**2) which seems slightly faster on my system. A similar trick can be used to compute the sine, either from theta or from cos(theta) (or vice versa).
Third, and less concretely, think about short-circuiting some of the final ellipse formula evaluations. For example, wherever (xnew * c + ynew * s)**2/a2 is greater than 1, the ellipse value must be False. If this happens often, you can "mask" out the second half of the (expensive) calculation of the ellipse at those locations. I haven't planned this thoroughly, but see numpy.ma for some possible leads.

It won't speed up things for all cases, but if your ellipses don't take up the whole image, you should limit your search for points inside the ellipse to its bounding rectangle. I am lazy with the math, so I googled it and reused #JohnZwinck neat cosine of an arctangent trick to come up with this function:
def ellipse_bounding_box(x0, y0, theta, a, b):
x_tan_t = -b * np.tan(theta) / a
if np.isinf(x_tan_t) :
x_cos_t = 0
x_sin_t = np.sign(x_tan_t)
else :
x_cos_t = 1 / np.sqrt(1 + x_tan_t*x_tan_t)
x_sin_t = x_tan_t * x_cos_t
x = x0 + a*x_cos_t*np.cos(theta) - b*x_sin_t*np.sin(theta)
y_tan_t = b / np.tan(theta) / a
if np.isinf(y_tan_t):
y_cos_t = 0
y_sin_t = np.sign(y_tan_t)
else:
y_cos_t = 1 / np.sqrt(1 + y_tan_t*y_tan_t)
y_sin_t = y_tan_t * y_cos_t
y = y0 + b*y_sin_t*np.cos(theta) + a*y_cos_t*np.sin(theta)
return np.sort([-x, x]), np.sort([-y, y])
You can now modify your original function to something like this:
def make_ellipse(x, x0, y, y0, theta, a, b):
c = np.cos(theta)
s = np.sin(theta)
a2 = a**2
b2 = b**2
x_box, y_box = ellipse_bounding_box(x0, y0, theta, a, b)
indices = ((x >= x_box[0]) & (x <= x_box[1]) &
(y >= y_box[0]) & (y <= y_box[1]))
xnew = x[indices] - x0
ynew = y[indices] - y0
ellipse = np.zeros_like(x, dtype=np.bool)
ellipse[indices] = ((xnew * c + ynew * s)**2/a2 +
(xnew * s - ynew * c)**2/b2 <= 1)
return ellipse

Since everything but x and y are integers, you can try to minimize the number of array computations. I imagine most of the time is spent in this statement:
ellipse = (xnew * c + ynew * s)**2/a2 + (xnew * s - ynew * c)**2/b2 <= 1
A simple rewriting like so should reduce the number of array operations:
a = float(a)
b = float(b)
ellipse = (xnew * (c/a) + ynew * (s/a))**2 + (xnew * (s/b) - ynew * (c/b))**2 <= 1
What was 12 array operations is now 10 (plus 4 scalar ops). I'm not sure if numba's jit would have tried this. It might just do all the broadcasting first, then jit the resulting operations. In this case, reordering so common operations are done at once should help.
Furthering along, you can rewrite this again as
ellipse = ((xnew + ynew * (s/c)) * (c/a))**2 + ((xnew * (s/c) - ynew) * (c/b))**2 <= 1
Or
t = numpy.tan(theta)
ellipse = ((xnew + ynew * t) * (b/a))**2 + (xnew * t - ynew)**2 <= (b/c)**2
Replacing one more array operation with a scalar, and eliminating other scalar ops to get 9 array operations and 2 scalar ops.
As always, be aware of what the range of inputs are to avoid rounding errors.
Unfortunately there's no way good way to do a running sum and bail early if either of the two addends is greater than the right hand side of the comparison. That would be an obvious speed-up, but one you'd need cython (or c/c++) to code.

You can speed it up considerably by using Cython. There is a very good documentation on how to do this.

solving equations simultaneously

I have the following set of equations, and I want to solve them simultaneously for X and Y. I've been advised that I could use numpy to solve these as a system of linear equations. Is that the best option, or is there a better way?
a = (((f * X) + (f2 * X3 )) / (1 + (f * X) + (f2 * X3 ))) * i
b = ((f2 * X3 ) / (1 + (f * X) + (f2 * X3))) * i
c = ((f * X) / (1 + (j * X) + (k * Y))) * i
d = ((k * Y) / (1 + (j * X) + (k * Y))) * i
f = 0.0001
i = 0.001
j = 0.0001
k = 0.001
e = 0 = X + a + b + c
g = 0.0001 = Y + d
h = i - a

As noted by Joe, this is actually a system of nonlinear equations. You are going to need more firepower than numpy alone provides.
Solution of nonlinear equations is tricky, and the typical approach is to define an objective function
F(z) = sum( e[n]^2, n=1...13 )
where z is a vector containing a value for each of your 13 variables a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,X,Y and e[n] is the amount by which each of your 13 equations is violated. For example
e[3] = (d - ((k * Y) / (1 + (j * X) + (k * Y))) * i )
Once you have that objective function, then you can apply a nonlinear solver to try to find a z for which F(z)=0. That of course corresponds to a solution to your equations.
Commonly used solvers include:
The Solver in Microsoft Excel
The python library scipy.optimize
Fitting routines in the Gnu Scientific Library
Matlab's optimization toolbox
Note that all of them will work far better if you first alter your set of equations to eliminate as many variables as practical before trying to run the solver (e.g. by substituting for k wherever it is found). The reduced dimensionality makes a big difference.