We Keep Coding

Fitting Parametric Curves in Python

I have experimental data of the form (X,Y) and a theoretical model of the form (x(t;*params),y(t;*params)) where t is a physical (but unobservable) variable, and *params are the parameters that I want to determine. t is a continuous variable, and there is a 1:1 relationship between x and t and between y and t in the model.
In a perfect world, I would know the value of T (the real-world value of the parameter) and would be able to do an extremely basic least-squares fit to find the values of *params. (Note that I am not trying to "connect" the values of x and y in my plot, like in 31243002 or 31464345.) I cannot guarantee that in my real data, the latent value T is monotonic, as my data is collected across multiple cycles.
I'm not very experienced doing curve fitting manually, and have to use extremely crude methods without easy access to a basic scipy function. My basic approach involves:
Choose some value of *params and apply it to the model
Take an array of t values and put it into the model to create an array of model(*params) = (x(*params),y(*params))
Interpolate X (the data values) into model to get Y_predicted
Run a least-squares (or other) comparison between Y and Y_predicted
Do it again for a new set of *params
Eventually, choose the best values for *params
There are several obvious problems with this approach.
1) I'm not experienced enough with coding to develop a very good "do it again" other than "try everything in the solution space," of maybe "try everything in a coarse grid" and then "try everything again in a slightly finer grid in the hotspots of the coarse grid." I tried doing MCMC methods, but I never found any optimum values, largely because of problem 2
2) Steps 2-4 are super inefficient in their own right.
I've tried something like (resembling pseudo-code; the actual functions are made up). There are many minor quibbles that could be made about using broadcasting on A,B, but those are less significant than the problem of needing to interpolate for every single step.
People I know have recommended using some sort of Expectation Maximization algorithm, but I don't know enough about that to code one up from scratch. I'm really hoping there's some awesome scipy (or otherwise open-source) algorithm I haven't been able to find that covers my whole problem, but at this point I am not hopeful.
import numpy as np
import scipy as sci
from scipy import interpolate
X_data
Y_data
def x(t,A,B):
return A**t + B**t
def y(t,A,B):
return A*t + B
def interp(A,B):
ts = np.arange(-10,10,0.1)
xs = x(ts,A,B)
ys = y(ts,A,B)
f = interpolate.interp1d(xs,ys)
return f
N = 101
lsqs = np.recarray((N**2),dtype=float)
count = 0
for i in range(0,N):
A = 0.1*i #checks A between 0 and 10
for j in range(0,N):
B = 10 + 0.1*j #checks B between 10 and 20
f = interp(A,B)
y_fit = f(X_data)
squares = np.sum((y_fit - Y_data)**2)
lsqs[count] = (A,b,squares) #puts the values in place for comparison later
count += 1 #allows us to move to the next cell
i = np.argmin(lsqs[:,2])
A_optimal = lsqs[i][0]
B_optimal = lsqs[i][1]

If I understand the question correctly, the params are constants which are the same in every sample, but t varies from sample to sample. So, for example, maybe you have a whole bunch of points which you believe have been sampled from a circle
x = a+r cos(t)
y = b+r sin(t)
at different values of t.
In this case, what I would do is eliminate the variable t to get a relation between x and y -- in this case, (x-a)^2+(y-b)^2 = r^2. If your data fit the model perfectly, you would have (x-a)^2+(y-b)^2 = r^2 at each of your data points. With some error, you could still find (a,b,r) to minimize
sum_i ((x_i-a)^2 + (y_i-b)^2 - r^2)^2.
Mathematica's Eliminate command can automate the procedure of eliminating t in some cases.
PS You might do better at stats.stackexchange, math.stackexchange or mathoverflow.net . I know the last one has a scary reputation, but we don't bite, really!

Fast 3D interpolation of atmospheric data in Numpy/Scipy

I am trying to interpolate 3D atmospheric data from one vertical coordinate to another using Numpy/Scipy. For example, I have cubes of temperature and relative humidity, both of which are on constant, regular pressure surfaces. I want to interpolate the relative humidity to constant temperature surface(s).
The exact problem I am trying to solve has been asked previously here, however, the solution there is very slow. In my case, I have approximately 3M points in my cube (30x321x321), and that method takes around 4 minutes to operate on one set of data.
That post is nearly 5 years old. Do newer versions of Numpy/Scipy perhaps have methods that handle this faster? Maybe new sets of eyes looking at the problem have a better approach? I'm open to suggestions.
EDIT:
Slow = 4 minutes for one set of data cubes. I'm not sure how else I can quantify it.
The code being used...
def interpLevel(grid,value,data,interp='linear'):
"""
Interpolate 3d data to a common z coordinate.
Can be used to calculate the wind/pv/whatsoever values for a common
potential temperature / pressure level.
grid : numpy.ndarray
The grid. For example the potential temperature values for the whole 3d
grid.
value : float
The common value in the grid, to which the data shall be interpolated.
For example, 350.0
data : numpy.ndarray
The data which shall be interpolated. For example, the PV values for
the whole 3d grid.
kind : str
This indicates which kind of interpolation will be done. It is directly
passed on to scipy.interpolate.interp1d().
returns : numpy.ndarray
A 2d array containing the *data* values at *value*.
"""
ret = np.zeros_like(data[0,:,:])
for yIdx in xrange(grid.shape[1]):
for xIdx in xrange(grid.shape[2]):
# check if we need to flip the column
if grid[0,yIdx,xIdx] > grid[-1,yIdx,xIdx]:
ind = -1
else:
ind = 1
f = interpolate.interp1d(grid[::ind,yIdx,xIdx], \
data[::ind,yIdx,xIdx], \
kind=interp)
ret[yIdx,xIdx] = f(value)
return ret
EDIT 2:
I could share npy dumps of sample data, if anyone was interested enough to see what I am working with.

Since this is atmospheric data, I imagine that your grid does not have uniform spacing; however if your grid is rectilinear (such that each vertical column has the same set of z-coordinates) then you have some options.
For instance, if you only need linear interpolation (say for a simple visualization), you can just do something like:
# Find nearest grid point
idx = grid[:,0,0].searchsorted(value)
upper = grid[idx,0,0]
lower = grid[idx - 1, 0, 0]
s = (value - lower) / (upper - lower)
result = (1-s) * data[idx - 1, :, :] + s * data[idx, :, :]
(You'll need to add checks for value being out of range, of course).For a grid your size, this will be extremely fast (as in tiny fractions of a second)
You can pretty easily modify the above to perform cubic interpolation if need be; the challenge is in picking the correct weights for non-uniform vertical spacing.
The problem with using scipy.ndimage.map_coordinates is that, although it provides higher order interpolation and can handle arbitrary sample points, it does assume that the input data be uniformly spaced. It will still produce smooth results, but it won't be a reliable approximation.
If your coordinate grid is not rectilinear, so that the z-value for a given index changes for different x and y indices, then the approach you are using now is probably the best you can get without a fair bit of analysis of your particular problem.
UPDATE:
One neat trick (again, assuming that each column has the same, not necessarily regular, coordinates) is to use interp1d to extract the weights doing something like follows:
NZ = grid.shape[0]
zs = grid[:,0,0]
ident = np.identity(NZ)
weight_func = interp1d(zs, ident, 'cubic')
You only need to do the above once per grid; you can even reuse weight_func as long as the vertical coordinates don't change.
When it comes time to interpolate then, weight_func(value) will give you the weights, which you can use to compute a single interpolated value at (x_idx, y_idx) with:
weights = weight_func(value)
interp_val = np.dot(data[:, x_idx, y_idx), weights)
If you want to compute a whole plane of interpolated values, you can use np.inner, although since your z-coordinate comes first, you'll need to do:
result = np.inner(data.T, weights).T
Again, the computation should be practically immediate.

This is quite an old question but the best way to do this nowadays is to use MetPy's interpolate_1d funtion:
https://unidata.github.io/MetPy/latest/api/generated/metpy.interpolate.interpolate_1d.html

There is a new implementation of Numba accelerated interpolation on regular grids in 1, 2, and 3 dimensions:
https://github.com/dbstein/fast_interp
Usage is as follows:
from fast_interp import interp2d
import numpy as np
nx = 50
ny = 37
xv, xh = np.linspace(0, 1, nx, endpoint=True, retstep=True)
yv, yh = np.linspace(0, 2*np.pi, ny, endpoint=False, retstep=True)
x, y = np.meshgrid(xv, yv, indexing='ij')
test_function = lambda x, y: np.exp(x)*np.exp(np.sin(y))
f = test_function(x, y)
test_x = -xh/2.0
test_y = 271.43
fa = test_function(test_x, test_y)
interpolater = interp2d([0,0], [1,2*np.pi], [xh,yh], f, k=5, p=[False,True], e=[1,0])
fe = interpolater(test_x, test_y)

Laplacian of Gaussian Edge Detector Being Affected by Change of Mask Size

For a class, I've written a Laplacian of Gaussian edge detector that works in the following way.
Make a Laplacian of Gaussian mask given the variance of the Gaussian the size of the mask
Convolve it with the image
Find the zero crossings in a really shoddy manner, these are the edges of the image
If you so desire, the code for this program can be viewed here, but the most important part is where I create my Gaussian mask which depends on two functions that I've reproduced here for your convenience:
# Function for calculating the laplacian of the gaussian at a given point and with a given variance
def l_o_g(x, y, sigma):
# Formatted this way for readability
nom = ( (y**2)+(x**2)-2*(sigma**2) )
denom = ( (2*math.pi*(sigma**6) ))
expo = math.exp( -((x**2)+(y**2))/(2*(sigma**2)) )
return nom*expo/denom
# Create the laplacian of the gaussian, given a sigma
# Note the recommended size is 7 according to this website http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/log.htm
# Experimentally, I've found 6 to be much more reliable for images with clear edges and 4 to be better for images with a lot of little edges
def create_log(sigma, size = 7):
w = math.ceil(float(size)*float(sigma))
# If the dimension is an even number, make it uneven
if(w%2 == 0):
print "even number detected, incrementing"
w = w + 1
# Now make the mask
l_o_g_mask = []
w_range = int(math.floor(w/2))
print "Going from " + str(-w_range) + " to " + str(w_range)
for i in range_inc(-w_range, w_range):
for j in range_inc(-w_range, w_range):
l_o_g_mask.append(l_o_g(i,j,sigma))
l_o_g_mask = np.array(l_o_g_mask)
l_o_g_mask = l_o_g_mask.reshape(w,w)
return l_o_g_mask
All in all, it works relatively well, even if it is extremely slow because I don't know how to leverage Numpy. However, whenever I change the size of the Gaussian mask, the thickness of the edges I detect change drastically.
Here is the image run with a size of mask equivalent to 4 times the given variance of the Gaussian:
Here is the same image run with a size of mask equivalent to 6 times the variance:
I'm kind of baffled, because the only thing the size parameter should change is the accuracy of the approximation of the Laplacian of Gaussian mask before I begin to convolve it with the image. So I ran a test where I wanted to vizualize how my mask looked given different size parameters.
Here it is with a size of 4:
Here it is with a size of 6:
The shape of the function seems to be the same as far as I can tell from the zero crossings (they happen to be spaced around four pixels apart) and their peaks. Is there a better way to check?
Any suggestions as to why this issue might be occurring or how to investigate further are appreciated.

It turns out your concept about the effect of increasing the mask size is wrong. Increasing the size doesn't actually improve the quality of approximation or the resolution of the function. To explain, instead of using a complicated 2D function like the Laplacian of the Gaussian, let's take things back down to the one dimension and pretend we are approximating the function f(x) = x^2.
Now you code for calculating the function would look like this:
def derp(theta, size):
w = math.ceil(float(size)*float(sigma))
# If the dimension is an even number, make it uneven
if(w%2 == 0):
print "even number detected, incrementing"
w = w + 1
# Now make the mask
x_mask = []
w_range = int(math.floor(w/2))
print "Going from " + str(-w_range) + " to " + str(w_range)
for i in range_inc(-w_range, w_range):
x_mask = a*i^2
If you were to increase the "size" of this function, you wouldn't be increasing the resolution, you're actually increasing the range of values of x that you're grabbing from. For example, for a size of 3 you're evaluating -1, 0, 1, for a size of 5 you're evaluating -2, -1, 0, 1, 2. Notice this doesn't increase the spacing between the pixels. This is what you're actually seeing when you talk about the zero crossing occurring the same number of pixels apart.
Consequently, when convoluting with this really silly mask, you would get really different results. But what if we went back to the Laplacian of the Gaussian?
Well, the nice property the Laplacian of the Gaussian has is that the farther you go with it, the more zero values you get. So unlike our silly x^2 function, you should be getting the same results after some time.
Now, I think the reason you didn't see this with your test cases is because they were too limited in size, because your program is too slow for you to really see the difference between size=15 and size=20, but if were to actually run those cases I think you would see that the image doesn't change that much.
This still doesn't answer what you should be doing, for that, we're going to have to look to the professionals. Namely, the implementation of the gaussian_filter in Scipy (source here).
When you look at their source code, the first thing you'll notice is that when creating their mask they're basically doing the same thing as you. They are always using an integer step size and they are scaling the size of the mask by it's standard deviation.
As to why they are doing it that way, I can't answer, since I don't have that much of an in depth knowledge of image processing or Scipy. However, this may make for a good new question to ask on SO.

Fourier smoothing of data set

I am following this link to do a smoothing of my data set.
The technique is based on the principle of removing the higher order terms of the Fourier Transform of the signal, and so obtaining a smoothed function.
This is part of my code:
N = len(y)
y = y.astype(float) # fix issue, see below
yfft = fft(y, N)
yfft[31:] = 0.0 # set higher harmonics to zero
y_smooth = fft(yfft, N)
ax.errorbar(phase, y, yerr = err, fmt='b.', capsize=0, elinewidth=1.0)
ax.plot(phase, y_smooth/30, color='black') #arbitrary normalization, see below
However some things do not work properly.
Indeed, you can check the resulting plot :
The blue points are my data, while the black line should be the smoothed curve.
First of all I had to convert my array of data y by following this discussion.
Second, I just normalized arbitrarily to compare the curve with data, since I don't know why the original curve had values much higher than the data points.
Most importantly, the curve is like "specular" to the data point, and I don't know why this happens.
It would be great to have some advices especially to the third point, and more generally how to optimize the smoothing with this technique for my particular data set shape.

Your problem is probably due to the shifting that the standard FFT does. You can read about it here.
Your data is real, so you can take advantage of symmetries in the FT and use the special function np.fft.rfft
import numpy as np
x = np.arange(40)
y = np.log(x + 1) * np.exp(-x/8.) * x**2 + np.random.random(40) * 15
rft = np.fft.rfft(y)
rft[5:] = 0 # Note, rft.shape = 21
y_smooth = np.fft.irfft(rft)
plt.plot(x, y, label='Original')
plt.plot(x, y_smooth, label='Smoothed')
plt.legend(loc=0)
plt.show()
If you plot the absolute value of rft, you will see that there is almost no information in frequencies beyond 5, so that is why I choose that threshold (and a bit of playing around, too).
Here the results:

From what I can gather you want to build a low pass filter by doing the following:
Move to the frequency domain. (Fourier transform)
Remove undesired frequencies.
Move back to the time domain. (Inverse fourier transform)
Looking at your code, instead of doing 3) you're just doing another fourier transform. Instead, try doing an actual inverse fourier transform to move back to the time domain:
y_smooth = ifft(yfft, N)
Have a look at scipy signal to see a bunch of already available filters.
(Edit: I'd be curious to see the results, do share!)

I would be very cautious in using this technique. By zeroing out frequency components of the FFT you are effectively constructing a brick wall filter in the frequency domain. This will result in convolution with a sinc in the time domain and likely distort the information you want to process. Look up "Gibbs phenomenon" for more information.
You're probably better off designing a low pass filter or using a simple N-point moving average (which is itself a LPF) to accomplish the smoothing.

These spectrum bands used to be judged by eye, how to do it programmatically?

Operators used to examine the spectrum, knowing the location and width of each peak and judge the piece the spectrum belongs to. In the new way, the image is captured by a camera to a screen. And the width of each band must be computed programatically.
Old system: spectroscope -> human eye
New system: spectroscope -> camera -> program
What is a good method to compute the width of each band, given their approximate X-axis positions; given that this task used to be performed perfectly by eye, and must now be performed by program?
Sorry if I am short of details, but they are scarce.
Program listing that generated the previous graph; I hope it is relevant:
import Image
from scipy import *
from scipy.optimize import leastsq
# Load the picture with PIL, process if needed
pic = asarray(Image.open("spectrum.jpg"))
# Average the pixel values along vertical axis
pic_avg = pic.mean(axis=2)
projection = pic_avg.sum(axis=0)
# Set the min value to zero for a nice fit
projection /= projection.mean()
projection -= projection.min()
#print projection
# Fit function, two gaussians, adjust as needed
def fitfunc(p,x):
return p[0]*exp(-(x-p[1])**2/(2.0*p[2]**2)) + \
p[3]*exp(-(x-p[4])**2/(2.0*p[5]**2))
errfunc = lambda p, x, y: fitfunc(p,x)-y
# Use scipy to fit, p0 is inital guess
p0 = array([0,20,1,0,75,10])
X = xrange(len(projection))
p1, success = leastsq(errfunc, p0, args=(X,projection))
Y = fitfunc(p1,X)
# Output the result
print "Mean values at: ", p1[1], p1[4]
# Plot the result
from pylab import *
#subplot(211)
#imshow(pic)
#subplot(223)
#plot(projection)
#subplot(224)
#plot(X,Y,'r',lw=5)
#show()
subplot(311)
imshow(pic)
subplot(312)
plot(projection)
subplot(313)
plot(X,Y,'r',lw=5)
show()

Given an approximate starting point, you could use a simple algorithm that finds a local maxima closest to this point. Your fitting code may be doing that already (I wasn't sure whether you were using it successfully or not).
Here's some code that demonstrates simple peak finding from a user-given starting point:
#!/usr/bin/env python
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
# Sample data with two peaks: small one at t=0.4, large one at t=0.8
ts = np.arange(0, 1, 0.01)
xs = np.exp(-((ts-0.4)/0.1)**2) + 2*np.exp(-((ts-0.8)/0.1)**2)
# Say we have an approximate starting point of 0.35
start_point = 0.35
# Nearest index in "ts" to this starting point is...
start_index = np.argmin(np.abs(ts - start_point))
# Find the local maxima in our data by looking for a sign change in
# the first difference
# From http://stackoverflow.com/a/9667121/188535
maxes = (np.diff(np.sign(np.diff(xs))) < 0).nonzero()[0] + 1
# Find which of these peaks is closest to our starting point
index_of_peak = maxes[np.argmin(np.abs(maxes - start_index))]
print "Peak centre at: %.3f" % ts[index_of_peak]
# Quick plot showing the results: blue line is data, green dot is
# starting point, red dot is peak location
plt.plot(ts, xs, '-b')
plt.plot(ts[start_index], xs[start_index], 'og')
plt.plot(ts[index_of_peak], xs[index_of_peak], 'or')
plt.show()
This method will only work if the ascent up the peak is perfectly smooth from your starting point. If this needs to be more resilient to noise, I have not used it, but PyDSTool seems like it might help. This SciPy post details how to use it for detecting 1D peaks in a noisy data set.
So assume at this point you've found the centre of the peak. Now for the width: there are several methods you could use, but the easiest is probably the "full width at half maximum" (FWHM). Again, this is simple and therefore fragile. It will break for close double-peaks, or for noisy data.
The FWHM is exactly what its name suggests: you find the width of the peak were it's halfway to the maximum. Here's some code that does that (it just continues on from above):
# FWHM...
half_max = xs[index_of_peak]/2
# This finds where in the data we cross over the halfway point to our peak. Note
# that this is global, so we need an extra step to refine these results to find
# the closest crossovers to our peak.
# Same sign-change-in-first-diff technique as above
hm_left_indices = (np.diff(np.sign(np.diff(np.abs(xs[:index_of_peak] - half_max)))) > 0).nonzero()[0] + 1
# Add "index_of_peak" to result because we cut off the left side of the data!
hm_right_indices = (np.diff(np.sign(np.diff(np.abs(xs[index_of_peak:] - half_max)))) > 0).nonzero()[0] + 1 + index_of_peak
# Find closest half-max index to peak
hm_left_index = hm_left_indices[np.argmin(np.abs(hm_left_indices - index_of_peak))]
hm_right_index = hm_right_indices[np.argmin(np.abs(hm_right_indices - index_of_peak))]
# And the width is...
fwhm = ts[hm_right_index] - ts[hm_left_index]
print "Width: %.3f" % fwhm
# Plot to illustrate FWHM: blue line is data, red circle is peak, red line
# shows FWHM
plt.plot(ts, xs, '-b')
plt.plot(ts[index_of_peak], xs[index_of_peak], 'or')
plt.plot(
[ts[hm_left_index], ts[hm_right_index]],
[xs[hm_left_index], xs[hm_right_index]], '-r')
plt.show()
It doesn't have to be the full width at half maximum — as one commenter points out, you can try to figure out where your operators' normal threshold for peak detection is, and turn that into an algorithm for this step of the process.
A more robust way might be to fit a Gaussian curve (or your own model) to a subset of the data centred around the peak — say, from a local minima on one side to a local minima on the other — and use one of the parameters of that curve (eg. sigma) to calculate the width.
I realise this is a lot of code, but I've deliberately avoided factoring out the index-finding functions to "show my working" a bit more, and of course the plotting functions are there just to demonstrate.
Hopefully this gives you at least a good starting point to come up with something more suitable to your particular set.

Late to the party, but for anyone coming across this question in the future...
Eye movement data looks very similar to this; I'd base an approach off that used by Nystrom + Holmqvist, 2010. Smooth the data using a Savitsky-Golay filter (scipy.signal.savgol_filter in scipy v0.14+) to get rid of some of the low-level noise while keeping the large peaks intact - the authors recommend using an order of 2 and a window size of about twice the width of the smallest peak you want to be able to detect. You can find where the bands are by arbitrarily removing all values above a certain y value (set them to numpy.nan). Then take the (nan)mean and (nan)standard deviation of the remainder, and remove all values greater than the mean + [parameter]*std (I think they use 6 in the paper). Iterate until you're not removing any data points - but depending on your data, certain values of [parameter] may not stabilise. Then use numpy.isnan() to find events vs non-events, and numpy.diff() to find the start and end of each event (values of -1 and 1 respectively). To get even more accurate start and end points, you can scan along the data backward from each start and forward from each end to find the nearest local minimum which has value smaller than mean + [another parameter]*std (I think they use 3 in the paper). Then you just need to count the data points between each start and end.
This won't work for that double peak; you'd have to do some extrapolation for that.

The best method might be to statistically compare a bunch of methods with human results.
You would take a large variety data and a large variety of measurement estimates (widths at various thresholds, area above various thresholds, different threshold selection methods, 2nd moments, polynomial curve fits of various degrees, pattern matching, and etc.) and compare these estimates to human measurements of the same data set. Pick the estimate method that correlates best with expert human results. Or maybe pick several methods, the best one for each of various heights, for various separations from other peaks, and etc.